essay on modern democracy

Democracy in Modern World Essay

The modern era in the world distribution of power and regime of authority is claimed to be the one of democracy. After centuries of slavery and inequality, of silent voices of the poor who had nothing else to do but to watch the rich distribute the riches of the world, as well as after the coming of Nazism that shook the global perception of the inherent right of a human being to life and decent living conditions the community came to understanding of the fact that urgent, drastic action has to be taken to make things change and to establish a new form of government that would enhance and promote equality, that would make everyone equal before the law. The reign of totalitarism over the significant part of the world called USSR also made people realize that the voice of masses should be taken into consideration when making significant decisions on the state level, which brought about high interest to democracy as a form of political power in a country.

Another favorable factor that increased the popularity of democracy was its successful implementation in the most advanced countries of Europe and in the USA. All these events in the world history strengthened the thought that democracy is the only right and progressive form of authority in a state that will finally bring the overall population of the state to coherence in the expression of their will as well as in the extent to which they can influence the state of affairs in their native state.

However, there is hardly anyone in the world who is ignorant about the origin of the word ‘democracy’ – it was used as long ago as in Ancient Greece and became the name for a form of ruling in Athens, the state that since then became the icon of implementing democracy in its daily governmental practices and did it, according to the accounts of peer historians, quite successfully. The modern society thus has to understand what the term originally meant, what were the democratic practices in Athens, what in general the Athenian democratic model looked like and what lessons contemporary states should learn to make their democracies true ones. To answer these questions more or less accurately it is appropriate to turn to the work of John Duhn titled Democracy in which the author investigated the rise and fall of this form of authority, took a deep look into what it actually was and observed the changes this notion suffered in the course of centuries. Nobody will argue that nowadays the true meaning of democracy has changed enormously, hence pushing the humanity to the necessity to look back and find what was lost in the course of history and what can aid the establishment of genuine democracies in the modern world.

Dunn at first accounts on what was called democracy in Athens, emphasizing the fact that the form of power originated as soon as the need to institutionalize power rose and the need for respect of the human dignity was recognized:

“This regime, which is called democracy (demokratia), because it is administered with a view to the interest of the many, not of the few, has not merely made Athens great. It has also rendered its citizens equal before the law in their private disputes, and equally free to compete for public honors by personal merit and exertion, or to seek to lead the city, irrespective of their own wealth or social background” (Dunn 26).

The difference from the usual distribution of power was astounding – never before poor people representing the majority of the nation (as usual) obtained the right to speak freely and to make their contribution in the evolution of their state. The main distinguishing peculiarities of democracy were, according to the opinion of Dunn, mutual politeness, deep respect to the law, determined openness of the state towards any other nation, sobriety in judgment, respect for wisdom etc (Dunn 26). Such qualities of any state would be highly desirable for any contemporary nation, and as soon as they were implemented and really worked in practice, the state would really be called a democracy.

Another peculiarity of a democracy established in Athens was that the power was factually concentrated in the hands of the poor, because the law protected them more as compared to the rich class and those who had a distinction in the state due to their wealth or origin:

“the democracy of Athens was a robust but flagrantly unedifying system of power, which subjected the nobler elements of its society to the meaner, transferred wealth purposefully from one to the other, and distributed the means of coercion clear-headedly and determinedly to cement this outcome and keep the nobler elements under control” (Dunn 28).

Though it is hard to imagine the form of power like that implemented in the modern times, still ideally a democracy had to look like that, and there is a clear and wise explanation for such a choice of preferences that is sadly neglected nowadays by the democratic power in the majority of countries. The upper class was always distinguished by certain power (due to origin or wealth they had an opportunity to influence the public opinion), so they represented a threat for the actual government of the democracy. For this reason all effort was directed at diminishing the upper class’s measures of influence and power, thus ensuring stability of power in a state.

Secondly, the nation was not only given the power – this power was effectively ensured by the law:

“The poorer majority of Athens’s citizens are very well advised to insist on their opportunity to share the public offices on which the safety or danger of the people depended, the roles of general or cavalry commander, not randomly across the citizen body but by popular election of those best equipped to hold them (inevitably, the wealthier and more powerful)” (Dunn 28)

So, what changed in the course of time shaping the modern understanding of the term ‘democracy’? What did the world community lose on their way to the long-wanted democracy and what should they take as lessons from the ancient times to make it truly effective? Much has to be done, according to the opinion of Dunn who undoubtedly admits how much has changed in the set of characteristics that used to be attributed to democracy and that are associated with it nowadays:

“Today the term democracy has become… too highly cathected: saturated with emotion, irradiated by passion, tugged to and fro and ever more overwhelmed by accumulated confusion. To rescue it as an aid in understanding politics, we need to think our way past a mass of history and block our ears to many pressing opportunities” (Dunn 39).

Democratic states that exist nowadays have proclaimed the power of the nation due to the severe and cruel fight for the rights of man initiated in different parts of the world in different periods of time (it is enough to recollect the French Revolution or the October Revolution in the Russian Empire) – these multiple facts show how badly people needed and wanted it. On getting it, they appointed those figures who they considered able to control the affairs in their country and who were subordinate to the will of the nation to expression of which it was lawfully entitled under the conditions of a democracy. But can anyone nowadays state absolutely confidently that the principles of equality are realized in his or her country to the fullest extent? There hardly be anyone like that.

Reasons for disillusionment can be found in the power of the few that is seen nowadays and that cannot be neglected – in contrast to the ancient times, people in modern democratic states can hardly be sure that they all will be equal before the law and that their opinion matters as much as the opinion of the ruling class. Masses still express their opinion at public referenda and during elections, during polls that are arranged to keep track of the public opinion and to try to shape the country’s policy according to it. But in fact the power has long ago gone to the hands of those few who have the power and the wealth to dictate their own conditions for the world order. This change happened as soon as our society entered the era of consumerism, the epoch of business that can be run in any sphere of human lives.

It is enough to recollect the whole arsenal of mass persuasion means like mass media – every day they shape the public opinion to make people think that they really want this or that while in fact they are only told to want that. Learning from the experience of Athens one should ask him/herself a question of whether he or she truly wants something or the life they lead is only a series of responses to marketing campaigns tested on them. The true wishes of the nation are lost in never-ending political races for power, promises and appeals designed to raise the wish to vote but not the wish to want something genuinely.

One more lesson that can be taken from the Athenian model of democracy is to encourage deep respect of law and wisdom in a state. Despite the simplicity of this lesson, it is hard to find a state where law is respected as the objective, strong intermediary between the nation and the state, as well as between the members of one nation. Nowadays law has become so sophisticated and unintelligible that people do not believe in its power to protect them anymore and do their best to cheat on it. Nonetheless, if the law were simpler to comprehend for an average citizen of the country, and there were multiple examples of its enactment disregarding the class and the power of a person, law would be respected much more, and it would be observed much more obediently by all people without exception. As for wisdom, the lesson pertains to the authoritative representatives of power in the modern period of time. They are too obsessed by the rhetoric they apply to influence the minds of people that they can hardly focus on the wisdom of their expression. Wisdom has been substituted by persuasion in lack of understanding of the fact that true wisdom does not require any persuasion; it will reach its goal for sure.

Nonetheless, no matter how great the ancient idea of democracy may sound, there is a fresher, more objective and, logically, more critical viewpoint of its essence:

“The brilliant “democracy” of Athens was stained by slavery (and also by the exclusion of women); while in extending their dominion, the Romans never made it possible for those who could not easily get to the city of Rome to participate effectively in governing the republic” (Dahl 5).

As one can see, slavery really existed next to democracy, and the state was called in such a way because slaves were not considered people equal to the public of Athens. As in the case of the slave past of the USA, even the poorest and the most miserable citizen of the country was still considered much higher in position than a slave. Another remark as for the democracy in its pure form is that it cannot last for long – according to observations of Dunn (45), any constraint applied to the nation will be regarded as enslavement, and the chaos that can follow such rejection can be taken under control only with the help of tyranny. This is why pure democracies do not exist; however, there is always an ideal form to which each state may long.

As it may be seen from the present account of democracy nowadays and several millenniums ago, there can hardly be a single definition of a genuine democratic state that will correspond to all requirements of the notion. Even under the conditions of Athens being considered the ideal state with the democratic form of governing, there are many remarks that throw a shadow on the democracy it really represented. Still, there is much to be done to ensure democracy in modern states, which can be done with the help of looking back and learning from the lessons, mistakes and victories of the past.

Dahl, Robert. After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society . Yale University Press, 1970.

Dunn, John. Democracy: A History . Open City Books, 2005.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, December 10). Democracy in Modern World. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-in-modern-world/

"Democracy in Modern World." IvyPanda , 10 Dec. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-in-modern-world/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Democracy in Modern World'. 10 December.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Democracy in Modern World." December 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-in-modern-world/.

1. IvyPanda . "Democracy in Modern World." December 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-in-modern-world/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Democracy in Modern World." December 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/democracy-in-modern-world/.

• Patricia Dunn's Resign from Hewlett-Packard Board
• Dunn’s Ski Emporium Company Leadership Plan
• Pancreatic Mass: Mr. Dunn’s Ethical Case
• Mr. Dunn' Business Consultancy for Ski Emporium and the Deli
• “To Catch a Thief” by Cathy Dunn
• HP Pretexting Scandal Ends With a Resignation
• Withstanding the Challenge of Transnational Network in the System of Education
• Pretexting: Utilitarian and Deontological Perspectives
• To What Extent Did the Reality of Athens Match Its Ideals?
• Review of Sharpe’s BMW
• Elitism vs. Egalitarianism
• Democrats vs. Republicans: Who Is Superior?
• Constitutionalism & Absolutism
• Absolute and Constitutional Monarchy
• Isolationism or Internationalism in Foreign Policy?

By the People: Essays on Democracy

Harvard Kennedy School faculty explore aspects of democracy in their own words—from increasing civic participation and decreasing extreme partisanship to strengthening democratic institutions and making them more fair.

Winter 2020

By Archon Fung , Nancy Gibbs , Tarek Masoud , Julia Minson , Cornell William Brooks , Jane Mansbridge , Arthur Brooks , Pippa Norris , Benjamin Schneer

The basic terms of democratic governance are shifting before our eyes, and we don’t know what the future holds. Some fear the rise of hateful populism and the collapse of democratic norms and practices. Others see opportunities for marginalized people and groups to exercise greater voice and influence. At the Kennedy School, we are striving to produce ideas and insights to meet these great uncertainties and to help make democratic governance successful in the future. In the pages that follow, you can read about the varied ways our faculty members think about facets of democracy and democratic institutions and making democracy better in practice.

Explore essays on democracy

Archon fung: we voted, nancy gibbs: truth and trust, tarek masoud: a fragile state, julia minson: just listen, cornell william brooks: democracy behind bars, jane mansbridge: a teachable skill, arthur brooks: healthy competition, pippa norris: kicking the sandcastle, benjamin schneer: drawing a line.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox. 

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Normative democratic theory deals with the moral foundations of democracy and democratic institutions, as well as the moral duties of democratic representatives and citizens. It is distinct from descriptive and explanatory democratic theory, which aim to describe and explain how democracy and democratic institutions function. Normative democracy theory aims to provide an account of when and why democracy is morally desirable as well as moral principles for guiding the design of democratic institutions and the actions of citizens and representatives. Of course, normative democratic theory is inherently interdisciplinary and must draw on the results of political science, sociology, psychology, and economics in order to give concrete moral guidance.

This brief outline of normative democratic theory focuses attention on seven related issues. First, it proposes a definition of democracy. Second, it outlines different approaches to the question of why democracy is morally valuable at all. Third, it discusses the issue of whether and when democratic institutions have authority and different conceptions of the limits of democratic authority. Fourth, it explores the question of what it is reasonable to demand of citizens in large democratic societies. This issue is central to the evaluation of normative democratic theories. A large body of opinion has it that most classical normative democratic theory is incompatible with what we can reasonably expect from citizens. Fifth, it surveys different accounts of the proper characterization of equality in the processes of representation and the moral norms of representation. Sixth, it discusses the relationship between central findings in social choice theory and democracy. Seventh, it discusses the question of who should be included in the group that makes democratic decisions.

1. Democracy Defined

2.1.1.1 the production of relatively good laws and policies: responsiveness theories, 2.1.1.2 the production of relatively good laws and policies: epistemic theories, 2.1.1.3 character-based arguments, 2.1.2 instrumental arguments against democracy, 2.1.3 grounds for instrumentalism, 2.2.1 liberty, 2.2.2 democracy as public justification, 2.2.3 equality, 3.1 instrumentalist conceptions of democratic authority, 3.2.1 democracy as collective self-rule, 3.2.2 freedom and democratic authority, 3.2.3 equality and authority, 3.3.1 internal limits to democratic authority, 3.3.2 the problem of persistent minorities, 3.3.3 external limits to democratic authority, 4.1 the problem of democratic participation, 4.2.1 elite theory of democracy, 4.2.2 interest group pluralism, 4.2.3 neo-liberalism.

• 4.2.4. The self-interest assumption

4.2.5 The Division of Democratic Labor

4.3.1 the duty to vote, 4.3.2 principled disobedience of the law, 4.3.3 accommodate disagreement through compromise and consensus, 5.1 what sort of representative system is best, 5.2 the ethics of representation, 6. social choice and democracy, 7. the boundary problem: constituting the demos, other internet resources, related entries.

The term “democracy”, as we will use it in this entry, refers very generally to a method of collective decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the decision-making process. Four aspects of this definition should be noted. First, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which we mean decisions that are made for groups and are meant to be binding on all the members of the group. Second, we intend for this definition to cover many different kinds of groups and decision-making procedures that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organizations. The definition is also consistent with different electoral systems, for example first-past-the-post voting and proportional representation. Third, the definition is not intended to carry any normative weight. It is compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in some particular context. So the definition of democracy does not settle any normative questions. Fourth, the equality required by the definition of democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere formal equality of one-person one-vote in an election for representatives to a parliament where there is competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust, including substantive equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building leading up to the vote. “Democracy” may refer to any of these political arrangements. It may involve direct referenda of the members of a society in deciding on the laws and policies of the society or it may involve the participation of those members in selecting representatives to make the decisions.

The function of normative democratic theory is not to settle questions of definition but to determine which, if any, of the forms democracy may take are morally desirable and when and how. To evaluate different moral justifications of democracy, we must decide on the merits of the different principles and conceptions of human beings and society from which they proceed.

2. The Justification of Democracy

In this section, we examine different views concerning the justification of democracy. Proposed justifications of democracy identify values or reasons that support democracy over alternative forms of decision-making, such as oligarchy or dictatorship. It is important to distinguish views concerning the justification of democracy from views concerning the authority of democracy, which we examine in section 3 . Attempts to establish democratic authority identify values or reasons in virtue of which subjects have a duty to obey democratic decisions. Justification and authority can come apart (Simmons 2001: ch. 7)—it is possible to hold that the balance of values or reasons supports democracy over alternative forms of decision-making while denying that subjects have a duty to obey democratic decisions.

We can evaluate the justification of democracy along at least two different dimensions: instrumentally, by reference to the outcomes of using it compared with other methods of political decision; or intrinsically, by reference to values that are inherent in the method.

2.1 Instrumentalism

2.1.1 instrumental arguments in favor of democracy.

Two kinds of in instrumental benefits are commonly attributed to democracy: (1) the production of relatively good laws and policies and (2) improvements in the characters of the participants.

It is often argued that democratic decision-making best protects subjects’ rights or interests because it is more responsive to their judgments or preferences than competing forms of government. John Stuart Mill, for example, argues that since democracy gives each subject a share of political power, democracy forces decision-makers to take into account the rights and interests of a wider range of subjects than are taken into account under aristocracy or monarchy (Mill 1861: ch. 3). There is some evidence that as groups are included in the democratic process, their interests are better advanced by the political system. For example, when African Americans regained the right to vote in the United States in 1965, they were able to secure many more benefits from the state than previously (Wright 2013). Economists argue that democracy promotes economic growth (Acemoglu et al. 2019). Several contemporary authors defend versions of this instrumental argument by pointing to the robust empirical correlation between well-functioning democratic institutions and the strong protection of core liberal rights, such as rights to a fair trial, bodily integrity, freedom of association, and freedom of expression (Gaus 1996: ch. 13; Christiano 2011; Gaus 2011: ch. 22).

A related instrumental argument for democracy is provided by Amartya Sen, who argues that

no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press. (Sen 1999: 152)

The basis of this argument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with free elections and a free press have incentives to respond to the expressions of needs of the poor.

Epistemic justifications of democracy argue that, under the right conditions, democracy is generally more reliable than alternative methods at producing political decisions that are correct according to procedure-independent standards. While there are many different explanations for the reliability of democratic decision-making, we outline three of the most prominent explanations here: (1) Condorcet’s Jury Theorem, (2) the effects of cognitive diversity, and (3) information gathering and sharing.

The most prominent explanation for democracy’s epistemic reliability rests on Condorcet’s Jury Theorem (CJT), a mathematical theorem developed by eighteenth-century mathematician the Marquis de Condorcet that builds on the so-called “law of large numbers”. CJT states that, when certain assumptions hold, the probability that a majority of voters support the correct decision increases and approaches one as the number of voters increases. The assumptions are (Condorcet 1785):

• each voter is more likely than not to identify the correct decision (the competence assumption );
• voters vote for what they believe is the correct decision (the sincerity assumption );
• votes are statistically independent of one another (the independence assumption ).

While Condorcet’s original proof was restricted to decisions with only two choices, more recent work argues that CJT can be extended to decisions with three or more choices (List & Goodin 2001). The use of CJT to explain democracy’s reliability is often thought to originate with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s claim that

[i]f, when a sufficiently informed populace deliberates, the citizens were to have no communication among themselves, the general will would always result from the large number of small differences, and the deliberation would always be good. (Rousseau 1762: Book III, ch. IV)

Contemporary theorists continue to rely on CJT, or variants of it, to justify democracy (Barry 1965; Cohen 1986; Grofman and Feld 1988; Goodin & Spiekermann 2019).

The appeal of CJT for epistemic democrats derives from the fact that, if its underlying assumptions are satisfied, decisions produced by even moderately-sized electorates are almost certain to be correct. For example, if the assumptions of CJT hold for an electorate of 10,000 voters, and if each voter is 51 percent likely to identify the correct decision of two options, then the probability that a majority will select the correct decision is 99.97 percent. The formal mathematics of CJT are not subject to dispute. However, critics of CJT-based arguments for democracy argue that the assumptions underlying CJT are rarely, if ever, satisfied in actual democracies (see Black 1963: 159–65; Ladha 1992; Estlund 1997b; 2008: ch. XII; Anderson 2006). First, many have remarked that voters’ opinions are not independent of each other. Indeed, the democratic process seems to emphasize persuasion and coalition building. Second, the theorem does not seem to apply to cases in which the information that voters have access to, and on the basis of which they make their judgments, is segmented in various ways. Segmentation occurs when some sectors of the society do not have the relevant information while others do have it. Modern societies and politics seem to instantiate this kind of segmentation in terms of class, race, ethnic groupings, religion, occupational position, geographical place and so on. Finally, all voters approach issues they have to make decisions on with strong ideological biases that undermine the claim that each voter is bringing a kind of independent observation on the nature of the common good to the vote.

Advocates of CJT-based justifications of democracy generally respond to these sorts of criticisms by attempting to develop variations of CJT with weaker assumptions. These assumptions are more easily satisfied in democracies and so the revised theorems may show that even moderately-sized electorates are almost certain to produce correct decisions (Grofman & Feld 1988; Austen-Smith 1992; Austen-Smith & Banks 1996).

A second common epistemic justification for democracy—which is often traced to Aristotle ( Politics , Book II, Ch. 11; see Waldron 1995)—argues that democratic procedures are best able to exploit the underlying cognitive diversity of large groups of citizens to solve collective problems. Since democracy brings a lot of people into the process of decision making, it can take advantage of many sources of information and perspectives in assessing proposed laws and policies. More recently, Hélène Landemore (2013) has drawn on the “diversity-trumps-ability” theorem of Scott Page and Lu Hong (Hong & Page 2004; Page 2007)—which states that a random collection of agents drawn from a large set of limited-ability agents typically outperforms a collection of the very best agents from that same set—to argue that democracy can be expected to produce better decisions than rule by experts. Both Page and Hong’s original theorem and Landemore’s use of it to justify democracy are subject to dispute (see Quirk 2014; Brennan 2014; Thompson 2014; Bajaj 2014).

A third common epistemic justification for democracy relies on the idea that democratic decision-making tends to be more informed than other forms of decision-making about the interests of citizens and the causal mechanisms necessary to advance those interests. John Dewey argues that democracy involves “a consultation and a discussion which uncovers social needs and troubles”. Even if experts know how best to solve collective problems, they need input from the masses to correct their biases tell them where the problems lie (Dewey 1927 [2012: 154–155]; see also Anderson 2006; Knight & Johnson 2011).

Many have endorsed democracy on the grounds that democracy has beneficial effects on the characters of subjects. Many agree with Mill and Rousseau that democracy tends to make people stand up for themselves more than other forms of rule do because it makes collective decisions depend on their input more than monarchy or aristocracy do. Hence, in democratic societies individuals are encouraged to be more autonomous. Relatedly, by giving citizens a share of control over political-decision-making, democracy cultivates citizens with active and productive characters rather than passive characters. In addition, it has been argued that democracy tends to get people to think carefully and rationally more than other forms of rule because it makes a difference to political outcomes whether they do or not. Finally, some argue that democracy tends to enhance the moral qualities of citizens. When they participate in making decisions, they have to listen to others, they are called upon to justify themselves to others and they are forced to think in part in terms of the interests of others. Some have argued that when people find themselves in this kind of circumstance, they can be expected genuinely to think in terms of the common good and justice. Hence, some have argued that democratic processes tend to enhance the autonomy, rationality, activity, and morality of participants. Since these beneficial effects are thought to be worthwhile in themselves, they count in favor of democracy and against other forms of rule (Mill 1861 [1991: 74]; Elster 1986 [2003: 152]; Hannon 2020).

Some argue in addition that the above effects on character tend to enhance the quality of legislation as well. A society of autonomous, rational, active, and moral decision-makers is more likely to produce good legislation than a society ruled by a self-centered person or a small group of persons who rule over slavish and unreflective subjects. Of course, the soundness of any of the above arguments depends on the truth of the causal theories of the consequences of different institutions.

Not all instrumental arguments favor democracy. Plato argues that democracy is inferior to various forms of monarchy, aristocracy and even oligarchy on the grounds that democracy tends to undermine the expertise necessary to the proper governance of societies (Plato 1974, Book VI). Most people do not have the kinds of intellectual talents that enable them to think well about the difficult issues that politics involves. But in order to win office or get a piece of legislation passed, politicians must appeal to these people’s sense of what is right or not right. Hence, the state will be guided by very poorly worked out ideas that experts in manipulation and mass appeal use to help themselves win office. Plato argues instead that the state should be ruled by philosopher-kings who have the wisdom and moral character required for good rule. He thus defends a version of what David Estlund calls “epistocracy”, a form of oligarchy that involves rule by experts (Estlund 2003).

Mill defends a form of epistocracy that is sometimes referred to as the “plural voting” scheme (1861: ch. 4). While all rational adults get at least one vote under this scheme, some citizens get a greater number of votes based on satisfying some measure of political expertise. While Mill identifies the relevant measure of expertise in terms of formal education, the plural voting scheme is consistent with other measures. This scheme might be thought to combine the instrumental value of political expertise with the intrinsic value of broad inclusion.

One objection to any form of epistocracy—the demographic objection —holds that any criterion of expertise is likely to select demographically homogeneous individuals who are be biased in ways that undermine their ability to produce political outcomes that promote the general welfare (Estlund 2003).

Hobbes argues that democracy is inferior to monarchy because democracy fosters destabilizing dissension among subjects (Hobbes 1651: chap. XIX). On his view, individual citizens and even politicians are apt not to have a sense of responsibility for the quality of legislation because no one makes a significant difference to the outcomes of decision making. As a consequence, citizens’ concerns are not focused on politics and politicians succeed only by making loud and manipulative appeals to citizens in order to gain more power, but all lack incentives to consider views that are genuinely for the common good. Hence the sense of lack of responsibility for outcomes undermines politicians’ concern for the common good and inclines them to make sectarian and divisive appeals to citizens.

Many contemporary theorists expand on these Platonic and Hobbesian criticisms. A good deal of empirical data shows that citizens of large-scale democracies are ill-informed and apathetic about politics. This makes room for special interests to control the behavior of politicians and use the state for their own limited purposes all the while spreading the costs to everyone. Moreover, there is empirical evidence that democratic citizens often engage in motivated reasoning that unconsciously aims to affirm their existing political identities rather than arrive at correct judgments (Lord, Ross, & Lepper 1979; Bartels 2002; Kahan 2013; Achen & Bartels 2016). Some theorists argue that these considerations justify abandoning democracy altogether, while modest versions of these arguments have been used to justify modification of democratic institutions (Caplan 2007; Somin 2013; Brennan 2016). Relatedly, some theorists argue that rather than having beneficial effects on the characters of subjects as Mill and others argue, democracy actually has deleterious effects on the subjects’ characters and relationships (Brennan 2016: ch. 3).

Pure instrumentalists argue that these instrumental arguments for and against the democratic process are the only bases on which to evaluate the justification of democracy or compare it with other forms of political decision-making. There are a number of different kinds of argument for pure instrumentalism. One kind of argument proceeds from a more general moral theory. For example, classical utilitarianism has no room in its monistic axiology for the intrinsic values of fairness and liberty or the intrinsic importance of an egalitarian distribution of political power. Its sole concern with maximizing utility—understood as pleasure or desire satisfaction—guarantees that it can provide only instrumental arguments for and against democracy.

But one need not be a thoroughgoing utilitarian to argue for instrumentalism in democratic theory. There are arguments in favor of instrumentalism that pertain directly to the question of democracy and collective decision making generally. One argument states that political power involves the exercise of power of some over others. And it argues that the exercise of power of one person over another can only be justified by reference to the protection of the interests or rights of the person over whom power is exercised. Thus no distribution of political power could ever be justified except by reference to the quality of outcomes of the decision making process (Arneson 1993 [2002: 96–97]; 2003; 2004; 2009). Another sort of argument for instrumentalism proceeds negatively, attempting to show that the non-instrumental values most commonly used in attempted justifications for democracy do not actually justify democracy, and that an instrumental justification for democracy is therefore the only available sort of justification (Wall 2007).

Other arguments question the coherence of the idea of intrinsically fair collective decision making processes. For instance, social choice theory questions the idea that there can be a fair decision making function that transforms a set of individual preferences into a rational collective preference. The core objection is that no general rule satisfying reasonable constraints can be devised that can transform any set of individual preferences into a rational social preference. And this is taken to show that democratic procedures cannot be intrinsically fair (Riker 1982: 116). Ronald Dworkin argues that the idea of equality, which is for him at the root of social justice, cannot be given a coherent and plausible interpretation when it comes to the distribution of political power among members of the society. The relation of politicians to citizens inevitably gives rise to inequality; the process of democratic deliberation inevitably gives those with superior argument making abilities and greater willingness to participate more influence and therefore more power, than others, so equality of political power cannot be intrinsically fair or just (Dworkin 2000). In later work, Dworkin has pulled back from this originally thoroughgoing instrumentalism (Dworkin 1996).

2.2 Non-instrumentalism

Few theorists deny that political institutions must be at least in part evaluated in terms of the outcomes of having those institutions. Some argue in addition, that some forms of decision making are morally desirable independent of the consequences of having them. A variety of different approaches have been used to show that democracy has this kind of intrinsic value.

One prominent justification for democracy appeals to the value of liberty. According to one version of the view, democracy is grounded in the idea that each ought to be master of his or her life. Each person’s life is deeply affected by the larger social, legal and cultural environment in which he or she lives. Only when each person has an equal voice and vote in the process of collective decision-making will each have equal control over this larger environment. Thinkers such as Carol Gould conclude that only when some kind of democracy is implemented, will individuals have a chance at self-government (Gould 1988: 45–85). Since individuals have a right of self-government, they have a right to democratic participation. The idea is that the right of self-government gives one a right, within limits, to do wrong. Just as an individual has a right to make some bad decisions for himself or herself, so a group of individuals have a right to make bad or unjust decisions for themselves regarding those activities they share.

One major difficulty with this line of argument is that it appears to require that the basic rule of decision-making be consensus or unanimity. If each person must freely choose the outcomes that bind him or her then those who oppose the decision are not self-governing. They live in an environment imposed on them by others. So only when all agree to a decision are they freely adopting the decision (Wolff 1970: ch. 2). The trouble is that there is rarely agreement on major issues in politics. Indeed, it appears that one of the main reasons for having political decision making procedures is that they can settle matters despite disagreement.

One liberty-based argument that might seem to escape this worry appeals to an irreducibly collective right to self-determination. It is often argued that political communities have a right as a community to organize themselves politically in accordance with their values, principles, or commitments. Some argue that the right to collective self-determination requires democratic institutions that give citizens collective control over their political and legal structure (Cassese 1995). However, many argue democratic institutions are sufficient but not necessary to realize the right to collective self-determination because political communities might exercise this right to implement non-democratic institutions (Altman & Wellman 2009; Stilz 2016).

Another non-instrumental justification of democracy appeals to the ideal of public justification. The idea behind this approach is that laws and policies are legitimate to the extent that they are publicly justified to the citizens of the community. Public justification is justification to each citizen as a result of free and reasoned debate among equals.

Jürgen Habermas’s discourse theory of deliberative democracy has been highly influential in the development of this approach. Habermas analyses the form and function of modern legal systems through the lens of his theory of communicative action. This analysis yields the Democratic Principle:

[O]nly those statutes may claim legitimacy that can meet with the assent of all citizens in a discursive process of legislation that in turn has been legally constituted. (Habermas 1992 [1996: 110])

Habermas advances a conception of democratic legitimacy according to which law is legitimate only if it results from a free and inclusive democratic process of “opinion and will-formation”. What might such a process look like in a complex and differentiated society? Habermas answers by advancing a “two-track” model that understands democratic legitimation in terms of the relationship between institutionalized deliberative bodies (e.g legislatures, agencies, courts) and informal communication in the public sphere, which is “wild”, and not centrally coordinated.

One possible objection to this view is that free and inclusive democratic procedures are insufficient to satisfy the demand for deliberative consensus embodied in the Democratic Principle. This demand is unlikely to be satisfied in diverse societies, since deep disagreements about which laws ought to be enacted is likely to remain after the relevant process of opinion and will-formation. The Democratic Principle might thus be thought to embody an overly idealistic conception of democratic legitimacy (Estlund 2008: ch.10). Another possible worry is that the Discourse Principle is not a genuine moral principle, but a principle that embodies the felicity conditions of practical discourse. As such, the Discourse Principle cannot ground a conception of democratic legitimacy that yields robust moral prescriptions (Forst 2016).

Drawing on Habermas and John Rawls, among others, Joshua Cohen (1996 [2003]) develops a conception of democracy in which citizens justify laws and policies on the basis of mutually acceptable reasons. Democracy, properly understood, is the context in which individuals freely engage in a process of reasoned discussion and deliberation on an equal footing. The ideas of freedom and equality provide guidelines for structuring democratic institutions.

The aim of Cohen’s conception of democracy as public justification is reasoned consensus among citizens. But a serious problem arises when we ask about what happens when disagreement remains. Two possible replies have been suggested. It has been urged that forms of consensus weaker than full consensus are sufficient for public justification and that the weaker varieties are achievable in many societies. For instance, there may be consensus on the list of reasons that are acceptable publicly but disagreement on the weight of the different reasons. Or there may be agreement on general reasons abstractly understood but disagreement about particular interpretations of those reasons. What would have to be shown here is that such weak consensus is achievable in many societies and that the disagreements that remain are not incompatible with the ideal of public justification.

The basic principle seems to be the principle of reasonableness according to which reasonable persons will only offer principles for the regulation of their society that other reasonable persons can reasonably accept. One only offers principles that others, who restrain themselves in the same way, can accept. Such a principle implies a kind of principle of restraint which requires that reasonable persons avoid proposing laws and policies on the basis of controversial moral or philosophical principles. When individuals offer proposals for the regulation of their society, they ought not to appeal to the whole truth as they see it but only to that part of the whole truth that others can reasonably accept. To put the matter in the way Rawls puts it: political society must be regulated by principles on which there is an overlapping consensus (Rawls 2005: Lecture IV). This is meant to obviate the need for a complete consensus on the principles that regulate society.

However, it is hard to see how this approach avoids the need for a complete consensus, which is highly unlikely to occur in any even moderately diverse society. The reason for this is that it is not clear why it is any less of an imposition on me when I propose legislation or policies for the society that I must restrain myself to considerations that other reasonable people accept than it is an imposition on others when I attempt to pass legislation on the basis of reasons they reasonably reject. For if I do restrain myself in this way, then the society I live in will not live up to the standards that I believe are essential to evaluating the society. I must then live in and support a society that does not accord with my conception of how it ought to be organized. It is not clear why this is any less of a loss of control over society than for those who must live in a society that is partly regulated by principles they do not accept. If one is a problem, then so is the other, and complete consensus is the only solution (Christiano 2009).

Many democratic theorists have argued that democracy is a way of treating persons as equals when there is good reason to impose some kind of organization on their shared lives but they disagree about how best to do it. Peter Singer argues that when people insist on different ways of arranging matters properly, each person in a sense claims a right to be dictator over their shared lives (Singer 1973: 30–41). But these claims to dictatorship cannot all hold up. Democracy embodies a kind of peaceful and fair compromise among these conflicting claims to rule. Each compromises equally on what he claims as long as the others do, resulting in each having an equal say over decision making. In effect, democratic decision making respects each person’s point of view on matters of common concern by giving each an equal say about what to do in cases of disagreement (Singer 1973; Waldron 1999: chap. 5).

What if people disagree on the democratic method or on the particular form democracy is to take? Are we to decide these latter questions by means of a higher order procedure? And if there is disagreement on the higher order procedure, must we also democratically decide that question? The view seems to lead to an infinite regress.

An alternative way of justifying democracy on the basis of equality is to ground democracy in public equality. Public equality is a principle of equality which ensures that people can see that they are being treated as equals. This view arises from three ideas. First, there is the basic egalitarian idea that people’s interests ought to be equally advanced, or at least that they ought to have equal opportunities to advance them. Second, human beings generally have highly fallible and biased understandings of their own and other people’s interests. Third, persons have fundamental interests in being able to see that they are being treated as equals. Public equality is an egalitarian principle that can be seen to be realized among persons despite the dramatically incomplete forms of knowledge people have. It is not all of justice, but it is essential that the principle be realized in a pluralistic society.

Democracy is a uniquely publicly egalitarian way to make collective decisions when there is substantial disagreement and conflict of interest among persons about how to shape the society they share. Each can see that the only plausible way of overcoming persistent disagreement over how to shape the society they all live in, while still publicly treating all persons as equals in the face of bias and fallibility, is to give each person an equal say in the process of shaping that society. Thus, democracy is necessary to the realization of public equality in a political society. Within the framework determined by this publicly realized equality, persons are permitted to attempt to bring about their more particular ideas about justice and the common good that they think are right.

The idea of public equality also grounds limits to democratic decision making. The thought is that a society cannot democratically decide to abolish the democratic rights of some of its members. Public equality also requires that basic liberal and civil rights be respected as well, by the democratic process and so serves as a limit to democratic decision making (Christiano 2008; Valentini 2013).

A number of worries attend this kind of view. First, it is generally thought that majority rule is required for treating persons as equals in collective decision making. This is because only majority rule is neutral towards alternatives in decision making. Unanimity tends to favor the status quo as do various forms of supermajority rule. But if this is so, the above view raises the twin dangers of majority tyranny and of persistent minorities, i.e., groups of persons who find themselves always losing in majority decisions. Surely these latter phenomena must be incompatible with public equality. Second, the kind of view defended above is susceptible to the worry that political equality is not a coherent ideal in any modern state with a complex division of labor and the need for representation. This last worry will be discussed in more detail in the next sections on democratic citizenship and legislative representation. The first worry will be discussed more in the discussion on the limits to democratic authority.

A related approach grounds democracy in the ideal of relational equality . A concern with relational equality is a concern for

human relationships that are, in certain crucial respects at least, unstructured by differences of rank, power, or status. (Scheffler 2010: 225)

Niko Kolodny argues that democratic institutions are an essential component of relational equality (Kolodny 2014a,b). One line of Kolodny’s argument holds that political decisions involve the use of coercive force. Inequalities in the power to use force undermine equal social status at least in part because the power to use force is “the power that usually determines the distribution of other powers” (Kolodny 2014b: 307). Individuals who have superior power to use force on others have a superior social status. An egalitarian distribution of political power is thus essential for realizing social equality. And only democratic institutions provide an egalitarian distribution of political power. We will discuss the relationship between relational equality and democracy further when we discuss the authority of democracy in Part 3 below.

3. The Authority of Democracy

Since democracy is a collective decision process, the question naturally arises about whether there is any duty of citizens to obey democratic decisions when they disagree with it.

There are three main concepts of the legitimate authority of the state. First, a state has legitimate authority to the extent that it is morally justified in coercively imposing its rule on the members. Legitimate authority on this account has no direct implications concerning the obligations or duties that citizens may hold toward that state. It simply says that if the state is morally justified in doing what it does, then it has legitimate authority. Second, a state has legitimate authority to the extent that its directives generate duties in citizens to obey. The duties of the citizens need not be owed to the state but they are real duties to obey. The third is that the state has a right to rule that is correlated with the citizens’ duty to it to obey it. This is the strongest notion of authority and it seems to be the core idea behind the legitimacy of the state. The idea is that when citizens disagree about law and policy it is important to be able to answer the question, who has the right to choose?

