What do you think?
Rate this book
The Good State: On the Principles of Democracy
The foundations upon which our democracies stand are inherently flawed, vulnerable to corrosion from within. What is the remedy?
A. C. Grayling makes the case for a clear, consistent, principled and written constitution, and sets out the reforms necessary – among them addressing the imbalance of power between government and Parliament, imposing fixed terms for MPs, introducing proportional representation and lowering the voting age to 16 (the age at which you can marry, gamble, join the army and must pay taxes if you work) – to ensure the intentions of such a constitution could not be subverted or ignored. As democracies around the world show signs of decay, the issue of what makes a good state, one that is democratic in the fullest sense of the word, could not be more important.
To take just one example: by the simplest of measures, neither Britain nor the United States can claim to be truly democratic. The most basic tenet of democracy is that no voice be louder than any other. Yet in our ‘first past the post’ electoral systems a voter supporting a losing candidate is unrepresented, his or her voice unequal to one supporting a winning candidate, who frequently does not gain a majority of the votes cast. This is just one of a number of problems, all of them showing that democratic reform is a necessity in our contemporary world.
A. C. Grayling makes the case for a clear, consistent, principled and written constitution, and sets out the reforms necessary – among them addressing the imbalance of power between government and Parliament, imposing fixed terms for MPs, introducing proportional representation and lowering the voting age to 16 (the age at which you can marry, gamble, join the army and must pay taxes if you work) – to ensure the intentions of such a constitution could not be subverted or ignored. As democracies around the world show signs of decay, the issue of what makes a good state, one that is democratic in the fullest sense of the word, could not be more important.
To take just one example: by the simplest of measures, neither Britain nor the United States can claim to be truly democratic. The most basic tenet of democracy is that no voice be louder than any other. Yet in our ‘first past the post’ electoral systems a voter supporting a losing candidate is unrepresented, his or her voice unequal to one supporting a winning candidate, who frequently does not gain a majority of the votes cast. This is just one of a number of problems, all of them showing that democratic reform is a necessity in our contemporary world.
256 pages, Hardcover
Published April 14, 2020
30 people are currently reading
292 people want to read
About the author
A.C. Grayling
95 books672 followersAnthony Clifford "A. C." Grayling is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
April 29, 2021
From my limited experience, political philosophy swings between the too-optimistic and the too-cynical. A.C. Grayling definitely falls into the former camp, which to me is the central flaw of the book: e.g. he puts much faith in independent commissions for the drawing of electoral boundaries, reviewing of conduct, checking of facts, but doesn't really demonstrate how to create a truly independent body? But that was my only gripe throughout.
There are several ways in which this book is quite excellent. It does not shy away, as many others do, from discussing the fine details of lib-democratic praxis (??). The role of FPTP systems, lobby groups, QUANGOs and what he calls "the social media" are examined and recommendations made to resolve observed problems. He moreover does not have that annoyingly common tendency among English writers to idolise and worship the "gentlemanly" Westminster system, instead exposing the creaky and dysfunctional interior of a country that has survived despite its government, not because of it. The insane lack of a written constitution comes under fire: it works passably well in well-established fields such as calling elections or conducting policy, but in relatively newer fields where there has not been a body of precedent, it totally breaks down. Referenda are one example: Britain only held its first national referendum in 1973, and because it has no constitution, there are actually no guidelines for how referenda are to be held or their results considered, resulting in the embarrassment to the civilised world that was Brexit (among other factors).
Grayling's positive world vision is pretty clear: a Westminster-derived system with clear separation of powers (and here he makes the distinction between the distribution and separation of powers which I found quite insightful) between Parliament and Government, elected by some species of proportional election to preferably form coalition governments, checked on by an independent judiciary which eliminates both the partisanship seen in the US and the toothlessness seen elsewhere. Excepting the one gripe I discussed above, I thought this was essentially sensible and realistic.
(One small linguistic note: A.C. Grayling sometimes uses the word "attain" as an intransitive verb to mean something like "manifest" (e.g. "These benefits will attain.") which is a very interesting usage I had not come across before.)
