In democratic societies, people have the right to elect their own leaders and participate in government by voting on key issues that affect them. They can also make their views known by writing to their representatives, or by joining groups working on particular issues. This is what makes democracy unique, and it is why many people consider it to be a good thing. However, the idea of democracy has been challenged by a range of arguments that seek to justify it along non-instrumental lines.
One important argument for democracy is that it better protects people’s rights and interests than other forms of governance. John Stuart Mill, for example, argued that because of the way it shares power with its subjects, democracy forces decision-makers to take into account the judgments and preferences of a much wider range of individuals than monarchy or aristocracy would (Mill 1861: ch. 3). This argument is strengthened by a number of empirical findings. For instance, studies suggest that the economic growth of countries with well-functioning democratic institutions is greater than the growth of those with less well-functioning ones (Acemoglu et al. 2019).
The principle that all citizens are equal before the law, and the right to vote, are often considered to be central features of democracy. This is because they make it possible for people to challenge the decisions of their governments and to find ways to change them in a peaceful way. In addition, democracy promotes the values of equality and autonomy by encouraging citizens to interact with others of all ages and backgrounds and explore opposing views. This allows them to develop a more mature and nuanced understanding of the trade-offs involved in different policies, which can then inform their choices.
A second non-instrumental justification for democracy draws on the notion of public justification, which is the idea that laws and policies are legitimate only to the extent that they can be publicly justified by members of the community through free and reasoned debate among equals. Various authors have argued that democracy is the only way to ensure this.
Many people endorse democracy because they think it has beneficial effects on the characters of its subjects. They share the view of thinkers like Mill and Rousseau that it tends to encourage self-reliance in individuals because they have a stake in the outcome of political-decision-making more than monarchy or aristocracy do. It also tends to cultivate a spirit of compromise, which can help to solve disputes over the ways to shape society without resorting to political violence (Mill and Rousseau 1989: chs. 7-8).
In recent years, a growing number of people have argued that democracy is not working in practice, or that it is not working as it should. They have pointed to a range of problems with the way democratic institutions operate, such as the fact that voters are often ill-informed and apathetic about politics, and that politicians are too easily manipulated by special interest groups (Lord & Ross 1979; Bartels 2002). This has fueled concerns that democracy has become ineffective at protecting people’s rights and interests, and has given rise to anti-democratic movements.