Instrumental arguments for democracy give some reason for why one ought to respect the democracy when one disagrees with its decisions. There may be many instrumental considerations that play a role in deciding on the question of whether one ought to obey. And these instrumental considerations are pretty much the same whether one is considering obedience to democracy or some other form of rule.

There is one instrumentalist approach which is quite unique to democracy and that seems to ground a strong conception of democratic authority. That is the epistemic approach inspired by the Condorcet Jury Theorem, which we discussed in section 2.1.1.2 above. There, we discussed a number of difficulties with the application of the Condorcet Jury Theorem to the case of voting in elections and referenda in large-scale democracies, including lack of independence, informational segmentation, and the existence of ideological biases.

One further worry about the Jury Theorem’s epistemic conceptions of authority is that it would prove too much since it undermines the common practice of the loyal opposition in democracies. If the background conditions of the Jury Theorem are met, a large-scale democracy majority is practically certain to produce the right decisions. On what basis can citizens in a political minority rationally hold on to their competing views? The members of the minority have a powerful reason for shifting their allegiance to the majority position, since each has very good reason to think that the majority is right. The epistemic conception of authority based on the Jury Theorem thus threatens to be objectionably authoritarian, since it looks like it demands not only obedience of action but obedience of thought as well. Even in scientific communities the fact that a majority of scientists favor a particular view does not make the minority scientists think that they are wrong, though it does perhaps give them pause (Goodin 2003: ch. 7).

Some theories of democratic authority combine instrumental and non-instrumental considerations. David Estlund argues that democratic procedures have legitimate authority because they are better than random and epistemically the best of the political systems that are acceptable to all reasonable citizens (Estlund 2008). They must be better than random because, otherwise, why wouldn’t we use a fair random procedure like a lottery or coin flip? Democratic authority must have an epistemic element. And the justification of democratic procedure must be acceptable to all reasonable citizens in order to respect their freedom and equality. Estlund’s conception of democratic authority—which he calls “epistemic proceduralism”— thus combines the ideal of public justification with a concern for the tendency of democracies to produce good decisions.

3.2 Intrinsic Conceptions of Democratic Authority

Some theorists argue that there is a special relation between democracy and legitimate authority grounded in the value of collective self-rule. John Locke argues that when a person consents to the creation of a political society, they necessarily consent to the use of majority rule in deciding how the political society is to be organized (Locke 1690: sec. 96). Locke thinks that majority rule is the natural decision rule when there is disagreement. He argues that a society is a kind of collective body that must move in the direction of the greater force. One way to understand this argument is as follows. If we think of each member of society as an equal and if we think that there is likely to be disagreement beyond the question of whether to join society or not, then we must accept majority rule as the appropriate decision rule. This interpretation of the greater force argument assumes that the expression “greater force” is to be understood in terms of the equal worth of each person’s interests and rights, so the society must go in the direction in which the greater number of persons wants it to go.

Locke thinks that a people, which is formed by individuals who consent to be members, could choose a monarchy by means of majority rule and so this argument by itself does not give us an argument for democracy. But Locke refers back to this argument when he defends the requirement of representative institutions for deciding when property may be regulated and taxes levied. He argues that a person must consent to the regulation or taxation of his property by the state. But he says that this requirement of consent is satisfied when a majority of the representatives of property holders consent to the regulation and taxation of property (Locke, 1690: sec. 140). This does seem to be moving towards a genuinely democratic conception of legitimate authority.

Rousseau argues that when individuals consent to form a political community, they agree to put themselves under the direction of the “general will” (Rousseau 1762). The general will is not a mere aggregation of individuals’ private wills. It is, rather, the will of the political community as a whole. And since the general will can only emerge as the product of a properly organized democratic procedure, individuals consent to put themselves under the direction of a properly organized democratic procedure. On one interpretation of Rousseau, democratic procedures are properly organized only when they (1) define rights that apply equally to all, (2) via a procedure that considers everyone’s interests equally, and (3) everyone who is coerced to obey the laws has a voice in that procedure.

There are at least two ways of understanding the idea of the general will. On what might be called the constitutive interpretation, the general will is constituted by the results of a properly organized democratic procedure. That is, the results of a properly organized democratic procedure are the general will in virtue of the fact that they emerge from a properly organized democratic procedure, and not because they reflect some procedure-independent truth about the common good. On what might be called the epistemic interpretation, the results of a properly organized democratic procedure are the way of tracking the procedure-independent truth about the common good. As we discussed in section 3.1 , Rousseau is often interpreted as appealing to Condorcet’s Jury Theorem to support the epistemic credentials of a properly organized democratic procedure.

Anna Stilz develops an account of democratic authority that appeals to the value of “freedom as independence” (Stilz 2009). Freedom as independence is freedom from being subject to the will of another. In order not to be subject to the will of others, individuals need property rights and a protected sphere of autonomy to pursue one’s plans. Drawing on Kant, Stilz argues that attempts by particular individuals, no matter how conscientious, to define and secure rights to property and autonomy in a state of nature will be inconsistent with freedom as independence. Such attempts unilaterally impose new obligations on others through acts of private will in the face of competing claims. But even if individuals in a state of nature do agree to a resolution of their competing claims, they are dependent on the will of others to honor this agreement. Stilz thus argues that justice must be administered by an authoritative legal system which can coercively impose one set of objective rules—rules we must respect even when we disagree—to adjudicate our conflicting claims. But if such a system is to be consistent with the freedom of subjects, it cannot be imposed by the private wills of rulers. The solution, Stilz argues, lies in Rousseau’s idea of the general will. When subjects obey the general will, they are not obeying the private will of any individual; they are obeying a will that arises from all and applies to all.

One worry with this account is that those who oppose democratically-enacted laws or policies can complain that those laws or policies are imposed against their will. Perhaps they are not subject to the will of a particular individual, but they are subject to the will of a majority. This might be thought to constitute a significant threat to individuals’ freedom as independence. Another worry, which Stilz’s view arguably inherits from Rousseau, is that the conditions for the general will to emerge are so demanding that the view implies that no state that exists or has existed has legitimate political authority. Stilz’s view might thus be thought to entail what A.J. Simmons calls “a posteriori anarchism” (Simmons 2001).

Another approach to democratic authority asserts that failing to obey the decisions of a democratic assembly amounts to treating one’s fellow citizens as inferiors (Christiano 2008: ch. 6). In the face of disagreement about substantive law and policy, democracy realizes a kind of public equality by giving each individual an equal say in determining which laws or policies will be enacted. Citizens who skirt laws made by suitably egalitarian procedures act contrary to the equal right of all citizens to have a say in making laws. Those who refuse to pay taxes or respect property laws on the grounds that they are unjust are affirming a superior right to that of others in determining how the shared aspects of social life ought to be arranged. Thus, they violate the duty to treat others publicly as equals. And there is reason to think this duty must normally have some pre-eminence. Public equality is the most important form of equality and democracy is required by public equality. The other forms of equality in play in substantive disputes about law and policy are ones about which people can have reasonable disagreements (within limits specified by the principle of public equality). Citizens thus have obligations to abide by the democratic process even if their favored conceptions of justice or equality are passed by in the decision making process.

Daniel Viehoff develops an egalitarian conception of democratic authority based on the ideal of relational equality (Viehoff 2014; see section 2.2.3 above for more on relational equality). Viehoff argues that relational equality is threatened by “subjection” in a relationship, which occurs when individuals have significantly different power over how they interact with and relate to one another. According to Viehoff, obeying the outcomes of egalitarian democratic procedures is necessary and sufficient for citizens to achieve coordination on common rules without subjection. It is sufficient because democratic procedures distribute decision-making power equally, which ensures that coordination is not determined by unequal power advantages. It is necessary because parties must set aside the considerations of greater and lesser power to realize non-subjection in their relationship.

Fabienne Peter develops a fairness-based conception of democratic authority that incorporates epistemic considerations (Peter 2008; 2009). Drawing on insights from proceduralist epistemology, Peter’s “pure epistemic proceduralism” holds that suitably egalitarian democratic decisions are binding at least in part because they result from a fair procedure of knowledge-production. This account differs from Estlund’s epistemic proceduralism (see section 5.1 above) because it does not condition the authority of democratic procedures on their ability to produce decisions that track the procedure-independent truth. Rather, the authority of democratic procedures is grounded in their fairness. And it differs from pure procedural accounts because the relevant notion of fairness is fairness in knowledge-production.

3.3 Limits to the Authority of Democracy

What are the limits to democratic authority? A limit to democratic authority is a principle violation of which defeats democratic authority. When the principle is violated by the democratic assembly, the assembly loses its authority in that instance or the moral weight of the authority is overridden. A number of different views have been offered on this issue. We can distinguish between internal and external limits to democratic authority. An internal limit arises from the constitutive requirements of the democratic process or from the principles that ground democracy. An external limit arises from principles that are independent of the values or requirements that ground democracy.

External limits to democratic authority are rebutting limits, which are principles that weigh against—and may sometimes outweigh the principles that ground democracy. So in a particular case, an individual may see that there are reasons to obey the assembly and some reasons against obeying the assembly and in the case at hand the reasons against obedience outweigh the reasons in favor of obedience. Internal limits to democratic authority are undercutting limits. These limits function not by weighing against the considerations in favor of authority, they undercut the considerations in favor of authority altogether; they simply short circuit the authority. When an undercutting limit is in play, it is not as if the principles which ground the limit outweigh the reasons for obeying the democratic assembly, it is rather that the reasons for obeying the democratic assembly are undermined altogether; they cease to exist or at least they are severely weakened.

Some have argued that the democratic process ought to be limited to decisions that are not incompatible with the proper functioning of the democratic process. So they argue that the democratic process may not legitimately take away the political rights of its citizens in good standing. It may not take away rights that are necessary to the democratic process such as freedom of association or freedom of speech. But these limits do not extend beyond the requirements for proper democratic functioning. They do not protect non political artistic speech or freedom of association in the case of non political activities (Ely 1980: chap. 4).

Another kind of internal limit is a limit that arises from the principles that underpin democracy. And the presence of this limit would seem to be necessary to making sense of the first limit because in order for the first limit to be morally important we need to know why a democracy ought to protect the democratic process.

Locke gives an account of the internal limits of democracy in his idea that there are certain things to which a citizen may not consent (Locke 1690: ch. XI). She may not consent to arbitrary rule or the violation of fundamental rights including democratic and liberal rights. Since consent is the basis of democratic authority for Locke, this account provides an explanation of the idea behind the first internal limit, that democracy may not be suspended by democratic means but it goes beyond that limit to suggest that rights that are not essentially connected with the exercise of the franchise may also not be violated because one may not consent to their violation.

More recently, Ronald Dworkin has defended an account of the limits of democratic authority (Dworkin 1996). He argues that democracy is justified by appeal to a principle of self-government. He argues that self-government cannot be realized unless all citizens are treated as full members of the political community, because, otherwise, they are not able to identify as members of the community. Among the conditions of full membership, he argues, are rights to be treated as equals and rights to have one’s moral independence respected. These principles support robust requirements of non-discrimination and of basic liberal rights.

The conception of democratic authority that grounds it in public equality also provides an account of the limits of that authority (Christiano 2008: ch. 6). Since democracy is founded in public equality, it may not violate public equality in any of its decisions. The basic idea is that overt violation of public equality by a democratic assembly undermines the claim that the democratic assembly embodies public equality. Democracy’s embodiment of public equality is conditional on its protecting public equality. To the extent that liberal rights are grounded in public equality and the provision of an economic minimum is also so grounded, this suggests that democratic rights and liberal rights and rights to an economic minimum create a limit to democratic authority. This account also provides a deep grounding for the kinds of limits to democratic authority defended in the first internal limit and it goes beyond these to the extent that protection of rights that are not connected with the exercise of the franchise is also necessary to public equality.

This account of the authority of democracy also provides some help with a vexing problem of democratic theory. This problem is the difficulty of persistent minorities. There is a persistent minority in a democratic society when that minority always loses in the voting. This is always a possibility in democracies because of the use of majority rule. If the society is divided into two or more highly unified voting blocks in which the members of each group votes in the same ways as all the other members of that group, then the group in the minority will find itself always on the losing end of the votes. This problem has plagued some societies, particularly those with indigenous peoples who live within developed societies. Though this problem is often connected with majority tyranny it is distinct from the problem of majority tyranny because it may be the case that the majority attempts to treat the minority well, in accordance with its conception of good treatment. It is just that the minority never agrees with the majority on what constitutes proper treatment. Being a persistent minority can be highly oppressive even if the majority does not try to act oppressively. This can be understood with the help of the very ideas that underpin democracy. Persons have interests in being able to correct for the cognitive biases of others and to be able to make the world in such a way that it makes sense to them. These interests are set back for a persistent minority since they never get their way.

The conception of democracy as grounded in public equality can shed light on this problem. It can say that the existence of a persistent minority violates public equality (Christiano 2008: chap. 7). In effect, a society in which there is a persistent minority is one in which that minority is being treated publicly as an inferior because it is clear that its fundamental interests are being set back. Hence to the extent that violations of public equality undercut the authority of a democratic assembly, the existence of a persistent minority undermines the authority of the democracy at least with respect to the minority. This suggests that certain institutions ought to be constructed so that the minority is not persistent.

One natural kind of limit to democratic authority is the external kind of limit. Here the idea is that there are certain considerations that favor democratic decision making and there are certain values that are independent of democracy that may be at issue in democratic decisions. For example, many theories recognize core liberal rights—such as rights to property, bodily integrity, and freedom of thought and expression—as external limits to democratic authority. Locke is often interpreted as arguing that individuals have natural rights to property in themselves and the external world that democratic laws must respect in order to have legitimate authority (Locke 1690).

Some views may assert that there are only external limits to democratic authority. But it is possible to think that there are both internal and external limits. Such an issue may arise in decisions to go to war, for example. In such decisions, one may have a duty to obey the decision of the democratic assembly on the grounds that this is how one treats one’s fellow citizens as equals but one may also have a duty to oppose the war on the grounds that the war is an unjust aggression against other people. To the extent that this consideration is sufficiently serious it may outweigh the considerations of equality that underpin democratic authority. Thus one may have an overall duty not to obey in this context. Issues of foreign policy in general seem to give rise to possible external limits to democracy.

4. The Demands of Democratic Participation

In this section, we examine the demands of participation in large-scale democracies. We begin by examining a core challenge to the idea that democratic citizens are capable of governing a large and complex society. We then explore different proposed solutions to the core challenge. Finally, we examine the moral duties of democratic citizens in large-scale democracies in light of the core challenge.

A vexing problem of democratic theory has been to determine whether ordinary citizens are up to the task of governing a large and complex society. There are three distinct problems here:

• Plato argued that some people are more intelligent and informed about political matters than others and have a superior moral character, and that those persons ought to rule ( The Republic , Book VI)
• Others have argued that a society must have a division of labor. If everyone were engaged in the complex and difficult task of politics, little time or energy would be left for the other essential tasks of a society. Conversely, if we expect most people to engage in other difficult and complex tasks, how can we expect them to have the time and resources sufficient to devote themselves intelligently to politics?
• Since individuals have so little impact on the outcomes of political decision making in large societies, they have little sense of responsibility for the outcomes. Some have argued that it is not rational to vote since the chances that an individual’s vote will a decide the outcome of an election (i.e., will determine whether a candidate gets elected or not) are nearly indistinguishable from zero. For example, one widely accepted estimate puts the odds of an individual casting the deciding vote in a United States presidential election at 1 in 100 million. Many estimates put the odds much lower. Worse still, Anthony Downs has argued that almost all of those who do vote have little reason to become informed about how best to vote (Downs 1957: ch.13). On the assumption that citizens reason and behave roughly according to the Downsian model, either the society must in fact be run by a relatively small group of people with minimal input from the rest or it will be very poorly run. As we can see these criticisms are echoes of the sorts of criticisms Plato and Hobbes made.

These observations pose challenges for any robustly egalitarian or deliberative conception of democracy. Without the ability to participate intelligently in politics one cannot use one’s votes to advance one’s aims nor can one be said to participate in a process of reasoned deliberation among equals. So, either equality of political power implies a kind of self-defeating equal participation of citizens in politics or a reasonable division of labor seems to undermine equality of power. And either substantial participation of citizens in public deliberation entails the relative neglect of other tasks or the proper functioning of the other sectors of the society requires that most people do not participate intelligently in public deliberation.

4.2 Proposed Solutions to the Problem of Democratic Participation

Some modern theorists of democracy, called elite theorists, have argued against any robustly egalitarian or deliberative forms of democracy in light of the problem of democratic participation. They argue that high levels of citizen participation tend to produce bad legislation designed by demagogues to appeal to poorly informed and overly emotional citizens. They look upon the alleged uninformedness of citizens evidenced in many empirical studies in the 1950s and 1960s as perfectly reasonable and predictable. Indeed they regard the alleged apathy of citizens in modern states as highly desirable social phenomena.

Political leaders are to avoid divisive and emotionally charged issues and make policy and law with little regard for the fickle and diffuse demands made by ordinary citizens. Citizens participate by voting but since they know very little they are not effectively the ruling part of the society. The process of election is usually just a fairly peaceful way of maintaining or changing those who rule (Schumpeter 1942 [1950: 269]).

On Schumpeter’s view, however, citizens do have a role to play in avoiding serious disasters. When politicians act in ways that nearly anyone can see is problematic, the citizens can throw the bums out.

So the elite theory of democracy does seem compatible with some of the instrumentalist arguments given above but it is strongly opposed to the intrinsic arguments from liberty, public justification and equality. To be sure, there can be an elite deliberative democracy wherein elites deliberate, perhaps even out of sight of the population at large, on how to run the society.

A view akin to the elite theory but less pessimistic about citizens’ political agency and competence argues that a well-functioning representative democracy can function as a kind of “defensible epistocracy” (Landa & Pevnick 2020). This view holds that, under the right conditions, elected officials can be expected to exercise political power more responsibly than citizens in a direct democracy because each official is far more likely to cast the deciding vote in legislative assemblies (the “pivotality effect”) and officials have more incentive to exercise power with due regard for the general welfare (the “accountability effect”). Moreover, under the right conditions, representative democracy allows individuals to assess the competence of candidates for office and to select candidates who are best able to help the community pursue its commitments.

One approach that is in part motivated by the problem of democratic citizenship but which attempts to preserve some elements of equality against the elitist criticism is the interest group pluralist account of politics. Robert Dahl’s early statement of the view is very powerful.

