Democracy, Maybe
20 Jul 2025Praise, condemnation, questions, and comments can be sent, as always, via email
Lately I’ve been entertaining a fantasy that many people in the Trump movement are currently living out: what if someone took power and made all the reforms I like, disregarding due process and court orders that might get in the way? I feel guilty for entertaining this fantasy - I was raised to appreciate the liberal ideas of early modern political thought that emphasize the natural rights of individuals to participate in government. I haven’t, however, questioned my belief in these liberal values very much if at all. Since I think it is important to really examine all my beliefs before committing to them, today I’ll be reconsidering one aspect of political liberalism: the right to participate in government.
I’ll be repeatedly using the word ‘liberal,’ but I will not be concerned with ‘Liberals’. Lowercase-l liberal concerns a branch of political philosophy that emphasizes the autonomy and rights of individuals as well as their right to self-governance. Capital-L Liberal concerns people who support a Liberal political party, like the Democrats, and is rarely associated with more robust, philosophically rigorous formulations of political liberalism. I am concerned only with the higher order questions about government and political life that a political philosopher would be concerned with, not the ideological soundness of any party platforms.
Lastly, before really getting into it, a brief clarification of the question I’ll be considering. I will be specifically concerned with the relative strengths of democracy and epistocracy. I’ll be charitable with each position and consider the strongest possible version of each. This means that current issues with American democracy, like gerrymandering and super PACs, will be largely ignored as practical issues in the implementation of democracy rather than inherent features of democratic rule. Similarly, practical issues in epistocracy will be ignored. The two positions will be evaluated solely on their philosophical merits. We’ll begin with democracy.
A depiction of the Second Continental Congress voting on the United States Declaration of Independence
Democracy
I think the strongest argument in favor of democracy is that people have a natural right to at least some say over how they are governed, and democracy is the best way to ensure that each citizen does, in fact, have a say over how they are governed. Subjecting people to rule over someone they didn’t choose and whose policy choices may or may not be in their interest infringes on a person’s basic human dignity. In fact, it’s hard to see how someone could be in any sense free if they are constrained by a government which doesn’t represent their interests.
Part of the problem of this argument, of course, is that in a democracy, especially in highly polarized pluralistic societies, people will be subject to rule by someone who doesn’t represent their interests. I hesitate to say that the losing side of an election didn’t choose their ruler, they still cast a vote and participated in the decision-making process, but they didn’t get the outcome that they hoped for. As a consequence of the decision-making process their interests are not represented.
This might be amended by granting democracy the assumption that while a democratically elected ruler might pursue policies that are not supported by everyone in a society, the elected leader will nonetheless refrain from infringing on the basic rights and liberties of the members of society who didn’t vote for them. So, for example, a democratically elected leader might be given an electoral mandate to increase corn subsidies, but could not be given an electoral mandate to expel all citizens who didn’t vote for them from the country.
Another, perhaps more serious problem for democracy is the question of its instrumental value. I’m going to avoid the empirical question of whether free and fair democracies do, in the actual world, lead to strong societies. I’m not well-read enough on the literature to consider that question. Instead, I will focus on the question of whether there is a necessary connection between democracies and strong societies. I think the answer is a clear and resounding no. It is possible, for example, that we might set up a free and fair democracy in a place where people are very poorly educated. As a result, the populace is easily convinced to vote for a candidate whose economic plans are disastrous for the country. If there were a necessary connection between democracies and strong societies, then the very existence of a democracy, no matter the electorate, would lead to good outcomes for the country at large.
One might counter that perhaps democracy for this country prevented an even worse outcome. It might be the case that the citizens of this country voted for a candidate whose economic agenda was disastrous, but that candidate still respects their basic human dignity. In a political system where people don’t have any say over their government, the objection continues, the people of this country would be vulnerable to having their basic human dignity disregarded.
I think this is right, but only if the best this country can do truly is the economic disaster brought on by the election of a poorly qualified candidate. If this is the case then I think that other forms of government (like epistocracy) would fare at least as well as democracy in the possible world under consideration. Thus, the objection does little to raise democracy above the other forms of government we might consider (like epistocracy).
Ultimately, I think that democracy has strong non-instrumental justification: regardless of the outcomes it brings about, it does seem reasonable to think that people have a natural right to self-governance. Instrumentally, however, there doesn’t seem to be any necessary connection between democratic rule and quality government. That is, there seems to be little reason to think, in the absence of empirical evidence, that democracy will lead to good government.
This latter consideration doesn’t disqualify democracy as a viable system of government. There might be strong empirical evidence in the actual world that democracy is a reliable process to building the best possible governments. Such evidence, I would think, should minimize the importance of a necessary connection between democracy and quality government. Absent such strong empirical evidence, we should at least keep our minds open to other forms of government that might share the non-instrumental justification for democracy, while also having strong instrumental reasons in their favor.
The School of Athens by Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino in the Vatican
Epistocracy
An epistocracy (from the Greek episteme “knowledge” and kratos “power”) is a system of government in which political power is held by the experts, that is, the most qualified knowers, in a society. In an epistocracy, for example, economic policy would be set by professional economists, without being held to any political whims. The same goes for education policy, agricultural policy, social policies, etc.
