Abstract
In response to the democratic boundary problem, two principles have been seen as competitors: the all-affected interests principle and the all-subjected principle. This article claims that these principles are in fact compatible, being justified vis-à-vis different functions, accommodating different values and drawing on different sources of normativity. I call this a ‘function-sensitive’ view. More specifically, I argue that the boundary problem draws attention to the decision functions of democracy and that two values are indispensable when theorizing how to regulate these functions: procedural fairness and political autonomy. While the value of procedural fairness is best promoted through a version of the all-affected interests principle, applied to decision making generally, it is argued that political autonomy is best promoted through a version of the all-subjected principle, applied to coercive decision making specifically. The article concludes by drawing out some practical implications of the function-sensitive view for the case of immigration and border controls.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agné, H. (2010) Why democracy must be global. International Theory 2: 381–409.
Abizadeh, A. (2008) Democratic theory and border coercion: No right to unilaterally control your own borders. Political Theory 36(1): 37–65.
Abizadeh, A. (2010) Democratic legitimacy and state coercion: A reply to David Miller. Political Theory 38(1): 121–130.
Abizadeh, A. (2012) On the demos and its kin: Nationalism, democracy, and the boundary problem. American Political Science Review 106(4): 867–882.
Angell, K. (2020) A life plan principle of voting rights. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice 23: 125–139.
Arrhenius, G. (2005) The boundary problem in democratic theory. In F. Tersman (ed.) Democracy Unbound: Basic Explorations. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Department of Philosophy, pp. 14–29.
Arrhenius, G. (2018) The democratic boundary problem reconsidered. Ethics, Politics & Society 1: 89–122.
Arrhenius, G. and Goodin, R. (Manuscript) Giving Those Subject to the Laws a Say.
Bauböck, R. (2015) Morphing the Demos into the right shape: Normative principles for enfranchising resident aliens and expatriate citizens. Democratization 22(5): 820–839.
Bauböck, R. (2017) Political membership and democratic boundaries. In R. Bauböck, et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Bauböck, R. (2018a) Democratic inclusion: A pluralist theory of citizenship. In D. Owen (ed) Democratic inclusion: Bauböck in Dialogue. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Bauböck, R. (2018b) Response to critics. In D. Owen (ed.) Democratic Inclusion: Bauböck in Dialogue. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Beckman, L. (2009) The Frontiers of Democracy: The Right to Vote and Its Limits. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Beckman, L., Maltais, A. and Rosenberg, J.H. (2019) The demos and its critics. The Review of Politics 81(3): 435–457.
Benhabib, S. (2004) The rights of others: Aliens, residents and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brighouse, H. and Fleurbaey, M. (2010) Democracy and proportionality. The Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 137–155.
Carens, J. (2018) The boundaries of ‘democratic inclusion’: Some questions for Rainer Bauböck. In D. Owen (ed.) Democratic inclusion: Bauböck in Dialogue. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Christiano, T. (2006) A democratic theory of territory and some puzzles about global democracy. Journal of Social Philosophy 37: 81–107.
Christiano, T. (2008) The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, R. (1970) After the Revolution?. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. (1989) Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Erman, E. (2018) A function-sensitive approach to the political legitimacy of global governance. British Journal of Political Science 50(3): 1001–1024.
Erman, E. and Kuyper, J. (2020) Global democracy and feasibility. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 23: 311–331.
Erman, E. and Möller, N. (2015a) Political legitimacy in the real normative world: The priority of morality and the autonomy of the political. British Journal of Political Science 45(1): 215–233.
Erman, E. and Möller, N. (2015b) Why political realists should not be afraid of moral values. Journal of Philosophical Research 40: 459–464.
Erman, E. and Möller, N. (2015c) What not to expect from the pragmatic turn in political theory. European Journal of Political Theory 14(2): 121–140.
Erman, E. and Möller, N. (2021) Distinctively political normativity in political realism: Unattractive or redundant. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice (OnlineFirst).
Estlund, D. (1997) Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democratic authority. In J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Forst, R. (2011) The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice, ed. A. Allen, trans J. Flynn. New York: Columbia University Press.
Goodin, R. (2007) Enfranchising all affected interests and its alternatives. Philosophy & Public Affairs 35: 40–68.
Gould, C. (2004) Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, (trans) W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1999) Between facts and norms: An author’s reflections. Denver University Law Review 76: 937–942.
Jubb, R. (2015) Playing Kant at the court of King Arthur. Political Studies 63: 919–934.
Kolodny, N. (2014a) Rule over none I: What justifies democracy? Philosophy & Public Affairs 42(3): 195–229.
Kolodny, N. (2014b) Rule over none II: Social equality and the justification of democracy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 42(4): 287–336.
Leader Maynard, J. and Worsnip, A. (2018) Is there a distinctively political normativity? Ethics 128: 756–787.
List, C. and Goodin, R. (2001) Epistemic democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy 9: 277–306.
Lopez-Guerra, C. (2005) Should expatriates vote? The Journal of Political Philosophy 13(2): 216–234.
Miller, D. (2009) Democracy’s domain. Philosophy & Public Affairs 33: 113–147.
Miller, D. (2010) Why immigration controls are not coercive: A reply to Arash Abizadeh. Political Theory 38(1): 111–120.
Miller, D. (2018) What makes a democratic people? In D. Owen (ed.) Democratic Inclusion: Bauböck in Dialogue. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Miller, D. (2020) Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem. Philosophy Compass 15(11): 1–9.
Nili, S. (2017) Democratic theory, the boundary problem, and global reform. The Review of Politics 79: 99–123.
Näsström, S. (2007) The legitimacy of the people. Political Theory 35: 624–658.
O’Neill, O. (1996) Towards Justice and Virtue: A Constructive Account of Practical Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Owen, D. (2012) Constituting the polity, constituting the demos. Ethics & Global Politics 5: 129–152.
Raz, J. (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Sleat, M. (2016) What is a political value? Political philosophy and fidelity to reality. Social Philosophy and Policy 33: 252–272.
Valentini, L. (2014) No global demos, no global democracy? A systematization and critique. Perspectives on Politics 12(4): 789–807.
Whelan, F. (1983) Democratic theory and the boundary problem. In J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman (eds.) Liberal Democracy: Nomo. New York: New York University Press, Vol. XXV, pp. 13–47.
Williams, B. (2005) In the Beginning Was the Deed, ed. G. Hawthorn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Acknowledgments
I owe special thanks to Vuko Andric and Ludvig Beckman for comments on an earlier draft of this article. Thanks also to the participants of the workshop on the Boundary Problem at the Institute for Future Studies in Stockholm (2019), in particular Kim Angell and Gustaf Arrhenius, as well as to the participants of the Prague Critical Theory Colloquium (2021), in particular Svenja Ahlhaus, Pablo Gilabert, Rainer Forst and Simone Chambers. Moreover, I wish to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers of Contemporary Political Theory for invaluable feedback. I am also grateful to the Swedish Research Council and to Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation for generously funding my research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Erman, E. The boundary problem of democracy: A function-sensitive view. Contemp Polit Theory 21, 240–261 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00517-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00517-6