The article discusses the relationship between the boundary problem in democratic theory and the paradox of democratic foundation. It argues that although these famous “democratic paradoxes” are affected by an analogous logical difficulty and equally concur in grounding the legitimacy of a “people,” they are two different problems. The recognition of their distinction helps illuminate the complexity of practical normative judgments on the legitimacy of a people. The article analyzes four theories in search of an approach that can consistently resolve both paradoxes: the all-affected principle, Sofia Näsström's theory of democracy as a spirit of emancipation, Alessandro Ferrara's redefinition of the issue based on the distinction between ethnos and demos, and David Owen's proposal to bring together the all-affected and the all-subjected principles to solve the boundary problem. The article's conclusion points to a possible tension between the two paradoxes and raises a final question: can such a tension be resolved?
AfsahiA (2020) Towards a principle of most-deeply affected. Philosophy & Social Criticism48(1): 1–22.
2.
ArendtH (1959) The Human Condition: A Study of the Central Dilemmas Facing Modern Man. Garden City: Doubleday Anchor.
3.
ArrheniusG (2005) The boundary problem in democratic theory. In: ArrheniusGTersmanF (eds) Democracy Unbound: Basic Explorations. Stockholm: Stockholm University, 14–29.
4.
BengtsonA (2020) The all-affected principle and the question of asymmetry. Political Research Quarterly74(3): 718–728.
DahlRA (1989) Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven-London: Yale University Press.
7.
DahlRA (1990) After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society (1970). New Haven: Yale University Press.
8.
FerraraA (1998) Reflective Authenticity: Rethinking the Project of Modernity. London, New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
FerraraA (2001) Of boats and principles: Reflections on Habermas’s ‘constitutional democracy’. Political Theory29(6): 782–791.
10.
FerraraA (2008) The Force of the Example: Explorations in the Paradigm of Judgment. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
11.
FerraraA (2009) Authenticity without a true self. In: VanniniPWilliamsJP (eds) Authenticity in Culture, Self and Society. Farnham: Ashgate, 21–35.
12.
FerraraA (2017) Rousseau and Critical Theory. Leiden-Boston: Brill.
13.
FerraraA (2023) Sovereignty Across Generations: Constituent Power and Political Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
FerraraA (2024) In defense of sequential sovereignty: A reply. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies30(1): 31–43.
15.
FraserN (2009) Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
16.
FraserN (2014)Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a Post-Westphalian World (2007). In: Fraser N and Nash K (eds) Transnationalizing the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press, 8–42.
17.
GoodinRE (2007) Enfranchising all affected interests, and its alternatives. Philosophy & Public Affairs35(1): 40–68.
18.
HabermasJRehgW (2001) Constitutional democracy: A paradoxical union of contradictory principles?Political Theory29(6): 766–781.
19.
HonigB (2001) Dead rights, live futures: A reply to Habermas’s “constitutional democracy”. Political Theory29(6): 792–805.
20.
Koenig-ArchibugiM (2017) How to diagnose democratic deficits in global politics: The use of the ‘all affected principle’. International Theory9(2): 171–202.
21.
LagerspetzE (2015) Democracy and the all-affected principle. Res Cogitans10(1): 6–23.
22.
Lippert-RasmussenKBengtsonA (2021) The problem(s) of constituting the demos: A (set of) solution(s). Ethical Theory and Moral Practice24: 1021–1031.
MichelmanFI (1999) Brennan and Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
25.
MillerD (2009) Democracy’s domain. Philosophy & Public Affairs37(3): 201–228.
26.
MillerD (2020) Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem. Philosophy Compass15(11): 1–9.
27.
NäsströmS (2007) The legitimacy of the people. Political Theory35(5): 624–658.
28.
NäsströmS (2011) The challenge of the all-affected principle. Political Studies59(1): 116–134.
29.
NäsströmS (2021) The Spirit of Democracy: Corruption, Disintegration, Renewal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
OwenD (2012) Constituting the polity, constituting the demos: On the place of the all affected interests principle in democratic theory and in resolving the democratic boundary problem. Ethics & Global Politics5(3): 129–152.
31.
OwenD (2014) Dilemmas of inclusion: The all-affected principle, the all-subjected principle, and transnational public spheres. In: FraserNNashK (eds) Transnationalizing the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press, 112–128.
32.
RawlsJ (1980) Kantian constructivism in moral theory. Journal of Philosophy77(9): 515–572.
33.
RawlsJ (2005) Political Liberalism (1993). Expanded edition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
34.
RousseauJ-J (2002) The Social Contract and The First and Second Discourses (ed by S Dunn). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
35.
SchafferJK (2012) The boundaries of transnational democracy: Alternatives to the all-affected principle. Review of International Studies38(2): 321–342.
36.
SongS (2012) The boundary problem in democratic theory: Why the demos should be bounded by the state. International Theory4(1): 39–68.
37.
WellmanCH (1996) Liberalism, samaritanism, and political legitimacy. Philosophy & Public Affairs25(3): 211–237.
38.
WhelanFG (1983) Prologue: Democratic theory and the boundary problem. In: PennockJRChapmanJW (eds) Nomos XXV: Liberal Democracy. London, New York, NY: University Press, 13–47.
