Template:Democracy-1

Choose from the Philosophy Menu Bar ▼ HOME INDEX Justice 6.v.25 The Good Life 20.v.25 Hume & Testimony 3.vi.25 1H25 Reflections 17.vi.25 Nietzsche 1 24.ii.25 Nietzsche 2 11.iii.25 Universal Basic Income 25.iii.25 Hegel 22.iv.25 2024 Wrap-Up 10.x.24 Democracy 14.i.25 Civilisation? 28.i.25 Compulsory Voting? 11.ii.25 Berlin and Freedom 15.x.24 Nussbaum, Sen and Capability 29.x.24 Slavery Reparations 12.xi.24 Rawls 26.xi.24 Assisted Suicide 11.vi.24 Popper and Evolution 20.viii.24 Popper continued 17.ix.24 Berlin and Romanticism 1.x.24 Marx 19.iii.24 Kant and Knowledge 16.iv.24 Kant and Morality 30.iv.24 Education and Religion 14.v.24 Hobbes & Security 23.i.24 From Locke to Mill 6.ii.24 Rousseau: Social Contract 20.ii.24 Rousseau and Education 5.iii.24 AI and Ethics 31.x.23 Aristotle and AI 14.xi.23 Autumn 2023 Review 28.xi.23 Democracy 9.i.24 Private Education 5.ix.23 The Very Elderly 19.ix.23 Justifiable Law-breaking 3.x.23 Moral Authority 17.x.23 The Wells School of Philosophy Roll Call 13th January 2025, Hare Lane, 1000-1200 hrs: Tutors: Linda (L), Steve (S) Pupils: John (J), Patricia (P), Alexis (A), David (D) Margie (M), Ray (R) Scribe: Gavin (G) Apologies: Madge (M), Viki (V), Howard (H), Colin (C) Homework for the next fortnight Listen to all five 30-minute episodes of Matthew Syed's Sideways from the Radio Four archive on 25 Years of the 21st Century: The Age of Digital Warfare https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0026nj9 The Age of Mistrust https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0026nbw The Age of Outsourcing https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0026nbl The Age of Changing Families https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0026ngb The Age of Artificial Intelligence https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0026nnc Preparation for this session on Democracy We decided to look again at aspects of democracy this term, particularly as there are increasing threats to the democratic process. As a starting point we suggest listening to an In Our Time episode which gives an overview of the history of democracy from both western and eastern perspectives: link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00547jm . This programme is 25 years old. It is interesting to think about changes in views that may have occurred since then. We will be sending out more reading matter suggestions and questions in the next few days, looking particularly at the limitations and difficulties of the democratic system. We trust that listening to the IoT episode has given you a helpful overview of the history and development of democracy. A good context for further debate. First, like all committed philosophers we should define our terms: what is democracy? We can describe its features, e.g. election of representatives of the people, voting for policies on a majoritarian basis. But what is more useful is identifying ways of arguing for democracy, against the obvious alternative of rule by a benign despot. Broadly there are three ways of approaching this: The instrumental approach: the beneficial effects that can be claimed, such as decision-making based on majoritarian balancing of interests. An argument from freedom: that in a democracy we are given freedom of expression and will. That democracy makes us equal. But do any of these approaches cut the mustard? Can any of them justify majoritarian-based systems? Majorities can be oppressive, especially those which become persistent. Can the interests of minorities be protected? Does democracy simply give the freedom to oppress? Does it, through the mechanics of voting systems, undermine equality? On a more subtle level, can we be sure that people really know what they are voting for? Might they be suffering from 'false consciousness', in which they can be mistaken about their own, and the community's needs? Might they vote out of self-interest on one policy, but for the common good on another? Indeed, is there any common conception of the common good? Does there need to be one? (This is sometimes termed the 'mixed motivation' problem) Are people—citizens—up to the task of being sufficiently intelligent, knowledgeable, to be able to make the decisions required to make democracy work? Maybe some are, in which case perhaps their voting/decision making should be given extra weight, as John Stuart Mill suggested? Or does a slippery slope loom here? (Interestingly, in both the UK and the US there's a big and growing gap in the voting behaviour of graduates and non-graduates.) On John Stuart Mill, his belief was that however it was structured, democracy was a good thing in itself, as it fostered interest in political and moral issues. His utilitarian-based approach was designed to encourage participation in the political process, and to put pressure on education to provide the means to enable this. He wanted people to get involved in Parish and other Council work in their communities, to volunteer for jury service… Essentially, Mill was pushing for what is now known as deliberative democracy—different from the standard model where people/voters are given a set of alternatives, and in some way, according to their preferences, rank them. These preferences are basic and static, not dependent on anything else, undergoing no modification in the political process. And individuals' preferences may be irrational, ill-informed, or even immoral. And mechanisms such as majority voting suffer from obvious disadvantages. Efforts at constitutional protection of minorities can appear in themselves, ironically, anti-democratic (even woke!) The deliberative approach sets out to overcome shortcomings in the standard approach by enabling people's starting ideas and preferences to be modified by the processes of free and equal democratic deliberation; ultimately, so that democratic decisions are taken by the unanimous results of rational deliberation. The task of of democracy is then simply to enable this. The four features of an ideal deliberative approach are: That it is free; no external pressures. That it is equal; no individual is privileged in any way, and that any prior inequalities are not influential. It is reasoned. Participants give reasons for proposals they favour (good Socratic stuff) It aims at consensus; people look for reasons that are persuasive for all. If this works it tends to rule out selfish/non-autonomous preferences, enabling the power of reason to shine through. Instrumentally, deliberation can be said to work valuably in at least three ways, namely: it makes for good decision-making given that the widest possible range of rational considerations is brought to bear, the decision-making is more stable since all citizens agree on the rational justification of these decisions, and (à la Mill) it helps improves the lives of citizens by helping to develop their rational capacities. It gives greater freedom of expression, with each citizen wielding equal political power. But, of course, there are objections to the deliberative model, which can sound so seductively appealing…for example: It imposes a common conception of the good; it pushes people to participate when they might not want to do this. It is impossible to achieve consensus; naive, even. So in the end you fall back on the majoritarian model. It does not yield what might be termed the 'truth', as people may say they agree but not really, given pressures not to stand out or rock the boat. And there could be ideological domination, with consensus achieved by one group manipulating the rest into sharing its perspective. Often what passes for public debate rarely seems to achieve the ideals, and results, of deliberative debate. Is this because the political context is not conducive to its introduction, for example unequal distribution of wealth, the pervasive influence of social media, false news, etc?? So, if you agree with the underlying principles of deliberative democracy, and I suggest that it's hard not to, how do you feel it might be best introduced and structured? Lots of issues to discuss on Tuesday. Do please come armed with at least two suggestions for improving the working and outcomes of democracy to share. Plenary Session Introduction(S) What is democracy? Being ruled by the people. Characterised by voting, either on issues, or by representatives. The majority wins. One fifth of under 45s prefer a strong leader to democracy[1]. But under majority voting, minorities lose out. There is a lot of confusion over how people vote: for the common good or for their own interests? Is there a general will? Mill said that the better educated should have two votes. There is a need to educate people. The process of democracy itself is a source of education. Politicians now talk about consumers, not citizens. Voting involves ranking pre-selected alternatives. But grumpy people, for example, won’t contribute to deliberative democracy. And will people be truthful? Did a referendum such as Brexit generate great public debate? Can democracy be aided by AI? Do we all have the time to get involved with deliberative democracy? Surely we need to elect or appoint representatives in order to make best use of our combined time? Footnote [1]: Polling in the FGS Global Radar report found that 14% of people overall agreed that the best system for running a country effectively was “a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with elections” rather than “democracy”. The proportion of those who supported such a strong leader was 21% among people aged 18-45, and 8% of those aged over 55. Discussion The common good? Personal experience of committee work indicates that most committee members feel they should act and vote for the common good, rather than their families' own narrow interests.(L) In the early history of democracy, the franchise was narrow. As the franchise expanded, elements such as the electoral college complicated matters.(A) franchise: the right to vote in public elections. electoral college: a group of people who are chosen to represent the members of a state or party, in the election of a leader. It is getting harder to change governments without the emergence of violence because people don't accept the result.(A) Social media can give people a sense that they have power, but their expectations can be smashed when reality makes it clear they don't.(G) I agree with the notion of universal franchise. Democracy works until you consider the politicians.(R) universal franchise: ensures the right to vote for as many people bound by a government's laws as possible, as supported by the "one person, one vote" principle. Problems with voting PR would sort out many of the issues in democracy.