In a rough sense, the essence of all competitive politics is bribery of the electorate by politicians… The farmer… supports a candidate committed to high price supports, the businessman…supports an advocate of low corporation taxes… the consumer…votes for candidates opposed to a sales tax. (Dahl 1959: 69)

In this conception of the democratic process, each citizen is a member of an interest group with narrowly defined interests that are closely connected to their everyday lives. On these subjects citizens are supposed to be quite well informed and interested in having an influence. Or at least, elites from each of the interest groups that are relatively close in perspective to the ordinary members are the principal agents in the process. On this account, democracy is not rule by the majority but rather rule by coalitions of minorities. Policy and law in a democratic society are decided by means of bargaining among the different groups.

This approach is conceivably compatible with the more egalitarian approach to democracy. This is because it attempts to reconcile equality with collective decision making by limiting the tasks of citizens to ones which they are able to perform reasonably well. It is not particularly compatible with the deliberative public justification approach because it takes the democratic process to be concerned essentially with bargaining among the different interest groups where the preferences are not subject to further debate in the society as a whole.

A third approach inspired by the problem of participation may be called the neo-liberal approach to politics favored by public choice theorists such as James Buchanan & Gordon Tullock (1962). Against elite theories, they contend that elites and their allies will tend to expand the powers of government and bureaucracy for their own interests and that this expansion will occur at the expense of a largely inattentive public. For this reason, they argue for severe restrictions on the powers of elites. They argue against the interest group pluralist theorists that the problem of participation occurs within interest groups more or less as much as among the citizenry at large. Only powerful economic interests are likely to succeed in organizing to influence the government and they will do so largely for their own benefit. Since economic elites will advance their own interests in politics while spreading the costs to others, policies will tend to be more costly (because imposed on everyone in society) than they are beneficial (because they benefit only the elites in the interest group.)

Neo-liberals infer that one ought to transfer many of the current functions of the state to the market and limit the state to the enforcement of basic property rights and liberties. These can be more easily understood and brought under the control of ordinary citizens.

But the neo-liberal account of democracy must answer to two large worries. First, citizens in modern societies have more ambitious conceptions of social justice and the common good than are realizable by the minimal state. The neo-liberal account thus implies a very serious curtailment of democracy of its own. More evidence is needed to support the contention that these aspirations cannot be achieved by the modern state. Second, the neo-liberal approach ignores the problem of large private concentrations of wealth and power that are capable of pushing small states around for their own benefit and imposing their wills on populations without their consent.

Somin (2013) also argues that government be significantly reduced in size so that citizens have a lesser knowledge burden to carry. But he calls for government decentralization so that citizens can vote with their feet in favor of or against competing units of government, in effect creating a kind of market in governments among which citizens can choose.

4.2.4 The self-interest assumption

A considerable amount of the literature in political science and the economic theory of the state are grounded in the assumption that individuals act primarily and perhaps even exclusively in their self-interest narrowly construed. The problem of participation and the accounts of the democratic process described above are in large part dependent on this assumption. When the preferences of voters are not assumed to be self-interested the calculations of the value of participation change. For example, if a person is a motivated utilitarian, the small chance of making a difference is coupled with a huge accumulated return to many people if there is a significant difference between alternatives. It may be worth it in this case to become reasonably well informed (Parfit 1984: 74). Even more weakly altruistic moral preferences could make a big difference to the rationality of becoming informed, for example if one had a preference to comply with perceived civic duty to vote responsibly (see section 4.3.1 for discussion of the duty to vote). Any moral preference can be formulated in consistent utility functions.

Moreover, defenders of deliberative democracy often claim that concerns for the common good and justice are not merely given prior to politics but that they can evolve and improve through the process of discussion and debate in politics (Elster 1986 [2003]; Gutmann & Thompson 2004; Cohen 1989 [2009]). They assert that much debate and discussion in politics would not be intelligible were it not for the fact that citizens are willing to engage in open minded discussion with those who have distinct morally informed points of view. Empirical evidence suggests that individuals are motivated by moral considerations in politics in addition to their interests (Mansbridge 1990).

Public deliberation in any large-scale democracy will occur within a complex and differentiated “deliberative system”, a

wide variety of institutions, associations, and sites of contestation accomplish political work. (Mansbridge et. al. 2012)

Moreover, the deliberative system of a complex democracy will be characterized by a division of democratic labor , with different parts of the system making different contributions to the overall system. The question arises: what is the appropriate role for a citizen in this division of labor? Philosophically, we should ask two questions. What ought citizens have knowledge about in order to fulfill their role? What standards ought citizens’ beliefs live up to in order to be adequately supported? One promising view is that citizens must think about what ends the society ought to aim at and leave the question of how to achieve those aims to experts (Christiano 1996: ch 5). The rationale for this division of labor is that expertise is not as fundamental to the choice of aims as it is to the development of legislation and policy. Citizens are capable in their everyday lives of understanding and cultivating deep understandings of values and of their interests. And if citizens genuinely do choose the aims and others faithfully pursue the means to achieving those aims, then citizens are in the driver’s seat in society and they can play this role as equals.

To be sure, citizens need to know who to vote for and whether those they vote for are genuinely advancing their aims. This would appear to require some basic knowledge of about how best to achieve their political aims. How is this possible without extensive knowledge? In addition, there is empirical evidence that those who are better informed have more influence on representatives (Erikson 2015). So, if this task requires some kind of knowledge to do well, how can this be compatible with equality?

One promising response is that ordinary citizens do not need individually to have a lot of knowledge of social science and particular facts in order to make political decisions based on such knowledge. Recent research in cognitive science indicates the individuals use “cognitive shortcuts” to save on time in acquiring information about the world they live in (Lupia & McCubbins 1998). This use of shortcuts is common and essential throughout economic and political life. In political life, we see part of the rationale for the many intermediate institutions between government and citizens (Downs 1957: 221–229). Citizens save time by making use of institutions such as the press, unions and other interest group associations, political parties, and opinion leaders to get information about politics. They also rely on interactions in the workplace as well as conversations with friends and families. Political parties can connect ordinary citizens in various ways to expertise because each one contains a division of labor within them that mirrors that in the state. Experts in parties have incentives to make their expertise intelligible to other members (Christiano 2012). In addition, under favorable conditions, political parties stimulate the development of citizens’ normative perspectives and facilitate a healthy public competition of political justifications based on those perspectives (White & Ypi 2016).

People are dependent on social networks in other ways in a democracy. People receive “free” information (which they do not deliberately seek out) about politics and law in school, through their jobs, in discussion with friends, colleagues and family and incidentally through the media. And this can form a better or worse basis on which to pursue other information. Institutions can make a difference to the stream of free information individuals receive. Education can be distributed in a more or less egalitarian way. The circumstances of work can provide more or less free information about politics and law. People who have jobs with a significant amount of power such as lawyers, business persons, government officials will be beneficiaries of very high quality free information. They need to know about law and politics to do their jobs properly. Those who hold low skilled and non-unionized jobs will receive much less free information about politics at work. To the extent that we can alter the economic division of labor by for example giving more place to unions or having greater worker participation, we might be able to reduce inequalities of information among citizens.

4.3 The Moral Duties of Democratic Citizens

What are the moral duties of democratic citizens in complex democracies? In this section, we discuss three important democratic duties: (1) the duty to vote, (2) the duty to promote justice through principled disobedience of the law, and (3) duties to accommodate disagreement through compromise and consensus.

It is often thought that democratic citizens have a moral duty to vote in elections. But this is not obvious. Individual votes are a causally insignificant contribution to the democratic process. In large-scale democracies, the chance that any particular citizen’s vote will decide the outcome of an election is minuscule. What moral reason do democratic citizens have to participate in politics even though they’re almost certain not to make the difference to who gets elected? Why shouldn’t they seek to promote the good or justice in other ways?

Parfit develops an act-utilitarian answer to this question (Parfit 1984: 73–75). Act-utilitarians hold that morally right actions maximize the total expected sum of the utilities of all persons in the society. Parfit argues that voting might nonetheless maximize expected utility if one candidate is significantly superior to the other(s). If we add the benefits to each member of the society of having the superior candidate win, we get a very large difference in value. So when we multiply that value by the probability of casting the deciding vote, which is often thought to be about 1/100,000,000 in a United States presidential election, we might still get a reasonably high expected value. When we subtract the cost to the voter and others of voting, which is often quite low, from this number, we may still have a good reason to vote.

One worry with Parfit’s view is that it faces a version of what Jason Brennan calls “the particularity problem” (Brennan 2011). This is the problem of explaining why citizens ought to promote value through political participation as opposed to through non-political acts. Voting is just one way of promoting overall utility; we need to know the expected utility of the different acts they might perform instead. Even if the argument above is correct, it might be the case that many individuals maximize expected utility by not voting and doing something even more beneficial with their time.

Alex Guerrero argues that citizens have moral reasons to vote because candidates who win by a larger proportion of votes can claim a greater “normative mandate” to govern (Guerrero 2010). Still each individual vote makes only a tiny contribution to the proportion of votes a candidate receives. So, we might doubt the strength of the reason to vote that Guerrero identifies.

Some theorists argue that individuals have a moral duty to vote in order to absolve themselves of complicity in state injustices (Beerbohm 2012; Zakaras 2018). All states commit injustices—they make and enforce unjust laws, wage unjust wars, and much else. And citizens of large-scale democracies have a kind of standing responsibility, by paying taxes and obeying laws, for their state’s injustices of which they must actively absolve themselves The complicity account argues that citizens avoid shared responsibility for their state’s injustices if they oppose those injustices through voting and of public advocacy (Beerbohm 2012).

One worry is that it is unclear why voting and publicly advocating against injustice should be thought to absolve responsibility that is established by paying taxes and obeying laws. Another worry is that one’s concern to oppose injustice should derive from a more direct concern for the wrongs suffered by victims of injustice rather than a concern with keeping one’s hands clean.

One sort of account that avoids this worry grounds the moral duty to vote in the importance of doing one’s fair share of the demands of political justice consistent with public equality. The demands of creating and sustaining just institutions distribute fairly among all citizens (Maskivker 2019). If one fails to do one’s fair share of these demands, then one fails to show due regard for the eventual victims of injustice. Furthermore, voting provides citizens with a mechanism for doing their fair shares of the demands of making their institutions just in a way that is consistent with respecting the public equality of fellow citizens. By showing up and casting a vote, citizens can contribute to the collective achievement of justice while maintaining equal decision-making power with fellow citizens.

Civil disobedience has long been recognized as a central mechanism through which democratic citizens may legitimately promote political justice in their society. According to the standard view, civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law that aims to change laws or government policies. People who engage in civil disobedience are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions in order to show fidelity to the law (Bedau 1961; Rawls 1971: ch. 55). The standard definition of civil disobedience has been subjected to challenge. For example, some argue that the private acts in which the disobedient seeks to evade legal consequences can count as instances of civil disobedience (Raz 1979; Brownlee 2004, 2007, 2012).

Perhaps the most common way of justifying civil disobedience argues that the same considerations that ground the pro tanto duty to obey the law sometimes make it appropriate to engage in civil disobedience of the law (see, e.g., Rawls 1971: ch. 57; Sabl 2001; Markovits 2005; Smith 2011). For example, Rawls argues that while citizens of a “nearly just” society have a pro tanto duty to obey its laws in virtue of it being nearly just, civil disobedience can be justified as a way of making the relevant society more just (Rawls 1971: ch. 57). Similarly, Daniel Markovits argues that members of a society with suitably egalitarian and inclusive democratic procedures have a general duty to obey its laws because they are produced by procedures that are suitably egalitarian and inclusive, but that civil disobedience can be justified as a way of making the relevant procedures more egalitarian or inclusive (Markovits 2005).

It is easy to see why this constitutes an attractive way of justifying civil disobedience, since it justifies it by appeal to the same values that ground the pro tanto duty to obey the law. On the other hand, as Simmons notes, if there is no general duty to obey the law, there would seem to be no presumption in favor of obedience and thus no special need for a justification of civil disobedience; obedience and disobedience would stand equally in need of justification (Simmons 2007: ch 4).

Advocates of the standard approach generally assume that only civil disobedience can be justified in this way. However, some argue civil disobedience does not enjoy a special normative presumption over uncivil disobedience. The core idea that insofar as the values that ground a pro tanto duty to obey the law—for example, justice or democratic equality—are sometimes best served by civil disobedience of the law, they are sometimes best served by covert, evasive, anonymous, or even violent disobedience of the law (Delmas 2018; Lai 2019; Pasternak 2018).

Disagreement about what laws, policies, or principles ought to be implemented is a persistent feature of democratic societies. It is often argued that citizens and officials have duties to moderate their political activity in order to accommodate the competing views of fellow citizens or officials. Two duties of accommodation are widely discussed in the literature: duties of compromise and duties of public justification.

A compromise can be understood as an agreement between parties to advance laws or policies that all regard as suboptimal because they disagree about which laws or policies are optimal (May 2005). While it is widely accepted that there are sometimes compelling instrumental reasons to compromise, whether there are intrinsic moral reasons to compromise is more controversial. Some defend intrinsic reasons to compromise based on democratic values like inclusion, mutual respect, and reciprocity (Gutmann and Thompson 2014; Wendt 2016; Weinstock 2013). However, Simon May argues that such arguments fail and that all reasons to compromise are pragmatic (May 2005).

Advocates of the public justification approach to democracy (see section 2.2.2 ) often argue that democratic citizens and officials have individual moral duties of public justification. John Rawls argues for a “duty of civility” that requires citizens and officials to be prepared to give mutually acceptable justifications for important laws when voting and engaged in public advocacy. Given the inevitability of disagreement about comprehensive moral and philosophical truth in free democracies, the duty of civility requires citizens to appeal to a reasonable “political” conception of justice that can be the object of an “overlapping consensus” between different comprehensive doctrines. While different theorists motivate duties of public justification in different ways, many appeal to the need for exercises of coercive political authority to respect citizens’ freedom and equality.

5. Democratic Representation

Representation is an essential part of the division of labor of large-scale democracies. In this section, we examine two moral questions concerning representation. First, what sort of representative system is best? Second, by what moral principles are representatives bound?

A number of debates have centered on the question of what kinds of representative systems are best for a democratic society. What choice we make here will depend heavily on our underlying moral justification of democracy, our conception of citizenship as well as on our empirical understanding of political institutions and how they function. The most basic types of formal political representation available are single member district representation, proportional representation and group representation. In addition, many societies have opted for multicameral legislative institutions. In some cases, combinations of the above forms have been tried.

Single member district representation returns single representatives of geographically defined areas containing roughly equal populations to the legislature and is prominent in the United States, the United Kingdom, and India, among other places. The most common form of proportional representation is party list proportional representation. In a simple form of such a scheme, a number of parties compete for election to a legislature that is not divided into geographical districts. Parties acquire seats in the legislature as a proportion of the total number of votes they receive in the voting population as a whole. Group representation occurs when the society is divided into non-geographically defined groups such as ethnic or linguistic groups or even functional groups such as workers, farmers and capitalists and returns representatives to a legislature from each of them.

Many have argued in favor of single member district legislation on the grounds that it has appeared to them to lead to more stable government than other forms of representation. The thought is that proportional representation tends to fragment the citizenry into opposing homogeneous camps that rigidly adhere to their party lines and that are continually vying for control over the government. Since there are many parties and they are unwilling to compromise with each other, governments formed from coalitions of parties tend to fall apart rather quickly. The post war experience of governments in Italy appears to confirm this hypothesis. Single member district representation, in contrast, is said to enhance the stability of governments by virtue of its favoring a two party system of government. Each election cycle then determines which party is to stay in power for some length of time.

Charles Beitz argues that single member district representation encourages moderation in party programs offered for citizens to consider (Beitz 1989: ch. 7). This results from the tendency of this kind of representation towards two party systems. In a two party system with majority rule, it is argued, each party must appeal to the median voter in the political spectrum. Hence, they must moderate their programs to appeal to the median voter. Furthermore, they encourage compromise among groups since they must try to appeal to a lot of other groups in order to become part of one of the two leading parties. These tendencies encourage moderation and compromise in citizens to the extent that political parties, and interest groups, hold these qualities up as necessary to functioning well in a democracy.

In criticism, advocates of proportional and group representation have argued that single member district representation tends to muffle the voices and ignore the interests of minority groups in the society (Mill 1861; Christiano 1996). Minority interests and views tend to be articulated in background negotiations and in ways that muffle their distinctiveness. Furthermore, representatives of minority interests and views often have a difficult time getting elected at all in single member district systems so it has been charged that minority views and interests are often systematically underrepresented. Sometimes these problems are dealt with by redrawing the boundaries of districts in a way that ensures greater minority representation. The efforts are invariably quite controversial since there is considerable disagreement about the criteria for apportionment.

In proportional representation, by contrast, representatives of different groups are seated in the legislature in proportion to citizens’ choices. Minorities need not make their demands conform to the basic dichotomy of views and interests that characterize single member district systems so their views are more articulated and distinctive as well as better represented.

Advocates of group representation, like Iris Marion Young, have argued that some historically disenfranchised groups may still not do very well under proportional representation (Young 1990: ch. 6). They may not be able to organize and articulate their views as easily as other groups. Also, minority groups can still be systematically defeated in the legislature and their interests may be consistently set back even if they do have some representation. For these groups, some have argued that the only way to protect their interests is legally to ensure that they have adequate and even disproportionate representation.

One worry about group representation is that it tends to freeze some aspects of the agenda that might be better left to the choice of citizens. For instance, consider a population that is divided into linguistic groups for a long time. And suppose that only some citizens continue to think of linguistic conflict as important. In the circumstances a group representation scheme may tend to be biased in an arbitrary way that favors the views or interests of those who do think of linguistic conflict as important.

What moral norms apply to representatives carrying out their official duties? We can get a better handle on possible answers by introducing Hannah Pitkin’s famous distinction between trustees and delegates (Pitkin 1967). Representatives who act as trustees rely on their own independent judgments in carrying out their duties. Norms of trusteeship are supported in recognition that, given a natural division of democratic labor, officials are in a much better position to make well-reasoned and well-informed political decisions than ordinary citizens.

Representatives who act as delegates defer to the judgments of their citizens. These norms might be thought to reflect the value of democratic accountability. Because the people authorize representatives to govern, it is natural to think that representatives are accountable to the people to enact their judgments. If representatives are not accountable in this way, citizens lose democratic control over their representatives’ actions.

Which norms should win out when they conflict? Pitkin argues that the answer varies by context. This seems plausible. For example, if we take the view that citizens primarily have the role of determining the aims of the society, we might think that representatives ought to be delegates with regard to the aims, but trustees with regard to the ways of realizing the aims (Christiano 1996). See Suzanne Dovi’s discussion of representation for a deeper and more nuanced discussion of these issues.

Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem is thought by some to provide a major set of difficulties for democratic theory (Arrow 1951). William Riker, Russell Hardin, and others have thought that the impossibility theorem shows that there are deep problems with democratic ideals (Riker 1982; Hardin 1999). Neither of these thinkers are opposed to democracy itself, they both think that there are good instrumental reasons for having democracy.

The basic results of social choice theory are laid out in detail elsewhere in the encyclopedia (List 2013). Here we will simply articulate the basic result and an illustration. The question of Arrowian social choice theory is: how do we determine a social preference for a society overall on the basis of the set of the individual preferences of the members? Arrow shows that a social choice function that satisfies a number of plausible constraints cannot be defined when there are three or more alternatives to be chosen by the group. He lays out a number of conditions to be imposed on a social choice function. Unlimited domain : The social choice function must be able to give us a social preference no matter what the preferences of the individuals over alternatives are. Non dictatorship : the social choice function must not select the preference of one particular member regardless of others’ preferences. Transitivity and completeness : The individual preferences orderings must be transitive and complete orderings and the social preference derived from them must be transitive and complete. Independence of irrelevant alternatives : the social preference between two alternatives must be the result only of the individual orderings between those two alternatives. Pareto condition : if all the members prefer an alternative x over y , then x must be ranked above y in the social preference. The theorem says that no social choice function over more than two alternatives can satisfy all of these conditions.

A useful illustration of this idea involves an extension of majority rule to cases of more than two alternatives. The Condorcet rule says that an alternative x wins when, for every other alternative, a majority prefers x over that alternative. For example, suppose we have three persons A , B and C and three alternatives x , y and z . A prefers x over y , y over z ; B prefers y over z and z over x ; C prefers x over z and z over y . In this case, x is the Condorcet winner since it beats y , and it beats z . The problem with this plausible sounding rule is the case of a majority cycle. Suppose you have three persons A , B and C , and three alternatives, x , y and z . In the case in which A prefers x over y and y over z , while B prefers y over z and z over x , and C prefers z over x and x over y , the Condorcet rule will yield a social preference of x over y , y over z and z over x . One can see here that the Condorcet rule satisfies all the conditions except transitivity of social preference. One way to avoid intransitivity is to restrict the domain of preferences from which the social preference arises. Another is to introduce cardinal information that compares the how much people prefer alternatives (violating independence). Another might be to make one person a dictator. So, this case nicely illustrates that one cannot satisfy all of the constraints simultaneously.

Riker argues that the theorem shows that the idea that the popular will can be the governing element in a society is false. If an existence condition for a popular will is a restricted set of preferences the question naturally arises as to whether such a condition is always or normally met in a moderately complex society. We might wonder whether a highly pluralistic society with a very complex division of labor is likely to satisfy the restricted preference set condition necessary to avoid cycles or other pathologies of social choice. Some have argued that we have empirical evidence to the effect that modern societies do normally satisfy such conditions (Mackie 2003). Others have argued that this seems unlikely (Riker 1982; Ingham 2019). This is not merely a defense of unlimited domain. It is a defense of the thesis that normally the collections of preferences in modern societies are not likely to have the properties that enable them to avoid cycles.

The fairness critique from social choice theory is based on the idea that when a voting process meets requirements of fairness, the fairness of the process and the preferences may not generate determinate outcomes. If cycles are pervasive, the outcomes of democratic processes may be determined by clever strategies and not by the fairness of the procedures (Riker 1982). Three remarks are in order here. First, it is compatible with the process being completely fair that the outcomes of the process are indeterminate. After all, coin flips are fair. Second, there is some question as to how prominent the cycles are. Third, one might think that if the conditions which enable opposing sides to strategize effectively are themselves roughly equal, then the concerns for fairness are fully met. If resources for persuasion and organization are distributed in an egalitarian way, perhaps the fairness account is vindicated after all. This point can be made more compelling when we consider Sean Ingham’s account of political equality. He includes intensity of preference in his account of fairness. This is a departure from the Arrowian approach, but it is in many ways a realistic one. The idea is that majorities have equal control over policy areas when they are able to get what they want with the same amount of intensity of preferences. And equality holds generally when all groups of the same size have the same control (Ingham 2019). There remains an extreme case in which all majorities have equal intensity of preference and are caught in a majority cycle. But the chances of this happening are very slim, even if the chances of majority cycles more generally are not as small. Even if there are a lot of majority cycles, if the issues are resolved in such a way that those majorities that have most at stake in the conflict are the ones that get their way, then we can have fairness in a quite robust sense even while having pervasive majority cycles.

If democratic societies allow members to participate as equals in collective decision making, a natural question arises: who has the right to participate in making collective decisions? We can ask this question within a particular jurisdiction (ought all adults have the right to participation? Ought children have the right to participation? Ought all residents have such rights?). But we can also ask what the extent of the jurisdiction ought to be. How many of the people in the world ought to be included in the collective decision-making? An easy, though slightly misleading, way of asking this question is, what ought the physical boundaries of a particular institution of collective decision-making be? We see partially democratic societies within the confines of the modern nation-state. But we might ask, why should we restrict the set of persons who participate in making decisions of the modern state just to those who happen to be the physical inhabitants of those states? Surely there are many other persons affected by decisions made by democratic states aside from those persons. For example, activities in one society A can pollute another society B . Why shouldn’t the members of B have a say in the decisions regarding the polluting activities in A ? And there can be many other effects that activities in A can have on B .

Some have suggested that the boundaries of a state ought to be determined through a principle of national self-determination. We identify a nation as an ongoing group of persons who share certain cultural, historical and political norms and who identify with each other and with a piece of land. Then we determine the boundaries of the territory by appeal to the size of the group of people and the land they cherish (Miller 1995; Song 2012). This is an appealing idea in many ways: shared nationality breeds a willingness to share the sacrifices that arise from collective decision making; it generates a sense of at-homeness for people. But it is hard to use as a general principle for dividing land among persons when one of the central facts for many societies is that a diversity of nations, ethnic groups and cultures co-mingle on the very same land.

Is there a democratic solution to the boundary problem? A number of ideas have been suggested. The first idea is that the people ought to decide what the boundaries are. But this suggestion, while it may be a pragmatic resolution to the problem, seems to beg the question about who the members are and who are not (Whelan 1983).

A second theoretical solution that has some democratic credentials is to invoke the principle that all who are subjected to decision making, in the sense of who are coerced or have duties imposed upon them, ought to have a say in the decision making (Abizadeh 2008). This principle is plausible enough, but it doesn’t get at enough cases. The pollution case above is not a case of subjection.

A third proposed theoretical solution is the all-affected principle. One formulation is “all affected persons ought to have a say in the decisions that affect them”. This does suggest that when the activities in one state affect those of another state, the people of the other state ought to have a say in those activities. Some have thought that this principle tends to lead to a kind of politically cosmopolitan principle in support of world government (Goodin 2007).

But the all-affected principle is conceptually quite uncertain and morally deeply problematic, and it provides very little, if anything, in the way of a solution to the boundary problem.

First, “having a say” is not clear. Does it require having a vote in collective decision-making? Or is it also satisfied by a person’s being able to modify another’s action by negotiating with them, as we see when there is bargaining over an externality? This latter version would undermine the idea that the all-affected principle has direct implications for the boundary problem. When the United States permits activities that produce acid rain in Canada, Canada can negotiate with the United States to lessen the production of acid rain and/or to compensate Canada for the harm. As long as there is a fair and effective system of negotiation, this would seem to satisfy the all-affected principle without giving Canadians a vote in American politics or Americans a vote in Canadian politics.

Second, it is not clear what “being affected” means. One, does a person being affected just mean that there is a change in the person’s situation or must the effect involve the setting back of one’s preferences, or interests, or legitimate interests, or exercise of one’s capacities or one’s good? Two, are one’s interests affected by a decision only when they are advanced or set back relative to some baseline (either the present state of affairs or some morally defined baseline like what you have promised me), or am I affected by decisions that could be to my advantage or disadvantage but end up making no difference? For example, if I am drowning in a pool and you are deciding whether to save me or go buy yourself a candy bar, am I affected by your buying the candy bar? If I am not affected when no change occurs, then who is affected by a decision often depends on who participates in the decision and we have no solution to the problem of inclusion. If I am affected, then the principle has some quite extraordinary implications. Now it turns out that impoverished persons in South Asia are affected by my buying a candy bar, since I could have sent the money to them (Goodin 2007).

The all-affected principle is a merely suggestive and rhetorically effective phrase. It is a conversation starter and a list of topics to be discussed, not a genuine principle. For example, if I must include everyone possibly affected by my decision for every decision I make, I will not be able to make many decisions and my decision making will no longer enable me to give a shape to my own life and my relations with others. My life becomes fragmented and lacks integrity (Williams 1973). An analog of this problem would arise for political societies, presumably. Each society would have to include a variety of different persons in each decision. It is hard to see how any society could take on any particular character if this is the case.

A more plausible principle that encompasses some of the suggestions of the all-affected principle is that a framework of institutions should be set up so that people have power to advance and protect their legitimate interests in life.

But if we understand the principle in this way, it is not clear that it helps us much with the boundary problem. First of all, there are different ways in which people can be said to possess power over their lives. One kind of power is the power to participate as an equal in a collective decision-making process. Another kind is to be able to advance one’s interests in a decentralized process like a market or a system of agreement making like international law. Recalling our pollution problem above, we could give the state of which they are members power to negotiate with the polluting state terms that are mutually agreeable. Only the power to participate as an equal in collective decision-making involves the boundaries of collective decision-making.

Another solution to the boundary problem is a conservative one. The basic idea is to keep the boundaries of states roughly as they are except if there is a pressing need to change them. Trying to alter the boundaries of political societies is a recipe for serious conflict because there is no institution that has the legitimacy or power actually to resolve problems at an international level and there is likely to be a lot of disagreement on how to do it. States as we know them, are by far the most powerful political entities in the international system. They have developed more effective practices of accountability of power than any other entity in the system. They have created unified societies with highly interdependent populations. Finally, states and the individuals in them can be made accountable to some degree to other individuals and states through the process of negotiation and international law making. The origin of these boundaries may be arbitrary, but it is not, for all that, irrelevant. To be sure, there are clear cases where borders can be changed. One source of pressing need is serious injustice within a country. Another might be the existence of permanent minorities that are sectionally defined. Here, we ask only how to revise boundaries and the basis of such revision is that it is a remedy for serious injustice (Buchanan 1991).

• Abizadeh, Arash, 2008, “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders”, Political Theory , 36(1): 37–65. doi:10.1177/0090591707310090
• Acemoglu, Daron, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson, 2019, “Democracy Does Cause Growth”, Journal of Political Economy , 127(1): 47–100. doi:10.1086/700936
• Achen, Christopher H. and Larry M. Bartels, 2016, Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Studies in Political Behavior), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Altman, Andrew and Christopher Heath Wellman, 2009, A Liberal Theory of International Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199564415.001.0001
• Anderson, Elizabeth, 2006, “The Epistemology of Democracy”, Episteme , 3(1–2): 8–22. doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8
• Aristotle, Politics: Writings from the Complete Works , Jonathan Barnes (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.
• Arneson, Richard J., 1993 [2003], “Democratic Rights at National and Workplace Levels”, in The Idea of Democracy , David Copp, Jean Hampton, and John Roember, 118–138, 143–147; reprinted as “Democracy at the National Level” in Christiano 2003: 95–115.
• –––, 2003, “Defending the Purely Instrumental Account of Democratic Legitimacy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 11(1): 122–132. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00170
• –––, 2004, “Democracy Is Not Intrinsically Just”, in Justice and Democracy , Keith Dowding, Robert E. Goodin, and Carole Pateman (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–58. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490217.003
• –––, 2009, “The Supposed Right to a Democratic Say”, in Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy , Thomas Christiano and John Christman (eds.), Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 195–212. doi:10.1002/9781444310399.ch11
• Arrow, Kenneth J., 1951, Social Choice and Individual Values , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Austen-Smith, David, 1992, “Strategic Models of Talk in Political Decision Making”, International Political Science Review , 13(1): 45–58. doi:10.1177/019251219201300104
• Austen-Smith, David and Jeffrey S. Banks, 1996, “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem”, American Political Science Review , 90(1): 34–45. doi:10.2307/2082796
• Bajaj, Sameer, 2014, “Review of Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , by Hélène Landemore”, Ethics , 124(2): 426–431. doi:10.1086/673507
• Barry, Brian, 1965, Political Argument , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Bartels, Larry M., 2002, “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions”, Political Behavior , 24(2): 117–150. doi:10.1023/A:1021226224601
• Bedau, Hugo A., 1961, “On Civil Disobedience”, Journal of Philosophy , 58(21): 653–665. doi:10.2307/2023542
• Beerbohm, Eric Anthony, 2012, In Our Name: The Ethics of Democracy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Beitz, Charles R., 1989, Political Equality: An Essay on Democratic Theory , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Black, Duncan, 1963, The Theory of Committees and Elections , second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brennan, Jason, 2011, The Ethics of Voting , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2014, “How Smart Is Democracy? You Can’t Answer That Question a Priori”, Critical Review , 26(1–2): 33–58. doi:10.1080/08913811.2014.907040
• –––, 2016, Against Democracy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Brownlee, Kimberley, 2004, “Features of a Paradigm Case of Civil Disobedience”, Res Publica , 10(4): 337–351. doi:10.1007/s11158-004-2326-6
• –––, 2007, “The Communicative Aspects of Civil Disobedience and Lawful Punishment”, Criminal Law and Philosophy , 1(2): 179–192. doi:10.1007/s11572-006-9015-9
• –––, 2012, Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592944.001.0001
• Buchanan, Allen, 1991, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania to Quebec , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Buchanan, James and Gordon Tullock, 1962, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy , Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Caplan, Bryan, 2007, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cassese, Antonio, 1995, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Christiano, Thomas, 1996, The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• ––– (ed.), 2003, Philosophy and Democracy: An Anthology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2004, “The Authority of Democracy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 12(3): 266–290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00200.x
• –––, 2006, “A Democratic Theory of Territory and Some Puzzles about Global Democracy”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 37(1): 81–107. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2006.00304.x
• –––, 2008, The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and Its Limits , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198297475.001.0001
• –––, 2009, “Must Democracy Be Reasonable?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 39(1): 1–34. doi:10.1353/cjp.0.0037
• –––, 2011, “An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy: An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 39(2): 142–176. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2011.01204.x
• –––, 2012, “Rational Deliberation among Experts and Citizens”, in Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012: 27–51. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139178914.003
• –––, 2015, “Self-Determination and the Human Right to Democracy”, in Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Rowan Cruft, S. Matthew Liao, and Massimo Renzo (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 459–480. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0026
• Cohen, Joshua, 1986, “An Epistemic Conception of Democracy”, Ethics , 97(1): 26–38. doi:10.1086/292815
• –––, 1989 [2009], “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy”, in The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State , Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit (eds.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 17–34; reprinted in Philosophy, Politics, Democracy: Selected Essays , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 16–37.
• –––, 1996 [2003], “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy”, in Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political , Seyla Benhabib (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 95–119; reprinted in Christiano 2003: 17–38.
• Condorcet, Marquis de, 1785, Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues àla pluralité des voix , Paris; reprinted Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139923972
• Dahl, Robert A., 1959, A Preface to Democratic Theory , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Delmas, Candice, 2018, A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190872199.001.0001
• Dewey, John, 1927 [2012], The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt; reprinted, Melvin L. Rogers (ed.), University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2012.
• Downs, Anthony, 1957, An Economic Theory of Democracy , New York: Harper and Row.
• Doyle, Michael W., 2011, Liberal Peace: Selected Essays , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203804933
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1996, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2000, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Elster, Jon, 1986 [2003], “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory”, in Foundations of Scoial Choice Theory , Jon Elster and Aanund Hyllund (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 103–132; reprinted in Christiano 2003: 138–158.
• Ely, John Hart, 1980, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Erikson, Robert S., 2015, “Income Inequality and Policy Responsiveness “, Annual Review of Political Science , 18: 11–29. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-094706
• Estlund, David, 1997a [2003], “Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority”, in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics , James Bohman and William Rehg (eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 173–204; reprinted in Christiano 2003: 69–91.
• –––, 1997b, “The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority”:, The Modern Schoolman , 74(4): 259–276. doi:10.5840/schoolman199774424
• –––, 2003, “Why Not Epistocracy”, in Desire, Identity, and Existence: Essays in Honor of T.M. Penner , Naomi Reshotko (ed.), Kelowna, BC: Academic Printing and Publishing, 53–69.
• –––, 2006, “Democracy and the Real Speech Situation”, in Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents , Samantha Besson and José Luis Martí (eds.), London: Routledge, 75–92.
• –––, 2008, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Estlund, David M., Jeremy Waldron, Bernard Grofman, and Scott L. Feld, 1989, “Democratic Theory and the Public Interest: Condorcet and Rousseau Revisited”, American Political Science Review , 83(4): 1317–1340. doi:10.2307/1961672
• Farber, Henry S. and Joanne Gowa, 1995, “Polities and Peace”, International Security , 20(2): 123–146. doi:10.2307/2539231
• Forst, Rainer, 2016, “The Justification of Basic Rights: A Discourse-Theoretical Approach”, Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy , 45(3): 7–28. doi:10.5553/NJLP/221307132016045003002
• Gartzke, Erik, 2007, “The Capitalist Peace”, American Journal of Political Science , 51(1): 166–91.
• Gaus, Gerald F., 1996, Justificatory Liberalism: An Essay on Epistemology and Political Theory , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2011, The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511780844
• Goodin, Robert E., 2003, Reflective Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199256179.001.0001
• –––, 2007, “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 35(1): 40–68. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00098.x
• Goodin, Robert E. and Kai Spiekermann, 2019, An Epistemic Theory of Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823452.001.0001
• Gould, Carol C., 1988, Rethinking Democracy: Freedom and Social Cooperation in Politics, Economics and Society , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Grofman, Bernard and Scott L. Feld, 1988, “Rousseau’s General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective”, American Political Science Review , 82(2): 567–576. doi:10.2307/1957401
• Guerrero, Alexander A., 2010, “The Paradox of Voting and the Ethics of Political Representation”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 38(3): 272–306. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2010.01188.x
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2004, Why Deliberative Democracy? , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2014, The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diksurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
• Hannon, Michael, 2020, “Empathetic Understanding and Deliberative Democracy”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 101(3): 591–611. doi:10.1111/phpr.12624
• Hardin, Russell, 1999, Liberalism, Constitutionalism, and Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198290845.001.0001
• Hayek, Friedrich A., 1960, The Constitution of Liberty , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Hobbes, Thomas, 1651, Leviathan , London; reprinted, C.B. MacPherson (ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968.
• Hong, Lu and Scott E. Page, 2004, “Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 101(46): 16385–16389. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403723101
• Hume, David, 1748, “Of the Original Contract”; reprinted in Hume’s Ethical Writings: Selections from David Hume , Alasdair MacIntyre (ed.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1965.
• Ingham, Sean, 2019, Rule by Multiple Majorities: A New Theory of Popular Control , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108683821
• Kahan, Dan M., 2013, “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(4): 407–424
• Kant, Immanuel, 1795, Zum ewigen Frieden: Ein philosophischer Entwurf , Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius. Translated as “Toward Perpetual Peace” in Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy , Mary J. Gregor (trans./ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 311–352.
• Knight, Jack and James Johnson, 2011, The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Kolodny, Niko, 2014a, “Rule Over None I: What Justifies Democracy?”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 42(3): 195–229. doi:10.1111/papa.12035
• –––, 2014b, “Rule Over None II: Social Equality and the Justification of Democracy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 42(4): 287–336. doi:10.1111/papa.12037
• Ladha, Krishna K., 1992, “The Condorcet Jury Theorem, Free Speech, and Correlated Votes”, American Journal of Political Science , 36(3): 617–634. doi:10.2307/2111584
• Lai, Ten-Herng., 2019, “Justifying Uncivil Disobedience”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Volume 5 , David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 90–114. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198841425.003.0004
• Landa, Dimitri and Ryan Pevnick, 2020, “Representative Democracy as Defensible Epistocracy”, American Political Science Review , 114(1): 1–13. doi:10.1017/S0003055419000509
• Landemore, Hélène, 2013, Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Layne, Christopher, 1994, “Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace”, International Security , 19(2): 5–49. doi:10.2307/2539195
• Levy, Jack S. and William R. Thompson, 2010, Causes of War , Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.
• List, Christian, 2013, “Social Choice Theory”, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/social-choice/ >
• List, Christian and Robert E. Goodin, 2001, “Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 9(3): 277–306. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00128
• Locke, John, 1690, Second Treatise on Civil Government , London; reprinted C.B. MacPherson (ed.), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1980.
• Lord, Charles G., Lee Ross, and Mark R. Lepper, 1979, “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37(11): 2098–2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
• Lupia Arthur and Matthew D. McCubbins, 1998, The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need To Know? , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mackie, Gerry, 2003, Democracy Defended , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490293
• Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, 1787–1788, The Federalist Papers , New York; reprinted Isaac Kramnick (ed.), Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1987. [ Federalist Papers available online ]
• Mansbridge, Jane J. (ed.), 1990, Beyond Self-Interest , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung, John Parkinson, Dennis F. Thompson, and Mark E. Warren, 2012, “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy”, in Parkinson and Mansbridge2003: 1–26. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139178914.002
• Markovits, Daniel, 2005, “Democratic Disobedience”, Yale Law Journal , 114(8): 1897–1952.
• Maskivker, Julia, 2019, The Duty to Vote , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190066062.001.0001
• May, Simon Cabulea, 2005, “Principled Compromise and the Abortion Controversy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 33(4): 317–348. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00035.x
• Mill, John Stuart, 1861 [1991], Considerations on Representative Government , London: Parker, Son, and Bourn; reprinted Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991.
• Miller, David, 1995, On Nationality , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• Page, Scott E., 2007, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Parfit, Derek, 1984, Reasons and Persons , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019824908X.001.0001
• Parkinson, John and Jane Mansbridge (eds.), 2012, Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139178914
• Pasternak, Avia, 2018, “Political Rioting: A Moral Assessment”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 46(4): 384–418. doi:10.1111/papa.12132
• Peter, Fabienne, 2008, “Pure Epistemic Proceduralism”, Episteme , 5(1): 33–55. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000221
• –––, 2009, Democratic Legitimacy , New York: Routledge.
• Pevnick, Ryan, 2020, “The Failure of Instrumental Arguments for a Human Right to Democracy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 28(1): 27–50. doi:10.1111/jopp.12197
• Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, 1967, The Concept of Representation , Berkeley, CA: University of California.
• Plato, The Republic , revised/trans. by Lee, D., Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1974, 2 nd edition.
• Quirk, Paul J., 2014, “Making It up on Volume: Are Larger Groups Really Smarter?”, Critical Review , 26(1–2): 129–150. doi:10.1080/08913811.2014.907046
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2005, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press, expanded edition.
• Ray, James Lee, 1995, Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition , Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
• Raz, Joseph, 1979, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Riker, William H., 1982, Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice , San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
• Rosenblum, Nancy L., 2008, On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Rousseau, David L., Christopher Gelpi, Dan Reiter, and Paul K. Huth, 1996, “Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918–88”, American Political Science Review , 90(3): 512–533. doi:10.2307/2082606
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Du contrat social; ou Principes du droit politique , Amsterdam. Translated as The Social Contract , Charles Frankel (trans.), New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1947.
• Russett, Bruce M., 1993, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post–Cold War World , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Russett, Bruce M. and Harvey Starr, 2003, “From Democratic Peace to Kantian Peace: Democracy and Conflict in the International System”, in Handbook of War Studies II , Manus I. Midlarsky (ed.), Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 93–128.
• Sabl, Andrew, 2001, “Looking Forward to Justice: Rawlsian Civil Disobedience and Its Non-Rawlsian Lessons”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 9(3): 307–330. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00129
• Scheffler, Samuel, 2010, Equality and Tradition: Questions of Value in Moral and Political Theory , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1942 [1950], Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , New York: Harper and Row; second edition 1947; third edition 1950.
• Sen, Amartya, 1999, Development as Freedom , New York: Knopf.
• Simmons, A. John, 2001, Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511625152
• –––, 2007, Political Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Singer, Peter, 1973, Democracy and Disobedience , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Smith, William, 2011, “Civil Disobedience and the Public Sphere”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 19(2): 145–166. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00365.x
• Somin, Ilya, 2013, Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Song, Sarah, 2012, “The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: Why the Demos Should Be Bounded by the State”, International Theory , 4(1): 39–68. doi:10.1017/S1752971911000248
• Stilz, Anna, 2009, Liberal Loyalty: Freedom, Obligation, and the State , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2016, “The Value of Self-Determination”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Volume 2 , David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 8. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759621.003.0005
• Thompson, Abigail, 2014, “Does Diversity Trump Ability?” Notices of the AMS , 61(9): 1024–1030. [ Thompson 2014 available online ]
• Valentini, Laura, 2013, “Justice, Disagreement and Democracy”, British Journal of Political Science , 43(1): 177–199. doi:10.1017/S0007123412000294
• Viehoff, Daniel, 2014, “Democratic Equality and Political Authority”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 42(4): 337–375. doi:10.1111/papa.12036
• Waldron, Jeremy, 1995, “The Wisdom of the Multitude: Some Reflections on Book 3, Chapter 11 of Aristotle’s Politics ”, Political Theory , 23(4): 563–584. doi:10.1177/0090591795023004001
• –––, 1999, Law and Disagreement , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Wall, Steven, 2007, “Democracy and Equality”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 57(228): 416–438. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.495.x
• Weart, Spencer R., 1998, Never at War: Why Democracies Will Never Fight One Another , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Wendt, Fabian, 2016, Compromise, Peace and Public Justification: Political Morality Beyond Justice , London: Palgrave Macmillon. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28877-2
• Weinstock, Daniel, 2013, “On the Possibility of Principled Moral Compromise”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 16(4): 537–556. doi:10.1080/13698230.2013.810392
• Whelan, Frederick G., 1983, “Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem”, Nomos 25: Liberal Democracy , J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds.), American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, 13–47.
• White, Jonathan and Lea Ypi, 2016, The Meaning of Partisanship , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684175.001.0001
• Williams, B., 1973, “A Critique of Utilitarianism”, in Utilitarianism: For and Against , with J.J.C. Smart, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wolff, Robert Paul, 1970, In Defense of Anarchism , New York, NY: Harper and Row.
• Wright, Gavin, 2013, Sharing the Prize: The Economics of the Civil Rights Revolution in the American South , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Young, Iris Marion, 1990, Justice and the Politics of Difference , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Zakaras, Alex, 2018, “Complicity and Coercion: Toward and Ethics of Political Participation”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 4), David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 8.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• [Please contact the author with suggestions]