There are several ways in which this book is quite excellent. It does not shy away, as many others do, from discussing the fine details of lib-democratic praxis (??). The role of FPTP systems, lobby groups, QUANGOs and what he calls "the social media" are examined and recommendations made to resolve observed problems. He moreover does not have that annoyingly common tendency among English writers to idolise and worship the "gentlemanly" Westminster system, instead exposing the creaky and dysfunctional interior of a country that has survived despite its government, not because of it. The insane lack of a written constitution comes under fire: it works passably well in well-established fields such as calling elections or conducting policy, but in relatively newer fields where there has not been a body of precedent, it totally breaks down. Referenda are one example: Britain only held its first national referendum in 1973, and because it has no constitution, there are actually no guidelines for how referenda are to be held or their results considered, resulting in the embarrassment to the civilised world that was Brexit (among other factors).
Grayling's positive world vision is pretty clear: a Westminster-derived system with clear separation of powers (and here he makes the distinction between the distribution and separation of powers which I found quite insightful) between Parliament and Government, elected by some species of proportional election to preferably form coalition governments, checked on by an independent judiciary which eliminates both the partisanship seen in the US and the toothlessness seen elsewhere. Excepting the one gripe I discussed above, I thought this was essentially sensible and realistic.
(One small linguistic note: A.C. Grayling sometimes uses the word "attain" as an intransitive verb to mean something like "manifest" (e.g. "These benefits will attain.") which is a very interesting usage I had not come across before.)
July 20, 2024
The Good State: On the Principles of Democracy, by A.C. Grayling, is an interesting book that examines the principles of democratic systems, and how representative democracies struggle to implement them. The book looks at the fusion of powers between the three main levels of government - Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary, and the issues these fusion of powers can cause. For example, in Canada, the Executive and Legislature are fused, with the Prime Minister, the head of the executive branch, and the members of the Cabinet all stemming from political parties that are elected to the legislature, and disciplined by party whip. Similar issues exist in Republican systems like the United States, where the head of the executive branch of government (President) can appoint members of appeal courts, including the Supreme Court, and for life. These historical relics harken back to times of monarchy, where executive power, and representative power, were very separate spheres. In modern times, they are often taken advantage of by interest groups seeking to promote their inner ideologies at the expense of, or despite, popular and democratic will. Grayling looks at the philosophical principles that underpin democracy, and examines the issues with representative systems, as well as some potential solutions to these issues - namely, entrenching the separation of powers, beefing up parliamentary codes of conduct, testing members of legislatures regularly on their knowledge of a bill, and so forth. This book was interesting and examines the issues of fused powers, and representative democracy, quite well, while offering some concrete and workable solutions.
November 11, 2020
I heard Grayling on a podcast talking about this book. Political philosophy has long been an interest of mine and I liked the clear way he presented his ideas. Though I had heard Grayling's name before I don't think I had ever read any of his works.
The book is essentially a critique of what Grayling calls the "Westminster Model" of government (i.e. UK Parliament system or equivalent) as insufficiently Democratic. This is tragic because- as Grayling further claims- ALL the world's purported democracies follow this model- the US being a notably unique variant. Grayling goes over in only seven chapters everything he believes is fundamental for a government to meet the actual criteria of Democracy. This includes a pretty convincing argument of how representative government is superior to the direct democracy of ancient Greece, at least for the modern world.
Alongside the explication of what a good democratic state would be is the related discussion of how our current 'democracies' fall short. In brief, the trouble spots are:
1) A government that does not proportionally represent the entire population of citizens but only represents either the majority or- very often- only a small minority.
2) Careerism of politicians
3) The tendency of politicians to put party loyalties before their obligations to constituents
4) A lack of the separation of powers. [Note: this particularly struck me as I live in a country (The US) with, at very least, a nominal separation of powers. It was a bit of an eye-opener to learn that there is functionally no separation of the legislative and executive branches of government im many so-called democratic countries]
5) Money's outsized influence in politics
6) Propaganda and it's metastasized role in the social media age.
Readers will probably be pleased to know that he has suggestions about how to combat these. To me, some of these suggestions are more convincing/inspiring than others. I'll let the reader judge for herself. However, I cannot accuse Grayling of being incomplete in their treatment- he has suggestions for how to ameliorate each problem.
Grayling's prose is very clear and he doesn't rely very often on gimmicky thought-experiments, which I personally don't care much for. The book is logically ordered and doesn't waste the reader's time. The notes section is quite good and often fills out the context to a greater degree for the reader willing to reference them as they go. Grayling also makes regular mention of other texts that would make for illuminating further reading. One aspect that may annoy some readers is that Grayling puts the lion's share of his analysis on the UK and US systems of government.
