What do you think?
Rate this book
Debating Democracy: Do We Need More or Less?
Around the world, faith in democracy is falling. Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela have moved from flawed democracies to authoritarian regimes. Brexit and the rise of far-right parties show that even stable Western democracies are struggling. Partisanship and mutual distrust are increasing. What, if anything, should we do about these problems? In this accessible work, leading philosophers Jason Brennan and Hélène Landemore debate whether the solution lies in having less democracy or more.
Brennan argues that democracy has systematic flaws, and that democracy does not and cannot work the way most of us commonly assume. He argues the best solution is to limit democracy's scope and to experiment with certain voting systems that can overcome democracy's problems.
Landemore argues that democracy, defined as a regime that distributes power equally and inclusively, is a better way to generate good governance than oligarchies of knowledge. To her, the crisis of "representative democracy" comes in large part from its glaring democratic deficits. The solution is not just more democracy, but a better kind, which Landemore theorizes as "open democracy."
Brennan argues that democracy has systematic flaws, and that democracy does not and cannot work the way most of us commonly assume. He argues the best solution is to limit democracy's scope and to experiment with certain voting systems that can overcome democracy's problems.
Landemore argues that democracy, defined as a regime that distributes power equally and inclusively, is a better way to generate good governance than oligarchies of knowledge. To her, the crisis of "representative democracy" comes in large part from its glaring democratic deficits. The solution is not just more democracy, but a better kind, which Landemore theorizes as "open democracy."
296 pages, Hardcover
Published November 9, 2021
2 people are currently reading
53 people want to read
About the author
Jason Brennan
33 books139 followersJason Brennan is the Robert J. and Elizabeth Flanagan Family Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. His books include Against Democracy and The Ethics of Voting.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Read
November 21, 2022This book is split in half. First half is by author Brennan, who claims we should have less democracy and second half is by author Landemore who claims we should have more.
First half presents some interesting arguments and techniques, yet in its foundations is about how most people don't have enough political knowledge. With this, both the second author and I, disagree categorically.
Second half is about democracy in its proper form, which these days we call: deliberative democracy. The author defines yet another word: open democracy, which is an interesting variation based in sortition and collective decisions. Furthermore, the author debates against noocracy in many of its forms, ie. technocracy, meritocracy, epistocracy. Finally, she talks about why current democratic countries are failing in social matters.
First half presents some interesting arguments and techniques, yet in its foundations is about how most people don't have enough political knowledge. With this, both the second author and I, disagree categorically.
Second half is about democracy in its proper form, which these days we call: deliberative democracy. The author defines yet another word: open democracy, which is an interesting variation based in sortition and collective decisions. Furthermore, the author debates against noocracy in many of its forms, ie. technocracy, meritocracy, epistocracy. Finally, she talks about why current democratic countries are failing in social matters.
January 28, 2024
This book is a very interesting exchange between Brennan and Landemore on the limits, pitfalls, and benefits of democracy. Brennan, on the one hand, argues for limiting and constraining democracy based on the ample empirical evidence about voter's ignorance, biases, group behavior, etc. Landemore, on the other hand, argues for expanding and enlarging the role of deliberate democracy. The book is a great quick overview of both sides of the debate, but I felt that Landemore's piece was weaker, and it felt more like a "just read and buy all my other books" kind of argument rather than developing serious ideas. So Brennan's side is 4 starts, and Landemore's is 3 starts. Nevertheless, a book is recommended for those who know little about the debate. The book contains good references and a valuable bibliography for deeper study. Brennan's critical account of the Hong Page theorem is very interesting.
I remain way more convinced by Brennan's argument than Landemore's. I think Brennan ultimately wins the debate, but mainly because the other side's empirical and evidence-based defense is weak at best. (more details below)
Landemore's core argument hinges on two key shaky assumptions. i) First, she does a very dubious extrapolation and generalization of the Hong-Page theorem, which is based on very idealistic and highly questionable assumptions. She questionably extrapolates this theorem to make her case into reality. We should be very skeptical of the assumptions embedded in this model and the capacity of real democracies to map well, if at all, into the theorem. ii) Second, Landemore's entire case hinges also on a very unrealistic and romantic way of conceiving deliberation. She thinks that we can create the correct conditions to enhance peaceful, rational, and meditated deliberation among normal citizens and also that government and politics (or interest groups) would not try to distort or leverage those deliberations. I invite you to study democracies in Latin America to see how unrealistic these assumptions could be. Finally, she uses very thin empirical evidence, mainly the Icelandic and the French case, to extrapolate the goodness of her model, which sounds more like cherry-picking than serious empirical evidence. Still, I still think that some minor form of 'open-democracy' model or deliberative lottocracy could be fruitfully inserted into our current systems to make them more participative. But this should be considered as a small complement to be inserted inside our current systems and in some limited public policy areas rather than becoming the definitive feature of our democracies.
I remain way more convinced by Brennan's argument than Landemore's. I think Brennan ultimately wins the debate, but mainly because the other side's empirical and evidence-based defense is weak at best. (more details below)
Landemore's core argument hinges on two key shaky assumptions. i) First, she does a very dubious extrapolation and generalization of the Hong-Page theorem, which is based on very idealistic and highly questionable assumptions. She questionably extrapolates this theorem to make her case into reality. We should be very skeptical of the assumptions embedded in this model and the capacity of real democracies to map well, if at all, into the theorem. ii) Second, Landemore's entire case hinges also on a very unrealistic and romantic way of conceiving deliberation. She thinks that we can create the correct conditions to enhance peaceful, rational, and meditated deliberation among normal citizens and also that government and politics (or interest groups) would not try to distort or leverage those deliberations. I invite you to study democracies in Latin America to see how unrealistic these assumptions could be. Finally, she uses very thin empirical evidence, mainly the Icelandic and the French case, to extrapolate the goodness of her model, which sounds more like cherry-picking than serious empirical evidence. Still, I still think that some minor form of 'open-democracy' model or deliberative lottocracy could be fruitfully inserted into our current systems to make them more participative. But this should be considered as a small complement to be inserted inside our current systems and in some limited public policy areas rather than becoming the definitive feature of our democracies.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews