Mill identified the above thinking that talks about the power of the nation as the power of the people with political liberalism that emerged in Europe (Mill, 3). This form of State that emerged in Europe gradually occupied the entire earth. This sort of government, although theoretically based on the consent of everyone, is in reality, according to Mill based on the will of the majority or, as Mill says, those who have succeeded in making themselves the majority and who wield political, economic, and social power over the rest. Thus, the turn to governments based on people’s “consent” did not necessarily make modern societies more democratic, for power still remained in the hand of those who influence the decision making that affects millions of people. Mill says, “The will of the people, moreover, practically means, the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people, the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority….. The limitations, therefore, of the power of the government over individuals, loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. The view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important …show more content…
Dissent is to speak against the majoritarian or established view and is something that is, as Mill points out, repressed in democratically elected government as much as tyrannical ones and in fact is a growing tendency in the modern democracies. This is done, according to Mill both by the force of opinion as well as by legislation; in other words, modern democracies, although supposedly based on “consent” is actually the tyranny of the power over individuals where all non-conformist ideas, views, and opinions are shunned and outright rejected and suppressed. Mill