I think there is something intuitively unsavory about epistocracy, namely that setting up an epistocratic government requires handing over power to a small group of elites. If I was considering the practicalities of setting up such a government, I would have to elaborate on the checks and balances necessary to ensure that the epistocracy doesn’t devolve into an oligarchy. As I mentioned above, however, I’m going to be charitable and just assume that these practical issues are not irresolvable, and that epistocracies can be established without necessarily devolving into tyranny.
Epistocracy does not seem to be justified by an appeal to non-instrumental considerations, like the right to self-government or the inherent value of equality in political participation. In an epistocracy people must forfeit their right to self-government so that someone who is better qualified than they are can make decisions about government on their behalf. Again, I think there is something intuitively unsavory about this. For one thing, there is a long history of attempts to justify colonialism on the grounds that colonizers are more qualified governors than the native population. Given that many of these attempts at colonization ended with either the enslavement or genocide of native populations, this claim should make us somewhat wary.
Again, though, we must be charitable to epistocracy. We’ll also assume that the epistocrats are well-intentioned and concerned for the well-being of everyone under their rule, not just the people who share their demographic features. There is still, I think, a worry about inequality that we should take seriously in an epistocracy. With the political power concentrated in the hands of the epistocrats, and the rest of the population effectively disenfranchised, there is an inherent inequality in the epistocratic system.
I have trouble, at this point, weighing the philosophical points for and against self-government for self-government’s sake. I think defenders of epistocracy would argue that giving up the right to self-government and the right to equal political representation is worth the gains made in the quality of government. I, personally, am slightly uneasy by the prospect of being subject to a government that I have little to no say in. What makes me slightly less uneasy is to think about perhaps the best example of an epistocratic institution, the Federal Reserve.
The Fed, despite recent attacks by the Trump administration, is fiercely independent in its mission to shape US monetary policy. Highly decorated economists are nominated to run the institution and are insulated from political pressure in making decisions. Because the desires and whims of the people play no role in the Fed’s decision-making process, they are able to make unpopular decisions (e.g. keeping interest rates high) which keep the economy growing steadily and out of recessions (or worse).
I am not an economist, but I do keep up with the Wall Street Journal, and as far as I can tell since 2008 the Fed has been largely successful in adjusting US monetary policy to avoid the worst economic effects we might have encountered were the institution to be more highly politicized. I think it is extremely appealing to have other government policies set by similarly qualified experts who work towards the common benefit of the country as a whole.
We must also take seriously, however, that even in our most charitable construal of the experts who run an epistocratic government, there is still room for mistakes. We cannot assume that the experts setting policy will be omniscient, only that they will have the best scientific and humanistic knowledge on offer at a given time. Some of the worst effects of this might be resolved by delegating decisions to intellectually diverse committees, so that rogue experts and crackpots are reigned in, and decisions are based on intellectual consensus.
But there was a time where the scientific consensus on astronomy was that the sun rotated around the earth. Experts will still be wrong, sometimes dramatically so. I don’t think this is enough to disqualify epistocracy as a viable form of government. If our best experts are wrong, it’s not clear that anyone else could be expected to do much better. I do think that entrusting more government decisions to relevant experts would at least reliably, if not perfectly, lead to higher quality government than in political systems like monarchy or democracy.
_for_Allen_%26_Ginter_Cigarettes_Brands_MET_DP834718.jpg)
Patent Office in Washington, from the General Government and State Capitol Buildings series for Allen & Ginter Cigarette Brands
The Verdict
I ended that last section pretty rosy on epistocracy, but I do think there are serious problems that the system would face. I’m concerned about cases where the experts disagree on the proper course of action, and I’m not sure how the relevant experts would be selected to rule in such a way that would appropriately insulate the process from politicking. I have, it seems, talked myself somewhat away from democracy and towards epistocracy, though I’m not sure if I’m all the way there yet. I’m certainly somewhat cynical about American democracy at the moment, but I’m still (perhaps naively) optimistic that the system can be salvaged in some form.
I think what sounds most appealing to me right now is an epistocracy that still retains some features of democracy. Most aspects of policy would be set by experts, especially economic and fiscal policy. But, referendums are still held on some issues. For example, the group of experts tasked with balancing the fiscal budget might determine what possible cuts might be made, and then assemble a few different packages of cuts, and put the choice of which package of cuts to implement to a public vote.
Similarly, votes might still be held on issues like raising taxes. The experts identify a need for some new service provided by the government, and then people can vote on whether they are willing to raise taxes in order to provide that service. The public would be informed on (1) what the service is and why it is important and (2) if the tax hikes are voted down, whether another service would be cut in order to free up money. For example, the experts might propose a tax hike to build a new hospital. The public is given information justifying the need for a new hospital, and, since the hospital is deemed essential, are told that Universal Free Taco Tuesdays will be cut in order to fund the hospital if the tax hikes are voted down. If the service isn’t so essential as a hospital, then a no vote on the tax hikes would mean the service just isn’t implemented.
I’m starting to ramble, so I’ll cut it off here. I think I’ve done enough to make my general leanings clear. I’m trying to write these blogs to be less conclusive and more representative of my real-time thought processes as I try to puzzle these things over. So far, it’s helpful for me, and I hope it’s also interesting for you. Until next week.
If you liked this post, please let me know! If not, also let me know! Thanks for reading!