Most surprising to me was how my own definition of Democracy was inadequate. We are so used to walking around in our contemporary era thinking we more or less understand what Democracy is. The recent trend of anti-democracy books (e.g. Brennan's - "Against Democracy," most obviously if not most notably) showcase this fact. Grayling asks us to know what we are talking about before we attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater and for that his book is very ably suited. The new reader will learn a hell of a lot and the more seasoned reader will probably learn more than they think at the outset. Plus, it's a slim 200 pages (including appendices) so there's no excuse not to give it a try.
The book is essentially a critique of what Grayling calls the "Westminster Model" of government (i.e. UK Parliament system or equivalent) as insufficiently Democratic. This is tragic because- as Grayling further claims- ALL the world's purported democracies follow this model- the US being a notably unique variant. Grayling goes over in only seven chapters everything he believes is fundamental for a government to meet the actual criteria of Democracy. This includes a pretty convincing argument of how representative government is superior to the direct democracy of ancient Greece, at least for the modern world.
Alongside the explication of what a good democratic state would be is the related discussion of how our current 'democracies' fall short. In brief, the trouble spots are:
1) A government that does not proportionally represent the entire population of citizens but only represents either the majority or- very often- only a small minority.
2) Careerism of politicians
3) The tendency of politicians to put party loyalties before their obligations to constituents
4) A lack of the separation of powers. [Note: this particularly struck me as I live in a country (The US) with, at very least, a nominal separation of powers. It was a bit of an eye-opener to learn that there is functionally no separation of the legislative and executive branches of government im many so-called democratic countries]
5) Money's outsized influence in politics
6) Propaganda and it's metastasized role in the social media age.
Readers will probably be pleased to know that he has suggestions about how to combat these. To me, some of these suggestions are more convincing/inspiring than others. I'll let the reader judge for herself. However, I cannot accuse Grayling of being incomplete in their treatment- he has suggestions for how to ameliorate each problem.
Grayling's prose is very clear and he doesn't rely very often on gimmicky thought-experiments, which I personally don't care much for. The book is logically ordered and doesn't waste the reader's time. The notes section is quite good and often fills out the context to a greater degree for the reader willing to reference them as they go. Grayling also makes regular mention of other texts that would make for illuminating further reading. One aspect that may annoy some readers is that Grayling puts the lion's share of his analysis on the UK and US systems of government.
Most surprising to me was how my own definition of Democracy was inadequate. We are so used to walking around in our contemporary era thinking we more or less understand what Democracy is. The recent trend of anti-democracy books (e.g. Brennan's - "Against Democracy," most obviously if not most notably) showcase this fact. Grayling asks us to know what we are talking about before we attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater and for that his book is very ably suited. The new reader will learn a hell of a lot and the more seasoned reader will probably learn more than they think at the outset. Plus, it's a slim 200 pages (including appendices) so there's no excuse not to give it a try.
October 16, 2020
Outlines the concepts of democracy and where it stands today in a clear manner.
September 23, 2020
Potentially stodgy, but in fact a much needed resource in comparative politics in the time of Trump. He takes the intricacies of voting systems- especially first past the post- and argues (correctly) that this particular system means a denial of democracy in the US and the UK, and numerous other nations. His account of America having "too much democracy" is devastating. He treads too lightly on the cultural and socio-economic backgrounds to oligarchy, such as the thriving class system in the UK, legitimated by a burnt-out monarchy, and the 1% in America. You know that anyway, so what he has to offer is excellent.
January 26, 2026
Grayling's book on democracy is messy and amateurish, far too interested in the (liberal) philosophy of government compared to how government actually works.
To give a long example which demonstrates the weakness of this work: his early words on first-past-the-post versus proportional representation does not even describe how these systems work in practice, it is simply interested in making a philosophical case for the latter; not a bad case but devestatingly incomplete.
If someone were convinced by this to support PR and voiced that opinion, they would falter on the obvious question: 'how does that work?' Presumably Grayling supports abolishing MP constituencies and having MPs drawn up by party lists, although he doesn't say so openly. There are real downsides to this, e.g., the lack of local representation makes it unclear who is ultimately responsible for local issues; plus national parties will find it easier to purge internal dissidents and reward loyalists without local branches choosing their representatives. Grayling quickly dismisses the former in an appendix without properly airing the argument and doesn't mention the latter. Again, I can only imagine someone saying 'I support proportional representation' and not realising the implications of this. There are systems of voting more representative than FPTP which retain the local link, like mixed voting and ranked choice - but Grayling states that addressing actual systems of proportional voting would be too technical, despite the fact that 16 year olds in A-Level Politics classes are ably learning about them.
