Literature summary (essential readings) – Philosophy of administration
studies - MIDTERM
Inhoud
,Lecture 2: The epistemic challenge
Brennan (2011) – The right to a competent electorate
Introduction
He argues that the current practice of unlimited general suffrage is unjust. He asserts that
citizens have a right to competent government and that this right is violated when
political power is exercised by incompetent voters. As an alternative, he proposes a
moderate epistocracy, in which the right to vote is restricted to citizens who have
sufficient political competences.
He argues that many fellow citizens are ignorant, irrational, and morally unreasonable
when it comes to politics. Yet they exercise power over others through their vote.
Those who exercise power over others must do so in a competent and morally
reasonable manner.
Epistocracy-> a system in which knowledge and competence are legal requirements for
exercising political power. In doing so, specifically advocating for an ‘elite electoral
system’ in which only citizens who can demonstrate their competence are allowed to
vote.
The basic argument for restricted suffrage (beperkt kiesrecht)
The right to vote gives you not only power over yourself, but above all power over others.
Because this power can be enforced by force, it requires moral justification.
Competence principle-> this principle states that it’s unjust to take away citizens’ lives,
liberty, or property based on decisions made by an incompetent or morally unreasonable
body. Brennan illustrates this with the jury analogy:
- The ignorant jury: doesn’t pay attention during the trial and makes arbitrary
(willekeurig) judgments.
- The irrational jury: bases its verdict on conspiracy theories rather than evidence.
- The morally unreasonable jury: convicts someone based on stereotypes, such as
religion or race.
Such juries lack authority and legitimacy. The same applies to the electorate: an
ignorant or irrational electorate exposes the population to unnecessary risks of serious
harm.
Objections to restricted suffrage
Objections to epistocracy:
Qualified acceptability requirement: states that any distribution of political power
must be justifiable to all ‘qualified’ viewpoints. Critics argue that people will never
agree on who exactly is competent and where the line should be drawn.
The expert/ boss fallacy: the fact that someone is an expert doesn’t automatically
mean that they should be the boss. He counters this by stating that his argument
is not about appointing experts as bosses, but about disqualifying incompetent
people as bosses.
Demographic objection: a test for voting rights could disproportionately exclude
certain races, classes, or genders. This could lead to hidden biases in the policy
choices of the limited group of voters.
Democracy and epistocracy are imperfect. Epistocracy can be seen as lesser
injustice; it’s imperfect, but less unjust than imposing incompetent decisions on
the entire population.
o He admits that in practice, a competency test could be misused by those in
power to exclude political opponents.
Burkean conservative approach-> don’t overturn the whole of society at once, but
carefully test improvements.
Conclusion
, Brennan concludes that:
1. Democracy violates the principle of competence.
2. Epistocracy violates the principle of qualified acceptability.
3. Violating competence is inherently worse than restricting access to the ballot box
for those who are not competent.
Arguments for a moderate epistocracy:
The Competence Principle: This principle states that when decisions with major
consequences (high stakes) are imposed on citizens through violence or coercion,
these decisions must be made by reasonable and competent people, in a
reasonable and competent manner.
The comparison with jury justice: Just as an accused person has the right to a
competent jury that does not act on the basis of ignorance, irrationality, or moral
unreasonableness, citizens should have the right to a competent government.
Injustice of universal suffrage: Universal suffrage is unjust because it allows
ignorant, irrational, or unreasonable citizens to exercise political power over others
without adequate justification.
o A moderate epistocracy is lesser injustice than universal suffrage.
Criticisms on moderate epistocracy:
Qualified Acceptability Requirement: Any basis for the distribution of political
power must be acceptable to all “qualified viewpoints.” The objection is that there
is no objective, widely accepted boundary between ‘competent’ and
“incompetent,” making any exclusion unjust.
The Demographic Objection: There is concern that a limited electorate (the group
that passes an exam) may have systematic biases or blind spots, causing them to
make worse choices than a general electorate.
Risk of abuse: In practice, voting eligibility requirements can be abused by the
ruling power to exclude political opponents or to hijack institutions for their own
gain.
Refutation of the criticisms:
Democracy shares the same fate: Brennan argues that current democratic
systems also fail to meet the qualified acceptability requirement. Consider, for
example, voting rights based on age: this is an arbitrary “red line” that not
everyone perceives as fair, but which we nevertheless accept.
Unproven, merely a concern: Regarding the demographic objection, Brennan
argues that critics cannot prove that a limited electorate would actually make
worse choices; it is merely a fear of the opponent.
