Democracy Requires Organized Collective Power*

Democratic institutions awaken and flatter the passion for equality without ever being able to satisfy it entirely.11 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. George Lawrence (New York: Harper, 2006), p. 198. Tocqueville To turn from mechanisms concepts social forces play …22 Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: Political Economic Origins of Our Time (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001), 206. Polanyi What is value function democratic institutions? One prominent answer could be broadly called “liberal proceduralist”: institutions, by embodying fair procedures resolving disagreements, contribute a politically valuable ideal relating each other as equals.33 Representative defenses this view include Elizabeth S. Anderson, “What point equality?”, Ethics, 109 (1999), 287–337; Charles R. Beitz, Equality: An Essay Theory (Princeton: Princeton University 1990); Harry Brighouse, “Egalitarianism equal availability political influence,” Journal Philosophy, 4 (1996), 118–41; Allen Buchanan, “Political legitimacy democracy,” 112 (2002), 689–719; Thomas Christiano, Constitution Authority Its Limits (Oxford: Oxford 2008); Christopher G. Griffin, “Democracy non-instrumentally just procedure,” 11 (2003), 111–21; Niko Kolodny, “Rule over none, I: what justifies democracy?”, Philosophy Public Affairs, 42 (2014), 195–229; II: justification 287–336; Daniel Viehoff, “Democratic authority,” 337–75; Jeremy Waldron, Law Disagreement 2009); James Lindley Wilson, Equality 2019). As attractive is, falters, because rests on flawed understanding institutions. In place liberal proceduralist I develop power approach. approach advances dynamic account one that focuses how outcomes, taken together having effects organization society, sustain relationships equality. Like proceduralism, affirms resides they help However, according approach, cannot realized primarily internal, formal structure or ensuring effective within decision-making procedure. Instead, treats such simultaneous substantive organizing different actors, interests, groups society. contend appreciating distinction between seen versus mechanisms, we can challenge binary has dominated recent debates about institutions—that debate surrounding whether emphasize either producing reliable outcomes. This either/or obscures fact instantiate (virtuous vicious) recursive feedback loops rules broader balance forces. Consequently, procedure outcome fails capture actors should care about: integrity time, an under realistic conditions, sustained only virtuous institutional ongoing generally disorganized majority society's members. From perspective, order insofar satisfies minimal criteria inclusion consideration while also popular constituencies its endogenous tendencies towards equalizing power. Even granting, following does, are intrinsically realize equality, question remains those value. Liberal proceduralists argue through procedures. But misapprehends nature both collective Further, at times these two functions will align, many cases achieving require relaxing principle procedural fairness. Evaluating relationship thus requires intersecting normative empirical analysis context which operate. advance view, first identify why even concerned with fairness nevertheless fail adequately address instantiated. impoverished conception neglects need organized require. then architecture itself, depends alternative (1) people, agents democracy, and, (2), state, medium people act, infrastructures begins sociological generalization majorities, larger groups, face action problems so less than smaller more cohesive powerful minorities. Given background constitute organize naturally citizenry, enabling them against individuals groups.44 My argument builds work emphasizing pro-wealthy bias current contemporary threat oligarchic elites; Gordon Arlen, “Aristotle problem harm: insights European Theory, 18 (2019), 393–414; Jeffrey Edward Green, Shadow Unfairness: A Plebian 2016); John P. McCormick, Machiavellian (Cambridge: Cambridge 2011). Organized enables act particular threatened democracy use state seek assert their interests disorganize people. model vicious among power, state. provides framework evaluating comparing competing designs Such evaluations comparative analyses facilitate thwart illustrate this, show better justify importance majoritarianism democracy. Put most bluntly, may partisan ideal—associated certain underlying opposed relatively wealthy—than acknowledge. suggests method theory realistic. contends if encompasses principles animate avenues, coalitions, equilibriums realization large-scale, modern societies.55 contrasts “realist” theories begin principles, legitimacy, focus elite competition. For accounts conditions deep moral disagreement, see Richard Bellamy, Constitutionalism: Republican Defense Constitutionality 2007); Laura Valentini, “Justice, disagreement British Science, 43 (2013), 177–99; critiques citizen competence fruitful rejoinders, H. Achen Larry M. Bartels, Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government Samuel Bagg, “The multitude: answering epistemic challenges American Science Review, (2018), 891–904; Lachlan Montgomery Umbers, objection,” Res Publica, 25 283–93. critique elitist realism mobilization Medearis, Is Oppositional (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 2015). depart Medearis positive role facilitating precondition oppositional mobilization. Are internal tend, produce outcomes maximize values?66 By mean, characteristically, electoral voting lead choice. Many inclusive egalitarian quality deliberative agenda-setting aspect shares focus, open differential rights, group-based representation, sortition, shown enhance understand it, family views defend answer: embody principle, relationally. While variously refine idea, agree “that derives contribution outcome-independent