Against compromise in democracy? A plea for a fine‐grained assessment

Disdain for compromise between political forces within democratic regimes is widespread11 As notably suggested by Fumurescu (2013, p.1), Manin (1997, pp. 217–218), and Rintala (1969, p. 327). and, as we will show, polymorphic. This paper provides a systematic mapping of objections22 We refer here to Walton's (2009) broad definition, according which an “objection does not necessarily have be counterargument posed against original argument” (p. 2). compromises developed the field contemporary theory33 Because “much debate over desirability in politics set context theory” (Carens, 1979, 132), do discuss objections international relations or peace-building processes, Margalit (2013), example. evaluates different kinds rebuttals these objections. dedicate considerable space discussion normative, well empirical, validity counterarguments. By reviewing organized, succinct, at same time, comprehensive way, wish arbitrate carefully them.44 Our inventory showed pattern emergence dating back interwar period, whose beginning coincides with growth mass parties advent era “party democracy” (Manin, 1997, 206–218). opted privileging encompassing treatment rebuttals; spatial constraints prevent us from addressing each them detail this paper. Typological work that builds inventories proceeds evaluation such unprecedented theory.55 See, instance, defenses compulsory voting (Hill, 2014; Umbers, 2020). typological approach sheds light on ambivalence surrounding notion compromise, conundrum absence exploration its sources has puzzled many theorists (Baume & Novak , 2020; Carens, 1979; Fumurescu, Luban, 1985; Manin, 1997; Rostbøll Scavenius, 2018; Tillyris, 2017).66 (2020, 21) respect historically situated. The Middle Ages seemed immune ambivalence: because only involve external inner self, they raise “no fear being compromised” (italics original). expose five main arguments compromises, can grouped into three categories.77 Although core their article, Devolder Douglas (2018) offered shorter list compromise: lack integrity, complicity, deception. first two sections integrity antirelativism. (2018, 114) correctly stated, often are classic, both appeal adherence values, terms either inviolability consistency. antirelativist objection asserts made expense universal moral principles (Menkel-Meadow, 2016, 3), whereas concerns about animated fears may infringe rule makers need apply consistently (Dworkin, 1986). third objection, based irreducibility conflicts (Mouffe, 1998), manifests hostility understanding implies balancing interests fostering moderation through forging compromises. last appeared more recently (albeit differently) concerned domination: outcome disadvantage less-privileged groups unequal power resources compromising (Ruser Machin, 2017, 12−28), it silence dissenting voices, thus, reduce diversity 29−47). pertinence objections, sense (2013) definition rebuttal “an argument directed another show somehow defective” 61), discussed directly after presentation evaluate soundness. Summarizing our assessment rebuttals, conclusion step shows counterarguments highlight flaws affecting In second step, outlines lessons draw multidimensional fine-grained conclude democracy rehabilitated entirety without nuance. most qualified, if invalidated, acknowledge particular serious. However, democracies offer safeguards policy process. differentiated value contributes merits negotiated decisions.88 Discussions virtues negotiation policymaking use deliberative ideal benchmark: see Warren Mansbridge negotiation. Bellamy (1999, 101) also prefers when negotiators, reciprocity inclination solve problems, “adopt model than instrumental account.” More broadly, aims provide input public remedies rising polarization party politics, loss capacity likely undermine quality (see, among others, Gutmann Thompson, 2012; Levitsky Ziblatt, Muirhead, Urbinati, 2019). Unlike other concepts, justice fairness, nonessentially evaluative concept (Oltshoorn 173): although disparate normative evaluations exist, source controversy. Definitions typically include idea mutual adjustment settle conflict disagreement less explicitly, voluntary nature least consent settlement terms.99 These elements appear, minor variations, (2012, 448–449), Jones O'Flynn 118–120), Overeem 49), Wendt (2019, 2856). Sometimes, definitions disentangle compromise's constitutive (e.g., May, 2011, 583) “essential features,” whereby defined “(i) collective action involving (ii) support inferior position motivated (iii) presence parties.” Some works distinguish motivations (strategic vs. sincere open-mindedness), dimensions (as process outcome), types (integrative substitutive).1010 Integrative occur “when integrate aspects others’ final settlement” (Weinstock, 2013, 540). Substitutive contrast, take place agree something order arrive was part either's initial position” See Dworkin's “external” below. relative definitional consensus coexists contrasting evaluations. According 6), “is ‘boo-hurrah’ concept, positive indicating human cooperation, coupled negative denoting unprincipled behaviour.” kind criticism appears discuss, attracted interest literature others have. Therefore, justifiable discussion. considered typology originates perspective: devalued achieved detriment good, “good” “knowable, objective, rational, essentially, core, universal” 