This week, I will give you a slightly differently organized introduction to the material. I am curious to hear from you what you thick about that. There is, for now, no video lecture by me. I will just present an overview of the material, and links to external sources here. Use those as you think through the topics, and as you are trying to understand the material.
What is democracy?
There are many different forms that democracies can take. The common feature they share is a commitment to collective self rule (in the book is says 'of the people, by the people, for the people'). Democracies are ways of governing that depend on the will of the people. This sets them apart from other forms of rule, autocracies (where one person rules) and oligarchies (where a small group of persons rule).
To get started with the issues we are discussing this week, start with this (5 min) video:
Now you should be begin to have a basic overview of some of the issues we are discussing. Let's begin to look more at some aspects of the philosophical issues about democracy.
Democracy and Voting
Voting lies at the heart of the democratic processes we find in most countries, like Norway, today. Voting is often taken to be an expression of individual preferences about leaders and policies. But there are important questions that can be raised about this process.
One question that can be raised about voting is about its rationality. The basic problem is this: your individual vote is unlikely to be the decisive factor in determining a particular outcome. What reason do you have to vote? From the perspective of rational self-interest, insofar as voting imposes a cost to you (you have to go out into the cold, you can't watch your favorite TV show that day) and has no effect on an outcome that matters to you, it would seem to be irrational for you to do so! This video takes up the question why vote?
It is starting to be clear that we need to understand better what the point of voting actually is. An issue that we have talked about in the last three weeks is coming up again: what is the connection between the collective that is supposed to govern itself in a democracy and the individual that is a part of that collective. What is YOUR role in the will of 'the people'?
A first way of thinking about this issue is:
Voting is way of finding out what 'the collective' wants is by finding out what the individuals in the collective want and the aggregating their preferences (37 % want A, 20 % want B, 15 % want C, ...).
- One problem with that, though, is that many citizens might not vote to tell the (future) what they personally want, but they tell them what is their own idea about the common good. Many citizens seem to think about voting like that (I often do!), but with such 'mixed motives' the future government will actually not get reliable information about what the individual actually want: the individuals don't 'talk' about that when they vote, instead they 'talk about something else, i.e. what they think the government should do for the common good.
So, maybe, then, there is a different way of thinking about point of voting. Maybe the idea isn't to find out what individuals want, but it is to find out what is in fact the best for everyone, i.e. what the common good is. The individual's role in voting is play a part in a collective research project to find out what is best for everyone: everyone's vote contributes one idea to that collective decision process.
- One problem for this way of thinking about the point of voting is: what authority should individual votes be given if, for example, citizens are uninformed about matters about the common good? Is 'pooling' a bunch of uninformed ideas really the best way of finding out what the common good is? Shouldn't we instead, for example, appoint an expert committee?
At this point look at the following two things that describe potential alternatives to voting (non-electoral forms of democracy):
Read: Alexander Guerrero's 'lottocracy' alternative, where leaders are chosen by lottery.
Why (or Why Not) Democracy?
At this point, you might have started to think more about: why, really, should we have a democracy at all? So, we will now look at that question.
It is usually taken to be a good thing to live in a democracy. But what's so good about it? There are two basic justifications that can be offered.
- Instrumental justifications will appeal to the outcomes of democratic government, and will argue that these are better than those achievable through other forms of rule.
- Non-instrumental justifications will appeal to the intrinsic values - of, for example, liberty and equality - that are inherent to the democratic process.
Instrumentalism
The instrumentalist approach will be to show that democratic governments yield better results than alternative forms of government. The basic idea is that such governments will better promote the welfare of its citizens better than alternative forms of government.
Mill, for example, thought that democracy better promoted the common good than alternative forms of government, first, by helping better to uncover citizens's interests and the common good. Mill thought that the democratic process made decision-makers take into account the interests of most people in society. He also thought that the democratic deliberation and political participation required of citizens improved their characters, by encouraging them to think carefully about their choices, justify their views to others, and take into account the interests of others.
At this point, read about whether democracy really gets the best results. Let us take the Coronavirus situation as an example:
Read: Coronavirus a Stress Test for Democracy (note: this article is now some time old. What does the evidence look like now? Has his assessment proven accurate in retrospect?)
We can, of course, try to assess the evidence of what works best, democracy of its alternatives, one example after another. But maybe there are some very general considerations, to give us some reasonable expectations about what is most like to work?
In his Republic, Plato provides a critique of the instrumental justification for democracy. He presents us, as we have seen in the very first module, with an example of a ship making a voyage. Who would we like to be at the helm: the one who is an expert seaman or the most popular? Plato argues that ruling a state is like navigating a ship: in both cases, an expert is best suited to the task at hand. This generates a case against democracy: the rulers elected by democratic process are those who are good at winning elections, not ruling the state. Cases in point?
Plato thought instead that guardians should be appointed to rule the state. And who should take this role? According to Plato, it should be to the philosophers!
For reflection & discussion:
- Do you think that Plato's craft analogy is apt? Is ruling a skill like ship navigation and medicine that requires an expert? Does it follow from this that his suggested form of government has political legitimacy (the issue we have discussed two weeks ago)? Is it possible to achieve an expertise in ruling? How can the interests of the citizens over which the guardians are to rule be known?
Hobbes also was not a fan of democracy. He thought that an absolute monarchy was preferable to democracy. Recall that Hobbes held a very unflattering view of the natural condition of mankind and that the only way to keep people in check and out of a constant state of war was to impose an absolute authority. Hobbes thought that democracy was unstable and that individuals were liable not to feel a sense of responsibility for legislation enacted, given that their decisions would be unlikely to make a difference to the outcome.
Intrinsic Justification
An intrinsic justification of democracy will appeal to the non-instrumental value of democracy. Such a defense will deny that the sole purpose of democracy is to achieve a given aim (i.e., to promote the common good), but instead that there is something intrinsically valuable to the democratic process. Such a defense may provide an answer to Plato's critique: on this line, political decision-making is not just about getting to shore safely. There is value to the process itself.
Those who endorse this line will argue that democracy is an expression of freedom and equality. Individuals are free to express their views on who should rule and which policies and laws are adopted. Individual are treated equally by each having an equal say on matters that are important to them. Arguably, a democratic form of government is the only one that has political legitimacy.
For reflection & discussion:
- Do you think that democracy is intrinsically valuable? Given the current political landscape, how well do you think that democratic processes expresses freedom and equality? Is representative democracy with votes the best system? Might there be better ones, and if so, can they be implemented?
Some of the material for this lecture has been written by Katharine Browne (UiO, Langara College)