Transcript
Use with ChatGPT / Claude Auto-scroll A
Introduces deliberative democracy as an expansive form of public debate that extends democratic decision-making into many areas of life. It then presents major objections, including inefficiency, digressions, and the risk that large groups make worse decisions than smaller expert groups.
all right welcome to the next lesson here on representative democracy first let's talk about the liberty of democracy a deliberative democracy is a democracy with extensive public debate and where there are dissenting voices the idea here against Rousseauis that we should embrace debate there should be debate there should be dissenting voices we should let all the relevant parties have their say and there should be long discussions in a deliberative democracy we can make decisions onhow the executive acts such as when the conditions of war have been met notice that this deliberative democracy differs from Rousseau's direct democracy right remember in Russo's direct democracy the people vote directly on propositions and policy issues butthen it's the executive who then executes the laws and determine when the conditions of the laws have met have been met such as when the conditions for going to war have been met and then the executive then has
the country go to war however with the deliberative democracy even the decisions that were made by the executive are also up to debate and up to democratic vote so in a deliberative democracy we can even make decisions onhow the executive acts such as when the conditions of war have been met so it's even further kind of even in this respect it's an even more extreme form of democracy than Russo's direct democracy and in a deliberativedemocracy democratic decision-making should apply in all facets of life in all facets of life such as the workplace and the family decisions in the workplace such as what kind of a decision a business should make or a largecorporation or what decision a family should make all of these things should be up to a democratic vote so this is a very extensive kind of pervasive democracy that pervades pretty much all facets of life and the idea
behind this that this is the only way to achieve real and equality for all that's why this is why deliberative Democratic theorists hold this kind of view as they want to achieve real freedom and equality for everyone inall parts of life so what might be some objections or counter examples do something like this I invite you to press pause to think about this and here are some objections to deliver democracy this is not all thepossible objections but one of them is this a large deliberating group will have digressions and the best ideas may not be heard on the other hand a small group of merited agents likely will lead to better deliberation soif we have a deliberative democracy let's say in a large country like the United States there'll be a large deliberating group and there can be digressions for example some people in the debate and the deliberation might take us
on a sidetrack and there might be digressions into areas that aren't even relevant to the particular issue at hand which can throw things off throw us off the trail from making progress on a particular policy issue also itcould be the case with so many people at the table with a large deliberating group the best ideas may not be heard or since there are so many ideas put out there the some of them bad right someof them good the best ideas might kind of get drowned out by all the different kinds of ideas the plethora of ideas that are out there and they may not get picked up however what if we just hada small group of people deliberating and there have merit they have the intelligence relevant intelligence and politics as well as experience in politics and this will lead to better deliberation another objection is this it will take too much
time to deliberate about everything imagine deliberating about everything such as your family vacation every single possible decision of business or large corporation has to make imagine everyone coming together in the business coming together to vote and deliberate aboutwhat decision that corporation should make as well as in all the issues about politics that would be a lot of deliberation even deliberating about how the executive branch should even act itself right rather than handing over the reinsto them it would be about every facet of politics too and that would just be too much deliberation we couldn't live our lives there can also be other objections against deliberative democracy you can imagine for example what ifthe military strategy and an important war came down to was put to a democratic vote amongst all the soldiers rather than leaving it in the hands of the general who has the merited general who has experienced knowledge since
previous success in warfare and things like that for making decision but rather leave it up to a democratic vote that can lead to some serious problems also think about large corporations you have the masses within that within thatcorporation voting and having an equal vote as let's say a CEO who has usually has more experience and more successful experience as well as knowledge of the field this can lead to bad decision-making all right so now let's
Explains John Stuart Mill's representative democracy and why he thinks it is better than direct democracy. Mill argues that representative systems improve citizens' knowledge and political engagement while leaving most lawmaking to elected officials.
