Against Democracy is a book by American political philosopher Jason Brennan. It contains the writer's critical perspectives on democracy, a form of government in which the rights to rule are evenly given to every citizen, and argues for its replacement by the more limiting epistocracy, where such rights are achieved by the knowledgeable. The book was published on September 6, 2016 by Princeton University Press and has been translated into other languages. The German translation, Gegen Demokratie, published the next year, became a Der Spiegel bestseller.
Brennan starts the book by grouping citizens into three categories: Hobbits (abstain from voting and are careless), hooligans (irrational and biased), and vulcans (perceptive and disinterested). He argues that most citizens fit in one of these first two labels, or at least fall somewhere in the spectrum, and thenceforth contends that having the right to vote necessitates the voter to be vulcan-like. He contends that most citizens are vulnerable to misinformation, with which they hold biased points of view, and are also uninterested in obtaining useful knowledge about politics, which is attributable to rational ignorance. Even if vulcan-like citizens exist, their small numbers have almost no effect on the election or any governmental decision.
The book presents Brennan's objection to the usefulness of ubiquitous political participation and deliberative democracy, the latter of which he argues is achievable only if all the deliberators behave like vulcans do, that is, to be respectful of differing views. Arguments for democracy that he addresses and argues against include arguments of consent and the government's responsiveness. He proposes several forms of epistocratic government, among which are restricted suffrage and plural voting, and raises disagreement with arguments for democracy that are built upon mathematical theorems.
Against Democracy has been applauded for touching on the rarely discussed subject of democracy and its readability to lay readers. Criticism has been given to Brennan's description of the majority of citizens as being biased by in-group confirmation. The fact that he does not go deeper into the underlying causes of problems that he attributes to democracy and the potential of an epistocratic system being abused have also been subjects of criticism. Also noted by reviewers is that Brennan's use of surveys to prove his claim, which suggests that ignorance is widespread among voters, does not consider scholars who have expressed skepticism about their reliability.
Synopsis
In the first chapter, Jason Brennan categorizes citizens into three categories:
Hobbits: They are indifferent to politics and hence do not have fixed opinions about political issues. To them, daily lives, rather than being cognizant of politics, are to be prioritized, and so they are ignorant of current political issues as well as the scientific theories and data needed to understand them. The typical American non-voter is a hobbit.
Hooligans: Described as the "rabid sports fans of politics", they have fixed political opinions and can present arguments to support their views. They are unable to elucidate points of view that conflict with theirs, however, and are generally biased in consuming information, seeking only the one that goes along with what they believe and rejecting the other that controverts it. This category includes most regular voters and politicians.
Vulcans: They think the most scientifically and rationally about politics. Their opinions are dictated by evidence and grounded in social science and philosophy. Vulcans can elaborate contrary views in a way that satisfies the hearer who holds these views and is tolerant of them as well. To be a vulcan is to be unbiased, and because no one is unbiased, no one can therefore be a "true vulcan".
Brennan writes that most citizens are either of the two first categories or at least fall somewhere in the spectrum, and henceforth thinks that they should stay away from politics. He thinks that political liberty and participation are not inherently good and can lead such citizens to outcomes that harm themselves or others. Brennan mentions three justifications for democracy: that it leads to more positive results than any other form of government does, it makes people more enlightened and educated, and intrinsically, it is beneficial, and he argues for the otherwise. In this chapter, he also writes an outline of all eight subsequent chapters.
In the second chapter, Brennan states that citizens are likely to be manipulated by misinformation, such as conspiracy theories, for not having enough knowledge or being informed of evidence, and shows data proving how generally ignorant Americans are when asked about their national history and politicians' stance on certain issues. Furthermore, he explains that citizens barely care about obtaining knowledge at all because they see that the cost of doing so tends not to give them the benefits that they expect, also known as rational ignorance. Brennan adds that even if a citizen has acquired sufficient knowledge of politics, the citizen's vote has almost no significant effect on the election. Also common is confirmation bias, in which one sticks to stances that one believes and searches for evidence that can support them while ignoring evidence that goes against them, as well as in-group favoritism, which makes one have hatred toward any group of differing views.
