Justifications of Democracy
This topic surveys the reasons philosophers give for valuing democracy — whether for its intrinsic fairness, its tendency to good outcomes, or its expression of equal respect among citizens.
Definition
A justification of democracy is an argument for why collective decisions ought to be made democratically rather than by other procedures; such arguments may appeal to the intrinsic value of the procedure, its instrumental benefits, or both.
Scope
Covers intrinsic (procedural) justifications grounded in fairness or equality, instrumental justifications grounded in outcomes such as good decisions or the protection of interests, epistemic accounts, and hybrid views. The rejection of expert rule (epistocracy) is treated here.
Core questions
- Why ought collective decisions to be made democratically?
- Is democracy valuable in itself or only for its results?
- Does democracy express a commitment to the equality of citizens?
- Why prefer democracy to rule by the wise or the expert?
Key concepts
- intrinsic vs. instrumental justification
- political equality
- public equality
- epistemic proceduralism
- guardianship
- epistocracy
Key theories
- Democracy and political equality
- Dahl defends democracy by reference to an ideal of political equality and the presumption that no person is so qualified as to be entrusted with complete authority over others, against the claims of guardianship.
- Public equality
- Christiano argues that democracy is intrinsically just because it publicly realizes the equal advancement of citizens' interests, giving each an equal say where reasonable disagreement makes any other distribution of power a public denial of equality.
- Epistemic proceduralism
- Estlund argues that democratic authority is justified by a combination of procedural fairness and a tendency to produce correct decisions better than random, while denying that any claim to superior knowledge could legitimate epistocracy.
History
Modern justifications build on Mill's argument that participation improves citizens and protects interests, and on Dahl's defence of political equality against Plato's guardianship (1989). From the 1990s, theorists such as Christiano developed equality-based intrinsic justifications and Estlund advanced epistemic proceduralism, sharpening the contrast with epistocracy.
Debates
- Intrinsic vs. instrumental value
- Whether democracy is justified chiefly by the fairness or equality of its procedure (Christiano) or by the quality of its outcomes (instrumentalism), or by a combination, as Estlund's epistemic proceduralism holds.
- Why not rule by experts?
- Whether superior knowledge could ever justify epistocracy, or whether, as Estlund and Dahl argue, no such claim can gain the general acceptance needed to legitimate rule by the few.
Key figures
- Robert Dahl
- David Estlund
- Thomas Christiano
- John Stuart Mill
Related topics
Seminal works
- dahl1989
- estlund2008
- christiano2008
Frequently asked questions
- What is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental justifications of democracy?
- Intrinsic justifications value democracy for features of the procedure itself, such as treating citizens as equals, while instrumental justifications value it for the good consequences it tends to produce, such as better or fairer decisions.