move on to representative democracy and here we're gonna move on to John Stuart Mill's representative democracy right we discussed deliberative democracy direct democracy here we're gonna look at Mills representative democracy and a representative democracy remember is a democracywhere representatives make the laws and put them into practice we have representatives such as congressmen and women who make the laws vote on the laws and put them into practice and there is this general question of how muchpower should government administrators have you can have a direct democracy where those in Russo's Russo's kind of direct democracy where governor administrators they have some power such as those in the executive branch for actually determining for example whenthe conditions of war have been met to then launch the country into war or not or you can have a deliberative democracy where those in government don't really have much power and everything really essentially boils down to a
democratic vote on all facets the political sphere but here a representative democracy the recover meant representatives and administrators have much more power they're the ones who essentially write the laws vote on them and put them into practice etcand John Stuart Mill Capital m is shorthand for mill is he says that the government's purpose is twofold the first one is to improve citizens improve them in their knowledge and their intelligence and their decision-making etc it's alsoto manage public affairs manage two public affairs of the state and he says that a kind of pure meritocracy and monarchies do not improve citizens because citizens have no need to learn about the affairs of the state ina democracy where citizens have to vote one advantage of a democracy is that citizens need to be educated and they need to keep up with information as well as politics and relevant social and scientific issues to politics in
order to vote properly and this can improve citizens in their knowledge and their intelligence and their ability to make decisions in politics so he sees this as a benefit of democracies whereas for example in a pure meritocracy wherethere is no democratic vote and people are put in office who are wise and intelligent and have successful and lots of experience well the people are involved right they're not voting the masses are not voting in this caseso there this might motivate them to not really learn much about politics and in a monarchy if it's just the power is centralized in figure one figure and the power is then passed on through heredity in this situationthere is not much motivation incentive for people to learn about politics but in democracy there's much more incentive for the masses for the people to learn about politics and that can just generally enhance their lives and better themselves
okay so here is Mill speaking against directed democracy remember a direct democracy is where people vote on each possible policy issue that comes up for a state and mil says a direct democracy is too inefficient we should notlet the masses who can be ignorant of their ignorance exert great influence over expert administrators why have the people vote on every single policy issue when lots of the people can be ignorant and they can be even ignorantthat they're not very intelligent right they can be ignorant of their own ignorance they might not know that they're ignorant they might think that they know better right and they know a lot about politics and they should bevoting on every relevant policy issue for a state but they really don't have all the relevant information or they might example be bad at logic etc they might be ignorant of their own ignorance and if the masses are
generally like this this can exert a great great great influence over the state and in this kind of situation the masses the people will have more power over the expert administrators such that the administrators won't be able totry to won't be able to make things right in case the masses go astray right so it's better to have a representative democracy Mill says we're the representatives the elected representatives are those who hopefully are more wise moreintelligent know more about the relevant issues and have experience of doing of success in politics it's better to have the representatives doing most of the legwork in politics making the laws and voting on them etc and as comparedto having a direct democracy all right so what might be some objections against Mill
Defines liberal democracy as a representative system with separation of powers, checks and balances, church-state separation, equal rights, and personal liberty. It then details Mill's responses to the Platonic objection, including open ballots and voting restrictions based on education and occupation.
okay so here we have the platonic objection platonic if something is platonic that means it's an idea that came from Plato we have this objection that we're concerning the tearing of the majority where those skilled in duplicity ordeceitfulness and manipulation rule right those who know how to appeal to the masses but are really bad candidates for being leaders and being representatives these people are those are the ones who get elected and then we have baddecision-making by the representatives who hold most of the power it's a possible representatives such as president congressmen and women etc so what might Mills response to this be okay so before we get to Mills response to this kindof platonic objection its first important to note that mill generally aligns with a liberal democracy now by a liberal and liberal democracy I don't mean liberal versus conservative as we commonly understand in politics today but rather liberal democracy
is a technical term in political philosophy and political science all right it's a very technical term and what we should understand a liberal democracy as being is a representative democracy so a liberal democracy is a representative democracy withthings like separation of powers checks and balances separation of church and state equal protection of Rights Liberty to live your life as you choose as long as you don't harm others so these are kind of hallmark or centraltenets of a liberal democracy I take it whether you're a conservative or a liberal in the more modern sense of the term you most likely believe in a liberal democracy so a liberal democracy this kind of political philosophyarose in the 17th and 18th century in the Enlightenment era which was an important era in philosophy from philosophers such as John Locke and Montesquieu so what these philosophers came up with and what they argued for was this
kind of state a representative democracy with separation of powers don't have powers be centralized in a monarchy for example but have the powers the main powers of a state be split up such as an executive branch legislative branchand a judicial branch and have checks and balances where these different branches can have check each other just in case one branch goes astray the other branches can intervene I'd have checks and balances so you know during thistime this was a very liberal idea in the 17th and 18th century because what was predominant in the Western world were monarchies so what was conservative during that time period was adherence to monarchies and liberal thinkers what wasliberal or progressive during that time period was this idea of liberal democracies and what we see here is that these ideas from the enlightened Mara have had a significant impact on the likes of for example Thomas Jefferson and
