Should the People Rule? Conceptualizing Democratic Institutions

With recent elections bringing to power one populist government after another, and more and more far-right parties entering parliaments, many are asking themselves if democracy is still viable. Is popular will a reliable criterion for choosing leaders? Should elected individuals who openly disrespect minorities or manipulate facts be allowed to govern? Or, should we instead tame the democratic will, and if so, how? These questions are timely given recent political events. The rise of populism, extremism and the ‘alternative right’ on one hand, and increasing disaffection with electoral politics on the other, have all prompted observers to re-evaluate representative democracy. For some, the “rise of Trump” –a candidate “seemingly as ill-informed as he is uninterested in policy”– “should challenge our faith in democracy” and prompt us to see the “disease deep within democracy's bones” (Brennan 2016: 9). Similarly, for others, the Brexit vote delivered by an electorate under-informed about its profound implications (Fung 2016) should cause us to reconsider the whole idea of majority rule and to reflect on means by which to make political decision-making more ‘rational’ and apolitical. Our workshop focuses on two distinct responses to the perceived problems of populism and electoral majority rule: epistemic democracy and militant democracy. Epistemic democracy claims that the popular will is less important than the actual quality of political decisions (Landemore 2012, List & Goodin 2001). Epistocratic theorists go one step further and argue that electoral democracy based on universal suffrage is dysfunctional by default; instead, we need to hand over government to the rule of experts (Estlund 2008, Caplan 2007, Brennan 2011). As a model of government favored by epistocrats, technocracy rejects the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ and holds that scientific knowledge and expertise should have, not only guiding, but also decision-making power. The Platonic dogma of ‘expert rule’, in other words, relies on the subordination of majority will to an external source of authority that is based on knowledge. Our workshop aims to question these assumptions and invites scholars to reflect on the concepts and measures employed by epistemic democrats and epistocrats. It will debate, for example, whether technocracy is a counter-concept of populism or of party-democracy (Bickerton & Accetti 2017, Caramani 2017, Rosanvallon 2008), and how they relate to liberal and procedural democracy (Hill 2016, Mudde & Kaltwasser 2012, Müller 2016). A second strand of democratic theory preoccupied with the rise of populist, radical right and extremist parties is militant democracy. Like epistocrats, ‘militant democrats’ find electoral majorities unreliable and generally argue in favor of limiting majority will (Sajò 2004, Kirshner 2014). Albeit preoccupied with parties rather than individual voters, militant democrats share with epistocrats a deep distrust in the people’s capacity to govern themselves (Malkopoulou & Norman 2017) and a belief that extra-democratic intervention is necessary to save democracy from itself. They claim that substantive democratic values have priority over popular will. As a result, party bans and participation restrictions –on various conditions and to different degrees– are justified to prevent a derailing of the constitutional order (cf. Müller 2012, Rummens & Abts 2010). Our workshop invites scholars to reflect on the concept of militant democracy, produce normative arguments either for or against it, and examine how it plays out in real political contexts. For example, it will compare militant to procedural democracy whereby any participation restriction is considered illegitimate and abusive (Accetti & Zuckerman 2017, Urbinati 2014, Dahl 2000), defend the importance of free political parties (Rosenblum 2010), or argue with populists that direct decisions by ‘the people’ are above and beyond any procedures (Canovan 2005). The rise of fascist extremism and populism in Western countries has increased the appeal of epistocrats and militant democrats, who are willing to restrict majority will in the name of other democratic values. Yet, there is substantial disagreement on the content of these theories and the meaning of key concepts employed by them. Moreover, there is significant fragmentation within democratic theory between scholars studying epistemic and militant democracy. Our aim is to bring them together to answer a single question: how can we prevent popular rule from defeating itself? Importantly, all these normative discussions lead to recommendations regarding the design of democratic institutions. Many are suggesting that we should trade elections and participatory institutions for alternatives like sortition (Stone 2011, Buchstein 2009) and expert rule (Fischer 2009), or else find ways to restrict parties or the franchise through party bans and anti-extremist legislation (Capoccia 2013, Bourne 2012). Others suggest that we walk the opposite direction, that is, expand and strengthen the power of ‘the people’, through the use of direct mechanisms favored by populists such as referenda and recalls (Canovan 1999), or the reform of indirect ones such as through high-turnout policies and compulsory voting (Hill in Brennan & Hill 2014, Hill 2002, Malkopoulou 2014). The tensions but also the compatibilities between these different institutional solutions have not been given sufficient consideration. Regardless of remedy chosen, it is clear that majoritarian democracy is currently in crisis and in need of creative and bold re-evaluation. The workshop explores all these challenges to majoritarian democracy and does so from both a normative and institutional perspective. The breadth here is intentional: we want to include ideas and arguments about proceduralism, populism, extremism, militant democracy, the rule of law, epistocracy and epistemic democracy, and their corresponding institutional designs. We also hope to attract scholars from a range of democratic schools of thought who are interested in the design of political institutions. We aim at junior and senior scholars working, on the one hand, in the field of democratic theory, epistemic and militant democracy and populism, and on the other on electoral politics and democratic innovations. Questions to be addressed are ‘How is popular will made manifest?’, ‘Should majority rule be limited?’, ‘How can we contain populism and extremism?’, ‘Should democratic institutions be impartial?’ and finally, ‘Which type of democratic design can justify counteracting majority rights?’. We are open to all types of research design and intellectual traditions, as long as they fall within the workshop’s thematic focus. Although the workshop has a strong focus on democratic theory, we welcome papers using various methods, including –but not restricted to– normative theory, discourse analysis, conceptual-historical approaches, analytical theory and applied theory. We are especially eager to see proposals that combine democratic theory and practice and that develop normative arguments grounded on case studies and political realities. This is the first workshop formally endorsed by the newly founded ECPR Standing Group on Political Concepts. Biographical Notes Anthoula Malkopoulou (PhD 2011) is a Researcher and Lecturer at the Department of Government, Uppsala University and Adjunct Professor at the University of Jyväskylä. Her research interests are in democratic theory, history of political thought, electoral politics and constitutional design. She is the author of The History of Compulsory Voting in Europe: Democracy’s Duty? (Routledge 2015), and co-editor of Equality and Representation (Routledge, 2018). Her articles have appeared in History of Political Thought, Political Studies, Constellations and Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. She is co-editor of Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory and a Steering Committee member of the ECPR Standing Group on Political Concepts. Lisa Hill (D.Phil 1994) is Professor of Politics at the University of Adelaide. Her current areas of interest are: political theory, history of political thought, electoral studies and selected issues in Australian Politics. Lisa is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences of Australia. She is the author, co-author and editor of 7 books, more than fifty journal articles and numerous book chapters. Her articles have appeared in British Journal of Political Science, Political Studies, Review of Politics and History of Political Thought. Lisa is also the recipient of numerous research grants by the Australian Research Council and other funding bodies. References Accetti Invernizzi, Carlo & Zuckerman, Ian (2017). What’s wrong with militant democracy? Political Studies, 65(1_suppl), 182-199. Bickerton, Chris, & Accetti Invernizzi, Carlo (2017). Populism and technocracy: Opposites or complements? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(2), 186-206. Bourne, A. K. (2012). The proscription of political parties and militant democracy. Journal of Comparative Law, 7(1), 196-213. Brennan, Jason, & Hill, Lisa (2014). Compulsory Voting: For and Against. Cambridge University Press. Brennan, Jason (2016). Pox Populi. Chronicle of Higher Education, 64 (39), 19/6/2016. Brennan, Jason (2011). The right to a competent electorate. The Philosophical Quarterly 61: 700-724. Buchstein, Hubertus (2009). Demokratie und Lotterie. Das Los als politisches Entscheidungsinstrumentvon der Antike bis zur EU. Frankfurt: Campus. Canovan, Margaret (2005). The People. Polity. Canovan, Margaret (1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political Studies, 47(1), 2-16. Caplan, Brian (2007). The Myth of the Rational Voter. Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Princeton University Press. Capoccia, Giovanni (2013). Militant democracy: the institutional bases of democratic self-preservation. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 9, 207-226. Caramani, Daniele (2017). Will vs. reason: The populist and technocratic forms of political representation and their critique to party government. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 54-67. Dahl, Robert (2000). On Democracy. Yale University Press. Estlund, David (2008). Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton University Press. Fischer, Frank (2009). Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Analysis. Oxford University Press. Fung, Brian (2016). The British are frantically Googling what the EU is, hours after voting to leave it. Washington Post, 24/6/2016. Hill, Lisa (2016). Voting turnout, equality, liberty and representation: Epistemic versus procedural democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 19(3), 283-300. Hill, Lisa (2002). On the reasonableness of compelling citizens to ‘vote’: The Australian case. Political Studies, 50(1), 80-101. Kirshner, Alexander (2014). A Theory of Militant Democracy: The Ethics of Combating Political Extremism. Yale University Press. Landemore, Hélène (2012). Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton University Press. List, Christopher, and Robert E. Goodin (2001). Epistemic democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet jury theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy 9 (3): 277-306. Malkopoulou, Anthoula & Norman, Ludvig (2017). Three models of democratic self-defense: Militant democracy and its alternatives. Political Studies, forthcoming. Malkopoulou, Anthoula (2014). The History of Compulsory Voting in Europe: Democracy's Duty? New York: Routledge. Mudde, Cas, & Kaltwasser, Cristobal Rovira (2012). Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or corrective for democracy? Cambridge University Press. ‪Müller, Jan-Werner (2016). What Is Populism? University of Pennsylvania Press. ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ Müller, Jan-Werner (2012). A “practical dilemma which philosophy alone cannot resolve”? Rethinking militant democracy: An introduction. Constellations, 19(4), 536-539. Rosanvallon, Pierre (2008). Counter-democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust. Cambridge University Press. Rosenblum, L. Nancy (2010). On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton University Press. Rummens, Stefan, & Abts, Koen (2010). Defending democracy: The concentric containment of political extremism. Political Studies, 58(4), 649-665. Sajó, Andràs, ed. (2004). Militant Democracy (Vol. 1). Eleven International Publishing. Stone, Peter (2011). The Luck of the Draw: The Role of Lotteries in Decision Making. Oxford University Press. Urbinati, Nadia (2014). Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth and the People. Harvard University Press.