Abstract
The article revisits two basic questions of political theory posed by Jon Elster. First, should the political process be defined as private or public, and second, should its purpose be understood instrumentally or intrinsically? Having posed these questions, Elster arrives at three views of politics: social choice (private, instrumental), republican (public, intrinsic) and discourse theory (public, instrumental). I argue for a fourth view (private, intrinsic), and explain Elster's omission of this model by referring to his underlying paradigm of politics, that is, as will formation. The main thesis in Elster's article is about whether the process of will formation should be relegated to the market mechanism or dealt with via deliberative forums. I reject this paradigm and argue instead for politics as jurisdiction. This notion of politics is concerned with the question of how both market and forum processes of will formation should be institutionalized. Defining politics as jurisdiction strongly improves the plausibility of the missing fourth model of democratic will formation, as a depiction of democratic will formation as private in its process and intrinsic in its purpose illustrates the importance of distinguishing between two levels of democracy: namely, the civil level of will formation and the political level of jurisdiction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Prepared for the Association of Political Theory Conference at Washington University in St. Louis, October 21–23, 2005. I am especially grateful to Liesbeth Huppes for invaluable suggestions and remarks, and to Ailsa Camm for textual editing. I also thank Cheryl Hall, Mireille Hildebrandt, Jeroen van den Hoven, Wibren van der Burg, Willem Witteveen, and the editors and referees of Contemporary Political Theory for helpful commentary.
Cf. Berlin (1988, 172), who remarks that modern pluralism is ‘[a]n ideal which remote ages and primitive societies have not recognized’ (see in agreement Rawls, 1996, xxiii, 134; Rawls, 2001, 583, nt. 29, 343, nt. 4). See also Mouffe, 1996, 246, emphasis CM: ‘The crucial difference [between ancient and modern democracy] resides in the acceptance of pluralism, which is constitutive of modern liberal democracy.’ Kymlicka (2002, 297–298), even rather complacently states: ‘We no longer seek gratification in politics because our personal and social life is so much richer than that of the ancient Greeks.’ See for an excellent critique on this falsely understood dichotomy between the classics and moderns: Saxonhouse (1982, 1996, esp. 1–31).
References
Ackerman, B. and Fishkin, J.S. (2003) ‘Deliberation Day’, in J.S. Fishkin and P. Laslett (eds.) Debating Deliberative Democracy, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 7–30.
Aristotle (1980) The Nicomachean Ethics, Translation, introduction: D. Ross, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle (1984) The Politics, Translation, introduction, notes, and glossary: C. Lord, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Benhabib, S. (1996) ‘Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen Habermas’, in C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 73–98.
Berlin, I. (1988) Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (1997) ‘Introduction’, in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. ix–xxx.
Collini, S. (1976) ‘Hobhouse, Bosanquet and the State: Philosophical Idealism and Political Argument in England 1880–1918’, in Past and Present Vol. 72, pp. 86–111.
Dryzek, J. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elster, J. (1997) ‘The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory’, in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 3–34.
Gaus, G. (1996) Justificatory Liberalism: An Essay on Epistemology and Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J. (1996) ‘Three Normative Models of Democracy, in S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 21–30.
Habermas, J. (2001) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Translation: W. Rehg, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Huppes-Cluysenaer, E.A. (1995) ‘Waarneming en theorie: naar een nieuw formalisme in empirische en rechtswetenschap’, [Observation and theory: toward a new formalism in empirical and judicial science], Ph.D. thesis, Department of Law, University of Amsterdam.
Huppes-Cluysenaer, E.A. (2004) ‘The Individual realism of Aristotle’, unpublished paper, Department of Law, University of Amsterdam.
Kymlicka, W. (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (2nd edn), Oxford: Oxford University press.
Mill, J.S. (1987a) ‘Utilitarianism’, in A. Ryan (ed.) John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham: Utilitarianism and Other Essays, Hardmondsworth: Penguin Classics, pp. 272–338.
Mill, J.S. (1987b) ‘Considerations on Representative Government, in H.B. Acton (ed.) London: Everyman.
Morrow, J. (1984) ‘Liberalism and British idealist political philosophy: a reassessment’, History of Political Thought 5 (1): 91–108.
Mouffe, C. (1996) ‘Democracy, power, and the ‘political’’, in S. Benhabib (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 245–256.
Pateman, C. (1986) Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Plato (2001) The Republic, Translation: T Griffith and editing: G.R.F. Ferrari, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Plato (2003) Apology, Translation: B. Jowett, New York: Prometheus Books.
Rawls, J. (1996) Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (2001) in F. Freeman (ed.) Collected papers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rousseau, J.J. (1968) The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right, Translation, introduction: M. Cranston, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Saxonhouse, AW (1982) ‘Classical Greek Conceptions of Public and Private’, in S.I. Benn and G.F. Gaus (eds.) Public and Private in Social Life, London: Croom Helm, pp. 363–384.
Saxonhouse, A.W. (1996) Athenian Democracy: Modern Mythmakers and Ancient Theorists, Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press.
Sunstein, C. (2001) Republic.com, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Swanson, J.A. (1992) The Public and the Private in Aristotle's Political Philosophy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Drosterij, G. Mind the Gap: Three Models of Democracy, One Missing; Two Political Paradigms, One Dwindling. Contemp Polit Theory 6, 45–66 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300263
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300263