The third chapter discusses political participation, whereby citizens are obliged to vote in order to make themselves more understanding of or interested in politics, for which Brennan argues otherwise. He draws an analogy to philosophy majors who obtained their degrees owing to them having already been interested in philosophy. He continues to talk about deliberative democracy, which encompasses sundry kinds of democracy that make people come together to share and discuss ideas, so a consensus of what action or view to be taken can be reached. The rules to conduct such a deliberation include that the participants be consistent, sincere, and competent; that all forms of coercion and manipulation be avoided; and that everyone has the same right to opine. As Brennan suggests, most people are hooligans rather than vulcans, so the process of deliberation would be full of their defending their respective views and deceiving one another into confusion or an incorrect conclusion.
Brennan argues in the fourth chapter that democracy empowers groups, not individuals, and analyzes a number of arguments for democracy. The first one is the consent argument, which says that it is imperative to possess political liberties and to engage in political participation in order to express consent to government or build a consensual relationship with government. According to him, if an individual voter votes for a political party and it turns out that it does not win, then the voter, without giving consent, has to live under rules imposed by the winning party, which eventually rules the government. Another argument for democracy is that it makes the government responsive to one's interests, to which Brennan objects on the ground that an individual does not make any change at all, or even if it does, the probability is minuscule since it shares the same power as any other individual vote. He illustrates that if a citizen lives in the United States, of which 210 million are legal voters, then the citizen has one out of 210 million of the voting power.
The fifth chapter has Brennan's views of the soundness of semiotic arguments for democracy, which hold that respect is symbolized by the presence of equal power for everyone, and by which opponents of epistocracy argue that epistocracy leads to the exclusion of certain groups and distributes political power to an unequal extant. Brennan adds that epistocracy is aimed at finding better outcomes by people who have better judgment of political matters. He continues talking about epistocracy in the sixth chapter, where he concludes that there are presumptive rationales to choose epistocracy over democracy, and in the seventh chapter, he rebuts defenses of democracy that are based on mathematical theorems, by which proponents suggest that even though most voters are ignorant, competent decisions are still possible to obtain.
In the eighth chapter, Brennan puts forward a number of epistocratic forms of government, which he notes have several institutions comparable to what democracy has but with a striking difference in the distribution of the right to vote. These forms include restricted suffrage, where citizens undergo examinations through which citizens who obtain a poor score are eliminated from having political power; and plural voting, where citizens have one vote by default but, as they have passed examinations in order to show their knowledge, more votes are given to them. He goes on to address counterarguments to epistocracy, such as demographic objection, which states that political knowledge is disseminated in an unbalanced manner among all demographic groups. The ninth chapter is a "short postscript" in which he opines that politics have become a tool to antagonize one another, which accordingly happens from the nature of politics themselves, which put people in "genuinely adversarial relationships".
Release
Princeton University Press published the hardcover on September 6, 2016,[1] and the paperback on September 26, 2017.[2]Against Democracy has been translated into several languages. It was translated into German by Stephan Gebauer under the title Gegen Demokratie.[3] Published by Ullstein Verlag on April 7, 2017,[4] it became a Der Spiegel bestseller.[5] A Swedish translation, Efter demokratin (After Democracy), was published by Timbro förlag on November 23, 2017.[6] In the same year, Gradiva published the Portuguese translation, entitled Contra a Democracia.[7] The Spanish translation, Contra la democracia, done by Ramón González Férriz, was published by Deusto on April 26, 2018.[8]
Reception
In Essays in Philosophy, Valerie Soon described the book as "an elegantly argued, empirically substantiated work of non-ideal political theory", of which the contents may be helpful to political philosophers whose specialization is the relationship between ideal and non-ideal theory, and wrote that the "succinct, concrete style" employed by Brennan makes the reading comprehensible to general readers. However, she argued against several assumptions put forward by Brennan, including one saying that a person who is more knowledgeable is likelier to be just and has diminished cognitive bias.[9] In an article for The Washington Post, law professor Ilya Somin praised him for "mak[ing] a strong case that the current electorate's right to rule is not nearly as defensible as we might want to assume". In spite of the fact that Brennan's epistocratic ideas are far from being implementable on a countrywide scale, Somin adds, they deserve in-depth consideration.[10]
Robinson in 2020. Writing a review for Current Affairs, he thought that Brennan should have addressed the potential of epistocracy being abused.