authority | citizenship | civil disobedience | constitutionalism | egalitarianism | equality | Hobbes, Thomas | justice | justification, political: public | legitimacy, political | liberty: positive and negative | Locke, John | Mill, John Stuart | Plato | -->pluralism --> | political obligation | publicity | public reason | Rawls, John | representation, political | rights | Rousseau, Jean Jacques | rule of law and procedural fairness | voting

Copyright © 2022 by Tom Christiano < thomasc @ u . arizona . edu > Sameer Bajaj < sameer . bajaj1 @ gmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Aarhus University logo

Department of Political Science

The rise of modern democracy, sequences in comparative perspective.

The great problem of our time is the organisation and establishment of democracy (Alexis de Tocqueville [1835] Democracy in America) We are living in a golden age of democracy. Although sceptics continuously point out flaws in democratic practices around the world and direct attention to the many autocracies still in place, the world is, on average, more democratic than ever before (Hansen 2012). However, as recently as the French Revolution, democracy was a pejorative concept, and the institutions and practices in even the freest countries, England and the US, did not fulfill criteria associated with modern democracy. Just after World War I, the first heyday of modern democracy, the picture was fundamentally different. Significant change had taken place regarding the principles underlying modern democracies, i.e., free and regular elections, mass suffrage, executive accountability, and political liberties in the form of freedom of association and expression (Dahl 1971). Not only had these ideals jointly gained broad acceptance as the best form of government; they were also formally recognized in the constitutions of most countries in the West – and governments observed them in practice to a higher extent than previously (Bryce 1921; Kelsen 1920).

However, there all still important gaps in our knowledge about the intermediate steps of the so-called first wave of democratization. First, most previous studies of the early history of modern democracy have primarily been occupied with the changes in and differences between main understandings of democracy (e.g., Dunn 2005) rather than if citizens actually enjoyed the democratic rights in practice. Second, studies of single countries have dominated the literature (e.g., Friisberg 2007; Garrard 2001), meaning that comparative attempts to reveal more general patterns are lacking. Third, the few comparative studies have mostly taken an aggregate and rather crisp view of democracy. Based on this vantage point, researchers have tended to read history ”backwards”, and stepwise and asymmetric developments of subcomponents of democracy have not been adequately captured (Capoccia & Ziblatt 2010: 939-942; Ziblatt 2006).

Against this backdrop, I pose the following research questions: What were the dominant patterns of democratic sequencing during the first wave of democratization? In my attempt to answer these questions, I address each of the emphasized limitations. Hence, the book will have an explicit focus on de facto respect for democratic rights during the ‘long nineteenth century’ (here: 1789-1920) rather than merely de jure regulations or the history of democratic ideas. Moreover, the empirical overview and analyses will be based on a broad comparative perspective, covering all countries in Europe and the Americas. The results from the comparative analysis then inform the selection of a number of representative cases of different pathways for more in-depth scrutiny.

The current absence of fine-grained and systematic comparisons can be explained by the lack of comprehensive, disaggregated data. Yet, I have privileged early access to a new, detailed dataset on democratic institutions and practices for all sovereign and semi-sovereign countries from 1789 to 1920, which is being collected through the Historical Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project – an offspring on the prize-winning V-Dem project (see www.v-dem.net ). The dataset contains more than 200 indicators that cover into various aspects of states and political regimes. About half of these indicators are coded by country-experts specialized in political history, while the remaining data have been collected by project members or research assistants. This rich source facilitates the mapping and investigation of relatively nuanced changes in various subcomponents of democracy.

This research endeavor is a response to Ziblatt’s (2006: 333) call for a more detailed conceptualization and analysis of early processes of democratization. They were not characterized by synchronized transformations, where all features of democracy were simultaneously introduced in a peaceful manner (Berman 2007; Collier 1999). Rather than moving in lockstep, different aspects of democracy historically replaced autocratic procedures in different speeds and at different times – and the sequence differed between countries. To illustrate, Denmark abruptly introduced relatively broad manhood suffrage and political liberties in 1849, while the struggle over executive accountability to the parliament continued until 1901 and was not settled until after the Easter Crisis in 1920. In contrast, the UK experienced a more gradual increase in respect for political liberties and enfranchisement, while in Colombia universal manhood suffrage and elections for the executive and legislative bodies were frequently interrupted – and when on track, they were mostly combined with a flagrant discrepancy between formal regulations and the actual practices regarding election quality and civil liberties.

To systematize the study of such differences in political regime types and changes, it is important to identify the core attributes of modern democracy. I therefore anchor my understanding in Dahl’s (1971) seminal definition of polyarchy (his term for ‘real-existing’ democracies) as the combination of inclusive citizenship, elected officials, free and fair elections, associational autonomy, and freedom of expression. The fulfillment of these criteria will be analyzed from a disaggregate perspective using the comparative sequential method, i.e., a systematic comparison of several historical sequences that combines cross-case analysis of patterns and within-case analysis of processes (see Falleti & Mahoney 2015). In doing so, I follow Ziblatt’s (2006: 334) advice to focus on “the range of combinations of reform and safeguards that occurred during episodes normally described as democratic”. This could be the expansion of voting rights, increased powers to the parliament to hold the executive accountable, or the lifting of censorship regulations or bans on opposition parties.

The project is based on the expectation that, historically, the different attributes of democracy have often been created sequentially and that the combinations were often nationally distinctive due to some degree of functional equivalence because the ruling coalition can try to keep the opposition/masses from political power in different ways. However, for a number of reasons, the regime types were likely to cluster in a rather limited number of configurations. First, similarities in the underlying conditions, such as state-building (Ertman 1997) or the distribution of power resources between the social classes (Rueschemeyer et al. 1992), tend the limit the diversity. Also, interdependence between subcomponents of democracy could reduce the variation in trajectories since improvements in one area, say, freedom of expression media, could be translated into improvements in others (such as clean elections) by putting controversial issues on the agenda, allowing oppositional voices to be heard, and promoting accountability and transparency. Finally, the functional logic of other institutions also would reduce the variation. For example, the problem of executive accountability was in some respects particular to monarchies (Przeworski et al. 2012), and countries characterized by strong traditions of rule of law were not likely to experience much electoral fraud or violations of political liberties (Maravall 1999).

We should expect these systematic patterns in the sequencing of free elections, executive accountability, and liberal rights to matterd for subsequent democratic stability. More particularly, I propose that limitations in suffrage and executive accountability in the context of free elections created a situation where the political elites learned to live with and increasingly accept democratic procedures. In contrast, where democratization was more sudden and concerned all dimensions or where fraud from the beginning undermined the quality of elections, this habituation did not happen, meaning that the democratic institutions were continuously contested and free elections got interrupted by coups and backlashes. 

Project leader

Svend-Erik   Skaaning

A Powerful Model to Strengthen U.S. Democracy

I n a famous passage, the 19th-century French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville proposed a link between the love of material gratification and the loss of political freedom. Taking Americans as one instance of a general point, he wrote: “It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. The discharge of political duties appears to them to be a troublesome impediment which diverts them from their occupations and business.”

When most people become “engrossed by private concerns,” he argued, it’s common to see a multitude represented by a tiny minority who “speak in the name of an absent or inattentive crowd.” Only later, after these few become tyrannical and capricious, changing laws and manners, do people “wonder to see into how small a number of weak and worthless hands a great people may fall…”

Many cabals of powerful elites have recently been proposed as the owners of the “weak and worthless hands” that rule American politics: tech executives, financiers, executives at Fox News, editors at the New York Times, and basically every member of the House and Senate, to name just a few. Such claims have varying degrees of plausibility, but Tocqueville’s analysis encourages a more self-critical question: does our own absorption in private affairs also enable the political misdeeds of the few?

Ordinary citizens who neglect the political are not as guilty of undermining democracy as plutocrats who fund and control legislators. But Tocqueville’s argument does suggest that transcending our political morass will require not just curtailing the extreme power of a few special interests, but also a broader transformation of our own political habits and sensibilities, so that more of us dwell less on private affairs at the expense of public ones. 

It's easy to find signs of American disengagement from the public sphere. Though voting-age population turnout surged in the 2020 election, it remains below levels in dozens of other countries with developed economies and democratic traditions. A 2022 survey of young Americans found that “few are excited to join the government themselves…signing a petition was more likely to be viewed as impactful than working in government.” Even people earning graduate degrees in public policy have become less likely to take government jobs. 

It’s also easy to find commencement speeches, t-shirts, yard signs, tweets, and op-eds decrying these trends and proclaiming some variation on the theme that democracy is not a spectator sport. If democratic engagement consisted only of signaling one’s views via yard signs, T-shirts, and social media posts, America would have a strong and healthy political culture. In reality, measures of partisan antipathy have more than doubled in the last 30 years, with significant numbers of both Democrats and Republicans perceiving the views of the opposing party as “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.” Those most involved in the political process are also the most politically polarized.

In short, not enough people are engaging in the political sphere in functional and healthy ways, and many of those most engaged become most polarized. 

Changing this state of affairs would require giving more people a greater number of meaningful ways to engage in democratic deliberation without further polarizing them. Rather than designing such a system from scratch, it's useful to explore effective models that already exist and ask what makes them work. Two in particular merit close attention: participatory budgeting and worker-owned cooperatives. At their best, both structures, one in the public sector and one in the private, can function as schools of democratic engagement, building essential civic habits and skills. 

Since it began in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre in 1989, participatory budgeting has been implemented in some form in thousands of cities around the world. The basic premise is simple: people’s tax dollars are the source of much public funding, so they should also get a direct say over how public budgets are spent. In reality, most participatory budgeting programs are quite limited. Few people participate, the budget over which they have influence is small, and the types of projects they can implement are highly restricted. 

In some places, however, the model’s full potential can be seen. One of these is Cascais, a city of just over 200,000 people near Lisbon, Portugal. Since launching participatory budgeting in 2011, the city has spent tens of millions of euros through the process. Ordinary people in Cascais have proposed, campaigned for, and voted on a huge range of projects, from new engines for firefighters to skate parks for teenagers. Unlike in many other cities, roughly 15% of the annual investment budget is allocated through the process, and voter turnout is exceptionally high. One year, more people voted in the participatory budget process than in the city elections. Direct democracy, when done right, is very popular.

Cascais also offers some nuanced lessons on that crucial caveat "when done right." One key feature is that people proposing ideas must appear in person at public sessions and sit with other residents, trying to persuade them why a certain project or program is valuable. Skilled moderators keep these conversations focused and civil, clever voting rules encourage people to form broad coalitions, not just support their own projects, and an efficient staff vets ideas for feasibility and executes winning ones swiftly, so that people trust the process. There's also an extensive PB program in public schools.

Worker-owned cooperatives also show the power of direct democratic models. In their most expansive forms, workers vote directly on matters of compensation, culture, and strategy, shaping the nature and profitability of their workplace. The pay ratios between senior leadership and entry-level workers at such businesses tend to be much smaller than at conventional ones. Thousands of such businesses already exist around the world, suggesting that they are not invariably at a competitive disadvantage. Indeed, some research suggests that they are more competitive; workers who share in economic upside and enjoy genuine influence can be quite motivated.

Extending democratic principles into the workplace lets businesses more closely embody fundamental, cross-cultural human perceptions about fairness. In one fascinating study, researchers asked people in various countries what they thought the compensation gap between executives and workers was and what they thought it should be. The numbers varied by country, but a pattern emerged: people typically guessed the ratio was smaller than it really is, and they thought that it should be even smaller than their estimates. In America, for instance, people estimated that the ratio was 30:1, whereas it’s actually over 300:1. Their ideal ratio was 7:1. This suggests a rarely appreciated way to limit exploding wealth inequality: give workers direct say over how much they and others at their companies get paid.