Speaking generally I find Grayling's writing style ping-pongs between issues without taking the chance to really explore them. It feels like whatever came to mind in that moment he put down without trying to carry a coherent throughline.
Lastly and most importantly, I'm simply unconvinced that these constitutional reforms will avert the populist threat. If countries with clearer separation of powers, written constitutions etc. like Germany and America have worse populist problems than the UK, why are their systems superior to ours? By contrast, the recent book Abundance by Klein and Thompson argues that the main reason people are angry is because government is incompetent and the cost of living is too high, and set about less dramatic (non-constitutional) reforms to change that. This makes much more immediate sense than 'votes for sixteen year olds' (as much as I support this). These might be good reforms Grayling advocates for, but I feel like he almost arrogantly assumes that the arguments have been settled (by him), and since he has good reasoning, there is nothing to stop them from just being implemented. I think on the contrary major constitutional change needs a base of support and the confidence of ordinary people, which these don't enjoy. I would go as far as to say that they are exclusively favoured by armchair politicos (like me) and wonky thinktank enjoyers. As such there is an odd paradox that these reforms are often modest-sounding but impossible to implement; urgently needed (he thinks) but decades away in practice.
There might have been an interesting essay in here but I cannot recommend.
To give a long example which demonstrates the weakness of this work: his early words on first-past-the-post versus proportional representation does not even describe how these systems work in practice, it is simply interested in making a philosophical case for the latter; not a bad case but devestatingly incomplete.
If someone were convinced by this to support PR and voiced that opinion, they would falter on the obvious question: 'how does that work?' Presumably Grayling supports abolishing MP constituencies and having MPs drawn up by party lists, although he doesn't say so openly. There are real downsides to this, e.g., the lack of local representation makes it unclear who is ultimately responsible for local issues; plus national parties will find it easier to purge internal dissidents and reward loyalists without local branches choosing their representatives. Grayling quickly dismisses the former in an appendix without properly airing the argument and doesn't mention the latter. Again, I can only imagine someone saying 'I support proportional representation' and not realising the implications of this. There are systems of voting more representative than FPTP which retain the local link, like mixed voting and ranked choice - but Grayling states that addressing actual systems of proportional voting would be too technical, despite the fact that 16 year olds in A-Level Politics classes are ably learning about them.
Speaking generally I find Grayling's writing style ping-pongs between issues without taking the chance to really explore them. It feels like whatever came to mind in that moment he put down without trying to carry a coherent throughline.
Lastly and most importantly, I'm simply unconvinced that these constitutional reforms will avert the populist threat. If countries with clearer separation of powers, written constitutions etc. like Germany and America have worse populist problems than the UK, why are their systems superior to ours? By contrast, the recent book Abundance by Klein and Thompson argues that the main reason people are angry is because government is incompetent and the cost of living is too high, and set about less dramatic (non-constitutional) reforms to change that. This makes much more immediate sense than 'votes for sixteen year olds' (as much as I support this). These might be good reforms Grayling advocates for, but I feel like he almost arrogantly assumes that the arguments have been settled (by him), and since he has good reasoning, there is nothing to stop them from just being implemented. I think on the contrary major constitutional change needs a base of support and the confidence of ordinary people, which these don't enjoy. I would go as far as to say that they are exclusively favoured by armchair politicos (like me) and wonky thinktank enjoyers. As such there is an odd paradox that these reforms are often modest-sounding but impossible to implement; urgently needed (he thinks) but decades away in practice.
There might have been an interesting essay in here but I cannot recommend.
June 10, 2023
The cover sarcastically reads "While most philosophy is written in abstruse and ponderous prose, Grayling's is a model of clarity and elegance."
Grayling says a little in a lot of words, and then rests some of his wildest and least defensible conclusions like the obviously sensible need to setup a ministry of truth on as little as a paragraph.
The book reminds me of Dawkin's The God Delusion -- I spent a lot of time thinking "well, yes, this is obvious, I agree, Brexit bad" but it probably won't do much to convince anyone on the other side of the aisle. We get to be intellectually smug and reassure each other that we're very clever at the cost of never meaningfully convincing someone else to think differently. For the most part, strong arguments are lacking, and the book comprises of the author's belief states wrapped up in sesquipedalian prose.
