Normative Democratic Theory Research Articles

Democracy and the Epistemic Problems of Political Polarization

Political polarization is one of the most discussed challenges facing contemporary democracies and is often associated with a broader epistemic crisis. While inspiring a large literature in political science, polarization’s epistemic problems also have significance for normative democratic theory, and this study develops a new approach aimed at understanding them. In contrast to prominent accounts from political psychology—group polarization theory and cultural cognition theory—which argue that polarization leads individuals to form unreliable political beliefs, this study focuses on system-level diversity. It argues that polarization’s epistemic harms are best located in its tendency to reduce the diversity of perspectives utilized in a democratic system and in how this weakens the system’s ability to identify and address problems of public concern. Understanding such harms is also argued to require a greater consideration of the political dynamics of polarization and issues of elite discourse, alongside political psychology.

The Suspension Problem for Epistemic Democracy

Abstract Recently, many normative theories of democracy have taken an epistemic turn. Rather than focus on democracy's morally desirable features, they argue that democracy is valuable (at least in part) because it tends to produce correct political decisions. I argue that these theories place epistemic demands on citizens that conflict with core democratic commitments. First, I discuss a well-known challenge to epistemic arguments for democracy that I call the ‘deference problem’. I then argue that framing debates about this deference problem in terms of work on epistemic defeat reveals a structurally similar but more serious challenge for epistemic arguments for democracy. Succinctly put, the problem is that if democracy tends to produce correct political decisions, then those in the minority might be required to suspend beliefs about political matters; however, this requirement conflicts with the pivotal democratic principle of self-government. Call this the ‘suspension problem’.

A Theory and Test of Pledge-Based Voting: The Limited but Real Effects of Election Pledges on Citizens’ Vote Choice

Do voters decide on the basis of the election pledges political parties make? Although this is a key assumption in most democratic theories and, seemingly, among parties who issue dozens of pledges during campaigns, the scientific literature does not provide a clear answer to this question. This article develops a theory of pledge-based voting and a research design that allows for studying the electoral effects of pledges in real-time as the campaign unfolds. Based on a novel experimental design embedded in panel surveys administered during and after the 2019 Danish national election campaign (N = 6233), we estimate that the most salient pledges affect vote choice by between 1.1 and 2.1 percentage points averaged across the electorate. While modest, these effects can be decisive in the often highly competitive context of modern elections. The findings have implications for our understanding of political behavior, party politics, and normative theories of democracy.

The Social Subcontract: Business Ethics as Democratic Theory

What does democracy demand of business? We argue that an answer to this question requires an understanding of the sorts of ethical obligations businesses have more generally. Against approaches that understand the duties of business in terms of citizenship or fiduciary obligation, we propose and develop the notion of subcontractor duties. We conceive of commercial activity as a social subcontract, in which businesses are empowered to exercise their judgment in pursuit of parochial interests, but for broader social reasons. Such license, however, puts businesses in a position to use this judgment in ways that unduly influence broader political processes. Given this, business ethics should be seen as indispensable for normative democratic theory, as it offers a conception of how business leaders should discharge their discretionary power in a manner least offensive to democratic principles. Drawing on a pragmatist understanding of democracy, we contend that businesses must respect, and avoid undermining, the formal and informal processes that characterize democratic politics. We conclude with rough sketch of what this looks like in practice, listing three broad sets of desiderata that a social subcontract seems to demand of businesses vis-à-vis democracy.

Beyond Deliberative Systems

Normative democratic theory with a focus on civic engagement is increasingly interested in how participatory instances connect into democratic systems (Dean, Rinne, et al. 2019; Elstub et al. 2018). The deliberative perspective has pioneered this debate and proposes a systemic view that observes how everyday talk and media discourses connect deliberative forums including parliaments, mini-publics, and protest formations (Mansbridge 1999; Mansbridge et al. 2012). While various approaches within the deliberative systems debate can be differentiated (Owen and Smith 2015), they commonly understand deliberative qualities as distributed within a broader system and focus on scaling up democratic deliberation through the transmission from the public to state institutions (Chambers 2012; Dryzek 2009).

Attitudes toward competing voting-right requirements: Evidence from a conjoint experiment

The prevailing trend of treating voting-rights as a privilege for citizens has been challenged by a lively debate among democratic theorists. Growing numbers of resident non-citizens and non-resident citizens are likely to make voting-rights regulations more politically salient. Yet, these issues are largely missing in studies of public opinion and little is known about the support for the citizenship-requirement and its more or less democratic alternatives. Informed by normative democratic theory, this article opens the research field by conducting the first comprehensive study of attitudes toward competing requirements for voting-rights, using a conjoint experiment on a nationally representative sample of U.S. citizens. The results indicate that considerable proportions of respondents support a residency-requirement and a democratically dubious economic contribution-requirement, restricting voting-rights to taxpayers only. Nevertheless, the current citizenship-requirement is supported by a majority across sociodemographic groups, indicating sociological legitimacy of the current order and some but limited leeway for changes.

Re-Engaging Normative and Empirical Democratic Theory: Or, Why Normative Democratic Theory Is Empirical All the Way Down

ABSTRACT Historically, many philosophers and social scientists have sharply distinguished between “normative” and “empirical” forms of inquiry. In response, some have called for a re-engagement of these forms of inquiry. Here I offer a novel way of justifying such re-engagement in democratic theory. Drawing on classical pragmatism, I argue that normative democratic theory is a form of practical reasoning, hence inevitably involves empirical inquiry. Thus, in reasoning about what democratic processes ought to look like, we should avoid sharply distinguishing normative from empirical forms of reasoning, just as we should avoid sharply distinguishing theoretical from practical forms of reasoning.

Digital campaigning as a policy of democracy promotion: Applying deliberative theories of democracy to political parties

Today’s election campaigns are heavily data-driven. Despite the numerous skeptical voices questioning the compatibility of specific campaigning practices with fundamental principles of liberal democracies, there has to date been little comprehensive work in this area from the perspective of normative democratic theory. Our article addresses this gap by drawing on recent research on the normative theory of political parties in the field of deliberative democratic theory. The deliberative theories of democracy proposed by Habermas and Rawls contain structural elements of a normative theory of the political party: the special status of political parties as mediators between background culture and the political forum, between the political system and the public sphere, and between the individual and the state, confers on them a central position as actors in in the public use of reason and deliberation.We argue in this article for a view of digital campaigning as a policy of democracy promotion and for the proposition that, alongside other actors, political parties have a special responsibility in this regard. We point to the implications for the evaluation and design of digital political microtargeting that arise from the application of deliberative principles to political parties and consider the need they reveal for the ongoing development of detailed, nuanced normative theories of democracy.

Democracy, Interpretation, and the “Problem” of Conceptual Ambiguity: Reflections on the V-Dem Project’s Struggles with Operationalizing Deliberative Democracy

Democracy is a notoriously ambiguous concept. Political scientists typically see this ambiguity as a problem that restricts measurement and causal explanation, especially for the comparative study of democratization. Increasingly ambitious data collection efforts and sophisticated methodological approaches attempt to resolve this problem—nowhere more so than in the recent, award-winning, and highly prominent Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) dataset. By contrast, ambiguity and contestation over what democracy actually means is key both to normative theorizing and to the capacity to re-examine and reimagine democratic practice during moments of crisis. Rather than attempting to pin down and measure democratic quality, we highlight instead the value of ambiguity to normative democratic theory and interpretive political science. We offer four reflections on V-Dem based on examples from the literature on deliberative democracy, which is the discipline’s most prominent attempt to reinvent and reinvigorate democratic practice amid crisis and disaffection. Our aim is not to reignite the paradigm wars or fundamentally question the validity of projects like V-Dem, but rather to illustrate how a more plural approach might augment their theoretical and empirical contribution. We conclude by offering concrete illustrations of what this might look like in practice.