Benjamin Franklin and the kind of draw putting throwing down the philosophical foundations of a political society that was eventually adopted later by the founders of the United States so these political philosophers have had a significant impact on yourand my life as well so continuing just on this list philosophers during this time period who came who argued for this political state this political philosophy they also argue for separation of church and state they didn't like howif you didn't have separation of church and state this could lead to things like religious wars getting States involved in religious wars as well as corrupt religious leaders intervening in political affairs as well as having inequality amongst memberswho are not part of the church that was adopted by the state or being of a different religion also philosophers who put forth a liberal democracy they also argue that there should be equal protection of rights everyone should
receive equal rights this was very liberal at that time at this time you know in monarchy feudal societies etc these kinds of societies had differences in rights for example and a lot of monarchies the monarch could not youknow could get away with anything without any kind of possible punishment so the idea here is that everyone has equal rights in this case also people should have the Liberty to live your life as you choose as longas you don't harm others and this provided a lot of Liberty compared to previous eras our continued in the era that these Philosopher's came up with these ideas or advocated for these ideas because for example during this timeyou couldn't for example there was what can be perceived today as being more conservative views on lifestyle choices any kind of flamboyant behavior things like that were definitely shunned upon people who wanted to live different kinds of lifestyles
were shunned upon their the idea here is that you can live your life as you choose so long as you're not harming other people all right so long as you're not harming others not restricting their liberties or theirrights then you're free to live your life as you so choose and during this that era this was very much a liberal very liberal progressive idea so this is called a liberal democracy and we should understand it ina technical sense throughout the rest of this semester and I take it this is a general idea that most of us believe in whether we're in contemporary terms conservative or liberal all right so what Mills response to thePlatonic objection that democracy can lead to a state in which there's a bad ruler with bad laws and policies is there should be a separation of powers and there should be checks and balances that can limit an elected
official who lacks merit it is possible right in a democracy that we have an unmeritorious leader who gets elected or officials or Congress men and women however having a separation of powers now don't have all the power centralizedin one location in one branch have it separated and have these separate powers being able to check each other can limit the day and possible damage that an unmeritorious representative can have on the state here are some moreconstraints from mil-mil says that there also should be open rather than a secret ballot into this representative democracy in order to hinder the self-interested voter so in other words there should be an open ballot where everyone can knowwho people voted for that way if there's a self-interested voter who votes for someone who should who is was a bad candidate they might for example in public tell everyone oh I don't like this person but with a
secret ballot nowhere no one knows who they vote for who people vote for they might end up really voting for this person who is a bad candidate but the idea here mil says with an open ballot we canhave it be the case that we can know what who people voted for and then therefore after that we can treat them accordingly we can shun them or we can ignore them give them the cold shoulder or wecan try to teach them etc about who they really should have voted for he also says that those who cannot read write do basic math or who are on welfare these people cannot vote he says you know sothe idea here is that we need people of a certain kind of education level if we have more educated people vote these things then it's more likely that we will they'll be voting for a leader or for someone
who is more meritorious or meritorious representatives he also says that people on welfare should not vote because then they'll be able to vote on policy issues about welfare about how much money they should get when they're not workingright and so that doesn't sound like that would be a good idea so those people on welfare should not be able to vote and he also says that the well-educated should be given two or more votes so forexample those who have a college degree should have a greater should their vote should count for more as compared to someone who doesn't and he actually has this list of different professions such as farmers lawyers doctors and thesedifferent professions depending on what profession you are a part of you would get a different vote depending upon what profession you're in so it's not the case that everyone's vote counts the same but rather it's the case that
depending upon your education and your occupation you have differences in votes okay so at this point I'd like you to think press pause and think about what might be some possible objections against mill on these various points thatmill advocates
Steps back to assess the broader tension in Mill's theory: limiting democracy may reduce the chance of bad rulers, but it also undermines equality and freedom. The conclusion argues that trying to secure meritocratic leadership through restrictions can create a more oppressive political order.
okay so let's look at the big picture on mill like Rousseau mill restricts democracy to anticipate Plato's objection but it leads to a system that lacks equality people who lack education can't vote for example and so they can'treceive equal treatment could be the case for example that in a society people who lack the relevant age education lack it because they're poor and then you have a democracy that limits who can vote where those people whoare poor largely don't have a say and the poor might be being oppressed so what happens is that since the poor don't have a voice in this particular state their oppression will continue just continually leading toward it continuallyleads to this oppressive oppressive state that lacks equality also a democracy that makes the tyrant ruler plato's tyrant ruler unlikely may be incompatible with full equality and freedom so like with Rousseau we see mill trying to put constraints
and restrictions on democracy in order to try to make it be the case that the elected person and the elected officials are not going to be this kind of tyrant that Plato pictures can likely arise from democracies howeverin putting in these restrictions such as some people are unable to vote and some people's votes don't count as much as others it can lead to a an unequal society in a society that lacks full freedom some peopledon't have the freedom to vote for example in Mills kind of representative democracy and so what we see here is that democratic serous who put forth this democratic philosophy they try to put on these restrictions but it lookslike if you do put on the restrictive these kinds of restrictions to really limit the possibility of Plato's Democratic tyrant then you're going to lead to an oppressive reviewing so it looks like you cannot have your cake and
eat it too you can't have the best of both worlds so to speak having a democracy but also at the same time having a state in which the leaders and the elected officials are are more likely or veryhighly likely to be meritorious and have merit so you know there there is this continuing problem with democracy and being able to try to tweak democracy to try to have your cake and eat it too try to havedemocracy but also try to have meritorious leaders but it looks like when you try to do this you then bring in an additional problem or a different problem of having a state that is oppressive with a lack offull equality and freedom and with that I will leave you for this talk on mill and representative democracy and I will see you for the next one