Democracy, individualism and the public interest are very closely related. Some of their models are even mutually exclusive. In order to understand and analyze their relations and controversies, we should examine the even nature of these notions.
             Let's find out what the democracy is. The word itself means "rule by the people"1. In other words, people should govern the state. Though the definition is so simple, there are different theories and models of democracy. In each model there are different roles for the individuals and the public interest.
             The classical model of democracy, or so-called "direct democracy" is the ancient, classical, form, where all the people participated in the process of decision-making and, as a result, governing the state. In this model the individual could express his own attitude and participate in the political life of the state. Or another form of it is referendum. If we accept the definition of individual as unique and independent, then he or she could develop as an independent and unique entity in such a system. But is the individual really independent in the classical model of democracy? Does this mean that a real political individualism can develop in such a system, if individualism means the primacy of the individual over any social group or collective?
             Here it is linked to the notion of the "public interest", or what is good for the people.
             But, assuming that each individual is unique, so he or she has his own moral attitude to the political life and social changes in the state, then everybody has his own opinion, which may differ from other's. And then the decision will be made by the majority of the people, and there always be minority, which will not be pleased with the decision of the others. Then, "minority" people would have to agree with this decision, losing their opportunity to achieve their individual goals, because the law of the sta...