(D) proportional representation: an electoral system in which the distribution of seats corresponds closely with the proportion of the total votes cast for each party. But doesn't Israel have PR?(G) The rise of the far right makes it harder for PR to succeed, because other parties won’t work with them.(A) Better education would dispel some people’s fears. Britain needs a written constitution.(M) constitution: the set of principles and rules by which a country is organised and it is usually contained in one document. In the UK a constitution has never been codified in this way; instead, the various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties which, taken together, govern how the UK is run are referred to collectively as the British Constitution. The US Constitution was never intended to apply to a nation of the size that the USA has now reached.(A) Britain could have a Bill of Rights.(D) Bill of Rights: a list of fundamental rights that protect citizens from the government. Something like what the French have? Liberté, égalité, fraternité?(S) France's Bill of Rights: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: adopted in 1789 and the basis for the French Constitution of 1791. The Declaration was influenced by the American Declaration of Independence and the Enlightenment philosophy of natural rights. How can democracy cope with multiculturalism? With regions that adopt sharia law? With cults that isolate those who try to leave? We have to live with the small extremist groups.(S) As long as they pay their taxes, and obey our laws, we tolerate them. We don’t like what they do, but we accommodate them. How we vote At each election, the government has no idea why I voted the way I did.(J) In the US, there is a growing divergence between the voting patterns of men and women. Kamala Harris would have become president if only women had had the vote.(S) There is a big voting difference between graduates and non-graduates.(D) Leaving it to one ruler Benign leadership tends to decline over time.(R) Rwanda has been a model of how things can improve under a benevolent dictator since the ethnic genocide of 1994.(S) Even Mugabe was good for Zimbabwe to start with.(L) Musk has said that this would be the last presidential election. The US president has effectively been king since the Civil War. They get to appoint everyone.(A) Schools have tried to introduce democratic roles to the pupils—e.g. as form leaders, on school councils.(PM) Some schools take a tokenist approach to student democracy. Private schools overall seem better at encouraging philosophy, student politics etc.(L) Does every successful school need a very strong head? Does that preclude student democratic involvement?(G) The role of civil servants The Civil service is now getting more involved in party political decisions.(D) France has been grooming an elite for a passport to the upper echelons of French politics for generations.(A) France has valued British contributions in drafting laws etc.(M) Dutch children are not used to writing long pieces for an argued essay.(M) Ironically Britain was a major player in the construction of the single market.(D) Do you need ministers with relevant experience for the jobs you give them?(J) Do civil servants have a sense of the general will? Were they ignored in the last ten years of Tory government?(S) Should our leaders be specialists? Classical Athens rotated its ministers every year. They ended up with generals who couldn’t lead an army—e.g. the Sicilian expedition.(J) The Sicilian Expedition was an Athenian military expedition to Sicily, which took place from 415–413 BC during the Peloponnesian War between Athens on one side and Sparta, Syracuse and Corinth on the other. The expedition ended in a devastating defeat for Athens. How technology might change democracy Can you build optimism into an AI system?(J) The AI model needs to take a realistic rather than an optimistic view. But you can instruct it to be creative rather than destructive.(G) Body language is as important as the words you use.(L) The task of defining ourselves requires us to bounce off others. Their reaction helps me to understand who I am.(S) Some of us have a higher authority we consult before taking decisions. Could generative AI perform this role?(S) Generative AI is a type of AI that creates new content like images, text, audio, and video. It uses machine learning algorithms to analyze large amounts of data and produce outputs that can mimic human responses. The scientific community needs renegades.(L) Professional pilots and surgeons are trained to wait 30 seconds before acting on a decision.(S) Podcasts Recommended: Naomi Alderman (2025). Human Intelligence. BBC Radio Four. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m0026njq Start the Week (2025). Human intelligence and imagination. BBC Radio Four. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00269bn Start the Week (2025). Socrates, optimism and racism. BBC Radio Four. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0026v88 Publications Recommended: Archon Fung (2005). DELIBERATION BEFORE THE REVOLUTION: Toward an Ethics of Deliberative Democracy in an Unjust World. Sage Publications.