Simone Chambers of Perspectives on Politics, who called Against Democracy "provocative", commented that, as suggested by the title itself, what is mainly discussed in the work is not details of epistocracy but rather contention against democracy. She added that the book focuses more on making the case for epistocracy than on whether it is achievable or useful to society. On the second chapter, Chambers wrote that while Brennan touches on the matters of how most Americans do not have sufficient political knowledge and the relationship between one's group identity and one's political preferences, she suggested that he should have analyzed them much deeper instead of "squander[ing] the opportunity". She was also ambivalent in regard to Brennan's description of "most regular voters" nowadays that represent the hooligans and asserted that it was untrue even in the United States, from which the data cited in the book mostly come, writing of "a lot of evidence that humans are in-group/out-group thinkers and that group identity is used as a shortcut in preference articulation".[11]
Los Angeles Times reviewer Molly Sauter wrote that Brennan's arguments in disagreement with democracy "will appear solidly argued, even lively, but not particularly novel" to anyone versed in democratic theory and the resulted dissatisfaction, stating that Against Democracy succeeds to deal with the untouched subject of democracy and would have liked Brennan to give more attention to the underlying causes of the problem described.[12] In a 2017 column, Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs referred to the book as "the most spirited and comprehensive attempt at a philosophically coherent justification of despotic rule" among several that had been published since 2016, but faulted the author for not addressing the vulnerability of epistocracy being used for confirmation bias and its potential to help restore abolished hierarchies, such as the Jim Crow laws.[13]
Kevin J. Elliott of Contemporary Political Theory praised the "stimulating" book for its reliance on empirical publications while addressing such topics as voters' competence and behavior, but bemoaned that it does not consider criticism of these data. For instance, the book shows surveys regarding citizens' poor performance in making competent decisions owing to their lack of knowledge but does not cite scholars questioning their reliability.[14]Roslyn Fuller of the Los Angeles Review of Books opined that the book has a "lack of originality", as the idea of a government being ruled[clarification needed] has appeared since the Ancient Greek era, but "is probably highly significant. Brennan's ideas may well be unpopular with the general public, but I suspect we would not be reading about them if they were not wildly popular in some circles. That, in itself, is certainly food for thought."[15]
Participatory democracy, participant democracy, participative democracy, or semi-direct democracy is a form of government in which citizens participate individually and directly in political decisions and policies that affect their lives, rather than through elected representatives. Elements of direct and representative democracy are combined in this model.
Disapproval voting is any electoral system that allows many voters to express formal disapproval simultaneously, in a system where they all share some power. Unlike most electoral systems, it requires that only negative measures or choices be presented to the voter or representative. If used to select candidates for an office, or for continuation to a next round of voting or play, it is either single- or multi-winner, as everyone who is not disapproved of is in effect a winner, for that round.
Tyranny of the majority is an inherent weakness of majority rule where the majority of an electorate pursues its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot.
The Open Society and Its Enemies is a work on political philosophy by the philosopher Karl Popper, in which the author presents a "defence of the open society against its enemies", and offers a critique of theories of teleological historicism, according to which history unfolds inexorably according to universal laws. Popper indicts Plato, Hegel, and Marx for relying on historicism to underpin their political philosophies.
Noocracy is an ideal type of government where decisions are delegated to those deemed wisest. The idea is classically advanced, among others, by Plato, al-Farabi and Confucius.
Foot voting is expressing one's preferences through one's actions, by voluntarily participating in or withdrawing from an activity, group, or process; especially, physical migration to leave a situation one does not like, or to move to a situation one regards as more beneficial. People who engage in foot voting are said to "vote with their feet".
The paradox of voting, also called Downs' paradox, is that for a rational and self-interested voter, the costs of voting will normally exceed the expected benefits. Because the chance of exercising the pivotal vote is minuscule compared to any realistic estimate of the private individual benefits of the different possible outcomes, the expected benefits of voting are less than the costs.
Liberal democracy, western-style democracy, or substantive democracy is a form of government that combines the organization of a democracy with ideas of liberal political philosophy.
