Democratic Legitimacy and the Competence Objection

Abstract

Elitist scepticism of democracy has a venerable history. This paper responds to the latest round of such scepticism—the ‘competence objection’, articulated in recent work by Jason Brennan. Brennan’s charge is that democracy is unjust because it allows uninformed, irrational, and morally unreasonable voters to exercise power over high-stakes political decisions, thus imposing undue risk upon the citizenry. I show that Brennan’s objection admits of two interpretations, and argue that neither can be sustained on close examination. Along the way, I consider the merits of Brennan’s preferred ‘epistocratic’ alternative to democracy, and argue that it is likely to lead to lower-quality outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    What this implies with respect to voters’ capacities for competent decision-making is empirically contentious. For a more optimistic view, see Lupia and McCubbins (1998).

  2. 2.

    See also Caplan (2006).

  3. 3.

    See also Brennan (2011, p. 705; 2016, pp. 154, 159, 230, 235–236).

  4. 4.

    I assume the standard counterfactual dependence account of harm: A harms B by Φing if and only if A’s Φing leaves B worse off than they would otherwise have been.

  5. 5.

    For simplicity, I assume there are only two items on the agenda.

  6. 6.

    This still assumes a small electorate and a close election. A larger electorate or wider margin would further lower P(D), and therefore Ri.

  7. 7.

    An anonymous reviewer has suggested that Brennan might appeal to subjective probabilities of decisiveness. No voter, after all, can be certain that their vote will not be decisive. However, voters can be extremely confident that their votes will neither be decisive, nor non-trivially probabilify the outcomes. Voting, then, should make no non-trivial difference to individuals’ subjective probabilities.

  8. 8.

    The numbers might affect Ronald’s duties for other reasons (see Parfit 1986, pp. 73–75).

  9. 9.

    See, among many others, Christiano (2008), Estlund (2008), Kolodny (2014), and Pettit (2012).

  10. 10.

    Importantly, there is nothing to prevent democrats from endorsing a narrower competence principle which applies to decisions (e.g. jury decisions) which do not share the distinctive features of democratic decisions, as set out in the preceding paragraphs.

  11. 11.

    There are also a range of important views he fails to discuss (e.g. Kolodny 2014).

  12. 12.

    For an overview, see Hayenhjelm and Wolff (2012).

  13. 13.

    On the instrumental virtues of democracy, see, among many others, Christiano (2011), and Sen (1999).

  14. 14.

    This is not to deny that such results are prima facie puzzling, given the facts concerning voter behaviour to which Brennan appeals. There are numerous ways in which that puzzle might be resolved. It may be, for example, that politicians erroneously believe that citizens vote in a sufficiently well-informed, self-interested manner, and allocate resources on the basis of that belief. We need not resolve such puzzles, here. My objection to epistocracy concerns the macro-level results it is likely to engender, whatever the underlying behavioural mechanisms in virtue of which they obtain.

  15. 15.

    The authors stress that these results are conditional upon the absence of counter-majoritarian barriers to progressive change (e.g. aristocratic upper houses).

  16. 16.

    For an overview of the evidence on this point, see Hill in Brennan and Hill (2014, pp. 132–134).

References

  1. Abou-Chadi, Tarik, and Matthias Orlowski. 2015. Political Institutions and the Distributional Consequences of Suffrage Extension. Political Studies 63: 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aidt, Toke S., and Bianca Dallal. 2008. Female Voting Power: The Contribution of Women’s Suffrage to the Growth of Social Spending in Western Europe (1869–1960). Public Choice 134: 391–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Althaus, Scott. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brennan, Jason. 2011. The Right to a Competent Electorate. The Philosophical Quarterly 61: 700–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brennan, Jason. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brennan, Jason, and Lisa Hill. 2014. Compulsory Voting: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brennan, Geoffrey, and Loren E. Lomasky. 1993. Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brennan, Geoffrey, and Loren E. Lomasky. 2000. Is There a Duty to Vote? Social Philosophy and Policy 17: 62–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Caplan, Bryan. 2006. The Myth of the Rational Voter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Christiano, Thomas. 2008. The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Christiano, Thomas. 2011. An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 39: 142–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Estlund, David. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fumagalli, Eileen, and Gaia Narciso. 2012. Political Institutions, Voter Turnout, and Policy Outcomes. European Journal of Political Economy 28: 162–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hayenhjelm, Madeleine, and Jonathan Wolff. 2012. The Moral Problem of Risk Impositions: A Survey of the Literature. European Journal of Philosophy 20: 26–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Husted, Thomas A., and Lawrence W. Kenny. 1997. The Effect of the Expansion of the Voting Franchise on the Size of Government. Journal of Political Economy 105: 54–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kolodny, Niko. 2014. Rule over None II: Social Equality and the Justification of Democracy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 42: 287–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lupia, Arthur, and Matthew D. McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mill, John Stuart. 1991 [1861]. Considerations on Representative Government. In On Liberty and Other Essays, ed. John Gray. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mueller, Dennis C., and Thomas Stratmann. 2003. The Economic Effects of Democratic Participation. Journal of Public Economics 87: 2129–2155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Parfit, Derek. 1986. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pettit, Philip. 2012. On The People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 3rd edn. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sen, Amartya. 1999. Democracy as a Universal Value. Journal of Democracy 10: 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shapiro, Scott J. 2004. Authority. In The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, ed. Jules L. Coleman, Kenneth Einar Himma, and Scott J. Shapiro. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

For helpful comments and criticisms, not all of which I have been able to address, I thank Bob Goodin, Ten-Herng Lai, Seth Lazar, Chad Lee-Stronach, Shmulik Nili, Nicholas Southwood, and the members of the Australian National University’s Centre for Moral, Social, and Political Theory Graduate Workshop. Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers for Res Publica, as well as the editor, Philip Cook. My research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lachlan Montgomery Umbers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Umbers, L.M. Democratic Legitimacy and the Competence Objection. Res Publica 25, 283–293 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-018-9395-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Democracy
  • Risk
  • Competence
  • Epistocracy
  • Voting