Is Democracy Still Working?
Democracy has been a key player in shifting the world away from power structures based on monarchy, conquest and colonization toward popular rule and self-determination. But, despite its great achievements, some are now questioning whether democracy is still working as it should, and others are worrying about the stability of democracy in light of political shifts around the globe.
A central question is whether it is possible for democracy to succeed when large segments of society seem unable to find common ground on important issues and are often polarized and at odds with each other. A second issue concerns whether democracy can survive globalization and technological change that seem to be putting its fundamental principles at risk.
The core of democracy is a public space for discussion, consultation and debate. The right to freedom of expression is vital for this to happen. Without it, people’s opinions can not be heard and reflected, and citizens cannot play their part in the democratic process. The connection between human rights and democracy is deep and goes both ways. It is not only a matter of principle but also of practical necessity that everyone, everywhere has the right to take part in their country’s government directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Various theories of democracy are proposed as answers to these questions, with some of the most important ones resting on the idea that democracy is a better way to solve collective problems than other forms of government. For example, the popular aphorism is that “many hands make light work.” A more sophisticated argument based on epistemic justifications holds that democracy makes it easier for citizens to be well informed about the real interests of their fellow citizens and the causal mechanisms necessary to advance those interests. This is because it allows more citizens to participate in making decisions and thus to check each other’s biases, fallibility and ignorance.
Another key epistemic justification is based on the idea that democracy exploits the underlying cognitive diversity of populations to produce superior solutions to collective problems. This is because it allows many sources of information and perspectives to be brought into the decision-making process, and thus provides a higher degree of accuracy in evaluating laws and policies than do other methods. One prominent theory of this kind was developed by John Dewey, who argued that democracy involves a consultation and discussion that uncovers social needs and troubles that experts might miss.
Other non-instrumental justifications are based on a variety of ideas, including a version of Rousseau’s concept of equality that is not aimed at equality of outcomes but at the equalization of the conditions and opportunities for advancing the interests of persons in a community. The theory is that a person can only be treated as a full member of a community (and therefore as an equal with other members) if he or she is fully involved in the determination of how to shape the society that they share and if their moral independence is respected.
Democracy has been a key player in shifting the world away from power structures based on monarchy, conquest and colonization toward popular rule and self-determination. But, despite its great achievements, some are now questioning whether democracy is still working as it should, and others are worrying about the stability of democracy in light of political shifts around the globe. A central question is whether it is possible for democracy to succeed when large segments of society seem unable to find common ground on important issues and are often polarized and at odds with each other. A second issue concerns whether democracy can survive globalization and technological change that seem to be putting its fundamental principles at risk. The core of democracy is a public space for discussion, consultation and debate. The right to freedom of expression is vital for this to happen. Without it, people’s opinions can not be heard and reflected, and citizens cannot play their part in the democratic process. The connection between human rights and democracy is deep and goes both ways. It is not only a matter of principle but also of practical necessity that everyone, everywhere has the right to take part in their country’s government directly or through freely chosen representatives. Various theories of democracy are proposed as answers to these questions, with some of the most important ones resting on the idea that democracy is a better way to solve collective problems than other forms of government. For example, the popular aphorism is that “many hands make light work.” A more sophisticated argument based on epistemic justifications holds that democracy makes it easier for citizens to be well informed about the real interests of their fellow citizens and the causal mechanisms necessary to advance those interests. This is because it allows more citizens to participate in making decisions and thus to check each other’s biases, fallibility and ignorance. Another key epistemic justification is based on the idea that democracy exploits the underlying cognitive diversity of populations to produce superior solutions to collective problems. This is because it allows many sources of information and perspectives to be brought into the decision-making process, and thus provides a higher degree of accuracy in evaluating laws and policies than do other methods. One prominent theory of this kind was developed by John Dewey, who argued that democracy involves a consultation and discussion that uncovers social needs and troubles that experts might miss. Other non-instrumental justifications are based on a variety of ideas, including a version of Rousseau’s concept of equality that is not aimed at equality of outcomes but at the equalization of the conditions and opportunities for advancing the interests of persons in a community. The theory is that a person can only be treated as a full member of a community (and therefore as an equal with other members) if he or she is fully involved in the determination of how to shape the society that they share and if their moral independence is respected.