qualities make things value: instance, treating our fellow citizens respect, equals, on.”77 truth instrumentalism,” Proceedings Aristotelian Society, 117 (2017), 273–95, 277. Defenses intrinsic position themselves instrumentalist views, distribution rights coercion, justified reliably accord some standard.88 See, example, J. Arneson, not just,” Keith Dowding, Robert E. Goodin, Carole Pateman (eds), Justice Democracy: Essays Brian Barry 2004), pp. 40–58; instrumentalism”; Steven Wall, equality,” Philosophical Quarterly, 57 (2007), 416–38. instrumental justifications miss part essential meaning democracy: way everyone providing respect members And explains obligation obey discrete decisions disagree decision vis-à-vis standard. entails apply whatever Implicit are, function, actual operation, finally, relate values. That contains implicit characteristic features principles. provide stylized descriptions facts life values options. These stylizations have implications ranking particular, concur institution evaluated separately institution. We note that, varying degrees, attuned forms economic inequality undermine They worry gap promise fairness, do genuinely guarantee opportunities influence roughly decision.99 Elena Ziliotti useful relational egalitarians, like directly Relational egalitarians necessary constituent of, but reducible to, Similarly, contractualists, admit realizing would harder time accommodating my argument, deviations public recognition hand, non-ideal conditions. argues his creates tension framework. If departures seem legal who burdened deviations. See II,” 309; Ziliotti, “Democracy’s conceptual map,” Value Inquiry, 54 407–27. assume take concern tend potential threats ex ante inequalities exogenous undermining individual-level genuine result, limited primary responses fairness: insulate ceteris paribus arguments whereby case, maintain outcome. adds interaction organizational existing distributional patterns very idea theorists description after constitution broad throughout must inquire into activities. together, preserve relations then, them. core claim apprehend goods. intuition there something sustain. value; rejects rests—a separates Insofar operation procedure, general alter itself. bring insight theory, begin, gets actualized majority. points revised concept articulating time. always all mechanisms. procedures, consist explicit distribute authority institution—how inputs get translated outputs—as well determine standing process relevant actors—where come from. nodal shaping identities, capacities form “inputs” section develops, first, second, conceptions inform informal dimension power—the “power-with” emerges cooperative practices. relates formation collectivities, ranging formalized organizations labor unions parties diffuse mechanism structures activity outside stable predictable manner. want know sort realizes, examine interact wealth influence. activity—what am calling Only question. coordinate diverse science, scholars “policy makes politics”—institutional creating new find ways practical functioning.1010 Andrea Louise Campbell, “Policy mass politics,” Annual Review 15 (2012), 333–51. redefining affect functioning language helpful reminds us consistent otherwise contexts, effects. When examining mechanism, structuring distinct immediate Rather, become clear identities actors. them—ranging whole. exert same rearrange world, extends beyond procedures—the focus. power? section, here arises cooperation, coercively backed law, control proceduralists. Scholars often distinguish “power-over,” indicates capacity cause another agent do, “power-with,” where refers one's goals co-operation others.1111 power-over power-with, Arash Abizadeh, grammar power: power-to, power-despite, power-over,” Studies, online first; Amy Allen, “Rethinking power,” Hypatia, 13 (1998), 21–40; Jürgen Habermas, “Hannah Arendt’s communications McCarthy, Social Research, 44 (1977), 3–24. “power-over” expense “power-with.” part, understandable impulse: legally sanctioned implies needs justification. proceduralists, authoritative arise decision-making. Their flows narrowly define power—whether correct natural talents (such persuasive ability), influence, probability decisive Yet coercion resides, any idealized expand purview Formal impact power—and too collectivities capabilities enhanced, power-with impeded. Power-with, activity. It deliberate coordination disparate plans goals. Hannah Arendt puts nicely: keeps fleeting moment passed (what today call ‘organization’) what, keep alive remaining power.”1212 Arendt, Human Condition (Chicago: Chicago 1958), 201. More technically, situation individual ability individual(s) voluntarily assist, (those) directed individual.1313 detailed discussions power”; Alvin I. Goldman, “Toward 23 (1972), 221–68. Following definition does joint intentions shared although, significant. mundane sense goals, enhanced traffic rules. includes coordination, perspective interested subspecies unites persuasion.1414 discursive communicative Rainer Forst, “Noumenal (2015), 111–27. Persuasion becomes enable channel united direction. shift change think presupposes non-cooperative level: understood independently specific others. object exercised (a share of) your (share conditioned activities choices others.1515 e.g., Kolodny’s “equal priori chances decision,” i.e., every vote “on assumption no pattern [voting] others likely pattern”; 320–1, emphasis original. reduction compatible based encompassing wealth, ability, on. distribuenda holding constant contrast, distributed level, activity, still say individual's cooperation.1616 Dworkin’s discussion, argued ability. exercise cooperation. particularly charismatic stranger them, getting wants. influencing someone existence alters else’s behavior. context, someone’s been source increase influence”; Ronald Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue: Practice 2002). necessarily mean relative