A final benefit of both participatory budgeting and worker ownership is their bipartisan appeal. The mayor of Cascais is from a conservative political party. Worker ownership models such as ESOPs – employee stock ownership programs – have also won support from a broad range of Republican and Democratic senators alike.

Tocqueville’s remedy for the disturbing dynamic he identified was education: “the time is fast approaching when freedom, public peace, and social order itself will not be able to exist without education.” The places where we work and live are also sites of education: running cities, neighborhoods, businesses, and companies according to the principles of direct democracy would convert more of the world into just the schools of civics we desperately need.

More Must-Reads From TIME

• Exclusive: Google Workers Revolt Over $1.2 Billion Contract With Israel
• Jane Fonda Champions Climate Action for Every Generation
• Stop Looking for Your Forever Home
• The Sympathizer Counters 50 Years of Hollywood Vietnam War Narratives
• The Bliss of Seeing the Eclipse From Cleveland
• Hormonal Birth Control Doesn’t Deserve Its Bad Reputation
• The Best TV Shows to Watch on Peacock
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

You May Also Like

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

Philosophical Perspectives on Democracy in the 21st Century

Ann E. Cudd and Sally J. Scholz (eds.),  Philosophical Perspectives on Democracy in the 21st Century , Springer, 2014, 246pp., $129.00 (hbk), ISBN 9783319023113.

Reviewed by James Gledhill, The University of Hong Kong

The focus of this volume is both narrower and broader than its title might suggest. Originating from the 2012 conference of the American Section of the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (AMINTAPHIL), it is predominantly concerned with the current state of democracy in America. And while a number of the chapters take up core philosophical debates in democratic theory, the broad range of perspectives on offer also derive from law and political science, continuing the approach of the AMINTAPHIL book series on the philosophical foundations of law and justice, of which this is the fifth volume.

In their introduction, the editors reflect on how global movements such as Occupy and the Arab Spring illustrate the continued capacity of the ideals of democracy to inspire mass political action, as well as the new forms this takes with the aid of social media. At the same time, the polarization of American politics and debates over the influence of big money, epitomized by the controversy over the 2010 United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, show the pressing challenges to the vitality of democracy.

The volume as a whole does not quite deliver on this aspiration for a global perspective, although there are some notable exceptions. The Occupy movement receives no further attention, and the Arab Spring only two brief discussions, whereas the Citizens United ruling is the focus of two chapters. Assessed on its own terms, though, this volume succeeds in offering a stimulating array of reflections on perennial philosophical debates and contemporary political challenges while maintaining a high degree of thematic coherence. The sixteen chapters are divided into four parts: The Meaning of Democracy; The Current Polarization; Democracy, Capitalism, and the Influence of Big Money; and Democratic Decisions and the (Un)Informed Public. In the following I will focus on the themes that emerge from these four parts.

Two of the chapters on the meaning of democracy are concerned with the relationship between the general and the particular. In 'Democracy as a Social Myth', Richard De George employs Lévi-Strauss's idea of a social myth in order to argue for the conclusion that 'We should not expect all democracies to be like American democracy, nor expect that [democracy] can be justified in an ultimate rather than a presumptive sense' (53). The meaning of democracy derives from its relationship to other concepts and values, and we should not expect or desire that the demands people make for their voices to be heard will necessarily result in the development of a liberal model of democracy. Lévi-Strauss's idea of a social myth is not explored in detail, and the idea of a social imaginary might equally do the desired work without the negative connotations, for the overall message is one of circumspection in seeking to fix the meaning of democracy rather than outright skepticism. Nevertheless, in advocating greater attention to historical and cultural variation, and to popular discourse, De George offers a welcome warning against parochialism.

The issue with which Rex Martin deals in 'Rights and the American Constitution: The Issue of Judicial Review and Its Compatibility with Democracy' is a perennial topic of legal and political philosophy, but in brief compass Martin shows how placing the issue in historical and comparative perspective can yield fresh insights. Based on an historical overview of the democratization of American political institutions, Martin argues that majoritarian democracy, being based on respecting the interests of each and all, demands the priority of basic constitutional rights. The issue of the compatibility of judicial review with democracy is harder. While a successful justification can be given for judicial review at the level of ideal normative theory, a practical political justification is another matter. Pointing to the different ways in which judicial review has developed around the world, Martin suggests that the democratic credentials of the US Supreme Court would be improved if there were a practice of justices retiring at age seventy and of the court showing restraint when it comes to applying ambiguous phrases such as the 'equal protection' or 'due process', clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the other chapter in this section, 'Democracy: A Paradox of Rights?', Emily Gill mounts a critique of Corey Brettschneider's theory of value democracy, according to which a state is only fully democratic if it not only protects rights of free association, expression, and conscience, but also promotes the values of self-government that underlie these rights amongst civil society. While not disputing the goal of free and equal citizenship, Gill objects to the means that Brettschneider recommends, arguing that he places excessive faith in the state using its persuasive capacities responsibly and misidentifies the fundamental problem, which is not what organizations believe but how they act.

Part II turns to the challenges of democracy under conditions of political polarization. In 'The Problem of Democracy in the Context of Polarization', Imer Flores sets out a framework for understanding polarization and when it is threatening to democracy. The difficulty of reaching consensus should not lead us to settle for a majoritarian conception of democracy, he argues, for this will force a dichotomous choice between either ignoring or overcoming polarization. By facing polarization head on, it can be made a resource for democratic deliberation that is potentially productive rather than destructive of democracy.

Stephen Nathanson focuses on 'Political Polarization and the Markets vs. Government Debate'. His argument is that polarization is exacerbated by the lack of an adequate conceptual framework for understanding the spectrum of ways in which markets and government can be combined in systems of property ownership, production, and allocation that lie between the extremes of anarcho-capitalism and state socialism. Nathanson sets out a typology of political systems of a kind familiar in philosophical discussions, but which could be valuable in encouraging more sophisticated and fine-grained political debate. The most striking aspect of his analysis, however, is the way he points to the disjunction between American capitalist ideology and the reality of welfare state institutions. In short, Americans 'live in a welfare state but do not know what it is' (60).

Richard Barron Parker labels the 'Two Visions of Democracy' with which he is concerned 'Type A' and 'Type B' democracy. Type A is a Lockean vision of democracy as a voluntary political association of self-governing individuals based on the principle of political equality. Type B is a more Rousseauian vision of democracy as founded on a national community of which the individual is a constituent par. On Parker's view, this is based on a principle of social and economic equality rather than political equality. A distinction such as that drawn by De George in the essay discussed above between popular, political, and philosophical strands of discourse about democracy might have helped to clarify Parker's argument. While common cultural nationality might have been, and might remain, important for Type B democracy at the popular level, at the philosophical level it could be argued that there is no necessary connection. Social and economic equality has been advocated as a corollary of real political equality. This is far from abandoning self-government for good government and succumbing to the embrace of paternalism, as Parker suggests.

In 'Proportional Representation, the Single Transferable Vote, and Electoral Pragmatism', Richard Nunan argues that electoral systems play an import role in shaping and potentially overcoming political polarization. Placing the debate between first-past-the-post systems and proportional representation in a broad theoretical perspective, he argues that the vision of voters as narrowly self-interested, proposed by elite theorists of democracy like Joseph Schumpeter and Richard Posner, is plausible only when one assumes a single-member district plurality electoral system such as that of the United States. Moving to a proportional system, on the other hand, particularly the single transferable vote, has the potential to help realize J. S. Mill's vision of a deliberative representative democracy. Nunan's point about the formative role of electoral systems remains important, even if one might question his optimism regarding the possible benefits of their reform.

Of the chapters in Part III on Democracy, Capitalism, and the Influence of Big Money, Alistair Macleod's contribution, 'Democracy and Economic Inequality', offers the broadest perspective. Macleod provides a helpful overview of the different ways in which money can distort democracy. This includes strategies for restricting the franchise, strategies for the manipulation of electoral processes, and strategies for undermining the background conditions required for true democracy. When it comes to the last of these, Macleod focuses on how the structure of the electoral system can benefit economic elites not only through tolerance of gerrymandering, but also -- echoing Nunan's argument -- through acceptance of the first-past-the-post electoral system.

Two essays in this section focus on the work of John Rawls. In posing the question 'Is Justice Possible Under Welfare State Capitalism?' Steven Lee contributes to a growing literature on Rawls's rejection of welfare state capitalism in favor of property-owning democracy. Lee takes issue with Rawls's negative answer to his titular question. He argues that Rawls's criticisms target only contingent rather than necessary features of welfare state capitalism, such that the Rawlsian conception of justice as fairness might be achieved through reform of the welfare state. Furthermore, he claims that property-owning democracy is not a coherent or feasible alternative. The first point seems the less salient; Rawls's model of welfare state capitalism plays the role of an ideal type in his argument, after all. But the question of whether property-owning democracy represents a desirable and stable hybrid of capitalism and socialism is an important one.

Mark Navin makes original and stimulating use of Rawls's work in 'Rawls on Inequality, Social Segregation and Democracy'. He first reconstructs Rawls's distinction between the antisocial vice of envy and the non-vicious and potentially virtuous feeling of resentment that is an appropriate response to injustice. Navin then analyses Rawls's idea that the voluntary social segregation that occurs when citizens' energies are directed towards the private associations of civil society will reduce envy. His conclusion is that while this might be a desirable result at the level of ideal theory, it is problematic at the level of non-ideal theory as it will also inhibit the formation of justified resentment and reinforce complacency about inequality.

The remaining two essays in this section are focused on the issues raised by the 2010 Citizens United decision. F. Patrick Hubbard's conclusion is qualified. In 'Mass Democracy in a Postfactual Market Society: Citizens United and the Role of Corporate Political Speech', he suggests that the Supreme Court's ruling was not necessarily incorrect and that the impact of corporate political speech has been exaggerated. Moreover, other avenues are available for limiting the impact of money on politics.

Jonathan Schonsheck's argument, by contrast, is vehement, as its title makes clear: 'A Tsunami of Filthy Lucre: How the Decisions of the SCOTUS Imperil American Democracy'. For Schonsheck, the court's decision, based upon a 'primitive' originalist theory of constitutional interpretation, is the latest in a long line of decisions that have led to the replacement of democracy by a 'representative plutocracy'.

The final section provides empirical and theoretical perspectives on Democratic Decisions and the (Un)Informed Public. In 'Motivated Reasoning, Group Identification, and Representative Democracy', Kenneth Henley offers an overview of research in social psychology which suggests that reasoning in politics often takes the form of trying to justify prior beliefs rather than engage in real dialogue, and that this tendency is heighted by group identification. After surveying the positions of Rawls and Habermas, he concludes that there is a general tendency to 'naively rely upon reason to correct the defects caused by our emotion and our social conditioning' (222). One might question the extent to which such positions rest upon a naïve rationalist faith, however. Seeking to describe and develop our capacity to make public use of our reason might be important precisely because doing so is the exception rather than the rule, requiring favorable conditions that are easily undermined.

Russell Waltz considers similar issues, but with a focus on the role of 'Journalists as Purveyors of Partial Truths'. The ideal of deliberative democracy demands an informed citizenry, and this is threatened when journalists focus on personal narratives rather than placing events in a broader social, political and historical context, he argues. Illustrating this point with reference to two different ways in which the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting was covered in the media, this essay provides a useful basis for discussing issues of journalism and objectivity.

In 'Republics, Passions and Protests', Wade Robison takes up longstanding concerns about the contagious spread of civic passions and how they are affected by new technology that allows news and ideas to go viral in minutes. Questioning the skepticism of those such as Malcolm Gladwell, who argue that revolutions 'will not be tweeted', Robison argues that events like the Arab Spring show how social media has empowered citizens, often for good as well as ill.

In one of the standout chapters of the volume, Jason Brennan disputes the claim that epistocracy is incompatible with the liberal principle of legitimacy that is central to political liberalism. As the title of his chapter puts it, we can have 'Epistocracy Within Public Reason'. Epistocracy is the idea that experts should rule on the basis of their greater moral and social scientific knowledge. The liberal principle of legitimacy states that the coercive political power of the state must be justified in a way that all reasonable citizens can endorse as free and equal. Is epistocracy compatible with liberal legitimacy? According to the 'controversial expertise argument', reasonable people could reasonably disagree about what counts as expertise. Given such reasonable objections, epistocracy violates the liberal principle of legitimacy. However, Brennan disputes the inference from the fact that any concrete instantiation of epistocracy is controversial to the conclusion that epistocracy per se is unjustified. Rather, what is required is a good umpire, a democratic method for determining an authoritative standard of political competence, whether this takes the form of a referendum, the decision of an elected council, or a deliberative poll. In short, 'Democracies may authorize an epistocracy, provided they retain democratic control over the legal interpretation of political competence' (203).

On a weak reading of Brenann's argument, one might wonder whether what he has defended is really epistocracy. Political liberals are most plausibly interpreted as arguing against allocating fundamental political power to experts, not against the recognition of expertise in domains over which the people retain democratic control. But, building upon his prior work on the right to a competent electorate, a strong reading is suggested by Brennan's claim that if democracy is competent to establish a standard of political competence, then it would be consistent with the liberal principle of legitimacy to 'use that conception to decide who is allowed to vote'. Here, though, it might be argued that one could not 'democratically' disenfranchise some members of a democratic society. At the level of principle, to do so would be to undermine the equal status of all citizens when it comes to determining the ground rules of their association, and, furthermore, in practice it would remove a key safeguard for ensuring that it is the 'the people' collectively rather than some portion of them who retain control. Despite some ambiguity about the implications of its argument, though, Brennan's chapter stands out as a rigorous, self-contained and original contribution that merits further discussion.

These essays are uniformly thought provoking and well written. The chapters are short, averaging fewer than 15 pages, and while this does mean that they are easily digestible, they sometimes offer tantalizing tastes of arguments developed in more detail elsewhere, or make bold claims that are not substantiated as fully as one might expect. A number are more focused on surveying existing literature than developing new lines of argument. Overall, though, the volume as a whole is more than the sum of its parts. It will be welcomed by anyone looking for an overview of current debates at the intersection of philosophy, law and political science about the problems and prospects of democracy under the conditions of contemporary capitalism.

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Democracy in 100, 300 and 500 Words

• Updated on  
• Jan 15, 2024

The oldest account of democracy can be traced back to 508–507 BCC Athens . Today there are over 50 different types of democracy across the world. But, what is the ideal form of democracy? Why is democracy considered the epitome of freedom and rights around the globe? Let’s explore what self-governance is and how you can write a creative and informative essay on democracy and its significance. 

Today, India is the largest democracy with a population of 1.41 billion and counting. Everyone in India above the age of 18 is given the right to vote and elect their representative. Isn’t it beautiful, when people are given the option to vote for their leader, one that understands their problems and promises to end their miseries? This is just one feature of democracy , for we have a lot of samples for you in the essay on democracy. Stay tuned!

Can you answer these questions in under 5 minutes? Take the Ultimate GK Quiz to find out!

This Blog Includes:

What is democracy , sample essay on democracy (100 words), sample essay on democracy (250 to 300 words), sample essay on democracy for upsc (500 words).

Democracy is a form of government in which the final authority to deliberate and decide the legislation for the country lies with the people, either directly or through representatives. Within a democracy, the method of decision-making, and the demarcation of citizens vary among countries. However, some fundamental principles of democracy include the rule of law, inclusivity, political deliberations, voting via elections , etc. 

Did you know: On 15th August 1947, India became the world’s largest democracy after adopting the Indian Constitution and granting fundamental rights to its citizens?

Must Explore: Human Rights Courses for Students 

Must Explore: NCERT Notes on Separation of Powers in a Democracy

Democracy where people make decisions for the country is the only known form of governance in the world that promises to inculcate principles of equality, liberty and justice. The deliberations and negotiations to form policies and make decisions for the country are the basis on which the government works, with supreme power to people to choose their representatives, delegate the country’s matters and express their dissent. The democratic system is usually of two types, the presidential system, and the parliamentary system. In India, the three pillars of democracy, namely legislature, executive and judiciary, working independently and still interconnected, along with a free press and media provide a structure for a truly functional democracy. Despite the longest-written constitution incorporating values of sovereignty, socialism, secularism etc. India, like other countries, still faces challenges like corruption, bigotry, and oppression of certain communities and thus, struggles to stay true to its democratic ideals.

Did you know: Some of the richest countries in the world are democracies?

Must Read : Consumer Rights in India

Must Read: Democracy and Diversity Class 10

As Abraham Lincoln once said, “democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people.” There is undeniably no doubt that the core of democracies lies in making people the ultimate decision-makers. With time, the simple definition of democracy has evolved to include other principles like equality, political accountability, rights of the citizens and to an extent, values of liberty and justice. Across the globe, representative democracies are widely prevalent, however, there is a major variation in how democracies are practised. The major two types of representative democracy are presidential and parliamentary forms of democracy. Moreover, not all those who present themselves as a democratic republic follow its values.

Many countries have legally deprived some communities of living with dignity and protecting their liberty, or are practising authoritarian rule through majoritarianism or populist leaders. Despite this, one of the things that are central and basic to all is the practice of elections and voting. However, even in such a case, the principles of universal adult franchise and the practice of free and fair elections are theoretically essential but very limited in practice, for a democracy. Unlike several other nations, India is still, at least constitutionally and principally, a practitioner of an ideal democracy.

With our three organs of the government, namely legislative, executive and judiciary, the constitutional rights to citizens, a multiparty system, laws to curb discrimination and spread the virtues of equality, protection to minorities, and a space for people to discuss, debate and dissent, India has shown a commitment towards democratic values. In recent times, with challenges to freedom of speech, rights of minority groups and a conundrum between the protection of diversity and unification of the country, the debate about the preservation of democracy has become vital to public discussion.

Did you know: In countries like Brazil, Scotland, Switzerland, Argentina, and Austria the minimum voting age is 16 years?

Also Read: Difference Between Democracy and Dictatorship

Democracy originated from the Greek word dēmokratiā , with dēmos ‘people’ and Kratos ‘rule.’ For the first time, the term appeared in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Classical Athens, to mean “rule of the people.” It now refers to a form of governance where the people have the right to participate in the decision-making of the country. Majorly, it is either a direct democracy where citizens deliberate and make legislation while in a representative democracy, they choose government officials on their behalf, like in a parliamentary or presidential democracy.

The presidential system (like in the USA) has the President as the head of the country and the government, while the parliamentary system (like in the UK and India) has both a Prime Minister who derives its legitimacy from a parliament and even a nominal head like a monarch or a President.

