Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:55:50.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should be bounded by the state

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2012

Sarah Song
Sarah Song*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, U.C. Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, CA, USA
*
E-mail: ssong@law.berkeley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Democracy is rule by the demos, but by what criteria is the demos constituted? Theorists of democracy have tended to assume that the demos is properly defined by national boundaries or by the territorial boundaries of the modern state. In a recent turn, many democratic theorists have advanced the principles of affected interests and coercion as the basis for defining the boundaries of democracy. According to these principles, it is not co-nationals or fellow citizens but all affected or all subjected to coercion who constitute the demos. In this paper, I argue that these recent approaches to the boundary problem are insufficiently attentive to the conditions of democracy. Democracy is not merely a set of procedures; it also consists of substantive values and principles. Political equality is a constitutive condition of democracy, and solidarity is an instrumental condition of democracy. The affected interests and coercion principles create serious problems for the realization of these conditions – problems of size and stability. Building on this critique, this paper presents democratic considerations for why the demos should be bounded by the territorial boundaries of the state, grounded in the state's role in (1) securing the constitutive conditions of democracy, (2) serving as the primary site of solidarity conducive to democratic participation, and (3) establishing clear links between representatives and their constituents. I examine and reject a third alternative, a global demos bounded by a world state, and conclude by considering some practical implications of my argument.

Keywords

boundariesdemocracydemosaffected interestscoercionterritory
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , 15 March 2012 , pp. 39 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abizadeh, Arash. 2008. “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control your own Borders.” Political Theory 36(1):37–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abizadeh, Arash. 2010. “Democratic Legitimacy and State Coercion: A Reply to David Miller.” Political Theory 38(1):121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agné, Hans. 2010. “Why Democracy must be Global: Self-Founding and Democratic Intervention.” International Theory 2(3):381–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartelson, Jens. 2008. “Globalizing the Democratic Community.” Ethics & Global Politics 1(4):159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Ludvig. 2009. The Frontiers of Democracy: The Right to Vote and Its Limits. London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beitz, C.R. 1989. Political Equality: An Essay in Democratic Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy.” In Democracy and Difference, edited by Seyla Benhabib. . Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 2004. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André. 2006. “What Affects Voter Turnout?” Annual Review of Political Science 9:111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, AndréCarty., K. 1990. “Does Proportional Representation Foster Voter Turnout?” European Journal of Political Research 18:167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, AndréDobrzynska, Agnieszka. 1998. “Turnout in Electoral Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 33:239–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Michael. 2002. “Distributive Justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 30(3):257–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James. 1996. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brighouse, HarryFleurbaey., Marc 2010. “Democracy and Proportionality.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 18(2):137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 2006. “A democratic Theory of Territory and some Puzzles about Global Democracy.” Journal of Social Philosophy 37(1):81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 2008. The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, edited by Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit, 17–34. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1996. “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy and Differnence: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by Seyla Benhabib. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. [1970] 1990. After the Revolution?: Authority in a Good Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 2006. On Political Equality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A.Tufte., E.R. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1996. Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert. 2007. “Enfranchising all Affected Interests, and its Alternatives.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 35:40–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Carol. 2004. Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, translated by W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, Clarissa. 2011. “What can Political Freedom Mean in a Multicultural Democracy? On Deliberation, Difference, and Democratic Governance.” Political Theory 39(4):468–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, David. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1991. “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.” In Political Writings, 2d ed., translated by H.B. Nisbet, edited by H. Reiss, 93–130. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, JackJohnson, James 1997. “What Sort of Political Equality does Deliberative Democracy Require?” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by James Bohman and William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias. 2010. “Is Global Democracy Possible?” European Journal of International Relations 17(3):519–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias. 2011. “Fuzzy Citizenship in Global Society.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 20:1–25.Google Scholar
López-Guerra, Claudio. 2005. “Should Expatriates Vote?” The Journal of Political Philosophy 13(2):216–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Terry. 2003. “Boundaries beyond Borders: Delineating Democratic ‘Peoples’ in a Globalizing World.” Democratization 10(3):173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, Terry. 2008. Global Stakeholder Democracy: Power and Representation beyond Liberal States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchetti, Raffaele. 2008. Global Democracy: For and Against. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Andrew. 2000. Community, Solidarity, and Belonging: Levels of Community and Their Normative Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, David. 1995. On Nationality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Miller, David 2006. “Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Theoretical Reflections.” In Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies, edited by K. Banting and W. Kymlicka. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 2009. “Democracy's Domain.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 37(3):201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Näsström, Sofia. 2007. “The Legitimacy of the People.” Political Theory 35(5):624–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Näsström, Sofia. 2011. “The Challenge of the all-affected Principle.” Political Studies 59:116–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric 2000. “City Size and Civic Involvement in Metropolitan America.” American Political Science Review 94:361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. [1971] 1999. A Theory of Justice, rev. ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, Jean-Jacques. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Andrew K. 2006. “Size Really Doesn't Matter: In search of a National Scale Effect.” Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 20(4): 482–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1987. On the Social Contract in The Basic Political Writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, translated by D.A. Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2000. “A Critique of Held.” In Global Democracy: Key Debates, edited by B. Holden. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe C. 1997. “Exploring the Problematic Triumph of Liberal Democracy and Concluding with a Modest Proposal for Improving its International Impact.” In Democracy's Victory and Crisis, edited by Axel Hadenius, 297–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. [1942] 1950. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 1999. Democratic Justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, A. John. 1979. Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, A. John. 2001. Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. 2008. “The Principle of Constituted Identities and the Obligation to Include.” Ethics & Global Politics 1(3):139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. 2011. “Living in a Promiseland?: Mexican Immigration and American Obligations.” Perspectives on Politics 9(3): 545–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, Sarah. 2009. “Democracy and Noncitizen Voting Rights.” Citizenship Studies 13(6):607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, Sarah. 2011. “Three Models of Civic Solidarity.” In Citizenship, Borders, and Human Needs, edited by Rogers M. Smith. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1993. “Shared and Divergent Values.” In Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism, edited by G. Laforest. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1999. “Democratic exclusion (and its remedies?).” In Multiculturalism, Liberalism, and Democracy, edited by A. Bagchi, R. Bhargava and R. Sudarshan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 2004. Arguing about War. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2003. “Why a World State is Inevitable.” European Journal of International Relations 9(4):491–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whelan, Frederick G. 1983. “Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem.” In Nomos 25: Liberal Democracy, edited by J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman, 13–47. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Klaus Dieter. 1999. “The New Raison d'Etat as a Problem for Democracy in World Society.” European Journal of International Relations 5(3):333–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I.M. 2000. Democracy and Inclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar