Epistemic feature of democracy: The role of expert in democratic decision making (original) (raw)

The Role of Experts in a Democratic Decision-Making Process

2017

In recent discussions regarding social epistemology, and especially among political philosophers, there has been a marked increase in the importance of the question of the epistemic justification of democracy, which ought to be, along ethical and political justification, a necessary condition of attaining democratic legitimacy. The newfound importance of the issue of the epistemic justification of democracy within political philosophy can be largely attributed to the works of Fabienne Peter, whose contribution is best illustrated through her successful melding of political and epistemological issues, a feat long evaded by many of her colleagues. According to Peter, the instrumentalizing nature of the standard approach to the epistemic justification of democracy fails to incorporate the irreducible pluralist value of individual agency and the procedural epistemic value of collective discussions. Her proceduralist critiques of the standard approach to epistemic justification have reje...

The epistemology of democracy: The epistemic virtues of democracy

Filozofija i drustvo

The new and vibrant field of the epistemology of democracy, or the inquiry about the epistemic justification of democracy as a social system of procedures, institutions, and practices, as a cross-disciplinary endeavour, necessarily encounters both epistemologists and political philosophers. Despite possible complaints that this kind of discussion is either insufficiently epistemological or insufficiently political, my approach explicitly aims to harmonize the political and epistemic justification of democracy. In this article, I tackle some fundamental issues concerning the nature of the epistemic justification of democracy and the best theoretical framework for harmonizing political and epistemic values. I also inquire whether the proposed division of epistemic labour and the inclusion of experts can indeed improve the epistemic quality of decision-making without jeopardizing political justification. More specifically, I argue in favour of three theses. First, not only democratic p...

Has the Deliberative Model of Democracy an epistemic value

Revista Panorama , 2013

Deliberative democracy is a normative ideal of democracy. This model is a proposal for the regeneration of the legitimacy of our institutions, but also a mechanism for decision making. It is based on two different dimensions: a procedural dimension where the model demands the inclusion and an equal capacity to influence the final decision of all those affected (Cohen, 1989; Bohman, 1996; Habermas, 1992 ...) and a substantive dimension where the political decisions are made through a collective procedure of argumentation and public discussion. If these conditions are recognized, the decisions will be more rational and better decisions. This paper has two aims. First I will present the key elements of this epistemic conception of political legitimacy. Second I will show the challenges it faces. On a one hand, the counterfactual of many of its postulates and on the other, the obvious problems of bias consensualist of this model.

Epistemic Democracy and Political Legitimacy

Palgrave Macmillan, 2020

This compelling new book explores whether the ability of democratic procedures to produce correct outcomes increases the legitimacy of such political decisions. Mapping and critically engaging with the main theories of epistemic democracy, it additionally evaluates arguments for different democratic decision-making procedures related to aggregative and deliberative democracy. Addressing both positions that are too epistemic, such as Epistrocracy and Scholocracy, as well as those that are not epistemic enough, such as Pure Epistemic Proceduralism and Pragmatist Deliberative Democracy, Cerovac builds an innovative structure that can be used to bring order to numerous accounts of epistemic democracy. Introducing an appropriate account of epistemic democracy, Cerovac proceeds to analyse whether such epistemic value is better achieved through aggregative or deliberative procedures. Drawing particularly on the work of David Estlund, and including a discussion on the implementation of the epistemic ideal to real world politics, this is a fascinating read for all those interested in democratic decision-making.

The Epistemic Circumstances of Democracy

Does political decision-making require experts or can a democracy be trusted to make correct decisions? Critics of democracy tend to argue that democracy cannot be trusted in this way while advocates tend to argue that it can. Both camps agree that it is the epistemic quality of the outcomes of political decision-making processes that underpins the legitimacy of political institutions. In recent political philosophy, epistemic democrats have embraced this instrumentalist way of thinking about democracy. In this chapter, I argue that the attempt to defend democracy on epistemic instrumentalist grounds is self-undermining. I also develop an alternative – procedural – epistemic defence of democracy. Drawing on the epistemology of disagreement, I show that there is a prima facie epistemic case for democracy when there is no procedure-independent epistemic authority on the issue to be decided.

The division of epistemic labor in democracy

Anali Hrvatskog politiloškog društva, 2016

Thomas Christiano claims that one of the fundamental challenges democracy is faced with is the appropriate division of epistemic labor between citizens and experts. In this article I try to present and analyze Christiano's solution from the perspective of social epistemology while utilizing the concepts and tools provided by this discipline. Despite fundamentally agreeing with his position, I attempt to propose a certain addition which might enrich this solution with additional epistemic and political responsibility. In the first part, I briefly elaborate on the relevance of social epistemology in discussions regarding the epistemic justification of deliberative democracy. In the second part, I contextualize Christiano's view within discourses regarding social epistemology and identify his approach as reliability democracy due to his belief that truth-sensitive decision-making processes are ensured through the usage of reliable mechanisms (which allow for expertise to generate the epistemically best decisions possible). In the third part I attempt to provide arguments that support further elaboration of Christiano's proposals in the direction of ensuring additional epistemic and democratic quality of decisions.

Why Deliberation? Challenges for an Epistemic Model of Democratic Legitimacy

Deliberative democracy is a normative ideal of democracy. This model is a proposal for the regeneration of the legitimacy of our institutions, but also a mechanism for decision making. It is based on two different dimensions: a procedural dimension where the model demands the inclusion and an equal capacity to influence the final decision of all those affected (Cohen, 1989; Bohman, 1996; Habermas, 1992) and a substantive dimension where the political decisions are made through a collective procedure of argumentation and public discussion. If these conditions are recognized, the decisions will be more rational and better decisions. This paper has two aims. First I will present the key elements of this epistemic conception of political legitimacy. Second I will show the challenges it faces. On a one hand, the counterfactual of many of its postulates and on the other, the obvious problems of bias consensualist of this model.

Epistemic Democracy: Guest Editor's Preface

Epistemic democracy represents a very fertile ground for the interaction between epistemology and political philosophy, as well as a promising interdisciplinary field where philosophy meets economics, sociology, psychology, political science and other social sciences. Since epistemic democracy can be interpreted as a rather wide research field, it is not always easy to pinpoint central themes or research questions, nor to set clear boundaries. However, there are a few important questions that every epistemic democrat has to settle. First of all, epistemic democrats have to explain what the epistemic value of democracy is, and how does the epistemic value of democracy contribute to its legitimacy-generating potential. Is democracy epistemically valuable because it helps us achieve substantively good (correct, true) decisions, or because it embodies some intrinsic (procedural) epistemic values? Second, how should epistemic democracy be institutionalized in modern societies? Papers published in this issue of Ethics & Politics give various insightful answers to these two questions, demonstrating that epistemic democracy can be a very fertile, but also a very diverse field.