From “Who” to “What”: Why the Constitution of the Demos Matters for Democracy

• In Event: The Demos and the Boundary Problem

Abstract

Before there may be democracy, or group decision-making, there must be a demos, or a decision-making group. Central to any theory of democracy, then, is the constitution of the demos.

Many democratic theorists ask the first-order question of how to constitute the demos. Among the answers that they give are all those who have standing as citizens (Song 2012), all those who are coerced as subjects (Abizadeh 2012), and all those whose interests will be affected (Goodin 2007). Far fewer democratic theorists ask the second-order question of why the constitution of the demos matters. Most of the answers that they give are monistic, contending that democracy encompasses a singular “domain” (Miller 2009), embodies a singular “ideal” (Erman 2014), or expresses a singular “point” (Yim 2023), rather than pluralistic, conceding that democracy remains an “essentially contested concept” (Gallie 1955).

Instead of equating democracy with any one such putative meaning, this paper elaborates three contrasting, but not incomparable, approaches to democracy: a “compositional” approach, an “institutional” approach, and an “operational” approach.

The compositional approach concerns the nature of democratic community. The community can be either (a) persons treated on their own, as with the “individual” democratic theories of some economists, like Friedrich Hayek and James Buchanan, or (b) persons treated as members of groups, where the groups, in turn, can be either (i) assembled in competition for political power, as with the “collectively negative” democratic theories of more realistically-minded republicans, or (ii) assembled for cooperation in social life, as with the “collectively positive” democratic theories of more idealistically-minded liberals.

The institutional approach concerns the nature of democratic involvement. Involvement can be either (a) direct, akin to the building of a movement, as with the “participatory” democratic theories of some political scientists, like Carole Pateman and Peter Bachrach, or (b) indirect, akin to the holding of an office, where the office, in turn, can be either (i) assigned by ballot, as with the “psephocratically representative” democratic theories of an older generation that favors election, or (ii) assigned at random, as with the “lottocratically representative” democratic theories of a newer generation that favors sortition.

The operational approach concerns the nature of democratic opportunity. The opportunity can be either (a) an end in itself, as with the “intrinsic” democratic theories of some philosophers, like Thomas Christiano and Elizabeth Anderson, or (b) a means to an end, where the means, in turn, can be either (i) assessed through vote-counting, as with the “instrumentally aggregative” democratic theories of Schumpeterian minimalists, or (ii) assessed through reason-giving, as with the “instrumentally deliberative” democratic theories of Rawlsian maximalists.

Their differences notwithstanding, all three approaches have the same upshot: The formation of the group that makes the decision—who the demos is—influences, without itself determining, the content of the decision that the group makes—what democracy does.

References

Abizadeh, Arash. 2012. “On the Demos and Its Kin: Nationalism, Democracy, and the Boundary Problem.” American Political Science Review 106(4): 867-82.

Erman, Eva. 2014. “The Boundary Problem and the Ideal of Democracy.” Constellations 21(4): 535-46.

Gallie, W. B. 1955. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56(1): 167-98.

Goodin, Robert E. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 35(1): 40-68.

Miller, David. 2009. “Democracy’s Domain.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 37(3): 201-28.

Song, Sarah. 2012. “The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: Why the Demos Should Be Bounded by the State.” International Theory 4(1): 39-68.

Yim, Elaine. 2023. “The All-Affected Principle and the Point of Democracy Revisited.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Los Angeles.

Author

• Kristin Zuhone, University of California, Berkeley