Daily Dialectic
"The Problem of the People"
Dave Kinkead, University of Queensland
04 March 2015
The Boundary Problem - how do we decide who ought be include in a demos - affects political theory in a number of different ways, each of which has different consequences depending on one’s perspective and intent. I outline three perspectives common in the literature - the democrat, the cosmopolitan, and the anarchist - and argue that while currently proposed solutions may solve the problem from any one perspective, none can solve it form all perspectives.
The Boundary Problem refers to the challenge of adequately justifying democratic inclusion. Where should we draw our borders and why? Who exactly should be considered amongst the people? Who gets to vote? And who should have a say in answering these questions? Who ought be included in the demos and who ought be excluded has a profound effect on the realisation of justice, the coherence of democratic theory, and the legitimacy of democratic authority.
These questions cannot be answered democratically. Any democratic process presupposes the existence of some determinant group of people, the people, who constitute the participants of that process. Democratic answers are therefore, either viciously circular in that they must first presuppose the answer to the question they ask, or result in an infinite regress of deciding who gets to decide who gets to decide who gets to decide.
Non-democratic solutions fair little better. A number of principles to settle the question - historical accident, nationality, cultural or linguistic salience, the all-coerced principle, and the all-affected principle - have been proposed but none offer an adequate solution. Despite the best efforts of political theorists in the last 30 years, there is a total lack of consensus as to how we might solve the boundary problem.
I argue that this complete lack of consensus regarding answers is a result of the Boundary Problems being from three distinct perspectives. Each theorist has a different project with different motivations, and therefore the question of who should be included amongst the people becomes problematic for different reasons.
The democrat is primarily concerned with answering the question democratically. For the proceduralist, the Boundary Problem is a true paradox. But for the substantive democrat, the question can be answered by any process at realises substantive democratic aims such as equality or autonomy.
For the Democrat, the problem in the Boundary Problem is that any procedurally democratic solution leads to an infinite regress and founding paradox. There can be no democracy without a demos. All democratic procedures require the identification of some specified demos by whom any kratos is wielded. So answering the question of who should be included in the demos democratically first requires the identification of some prior group to decide that questions. And who should make up this group? Answering that question requires the identification of another prior group ad infinitum.
So the question can’t be answered democratically which rules it out for all three perspectives. But this is only true if we think in democracy in procedural terms. Democracy however, is much more than just voting or deliberation. It’s also the realisation of substantive ideals such as political equality, popular sovereignty, or even autonomy.
Are there any procedurally non-democratic yet substantively democratic ways of identifying a demos? Perhaps, and if so these would be acceptable to the Democrat, and perhaps even to the Cosmopolitan, but it’s unlikely they would be acceptable to the Anarchist. This is because few justifications of democratic authority rely on appeals to substantive democratic ideals for the simple reason that they lack what AJ Simmons calls the particularity requirement - why our allegence is owed to this democratic authority rather than another.
The cosmopolitan’s chief concern is whether the answer accords with normative principles that aren’t limited to are particular people. The cosmopolitan rejects claims to nationalism, culture or the status quo but can answer the question by identifying some universal principle of inclusion: the all affected principle, justice, welfare, autonomy or equality.
For the Cosmopolitan, the problem in the Boundary Problem is that democratic inclusion citizenship is closely tied to these substantive principles. The Boundary Problem means that many people are denied justice when the actions of one state (or members of that state) adversely impact by denying them any political recourse. Incorrectly constituting the people is at offs with the Cosmopolitan’s basic substantive ideals.
The anarchist is concerned with how any answer affects democracy’s ability to legitimate political authority. Many accounts of democracy justify the authority of a democratic state by way of reference to particular outcomes or states of affairs that democratic processes bring about. A democratic authority might be a legitimate authority because democratic processes track the truth better than others, best promotes the common good, best realise individual preferences in groups or best ensure the needs of all members of society are realised.
Incorrectly bounding the demos undermines some democratic accounts of legitimacy making but not others. Some solutions to the Boundary Problem are compatible with some accounts of democratic authority, but many are not. So the anarchist is content with any answer in which the account of democratic inclusion is congruent with the account of democratic authority.