3).1111 A variant regards intrapersonal one opportunistically one's values (Benjamin, 1990; 2018, 4–6). quite common (Benditt, Kuflik, 1979) presented briefly, but strong deserves detailed John Hallowell, Christian conservative theorist, who adept natural law, critic liberalism, probably expressed vehemently: “Compromise, self-sufficient principle divorced all considerations truth justice, simply, analysis, ancient Thrasymachian doctrine might makes right. It born despair rooted nihilism” (Hallowell, 1944, 173). From perspective, consequentialist view any costs should compared advantages cannot implicated denial fundamental prohibitive. What more, opposition endanger salutary firewall preserve taboos, Weisberg (2014, 37) argued book eloquently entitled Praise Intransigence. defenders praise manifestation relativistic politics. That prominently case period Austrian jurist Hans Kelsen, attitude toward stemmed his belief achievable debates. Kelsen established intimate relationship relativism impossibility establish hierarchy conceptions good right, second, ensuing legitimacy (Invernizzi Accetti, 2015, 184). Denying existence absolute he thought no substance. If access exists then none imposed. Consequently, community overcome (Kelsen, 1925, 359).1212 Invernizzi-Accetti adds favor connection democracy: recognition freedom, so coercion requires consent. On Kelsen's underpinned relativism, Baume (2017) White Ypi (2016, 152–153). For similar link cognitive skepticism ethical Tussman (1960, 114–115). Is credible objection? think so. Kelsenian attaches little importance contingency remains, view, excessively audacious, keeping mind pave way Faustian bargains contribute establishing maintaining inhuman regime tolerating crimes humanity (Margalit, 2013). “rotten” taboo cases,1313 nuanced views, May (2018a) (2019). There philosophical controversy morality stock (frequently sophisticated) developed, attempt debate. “a mere tiny subset” 16) Nevertheless, ignore possibility hideous raise, legitimate concerns, example, permit slavery torture. satisfied relativist rebuttal, needs determining perimeter deserving protection easy task. difficulties deciding untouchable, whether susceptible putting risk, illustrated pluralist compromise. hand, pluralists tend justify incommensurable incompatible, single right choice exist (Bellamy, 1999, 103).1414 critical discussion, (2018). prominent thinker Isaiah Berlin believed “there are, rate minimum” justification compromise” (Berlin, 1990, 18). Berlin's work, Crowder 185)—another pluralist—agreed minimal standards decency necessary parameters acknowledged universals collide minimum locally valid. related question authority decide negotiable normatively tolerable. shall see, just trusting compromisers satisfying vested interests. alternative options weaknesses well. Should attributed those name speak (some whom feel “moral discomfort” compromise);1515 Lepora 17–19). affected (whose judgment equally biased); evaluators, ethics specialists (who always deemed impartial parties); opinion (which meaningful preferences issue easily grasped)? could simply that, voluntary, would hostile values. applies evil consequences affect parties. fails put outsiders participate adequately represented negotiations. Even “principled” compromises,1616 Runciman 220) refers politicians recognize “that important there equivalent strength feeling side.” To illustrate form recognition, Weinstock's 552) example communities eager avoid “winner-take-all” paradigm, deleterious minorities. Consociational systems emerged countries Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria illustration “spirit accommodation” (Lijphart, 1968). Authors “sanguine” (Margalit 54) “honourable” (Van Parijs, 2012, 472) “deep” “bare” (Richardson, 2002) “shallow” 2012) concessions pragmatic reasons emerge out dignity (May, 2005, 321), problem. Apart fact genuine principled rare (Cohen, 108), even other's claims guarantee risk undermines equally, respected question.1717 below detrimental interest. shared “compromising mindset” (Gutmann 2010)—denoting tolerance, engagement preferences, values—is sufficient safeguard. added invocation noble deceive dissimulate pursuit avowable narrow (Fumurescu, 46): strategic manipulation inherent processes (Wendt, 66). element, such, suffices “to cast doubt very 317). follow Weinstock 553−554), envisages better allow realization failure refuses cede terrain,” “could plausibly blamed grounds” missed opportunity partially realized. Weinstock, situations characterized “principled consequentialism”: serve promote actors circumstances real world account determine unavoidable sacrifices reach line values.1818 Luban's “paradox (1985, 414): “commitment means commitment seeing But practice, (since all-or-nothing usually doomed defeat)—and partial abandonment principle. Conversely, refusal practice abandoning entirely hope realized.” 