The notions and principle frameworks of democracy have evolved with time. At the core, lies the idea of political discussions and negotiations. In contrast to its alternatives like monarchy, anarchy, oligarchy etc., it is the one with the most liberty to incorporate diversity. The ideas of equality, political representation to all, active public participation, the inclusion of dissent, and most importantly, the authority to the law by all make it an attractive option for citizens to prefer, and countries to follow.

The largest democracy in the world, India with the lengthiest constitution has tried and to an extent, successfully achieved incorporating the framework to be a functional democracy. It is a parliamentary democratic republic where the President is head of the state and the Prime minister is head of the government. It works on the functioning of three bodies, namely legislative, executive, and judiciary. By including the principles of a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic, and undertaking the guidelines to establish equality, liberty and justice, in the preamble itself, India shows true dedication to achieving the ideal.

It has formed a structure that allows people to enjoy their rights, fight against discrimination or any other form of suppression, and protect their rights as well. The ban on all and any form of discrimination, an independent judiciary, governmental accountability to its citizens, freedom of media and press, and secular values are some common values shared by all types of democracies.

Across the world, countries have tried rooting their constitution with the principles of democracy. However, the reality is different. Even though elections are conducted everywhere, mostly, they lack freedom of choice and fairness. Even in the world’s greatest democracies, there are challenges like political instability, suppression of dissent, corruption , and power dynamics polluting the political sphere and making it unjust for the citizens. Despite the consensus on democracy as the best form of government, the journey to achieve true democracy is both painstaking and tiresome. 

Did you know: Countries like Singapore, Peru, and Brazil have compulsory voting?

Must Read: Democracy and Diversity Class 10 Notes

Democracy is a process through which the government of a country is elected by and for the people.

Yes, India is a democratic country and also holds the title of the world’s largest democracy.

Direct and Representative Democracy are the two major types of Democracy.

Related Articles

Hope you learned from our essay on democracy! For more exciting articles related to writing and education, follow Leverage Edu .

Sonal is a creative, enthusiastic writer and editor who has worked extensively for the Study Abroad domain. She splits her time between shooting fun insta reels and learning new tools for content marketing. If she is missing from her desk, you can find her with a group of people cracking silly jokes or petting neighbourhood dogs.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Very helpful essay

Thanks for your valuable feedback

Thank you so much for informing this much about democracy

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Economic Equality and Direct Democracy in Ancient Athens pp 76–83 Cite as

Conclusion: The Key Lesson for Contemporary Democracy

• Larry Patriquin  

199 Accesses

The Conclusion summarizes the argument that Athenians had to engage in a successful “economic struggle” in order to establish democracy. The chapter ends by noting that a similar struggle on the “material plane” is crucial today if we are to move beyond forms of public decision-making that disproportionately benefit society’s elite. The last few pages sketch out a strategy for action that draws on the Athenian experience, suggesting that any effective change must begin with fundamental alterations to the institutions of contemporary democracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2015 Larry Patriquin

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Patriquin, L. (2015). Conclusion: The Key Lesson for Contemporary Democracy. In: Economic Equality and Direct Democracy in Ancient Athens. Palgrave Pivot, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137503480_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137503480_7

Publisher Name : Palgrave Pivot, New York

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-50573-9

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-50348-0

eBook Packages : Palgrave Political Science Collection Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument

Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.

Dependent on a minority of the population to hold national power, Republicans such as Senator Mike Lee of Utah have taken to reminding the public that “we’re not a democracy.” It is quaint that so many Republicans, embracing a president who routinely tramples constitutional norms, have suddenly found their voice in pointing out that, formally, the country is a republic. There is some truth to this insistence. But it is mostly disingenuous. The Constitution was meant to foster a complex form of majority rule, not enable minority rule.

The founding generation was deeply skeptical of what it called “pure” democracy and defended the American experiment as “wholly republican.” To take this as a rejection of democracy misses how the idea of government by the people, including both a democracy and a republic, was understood when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. It misses, too, how we understand the idea of democracy today.

George Packer: Republicans are suddenly afraid of democracy

When founding thinkers such as James Madison spoke of democracy, they were usually referring to direct democracy, what Madison frequently labeled “pure” democracy. Madison made the distinction between a republic and a direct democracy exquisitely clear in “ Federalist No. 14 ”: “In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.” Both a democracy and a republic were popular forms of government: Each drew its legitimacy from the people and depended on rule by the people. The crucial difference was that a republic relied on representation, while in a “pure” democracy, the people represented themselves.

At the time of the founding, a narrow vision of the people prevailed. Black people were largely excluded from the terms of citizenship, and slavery was a reality, even when frowned upon, that existed alongside an insistence on self-government. What this generation considered either a democracy or a republic is troublesome to us insofar as it largely granted only white men the full rights of citizens, albeit with some exceptions. America could not be considered a truly popular government until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which commanded equal citizenship for Black Americans. Yet this triumph was rooted in the founding generation’s insistence on what we would come to call democracy.

The history of democracy as grasped by the Founders, drawn largely from the ancient world, revealed that overbearing majorities could all too easily lend themselves to mob rule, dominating minorities and trampling individual rights. Democracy was also susceptible to demagogues—men of “factious tempers” and “sinister designs,” as Madison put it in “Federalist No. 10”—who relied on “vicious arts” to betray the interests of the people. Madison nevertheless sought to defend popular government—the rule of the many—rather than retreat to the rule of the few.

American constitutional design can best be understood as an effort to establish a sober form of democracy. It did so by embracing representation, the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the protection of individual rights—all concepts that were unknown in the ancient world where democracy had earned its poor reputation.

In “Federalist No. 10” and “Federalist No. 51,” the seminal papers, Madison argued that a large republic with a diversity of interests capped by the separation of powers and checks and balances would help provide the solution to the ills of popular government. In a large and diverse society, populist passions are likely to dissipate, as no single group can easily dominate. If such intemperate passions come from a minority of the population, the “ republican principle ,” by which Madison meant majority rule , will allow the defeat of “ sinister views by regular vote .” More problematic are passionate groups that come together as a majority. The large republic with a diversity of interests makes this unlikely, particularly when its separation of powers works to filter and tame such passions by incentivizing the development of complex democratic majorities : “In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.” Madison had previewed this argument at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 using the term democracy , arguing that a diversity of interests was “the only defense against the inconveniences of democracy consistent with the democratic form of government.”

Jeffrey Rosen: America is living James Madison’s nightmare

Yet while dependent on the people, the Constitution did not embrace simple majoritarian democracy. The states, with unequal populations, got equal representation in the Senate. The Electoral College also gave the states weight as states in selecting the president. But the centrality of states, a concession to political reality, was balanced by the House of Representatives, where the principle of representation by population prevailed, and which would make up the overwhelming number of electoral votes when selecting a president.

But none of this justified minority rule, which was at odds with the “republican principle.” Madison’s design remained one of popular government precisely because it would require the building of political majorities over time. As Madison argued in “ Federalist No. 63, ” “The cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers.”

Alexander Hamilton, one of Madison’s co-authors of The Federalist Papers , echoed this argument. Hamilton made the case for popular government and even called it democracy: “A representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.”

The American experiment, as advanced by Hamilton and Madison, sought to redeem the cause of popular government against its checkered history. Given the success of the experiment by the standards of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, we would come to use the term democracy as a stand-in for representative democracy, as distinct from direct democracy.

Consider that President Abraham Lincoln, facing a civil war, which he termed the great test of popular government, used constitutional republic and democracy synonymously, eloquently casting the American experiment as government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And whatever the complexities of American constitutional design, Lincoln insisted , “the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible.” Indeed, Lincoln offered a definition of popular government that can guide our understanding of a democracy—or a republic—today: “A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks, and limitations, and always changing easily, with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.”

The greatest shortcoming of the American experiment was its limited vision of the people, which excluded Black people, women, and others from meaningful citizenship, diminishing popular government’s cause. According to Lincoln, extending meaningful citizenship so that “all should have an equal chance” was the basis on which the country could be “saved.” The expansion of we the people was behind the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments ratified in the wake of the Civil War. The Fourteenth recognized that all persons born in the U.S. were citizens of the country and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Fifteenth secured the vote for Black men. Subsequent amendments, the Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth, granted women the right to vote, prohibited poll taxes in national elections, and lowered the voting age to 18. Progress has been slow— and s ometimes halted, as is evident from current efforts to limit voting rights —and the country has struggled to become the democratic republic first set in motion two centuries ago. At the same time, it has also sought to find the right republican constraints on the evolving body of citizens, so that majority rule—but not factious tempers—can prevail.

Adam Serwer: The Supreme Court is helping Republicans rig elections

Perhaps the most significant stumbling block has been the states themselves. In the 1790 census, taken shortly after the Constitution was ratified, America’s largest state, Virginia, was roughly 13 times larger than its smallest state, Delaware. Today, California is roughly 78 times larger than Wyoming. This sort of disparity has deeply shaped the Senate, which gives a minority of the population a disproportionate influence on national policy choices. Similarly, in the Electoral College, small states get a disproportionate say on who becomes president. Each of California’s electoral votes is estimated to represent 700,000-plus people, while one of Wyoming’s speaks for just under 200,000 people.

Subsequent to 1988, the Republican presidential candidate has prevailed in the Electoral College in three out of seven elections, but won the popular vote only once (2004). If President Trump is reelected, it will almost certainly be because he once again prevailed in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. If this were to occur, he would be the only two-term president to never win a plurality of the popular vote. In 2020, Trump is the first candidate in American history to campaign for the presidency without making any effort to win the popular vote, appealing only to the people who will deliver him an Electoral College win. If the polls are any indication, more Americans may vote for Vice President Biden than have ever voted for a presidential candidate, and he could still lose the presidency. In the past, losing the popular vote while winning the Electoral College was rare. Given current trends, minority rule could become routine. Many Republicans are actively embracing this position with the insistence that we are, after all, a republic, not a democracy.

They have also dispensed with the notion of building democratic majorities to govern, making no effort on health care, immigration, or a crucial second round of economic relief in the face of COVID-19. Instead, revealing contempt for the democratic norms they insisted on when President Barack Obama sought to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat, Republicans in the Senate have brazenly wielded their power to entrench a Republican majority on the Supreme Court by rushing to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Senate Judiciary Committee vote to approve Barrett also illuminates the disparity in popular representation: The 12 Republican senators who voted to approve of Barrett’s nomination represented 9 million fewer people than the 10 Democratic senators who chose not to vote. Similarly, the 52 Republican senators who voted to confirm Barrett represented 17 million fewer people than the 48 senators who voted against her. And the Court Barrett is joining, made up of six Republican appointees (half of whom were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote) to three Democratic appointees, has been quite skeptical of voting rights—a severe blow to the “democracy” part of a democratic republic.  In 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder , the Court struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that allowed the federal government to preempt changes in voting regulations from states with a history of racial discrimination.

As Adam Serwer recently wrote in these pages , “ Shelby County ushered in a new era of experimentation among Republican politicians in restricting the electorate, often along racial lines.” Republicans are eager to shrink the electorate. Ostensibly seeking to prevent voting fraud, which studies have continually shown is a nonexistent problem, Republicans support efforts to make voting more difficult—especially for minorities, who do not tend to vote Republican. The Republican governor of Texas, in the midst of a pandemic when more people are voting by mail, limited the number of drop-off locations for absentee ballots to one per county. Loving, with a population of 169, has one drop-off location; Harris, with a population of 4.7 million (majority nonwhite), also has one drop-off location. States controlled by Republicans, such as Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, have also closed polling places, making voters in predominantly minority communities stand in line for hours to cast their ballot.

Who counts as a full and equal citizen—as part of we the people —has shrunk in the Republican vision. Arguing against statehood for the District of Columbia, which has 200,000 more people than the state of Wyoming, Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas said Wyoming is entitled to representation because it is “a well-rounded working-class state.” It is also overwhelmingly white. In contrast, D.C. is 50 percent nonwhite.

High-minded claims that we are not a democracy surreptitiously fuse republic with minority rule rather than popular government. Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it. Routine minority rule is neither desirable nor sustainable, and makes it difficult to characterize the country as either a democracy or a republic. We should see this as a constitutional failure demanding constitutional reform.

This story is part of the project “ The Battle for the Constitution ,” in partnership with the National Constitution Center .

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

The Concept of Democracy: An Essay on Conceptual Amelioration and Abandonment

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

If we don’t know what the words “democracy” and “democratic” mean, then we don’t know what democracy is. This book defends a radical view: these words mean nothing and should be abandoned. The argument for abolitionism is simple: those terms are defective and we can easily do better, so let’s get rid of them. According to the abolitionist, the switch to alternative devices would be a significant communicative, cognitive, and political advance. The first part of the book presents a general theory of abandonment: the conditions under which language should be abandoned. The rest of the book applies this general theory to the case of “democracy” and “democratic”. The book shows that “democracy” and “democratic” are semantically, pragmatically, and communicatively defective. Abolitionism is not all gloom and doom. It also contains a message of good cheer: we have easy access to conceptual devices that are more effective than “democracy”. We can do better. These alternative linguistic devices will enable us to ask better questions, provide genuinely fruitful answers, and have more rational discussions. Moreover, those questions and answers better articulate the communicative and cognitive aims of those who use empty terms such as “democracy” and “democratic”.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Political Parties: Weaving the Fabric of Democracy

This essay about the pivotal role of political parties in modern governance, portraying them as dynamic orchestrators of democracy’s symphony. It explores how these parties, driven by diverse ideologies, serve as conduits for societal aspirations and navigate the complexities of political discourse. The essay into the internal dynamics of parties, highlighting their diversity and shared objectives. It also emphasizes their crucial function in democratic representation, mobilization during elections, and governance. Despite facing challenges such as partisan polarization and calls for reform, political parties remain indispensable in shaping the trajectory of societies, steering them towards a more equitable and prosperous future.

How it works

In the intricate dance of governance that defines our modern world, political parties emerge as the dynamic orchestrators, conducting the symphony of democracy with fervor and finesse. Picture a canvas splashed with vibrant hues, each stroke representing the aspirations, ideologies, and dreams of a diverse populace. This is the essence of political parties – not just organizational structures, but living embodiments of societal hopes and visions.

At their core, political parties are ideological powerhouses, each fueled by a unique blend of beliefs, principles, and policy agendas.

Like celestial bodies gravitating around a central ideology, members and supporters rally under the banner of conservatism, liberalism, socialism, or a spectrum of other guiding philosophies. These ideological constellations not only shape the party’s trajectory but also serve as guiding stars navigating the turbulent seas of political discourse.

Yet, within the tapestry of political parties lies a rich ecosystem teeming with diversity. From seasoned politicians to grassroots activists, from policy wonks to strategists, each player adds their distinct brushstroke to the party’s canvas. These internal dynamics, though sometimes tumultuous, ultimately coalesce around shared objectives and common goals, creating a unified force for change.

Beyond their ideological moorings, political parties serve as the lifeblood of democratic participation and representation. Through party membership, individuals find their voice amplified, their concerns addressed, and their aspirations championed. In turn, parties act as conduits between citizens and the corridors of power, translating public sentiment into actionable policies and legislation.

Come election season, political parties transform into juggernauts of mobilization and persuasion, vying for the hearts and minds of the electorate. Campaigns unfold like epic sagas, as parties deploy an arsenal of tactics – from grassroots canvassing to digital media blitzes – to woo voters and shape public opinion. In this high-stakes drama, the battle for power plays out on a grand stage, with parties emerging as protagonists in the theater of democracy.

Yet, the journey of political parties extends far beyond the ballot box. In the hallowed halls of legislatures and government institutions, parties serve as the architects of governance, crafting laws, making decisions, and steering the ship of state. Within this framework, parties act as mediators between competing interests, forging compromises, and ensuring the smooth functioning of democratic institutions.

Nevertheless, the path of political parties is not without its obstacles. Critics decry the influence of money and special interests, lament the rise of partisan polarization, and question the responsiveness of parties to the needs of ordinary citizens. Yet, amidst these challenges, the call for reform reverberates, echoing demands for greater transparency, accountability, and inclusivity within party structures.

As societies navigate the complex currents of the 21st century – from economic upheaval to environmental crises – the role of political parties remains paramount. They are not just vessels of power, but torchbearers of democracy, lighting the path towards a more just, equitable, and prosperous future. In the grand tapestry of human history, political parties stand as the bold strokes of progress, painting a portrait of collective aspiration and collective action.

Cite this page

Political Parties: Weaving the Fabric of Democracy. (2024, Mar 18). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/political-parties-weaving-the-fabric-of-democracy/

"Political Parties: Weaving the Fabric of Democracy." PapersOwl.com , 18 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/political-parties-weaving-the-fabric-of-democracy/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Political Parties: Weaving the Fabric of Democracy . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/political-parties-weaving-the-fabric-of-democracy/ [Accessed: 12 Apr. 2024]

"Political Parties: Weaving the Fabric of Democracy." PapersOwl.com, Mar 18, 2024. Accessed April 12, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/political-parties-weaving-the-fabric-of-democracy/

"Political Parties: Weaving the Fabric of Democracy," PapersOwl.com , 18-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/political-parties-weaving-the-fabric-of-democracy/. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Political Parties: Weaving the Fabric of Democracy . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/political-parties-weaving-the-fabric-of-democracy/ [Accessed: 12-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Perceptions of Democracy

Data from the Perceptions of Democracy Survey (PODS) point to three broad findings. First, most people from a diverse array of countries around the world lack confidence in the performance of their political institutions and their access to them, and they are more dissatisfied than satisfied with their governments. Second, self-identified minorities, women and low-income groups tend to perceive more obstacles to access and are generally more doubtful about institutional performance. Third, expert views and popular perceptions about how political institutions are doing do not always align. People are generally much more sceptical than experts.

This report is the first in a planned series. Future reports will focus on the analysis of some of the other questions in the survey, which focus on political activities and engagement, access to public goods, beliefs about society and government, opinions on how laws should be made, and a broad range of values.

Related databases & tools

• Global State of Democracy Indices

Abbreviations

Executive summary

Introduction

1.  Analytical approach

2.  Access to political processes and institutions: Elections, courts and rights

3.  Values, satisfaction with government and progress over time

4.  Conclusion

5.  Recommendations and areas for further research

Annex A. Methodology

Annex B. Survey questions

Give us feedback

Do you have a question or feedback about this publication? Leave us your feedback, and we’ll get back to you

Related publications

Democracy Tracker Methodology and User Guide

The Global State of Democracy Indices: Technical Procedures Guide, Version 7 (2023)

The Sustainable Development Goals and the GSOD Indices, Revised Edition

Imagining Democratic Futures: Asia and the Pacific Foresight Report 2024

Related content.

Africa Launch, Global State of Democracy Report 2023: The New Checks and Balances

Still Top of the Class? Sweden’s Democracy in a Global Perspective

Perspectives 'The most bitter cigarette': How Europe’s gas dependence is a hazard for democracy

Cookie notice.

Our Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy have changed. Please read them to understand your rights and obligations, including how you can use our resources.

By continuing to use this site, without changing your settings, you are indicating that you accept this policy.