Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 10
Lesson 5: Justifying democracyJustifying democracy
In this Wireless Philosophy video, Geoff Pynn (Elgin Community College) examines some of the most common pro-democracy arguments, and identifies different types based on which aspects of democracy they point to as its justifying feature. These arguments explore how the degree and nature of democracy within a state is linked to its legitimacy. Is it related to individual and societal well-being, the quality of decision-making in its systems, and its influence on the character of its citizens?
View our Democracy learning module and other videos in this series here: https://www.wi-phi.com. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.
Video transcript
Hi. I’m Geoff Pynn, and I teach
philosophy at Elgin Community College. In this video, I’m going to talk about different
philosophical arguments for democracy. The modern world takes it for
granted that democracy is a good thing. But it wasn’t always like this. In the ancient world, democracies were
rare, and viewed with deep suspicion. Even ancient Athens, often seen
as the birthplace of democracy, was also the home of Plato, who argued that
democracy was the worst form of government. He thought it enabled
bad actors to gain power by exploiting the people’s
ignorance and self-serving desires, and would inevitably
collapse into tyranny. The story of how democracy came to
be the world’s dominant political ideology is too long to tell here. But we can summarize some of the
main philosophical arguments on its behalf. The most common type of pro-democracy
argument concerns political legitimacy. States govern by telling
their citizens what to do, and threatening them with
punishment if they disobey. A legitimate state has the
moral authority to govern. An illegitimate state is
no different from a gang that rules the
neighborhood through fear. Many philosophers have argued that
only democratic states can be legitimate. The others are
just glorified gangs. One kind of argument says legitimacy requires some
essential feature of democracy. These arguments are called
intrinsic justifications of democracy. For example, enlightenment-era
thinkers commonly argued that legitimacy rests
on the people’s consent. As the US Declaration
of Independence puts it, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from
the Consent of the Governed.” Democracy, unlike any
other form of government, is all about the
people’s consent. So if legitimacy requires consent, and democracy is the only form of
government that rests on consent, then legitimacy
requires democracy. A more contemporary
version of this idea says that legitimacy depends
not upon consent per se, but rather upon there being a
public justification for state authority that all reasonable
citizens can accept. According to this idea, democratic deliberation is the process by which justifications for
different exercises of state authority are developed and made public. Other features of democracy often thought
to provide it with intrinsic justification include its respect
for liberty and equality. If legitimate states must respect
the liberty or equality of their citizens, and democracy is the
only form of government that truly respects liberty and equality -- say, by giving each citizen an equal say in
the conditions that affect their lives -- then legitimacy
requires democracy. A different kind of argument is
less abstract and more pragmatic. It says that democracy is more
effective than any alternatives at doing what legitimate
states ought to do. These arguments
are referred to as instrumental justifications
for democracy. For example, a legitimate state ought
to promote the common good of society. If democracy is the form of
government best suited to this purpose, then legitimate states
ought to be democracies. Of course, this was precisely
why Plato opposed democracy: He thought it would be
disastrous to the common good. But while there are obvious examples
of destructive democratic decisions, social scientists have
amassed a wealth of information that suggests Plato was wrong. Democracy is consistently
linked with improvements in individual and
societal well-being. Economists generally agree that
democracy promotes economic growth. There is a well-established correlation
between democracy and happiness, as well as other measures of
a society’s health and stability. Democracy may improve the common
good by generating better decisions. Since the time of the French Revolution, mathematical arguments
have attempted to demonstrate that elections are an
especially effective way of finding the answers
to vexing social questions. Plus, even well-intentioned
experts and authorities can be misled by
their own biases. Democratic procedures
supply a necessary corrective. Or, democracy may improve the
common good by building good character. In a democratic society, citizens are encouraged to be active, educated, reasonable,
community-minded, and to take ownership
of their own lives. In despotic societies, people become passive, isolated,
self-absorbed, secretive, and dependent. The idea is not that democratic governments
themselves improve people’s character, but that the kind of society
that is best for our development as virtuous, autonomous
individuals is a democratic one. Each argument points to a different aspect
of democracy as its justifying feature. Each one, in turn,
suggests a different standard for how democratic a
society or state really is. A society might be viewed
as more or less democratic depending upon whether
we’re concerned with how well it supports
democratic deliberation, how fully it respects
the equality of all citizens, or how strongly it pushes citizens
towards developing autonomous lives. There are as many varieties of democracy
as there are justifications for democracy. Which ones are the best
is a matter of great debate. What do you think?