Re: democracy defined

[Robert Justin Lipkin]

       The costs of building in too many political/moral concepts into the definition (or as I would prefer to say "the theory") of 'democracy' are real. However, the cost of limiting 'democracy' to majority rule, I submit, is far greater.  Without a far more complex conception of democracy than simply majority rule the value of  majority rule becomes inexplicable.  Why should we choose majority rule in the first place? A sufficiently complex (or thick) conception of democracy would make immediate reference to equality, self-determination, deliberation, representation, the individual and the community's common good, and so forth). Without these (or other political/moral values) 'democracy' will surely not constitute a slogan. However, I fear also that such a simple conception of 'democracy' will be easily disparaged and democracy itself prematurely rejected.

       I support a theory of complex democracy. Tim prefers republicanism.  Both conceptions probably have similar features. Both complex democracy and republicanism will include a principle of majority rule constrained by others political/moral concepts. If there is a difference, I suspect it is this (though of course I do not wish to speak for Tim). Complex democracy cannot tolerate governmental structures which do not ultimately give the electorate an effective final say over constitutional and political controversies. Both theories can tolerate a lot of (non-majoritarian) intermediate structures before the resolution of the controversy.  But complex democracy insists on a structure such as an election or some other relatively direct role for the electorate, while republicanism (as I understand it) does not. No perfectly good examples exist to illustrate this point because it is unclear just what "an effective final say" is.  But reflecting on recent history, complex democracy could not tolerate the result in Bush v. Gore, while republicanism can.

Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware