Nonideal democratic authority

Abstract

Empirical research has transformed our understanding of autocratic institutions (Gandhi, 2008; Magaloni, 2006; Schedler, 2009). Yet democratic theorists remain laser-focused on ideal democracies, often contending that political equality is necessary to generate democratic authority (Buchanan, 2002; Christiano, 2008; Estlund, 2008; Kolodny, 2014B; Shapiro, 2002; Viehoff, 2014B, Waldron, 1999). Those analyses neglect most nonideal democracies and autocracies – regimes featuring inequality and practices like gerrymandering. This essay fills that fundamental gap, outlining the difficulties of applying theories of democratic authority to nonideal regimes and challenging long-standing views about democratic authority. Focusing on autocrats that lose elections (for example, Sri Lanka, 2015), I outline the democratic authority of nonideal, flawed procedures. Flawed elections are unjustifiably biased toward incumbents. But under certain conditions, ignoring an incumbent’s loss would require not treating one’s fellow citizens as equals. Under those conditions, therefore, citizens are bound to obey those electoral outcomes – that is, flawed procedures can possess democratic authority.

Keywords

democratic authority nonideal theory flawed elections autocracy nondemocratic institutions gerrymandering inequality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agence France Press (2015) Even Nostradamus Got Things Wrong’, Says Astrologer Who Advised Sri Lanka’s President to Call Election Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/13/nostradamus-wrong-astrologer-advised-sri-lankas-president-election (accessed 29 September 2017).

Acemoglu

(2005) Constitutions, politics and economics: a review essay on persson and tabellini’s the economic effects of constitutions. Journal of Economic Literature XLIII 43: 1025–1048.

Angle

(2005) (A) Decent democratic centralism. Political Theory 33(4): 518–546.

Angle

(2005) (B) Must we choose our leaders? Human rights and political participation in China. Journal of Global Ethics 1(2): 177–196.

Barry

(2014) For Sri Lankan President, renounced by Aides, confidence of re-election dims. The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/26/world/for-sri-lankan-president-renounced-by-aides-confidence-of-re-election-dims.html (accessed 29 September 2017).

Barry

(2015) Groundswell chooses democracy in Sri Lanka. The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/world/asia/groundswell-chooses-democracy-in-sri-lanka.html (accessed 11 January 2015).

Bell

(2015) The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Editorial (2015) A step forward for Sri Lanka. The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/opinion/a-step-forward-for-sri-lanka.html (accessed 14 January 2015).

Boix

(1999) Setting the rules of the game: the choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review 93(3): 609–624.

10.

Boyagoda

(2015) Sri Lanka’s election miracle. The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/sri-lankas-election-miracle.html (accessed 14 January 2015).

11.

Buchanan

(2002) Political legitimacy and democracy. Ethics 112(4):689–719.

12.

Bunce

Wolchik

(2010) Defeating dictators: electoral change and stability in competitive authoritarian regimes. World Politics 62(1): 43–86.

13.

Calvert

(1985) The value of biased information: a rational choice model of political advice. The Journal of Politics 47(2): 530–555.

14.

Caplan

(2007) The Myth of the Rational Voter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

15.

Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (2015) Presidential Election 2015: CMEV Interim Campaign Report. Available at: http://cmev.org/2015/01/07/presidential-election-2015-cmev-interim-campaign-report/ (accessed 29 September 2017).

16.

Christiano

(2008) The Constitution of Equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17.

Christiano

(1996) The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

18.

Commonwealth Observer Group—Sri Lanka (2015) Sri Lanka Presidential Election 2015: Final Report. Available at: http://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/news-items/documents/SL%20PE%202015%20COG%20Report%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 29 September 2017).

19.

Dworkin

(1997) Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Elster

Landemore

. 2008. Ideology and dystopia” Critical Review 20: 273–289.

21.

Estlund

(2008) Democratic Authority: a philosophical framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

22.

Gandhi

(2008) Political Institutions under Dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Green

(1988) The Authority of the State. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

24.

Mark

(2011) Authoritarian deliberation: the deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspectives on Politics 9(2): 269–289.

25.

Knight

Johnson

(2011) The Priority of Democracy: The Political Consequences of Pragmatism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

26.

Kolodny

(2014A) Rule over none I: what justifies democracy? Philosophy & Public Affairs 42: 195–229.

27.

Kolodny

(2014B) Rule over none II: social equality and the justification of democracy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 42: 287–336.

28.

Levitsky

Way

(2010) Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Lindberg

(ed) (2009) Democratization by Elections: A New Mode of Transition. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.

30.

Lupia

McCubbins

(1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Magaloni

(2006) Voting for Autocracy: The Politics of Party Hegemony and its Demise. New York: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Malesky

Paul

Anh

(2012) The adverse effects of sunshine: a field experiment on legislative transparency in an authoritarian assembly. American Political Science Review 106(4): 762–786.

33.

May

(1952) A set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica 20(4): 680–684.

34.

Miller

(2015) Democratic pieces: autocratic elections and democratic development since 1815. British Journal of Political Science 45(3): 1–30.

35.

Przeworski

(2010) Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

36.

Raz

(1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

37.

Schedler

(2009) Electoral authoritarianism. In: Landman

Robinson

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Comparative Politics, pp. 381–394.

38.

Shapiro

(2002) Authority. In: Coleman

Shapiro

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 382–440.

39.

Simmons

(2002) Political obligation and authority. In: Simon

(ed) The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.

40.

Simpser

(2013) Why Governments and Parties Manipulate Elections: Theory, Practice, and Implications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

41.

Tucker

(2007) Enough! electoral fraud, collective action problems, and post-communist colored revolutions. Perspectives on Politics 5(3): 535–551.

42.

Viehoff

(2014) Democratic equality and political authority. Philosophy & Public Affairs 42(4): 337–375.

43.

Waldron

(1999) Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

44.

Waldron

(2006) The core of the case against judicial review. Yale Law Journal 115: 1346–1406.