154), distinction ideas apparent realm activity, though seek differentiate actions (Runciman, 221). problem is, again, promotion come salient sum, shield outrageously disrespectful agreements, especially keep result opaque pork-barrel plagued “dirty hands” 47; O'Flynn, 3−4; Wendt, 60). Hence, ultimately need, provided broader checks outcomes bargains, namely, veto points nature, popular ratification judicial review, referenda serving counterweight elite rule, judiciary protecting constitutional rights. Another claim bears formalist sense, relates necessity applying consistent manner (Dudzinski, 2004, 299). Considering application general rules individuals perceived “the essence law” (Cass, 609), simultaneous mutually incompatible legislation generated resistance. Cass (1990), legal inconsistencies reflecting “absence implementation” 612). Ronald Dworkin abundantly regarding Law's Empire, obligation, requiring “fidelity scheme citizen responsibility identify, himself, community's scheme” 1986, 190). law making, respecting obligation legislators must “inconsistency acts state” accept whenever require inconsistent applications principles. deeply gave birth arbitrary “checkerboard” rules, dramatic violations integrity” (1986, 184) treating differently (even controversial) 179). phrasing, checkerboard solutions typical instances “internal” “hideous” Three-Fifths Compromise 1787 Philadelphia Convention, slaves Southern states were counted three-fifths person representation taxation purposes.1919 accepts select new justice” 1985, 365): guiding allows resolution undermining consistency religious consists adopting secular substitute schemes. Invoking diminish above all, internal nevertheless been challenged. identified counterarguments: empirical challenge relativizes thereof. First, Lagerspetz 112) affirmed wrongly assumes “community principle” 214) or, words, homogenous across given society. understood Dworkin, seems inappropriate perhaps members principles, polities deep cultural cleavages. Regarding solution adopted Compromise, United States not, “true community,” rather “two separate communities: slave-owning South North,” 112). 185) asserted “integrity holds communities, them.” Dworkinian applied relatively cohesive communities. differential may, must, envisaged heterogeneity measures appear validly specific characteristics population segments. Indeed, disagreements, aimed accommodating diverse local preferences. collaborative federalism—as Germany Switzerland—is built premise formed entities share sensitivities implementation national “customized” (Thomann, 2018) adjust particularisms. quasi-federalist European Union, degrees forms integration necessary, regard divergent (Leruth Lord, 2017). Second, Raz objected generally match reality decision-making. “vagaries politics” legislative reason “expect coherent” (Raz, 1992, 295). radical resonates approaches emphasize role policy-making (Kingdon, 2013) empirically confirmed finding adoption reforms greatly facilitated discursive ambiguity reaching majority possible otherwise. complexity issues trading favors achieve frequently building coalitions around “ambiguous agreement” (Palier, 2005) different, possibly contradictory, inconsistency measures, intentional ambiguities, exemptions, divided directions 613), essential mechanism aggregation expecting square regarded unrealistic perception Of course, feasibility invalidate deficits nature. relevance challenged questioning Expecting seen contradicting (i.e., self-determination), “demos” heterogeneous. shown above, “one-size-fits-all” ill-suited particularisms (Scharpf, 2003). respect, worth noting challenges consistency, “vagaries” disputes value, prioritized fairness. rejects distinct virtue coherence loyalty past justifies deviating precepts fairness” (1992, 315). contends speaking voice independent force lead endorse be” 309). world, laws consistent, reflect imperatives, presumptive intrinsic 312). independently attributes principles.2020 conception consistency; nevertheless, completely clear (Raban, 2015). Raz, unsound arrangements, morally defensible represent nearest approximation sound obtain, doing 308). supreme competition assessed trade-offs. 111−112) considers harmfulness evaluated outcome, noncompromising solution. benefits balance costs. Following illustration, slave free create “additional evil” (Lagerspetz, 112)? clear. solution, representatives slave-owners everything wanted” 112), hurt engendered worse situation widely accepted One consider option refusing pressure states, delegates opposed desired, prevented remaining united, collectively suboptimal everyone participating deliberations sought avoid. politically inevitable importantly, enjoy social-cultural heterogeneity. They perspective compares alternatives. imperative context-dependent; however, agreeing conditions under exceptions difficult. Whether polity “true” controversial, specifically, properties social distinctive treatment, differences arbitrary, contentious. Moreover, instance authoritatively decides admissible. Similar imposed populations consulted. acquiescence sufficient; endorsed would, likelihood, had allowed express views. category vision societies irreducible tamed Austro-Marxist Max Adler's capitalist illustrates approach, concludes emphasizing inanity crucial divisive class stake. Adler brutal outvoting class” (our translation; Adler, 1927, 96) realistic issues. His linked (1927), know major advocate highly polarized Weimar Republic. seriously underestimated depth conflict, spoke biting irony trust compromise.2121 “In actual remedy crisis fatherly opinion, ‘Be kids behave, God's sake.’ reality, antagonisms entails profound cleavage questions life today's society solved non-fundamental creates temporary tranquility” 96). Chantal Mouffe's “agonistic” mod