Must Realists Be Pessimists About Democracy? Responding to Epistemic and Oligarchic Challenges

AbstractIn this paper we show how a realistic normative democratic theory can work within the constraints set by the most pessimistic empirical results about voting behaviour and elite capture of the policy process. After setting out the empirical evidence and discussing some extant responses by political theorists, we argue that the evidence produces a two-pronged challenge for democracy: an epistemic challenge concerning the quality and focus of decision-making and an oligarchic challenge concerning power concentration. To address the challenges we then put forward three main normative claims, each of which is compatible with the evidence. We start with (1) a critique of the epistocratic position commonly thought to be supported by the evidence. We then introduce (2) a qualified critique of referenda and other forms of plebiscite, and (3) an outline of a tribune-based system of popular control over oligarchic influence on the policy process. Our discussion points towards a renewal of democracy in a plebeian but not plebiscitarian direction: Attention to the relative power of social classes matters more than formal dispersal of power through voting. We close with some methodological reflections about the compatibility between our normative claims and the realist program in political philosophy.

The Political Theory of Parties and Partisanship: Catching Up

Despite their centrality to modern democracy, until recently political parties were relegated to the margins of normative democratic theory, taking a back seat to social movements, civil society associations, deliberative experiments, spaces for local participatory government, and direct popular participation. Yet, in the past 15 years, a burgeoning literature has emerged in democratic theory focused directly on parties and partisanship; that is our focus in this review. We locate three main normative defenses of parties: one centered in the special role parties can play in political justification as agents of public reason, a second that looks to the way parties contribute to deliberation, and a third that focuses on the partisan commitment to regulated political rivalry and peaceful rotation in office. In this last connection, we survey work on the constitutional status of parties and reasons for banning parties. We then consider the relation of partisanship to citizenship, and in a fourth section we turn to the ethics of partisanship. Parties and partisanship are interwoven but separable: If partisans are necessary to realize the value of parties, the reverse holds as well, and parties are necessary to realize the value of partisanship.

Does political participation in adolescence promote knowledge acquisition and active citizenship?

Political education in school is aimed at preparing adolescents for their role as citizens, which comprises political participation as well as political knowledge. While it is generally agreed that basic knowledge about politics is a prerequisite to participation, the specific link between knowledge and participation is left unclear in normative theories of democracy and didactic approaches of political education. A study with 1324 German ninth graders tries to clarify the relationship between the two constructs. The findings show a positive effect from knowledge to the expressed willingness to participate in politics in the future. But against the expectations, already performed political participation does not increase knowledge about politics. Furthermore, girls and pupils with migration background show less knowledge and express less willingness to participate.

The Ethics of Delegating Monetary Policy

The global financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 transformed monetary policy, forcing central bankers to move far beyond their pre-crisis instruments, goals, and expertise. In this article, I investigate these developments from a perspective of normative democratic theory. Against authors who reject central bank independence entirely, I argue that it should in principle be permissible for governments to delegate political choices to unelected experts. From a democratic perspective, what matters is whether the act of delegation serves the government’s ultimate economic policy aims. Although central bank independence limits the government’s control over monetary policy, it can also improve monetary policy and thereby help the government pursue its larger economic policies. I outline a moral framework for balancing these competing considerations; focusing on the case of the European Central Bank, I then argue for democratic reform of existing institutions.

Social Media and Democracy: Fostering Political Deliberation and Participation

A democracy extends beyond partisan politics. The current study examines how a social media video about the environment can spark political deliberation and participation. Drawing from normative democratic theory, an experimental design was employed to test the effect of the video in engaging citizens in the political process and fostering interpersonal conversations, both online and face-to-face. At the core of these normative democratic outcomes is information efficacy, as individuals are moved to discuss the issue and act to protect the environment from the threat of single-use plastics. The results reveal that social media have the potential to have a positive democratic influence.

The Gamification of Political Participation

Abstract Political participation lies at the heart of normative democratic theory. To foster participatory interactions between citizens, some advocates and designers are resorting to gamification as the use of psycho-motivational involvement strategies from games in non-game contexts. The hope is that through gamification mechanisms, citizens will be drawn more easily towards participation platforms, apps, and digital services, as well as remain there longer, thereby effectively enhancing participation numbers and time. In this article, I will explore the potential problems of these involvement strategies, namely the worry that they may be able to undermine citizen’s individual and political autonomy by manipulating them into participating. Depending on the severity of the psycho-motivational effect as well as the covertness of the mechanism, gamification may constitute inadmissible forms of paternalism.

Polarization and correct voting in U.S. presidential elections

Although some political pundits have expressed concern that political polarization has a deleterious effect on voter behavior, others have argued that polarization may actually benefit voters by presenting citizens with clear choices between the two major parties. We take up this question by examining the effects of polarization on the quality of voter decision making in U.S. presidential elections. We find that ideological polarization among elites, along with ideological sorting and affective polarization among voters, all contribute to the probability of citizens’ voting correctly. Furthermore, affective polarization among the citizenry if anything strengthens, not weakens, the influence of political knowledge on voter decision-making. We conclude that to the extent that normative democratic theory supposes that people vote for candidates who share their interests, polarization has had a positive effect on voter decision-making quality, and thus democratic representation, in the United States.

Freedom of expression, the right to vote, and proportionality at the European Court of Human Rights: An internal critique

This article offers an internal critique of the European Court of Human Rights’ deferential approach to the content and limits of the right to vote (under the right to free and fair elections, article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights). Rather than imposing an independent theory of democratic rights, the critique is internal as it relies on the Court’s own conception of democracy developed under article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression) and article 11 ECHR (freedom of reunion and assembly). It uses normative democratic theory to show that the Court’s conception under those rights reveals an utmost concern for political inclusion and that this conception is systematically used by the Court to balance alleged interferences with this article. It then argues that this concern has implications for the Court’s review of the right to vote. While the Court proclaims the complementarity between expression and vote at the level of principle, the Court refrains from engaging in the balancing exercise under P1-3. The article takes the notorious example of the right of convicted felons to vote. The article does not conclude, however, that the Court should systematically maintain its franchise on democratic grounds. It rather contends that the Court should apply proportionality with the same substantive democratic principles across democratic rights.

Nietzsche's Great Politics

Nietzsche's Great Politics

Dimensions of majority rule

The principle of majority rule is a concept that is often employed both in normative democratic theory and in practical politics. But not only that there are relatively few academic studies focusing exclusively on this concept, it is also possible to claim that the existing discussions usually overlook different dimensions of majority rule. This article aims to outline some suggestions for what these dimensions might be, such as: the nature of the participants, the subject matter of the decision and the context in which the decision is made. One underlying assumption in this study is that the normative prospects of the majority rule principle depend on the evaluation of these different dimensions.

Is all PR good PR? How the content of media exposure affects candidate popularity

Existing evidence shows that media exposure is associated with increased political popularity, but we know less about how the electoral effects of media coverage may vary with the content of the coverage. By collecting hundreds of thousands of media articles, which we then sort by content using automatic topic modelling, we build a unique dataset of political candidates, their popularity, and the quantity and type of media exposure that candidates receive. Analysing this dataset, we find that media attention is, indeed, an electoral asset. Further, and crucially, we find that voters reward politicians for politically relevant exposure, while non-political exposure is ignored, or even penalised. Consequently, this is good news for how democracies work; voters hold politicians accountable based on relevant information. The findings are of relevance to students of media, political behaviour, parties and political competition, as well as normative democratic theory.