Political literacy is a set of abilities considered necessary for citizens to participate in a society's government.
The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies is a 2007 book by the economist Bryan Caplan, in which the author challenges the idea that voters are reasonable people whom society can trust to make laws. Rather, Caplan contends that voters are irrational in the political sphere and have systematically biased ideas concerning economics.
Youth suffrage is the right of youth to vote and forms part of the broader universal suffrage and youth rights movements. Most democracies have lowered the voting age to between 16 and 18, while some advocates for children's suffrage hope to remove age restrictions entirely.
Criticism of democracy, or debate on democracy and the different aspects of how to implement democracy best have been widely discussed. There are both internal critics and external ones who reject the values promoted by constitutional democracy.
Liquid democracy is a form of Proxy voting, whereby an electorate engages in collective decision-making through direct participation and dynamic representation. This democratic system utilizes elements of both direct and representative democracy. Voters in a liquid democracy have the right to vote directly on all policy issues à la direct democracy; voters also have the option to delegate their votes to someone who will vote on their behalf à la representative democracy. Any individual may be delegated votes and these proxies may in turn delegate their vote as well as any votes they have been delegated by others resulting in "metadelegation".
The concept known as rational irrationality was popularized by economist Bryan Caplan in 2001 to reconcile the widespread existence of irrational behavior with the assumption of rationality made by mainstream economics and game theory. The theory, along with its implications for democracy, was expanded upon by Caplan in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter.
Demeny voting is a type of proxy voting where the provision of a political voice for children by allowing parents or guardians to vote on their behalf. The term is named after demographer Paul Demeny, though the concept predates him. It is often proposed as a measure to ensure the (indirect) representation of children who are considered too young to vote. Under a Demeny voting system, parents would cast a proxy vote for their child, possibly allowing for a split weighted vote if the parents' political views differ.
Jason F. Brennan is an American philosopher and business professor. He is the Robert J. and Elizabeth Flanagan Family Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University.
Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter is a 2013 book from Stanford University Press by George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. Somin argues that people are ignorant and irrational about politics and that this creates problems for democracy. He further claims that this consideration argues in favor of smaller and more decentralized government.
Lisa Hill is Professor of Politics at the University of Adelaide, Australia. She has previously held positions at the University of Sydney and the Australian National University.
Epistemic democracy refers to a range of views in political science and philosophy which see the value of democracy as based, at least in part, on its ability to make good or correct decisions. Epistemic democrats believe that the legitimacy or justification of democratic government should not be exclusively based on the intrinsic value of its procedures and how they embody or express values such as fairness, equality, or freedom. Instead, they claim that a political system based on political equality can be expected to make good political decisions, and possibly decisions better than any alternative form of government .
The Ethics of Voting by Jason Brennan is a book which outlines a contrasting argument to the idea that it is the civic duty of individuals within a democracy to vote. The core tenet upon which his argument resides is that the individuals who do not know what they are voting for should not feel the moral obligation to vote on issues about which they are uninformed, and that democracies would benefit as a whole from their abstaining from the polls.
↑ Brennan, Jason (September 26, 2017). Against Democracy. Princeton University Press. ISBN9780691178493.
↑ Sasse, Sabine (April 20, 2017). "Philosoph Jason Brennan: "Demokratische Entscheidungen sind nicht unbedingt richtige Entscheidungen"" [Philosopher Jason Brennan: “Democratic decisions are not necessarily right decisions”]. Tagesspiegel (in German).
↑ Brennan, Jason (November 23, 2017). Efter demokratin: Argument för ett nytt styrelseskick[After Democracy: Arguments for a New Form of Governance] (in Swedish). Timbro förlag. ISBN9789177031130.
↑ Brennan, Jason (January 2017). Contra a Democracia[Against Democracy] (in Portuguese). Gradiva. ISBN978-989-616-762-2.
↑ Brennan, Jason (April 26, 2018). Contra la democracia[Against Democracy] (in Spanish). Deusto. ISBN978-8423429226.
↑ Sauter, Molly (September 16, 2016). "How do we make America great? 'Necessary Trouble' and 'Against Democracy' take contrasting views". Los Angeles Times.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
