write an essay on procedural democracy

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Download Free PDF

Procedural democracy: the Bulwark of Political Equality

This essay reclaims a political proceduralist vision of democracy as the best normative defense of democracy in contemporary politics. We distinguish this vision from three main approaches that are representative in the current academic debate: the epistemic conception of democracy as a process of truth seeking; the populist defense of democracy as a mobilizing politics that defies procedures; and the classical minimalist or Schumpeterian definition of democracy as a competitive method for selecting leaders.

Related papers

Political Theory, 2013

Contemporary Political Theory

Res Publica, 2021

Disagreement among philosophers over the proper justification for political institutions is far from a new phenomenon. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that there is substantial room for dissent on this matter within democratic theory. As is well known, instrumentalism and proceduralism represent the two primary viewpoints that democrats can adopt to vindicate democratic legitimacy. While the former notoriously derives the value of democracy from its outcomes, the latter claims that a democratic decision-making process is inherently valuable. This article has two aims. First, it introduces three variables with which we can thoroughly categorise the aforementioned approaches. Second, it argues that the more promising version of proceduralism is extrinsic, rather than intrinsic, and that extrinsically procedural accounts can appeal to other values in the justification of democracy without translating into instrumentalism. This article is organised as follows. I present what I consider to be the 'implicit view' in the justification of democracy. Then, I analyse each of the three variables in a different section. Finally, I raise an objection against procedural views grounded in relational equality, which cannot account for the idea that democracy is a necessary condition for political legitimacy.

Argumentation, 1999

In discussions on democratic legitimacy, Christiano's position is often characterized as a monistic position, i.e. a strong and persuasive version of fair deliberative pro-ceduralism. Democracy is thus seen as a realization of public equality in collective decision making. The presented case for democracy is non-instrumental, and the quality of outcomes produced by a democratic decision-making process does not constitute or in any way influence the legitimacy – generating features of that decision-making process. I argue that the quality of political decisions produced by a democratic decision-making process should play an important (though not decisive) role in Christiano's argument. Consequently, I claim that his case for democracy should be (at least somewhat) instrumental. I consider four cases from Christiano's The Constitution of Equality that show how outcomes of democratic procedures are very important to Christiano. Furthermore, I argue that these outcomes are so important that, when deciding between two or more fair decision-making procedures, one that produces the best outcomes should be considered legitimate.

Rerum Causae, 2010

The political legitimacy of democracy is concerned with reconciling inequality of political power with the fundamental equality of persons. Justifications are made by appealing either to the outcomes of the decision-making procedure or to a feature of the procedure that is said to be inherently fair. Pure instrumentalists assert that the only justification for democracy is that it produces better outcomes. In contrast, pure proceduralists argue for inherent fairness. Mixed accounts argue that the justification must include a balance of the two. Comparing the pure instrumentalism of Richard Arneson with Allen Buchanan’s mixed approach, I aim to show that a justification of democracy requires some account of procedural fairness. While both theorists agree that individual rights fulfilment is the moral aim of a legitimate government they place very different degrees of emphasis on equality. I argue that without a more robust account of the importance of equality, Arneson’s pure instrumentalism falls short of providing a full justification for power inequality, while Buchanan is more thorough and more successful.

Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 2007

CSMVS Research Journal 2022, Mumbai, 2023

SudPresse, 2021

Americas Conference on Information Systems, 2015

WIT transactions on engineering sciences, 2019

The International Arab Journal of Information Technology

Parasites & vectors, 2015

International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 2021

Bauchi Multi-Disciplinary Journal of Research and Development (BAMUDJORD), 2024

Journal of Neuroscience Research, 2009

Device Research Conference, 2009

Frontiers in Pediatrics

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024