The book would be significantly shorter were it compressed just to the good parts: Grayling succeeds at presenting a conception of democracy that is purer than what might be deduced from democratic systems in the UK and the US. As someone who hasn't read political philosophy before, it's like being given the definition of a cow for the first time and finding it's not much like any cow you've ever seen, and you thought you knew cows -- why, you've seen thousands of cows -- but this is indubitably a cow.
Grayling says a little in a lot of words, and then rests some of his wildest and least defensible conclusions like the obviously sensible need to setup a ministry of truth on as little as a paragraph.
The book reminds me of Dawkin's The God Delusion -- I spent a lot of time thinking "well, yes, this is obvious, I agree, Brexit bad" but it probably won't do much to convince anyone on the other side of the aisle. We get to be intellectually smug and reassure each other that we're very clever at the cost of never meaningfully convincing someone else to think differently. For the most part, strong arguments are lacking, and the book comprises of the author's belief states wrapped up in sesquipedalian prose.
The book would be significantly shorter were it compressed just to the good parts: Grayling succeeds at presenting a conception of democracy that is purer than what might be deduced from democratic systems in the UK and the US. As someone who hasn't read political philosophy before, it's like being given the definition of a cow for the first time and finding it's not much like any cow you've ever seen, and you thought you knew cows -- why, you've seen thousands of cows -- but this is indubitably a cow.
November 28, 2024
A very clear and relevant discussion on the deep absence of actual democratic principles in polities claiming themselves to be representative democracies today. however the book continues to imply that a democracy, granted a fulfilment of its key principles,is nevertheless the ideal system of governance, which i think relies on tooo optimistic a view of people and communities once they take on the role of voters, politicians, majorities, etc. Pretty much the only alternative to democracy he addressed was anarchism too
January 24, 2022
This book overall provides a number of scathing and important critiques of our political system, emphasising a new understanding of democracy to the people. I strongly agree with a number of its key points, including its advocacy for proportional representation, however I still found that I disagreed on some finer points, including his critique of the role of norms and convention, in favour of more codification.
February 3, 2023
This was great! A really interesting and comprehensive dive into what it means to be a democracy…and how pretty much no one is truly doing right by the term. Did it take me ages to finish the book? Yes. But that’s mainly because of the density of the subject matter. Regardless, A.C. Grayling has managed to untangle a lot of the difficulties surrounding democracy (no small feat!) and communicated the ways that we can do it better. A fascinating read!
January 30, 2026
Would like to give it 3 1/2 ⭐️. The Good State is challenging but accessible. Grayling gives a clear outline of democracy, as he views it, and critiques of governments he considers "near democracies", particularly the UK and the U.S. Specific weaknesses of these governments and threats to democracy with some possible solutions are discussed.
I found this book educational and thought provoking.
I found this book educational and thought provoking.
October 15, 2022
Grayling criticizes the Westminster model of democracy, because it leads to one ”class” gaining power over the executive and legislative with the executive forcing the policy through the legislative.
December 29, 2020
What a complex beast democracy is in reality, with many chimera around the globe. This book goes a long way to clarifying the reality of the form of government we all assume to understand. Clear and erudite arguments for improvements are also quite illuminating.
July 6, 2021
An elegantly written and important book. Unfortunately he undermines his argument somewhat by his partisanship. Still would recommend.
December 17, 2021
A must read for anyone interested in democracy
April 30, 2024
A very descriptive and pragmatic view of modern iterations of democracy. It was a bit neo-liberal for my taste, but very sensible.
July 30, 2024
Could have been summarised in a short article.
November 20, 2025
Yet, another someone that approaches democracy as this (western) liberal idea of protecting individual rights instead of its original meaning - direct participation on governance. The author is well aware of this change of meaning which is, actually, the usurpation of a term for the sake of the preservation of a ruling class, but he discards this with ease once it might not be in his best interest. For a book on "democracy", Grayling shows little to no knowledge and understanding of chinese democracy based on the principles of meritocracy and harmony. The author spends a lot of time advocating for a system "for the people, all the people" and that will "act in their best interests", but never considering (besides in instances of illiberal movements such as right-wing populism) that The People might just be, here, mere instruments used to legitimize the policies of those who want to consolidate power while convincing them (The People) they were the ones who came up with their demands and in a very natural way.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews