The Arguments For and Against Democracy
Democracy is a system of government that depends on the will and interests of the people. It is the only way that citizens can be truly in control of their government. It is a system that must include all citizens, including young people. It is a system that must also ensure freedom of expression, and that everyone can be heard and take part in the government. It must also be a system that is transparent and free of corruption. It must also ensure that office holders cannot enrich themselves by holding political positions, and that independent courts and commissions punish corruption when it occurs. It must also allow citizens to protest decisions they disagree with, and to form interest groups or lobbying groups, if they want to.
In the past, some have justified democracy on the grounds that it encourages people to stand up for themselves more than other systems of government do. Others, following Mill and Rousseau, have argued that it helps cultivate the character of citizens by making them active in political decision-making. Still others, such as Ronald Dworkin, have argued that democracy is the only way to realize a kind of public equality in which individuals can be trusted with law-making and policy-making authority.
More recently, some have argued that democracy is better than other forms of rule because it takes advantage of the underlying cognitive diversity of large groups of people to solve collective problems. One prominent example is the “diversity trumps ability” theorem (Page and Hong 2004; Helene Landemore 2013).
A number of theorists have defended democracy on the ground that it makes it possible for persons to live with each other in spite of persistent disagreement about how to shape society. Others have argued that democracy is the only possible way to make laws that are consistent with the moral principles of justice and the common good.
Many theorists have argued that if there is to be a democratic system, it must provide an adequate level of welfare for all citizens. This includes food, clothing, housing, education and health care. Some theorists have argued that there is a connection between the amount of public goods provided by a state and its democracy, with greater levels of wealth resulting in more pronounced democratic tendencies.
Most arguments for democracy can be evaluated along at least two different dimensions: instrumentally, by reference to the outcomes of using it compared with other methods of political decision making; and intrinsically, by reference to its value as a moral concept. The following sections discuss these issues in turn.
Democracy is a system of government that depends on the will and interests of the people. It is the only way that citizens can be truly in control of their government. It is a system that must include all citizens, including young people. It is a system that must also ensure freedom of expression, and that everyone can be heard and take part in the government. It must also be a system that is transparent and free of corruption. It must also ensure that office holders cannot enrich themselves by holding political positions, and that independent courts and commissions punish corruption when it occurs. It must also allow citizens to protest decisions they disagree with, and to form interest groups or lobbying groups, if they want to. In the past, some have justified democracy on the grounds that it encourages people to stand up for themselves more than other systems of government do. Others, following Mill and Rousseau, have argued that it helps cultivate the character of citizens by making them active in political decision-making. Still others, such as Ronald Dworkin, have argued that democracy is the only way to realize a kind of public equality in which individuals can be trusted with law-making and policy-making authority. More recently, some have argued that democracy is better than other forms of rule because it takes advantage of the underlying cognitive diversity of large groups of people to solve collective problems. One prominent example is the “diversity trumps ability” theorem (Page and Hong 2004; Helene Landemore 2013). A number of theorists have defended democracy on the ground that it makes it possible for persons to live with each other in spite of persistent disagreement about how to shape society. Others have argued that democracy is the only possible way to make laws that are consistent with the moral principles of justice and the common good. Many theorists have argued that if there is to be a democratic system, it must provide an adequate level of welfare for all citizens. This includes food, clothing, housing, education and health care. Some theorists have argued that there is a connection between the amount of public goods provided by a state and its democracy, with greater levels of wealth resulting in more pronounced democratic tendencies. Most arguments for democracy can be evaluated along at least two different dimensions: instrumentally, by reference to the outcomes of using it compared with other methods of political decision making; and intrinsically, by reference to its value as a moral concept. The following sections discuss these issues in turn.