Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 10
Lesson 10: Representative democracyRepresentative democracy
In this Wireless Philosophy video, Geoff Pynn (Elgin Community College) talks about the idea of representative democracy, a system in which democratic citizens vote for representatives who make complex policy decisions on their behalf. But how democratic is a representative democracy, really? One of John Stuart Mill’s arguments in defense of representative democracy vs. direct democracy is that it addresses Plato’s concern about the qualifications of ordinary citizens to make wise policy decisions, but still promotes democratic citizenship, which benefits society as a whole. How then can we ensure that elected representatives really do serve the public interest?
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 the idea of
representative democracy. Governments routinely
make decisions and take actions
with very high stakes. They are likely to either
benefit all of society, or harm all of society. So we’d like to be confident that
the people making the decisions know what they’re doing. So then why let the people
themselves make these decisions? Why should we have any confidence
in the ability of ordinary citizens to make wise decisions
affecting all of society? This question lies at the heart of
Plato’s ancient objection to democracy. Given that ordinary
people tend to be ignorant about matters affecting
society as a whole, and given that they will naturally favor
policies that serve their own interests, democratic rule is
unlikely to succeed. Even if it can manage to avoid
being hijacked by a demagogue, it’s likely to leave
society in ruins. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
thought the challenge could be met by training citizens in patriotic
virtue from an early age, minimizing inequality, and restricting religious
and social freedoms to discourage factionalism
and self-interested voting. But could even these
far-reaching measures do the trick in a diverse interconnected
society like ours? And even if they could, would the costs to
individual liberty be worth it? In modern democracies, the people’s role is
much more limited than the citizens’ assemblies
envisioned by Rousseau. Most democratic citizens rarely,
if ever, vote on specific policies. Instead, they vote
for representatives who will make complex
policy decisions on their behalf. If you grew up in
the United States, you might have learned
in school that the US is not, in fact, a democracy,
but a republic -- precisely because, in the US, the laws are made by
elected representatives. That’s a false dichotomy, as can be seen from the fact
that many countries are called democratic republics, with
no apparent contradiction. Still, you might wonder: how democratic is a
representative democracy, really? Well, even Rousseau
agreed that when it came to actually administering
the functions of government, democracy was inferior to what
he called an “elected aristocracy,” where the officials in charge of doing
what the people have decided should be done are selected on the basis
of their wisdom and virtue. You don’t want random groups
of citizens enforcing traffic laws, collecting taxes, fighting
fires, or building bridges. That would be a
recipe for disaster. Instead, you want people who have
the relevant skills and knowledge -- and for those people to be
held accountable for their work. But if ordinary people aren’t qualified
to administer government policies, why think they are qualified to
choose good policies in the first place? An incompetent law could damage
society even more profoundly than an incompetent
administration could. John Stuart Mill thought that the only
viable form of democratic government in the modern world was
representative democracy. For one thing, society is just too large
for direct democratic rule to be feasible. But Mill also echoed Plato’s
concern about the qualifications of ordinary citizens to
make wise policy decisions: “At its best, it is inexperience
sitting in judgment on experience, ignorance on knowledge: ignorance never suspecting the
existence of what it does not know…” Mill was an advocate of the
ethical theory known as utilitarianism, which says that the
best course of action is always to do whatever provides
the greatest overall benefits to society as a whole. Utilitarianism formed the basis
of Mill’s defense of democracy. He thought democracy benefited society
more than any alternative system could. And since wise, well-informed,
well-intentioned legislators are more likely to
produce beneficial policies than are ignorant, possibly
ill-intentioned citizens, representative democracy is preferable
to direct democracy on utilitarian grounds. So then why did Mill
advocate for democracy at all? If a representative democracy is
preferable to a direct democracy, wouldn’t a society ruled by
benevolent experts be even better? The answer lies in Mill’s
ideas about the positive effects of democracy and
democratic citizenship. He thought citizens in non-democratic
societies tend to become passive observers of
life, rather than active, independent people who
take charge of their own lives. Not only does passivity make
people vulnerable to oppression, individual autonomy is one of
the keys to living a happy life. Democratic societies
support the development of autonomous
individuals in many ways. Moreover, Mill thought that the
evidence was clear that democratic states produce greater overall benefits for
society than do undemocratic ones: “Contrast the free states of the
world, while their freedom lasted, with the contemporary subjects of
monarchical or oligarchical despotism: the Greek cities with
the Persian satrapies; the Italian republics and the free
towns of Flanders and Germany, with the feudal monarchies of Europe … Their superior prosperity was too
obvious ever to have been gainsaid: while their superiority
in good government and social relations
is proved by prosperity, and is manifest besides
in every page in history.” Mill’s case for representative democracy ultimately rests on
its real-world benefits, rather than on abstract arguments
concerning rights, liberty, and equality. But what if bad
candidates win elections? Isn’t a representative democracy just as vulnerable to hijacking by a
demagogue as a direct democracy is? Incompetent or
tyrannical representatives would almost certainly undermine
the social benefits of democracy. How can we ensure that
elected representatives really do serve
the public interest? Mill made a number of proposals. Some are familiar from
contemporary discussions. He defended strict limitations on
campaign spending to prevent vote buying. And he thought that elected
representatives should be unpaid, in order to discourage them from
seeking office for personal gain. He also proposed some
more controversial measures: First, he argued against
the use of secret ballots. He thought open voting
would discourage people from casting votes
for their personal gain, because of the public
shame that would result; this, in turn, would
lower the chances of unscrupulous candidates
appealing to voters’ selfish interests. Second, he thought that voting should be
restricted on the basis of
education and income. No one who could not “read, write, and … perform the common operations
of arithmetic” would be allowed to vote. Neither would anyone
receiving public assistance, since “he who cannot by his labor
suffice for his own support has no claim to the privilege of
helping himself to the money of others”. And third, he denied the
principle of “one person, one vote”. Instead, he thought that
people with particularly high levels of educational achievement should be given multiple votes. Plato’s challenge to democracy
remains a deep concern. How can we make sure
that democratic citizens will choose laws in the
best interests of society? Rousseau addressed this concern
by introducing strict regulations on education, religion,
and public morality -- at the apparent cost
of individual liberty. Mill’s representative
democracy instead removes citizens one
step from decision making, and substantially
restricts voting rights. Each approach departs from
cherished democratic ideals. But maybe we just have to accept that the best form of government
will always fall short of the ideal. Just as democratic decisions
invariably require compromise, so might the philosophical
defense of democracy. What do you think?