Experimentation: To mitigate the risk of abuse, Brennan suggests that such
systems could be tested on a small scale, for example at the level of a single state
in the US. Successful experiments could then be rolled out on a larger scale.
studies - MIDTERM
Inhoud
,Lecture 2: The epistemic challenge
Brennan (2011) – The right to a competent electorate
Introduction
He argues that the current practice of unlimited general suffrage is unjust. He asserts that
citizens have a right to competent government and that this right is violated when
political power is exercised by incompetent voters. As an alternative, he proposes a
moderate epistocracy, in which the right to vote is restricted to citizens who have
sufficient political competences.
He argues that many fellow citizens are ignorant, irrational, and morally unreasonable
when it comes to politics. Yet they exercise power over others through their vote.
Those who exercise power over others must do so in a competent and morally
reasonable manner.
Epistocracy-> a system in which knowledge and competence are legal requirements for
exercising political power. In doing so, specifically advocating for an ‘elite electoral
system’ in which only citizens who can demonstrate their competence are allowed to
vote.
The basic argument for restricted suffrage (beperkt kiesrecht)
The right to vote gives you not only power over yourself, but above all power over others.
Because this power can be enforced by force, it requires moral justification.
Competence principle-> this principle states that it’s unjust to take away citizens’ lives,
liberty, or property based on decisions made by an incompetent or morally unreasonable
body. Brennan illustrates this with the jury analogy:
- The ignorant jury: doesn’t pay attention during the trial and makes arbitrary
(willekeurig) judgments.
- The irrational jury: bases its verdict on conspiracy theories rather than evidence.
- The morally unreasonable jury: convicts someone based on stereotypes, such as
religion or race.
Such juries lack authority and legitimacy. The same applies to the electorate: an
ignorant or irrational electorate exposes the population to unnecessary risks of serious
harm.
Objections to restricted suffrage
Objections to epistocracy:
Qualified acceptability requirement: states that any distribution of political power
must be justifiable to all ‘qualified’ viewpoints. Critics argue that people will never
agree on who exactly is competent and where the line should be drawn.
The expert/ boss fallacy: the fact that someone is an expert doesn’t automatically
mean that they should be the boss. He counters this by stating that his argument
is not about appointing experts as bosses, but about disqualifying incompetent
people as bosses.
Demographic objection: a test for voting rights could disproportionately exclude
certain races, classes, or genders. This could lead to hidden biases in the policy
choices of the limited group of voters.
Democracy and epistocracy are imperfect. Epistocracy can be seen as lesser
injustice; it’s imperfect, but less unjust than imposing incompetent decisions on
the entire population.
o He admits that in practice, a competency test could be misused by those in
power to exclude political opponents.
Burkean conservative approach-> don’t overturn the whole of society at once, but
carefully test improvements.
Conclusion
, Brennan concludes that:
1. Democracy violates the principle of competence.
2. Epistocracy violates the principle of qualified acceptability.
3. Violating competence is inherently worse than restricting access to the ballot box
for those who are not competent.
Arguments for a moderate epistocracy:
The Competence Principle: This principle states that when decisions with major
consequences (high stakes) are imposed on citizens through violence or coercion,
these decisions must be made by reasonable and competent people, in a
reasonable and competent manner.
The comparison with jury justice: Just as an accused person has the right to a
competent jury that does not act on the basis of ignorance, irrationality, or moral
unreasonableness, citizens should have the right to a competent government.
Injustice of universal suffrage: Universal suffrage is unjust because it allows
ignorant, irrational, or unreasonable citizens to exercise political power over others
without adequate justification.
o A moderate epistocracy is lesser injustice than universal suffrage.
Criticisms on moderate epistocracy:
Qualified Acceptability Requirement: Any basis for the distribution of political
power must be acceptable to all “qualified viewpoints.” The objection is that there
is no objective, widely accepted boundary between ‘competent’ and
“incompetent,” making any exclusion unjust.
The Demographic Objection: There is concern that a limited electorate (the group
that passes an exam) may have systematic biases or blind spots, causing them to
make worse choices than a general electorate.
Risk of abuse: In practice, voting eligibility requirements can be abused by the
ruling power to exclude political opponents or to hijack institutions for their own
gain.
Refutation of the criticisms:
Democracy shares the same fate: Brennan argues that current democratic
systems also fail to meet the qualified acceptability requirement. Consider, for
example, voting rights based on age: this is an arbitrary “red line” that not
everyone perceives as fair, but which we nevertheless accept.
Unproven, merely a concern: Regarding the demographic objection, Brennan
argues that critics cannot prove that a limited electorate would actually make
worse choices; it is merely a fear of the opponent.
Experimentation: To mitigate the risk of abuse, Brennan suggests that such
systems could be tested on a small scale, for example at the level of a single state
in the US. Successful experiments could then be rolled out on a larger scale.
