Reply: De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum?

Abstract

This was how Robert Lowe (and his followers the Addulamites) castigated Disraeli's proposal to amend the franchise with the Second British Reform Act. Professor Achen's stimulating comment raises new questions about how we should interpret these debates: Were the disagreements among the British elite based on different perceptions of the experience with the franchise or on different sympathies for the democratic aspirations of lower classes? Does the key to understanding such debates rest with different levels of enlightment which separated Lowe and Disraeli, or does it rest with differences in their strategic assessment of the prevailing political situation in Britain? Alternatively, does the fact that the Finnish elite extended the franchise primarily in one explosive reform indicate that they underwent a fundamentally different learning process than their British counterparts who extended the franchise more gradually--or does it suggest that the pattern of legitimacy crises requiring franchise reforms in the two countries was different? The answers to such questions and our understanding of enfranchisement in general depend on which formulation-the model or the Freeman-Snidal model-of the enfranchisement process we accept. As we discuss below, to some extent this choice will be a matter of taste but in large part these questions are, in principle, soluble through further research. Professor Achen has been more than generous in his comments on our article and we hope he will forgive us to the extent that our