Radical proceduralism: democracy from philosophical principles to political institutions podcast

Transcript

Radical proceduralism: Democracy from philosophical principles to political institutions

---

Thomas Felix Creighton (TFC): Hello, welcome to the Emerald Podcast Series. My name is Thomas. My guest today is Dr Dannica Fleuß, a Researcher at the Institute of Future Media, Democracy & Society at Dublin City University in Ireland, and a Research Associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra, Australia. Thank you very, very, very much for joining me. 

Dannica Fleuß (DF): Thanks. That's my pleasure. 

TFC: At the very, very beginning of the book, so it's no spoilers, you talk about a comparison of friends going to see a movie, what is the place of this in the book?

DF: Well, I guess, all or almost all books about democracy and democratic theory that have been written in the past year or so start out with this big claim about democracy is in great peril. So, even Western democracy allegedly, stable democracies or those who have been thought of as stable for a long time, are in deep crisis. And my book aims at taking a step back, essentially, because all crisis and deficit diagnosis presuppose something like an ideal of what a good or legitimate democracy looks like, and that’s sort of the overarching question of the whole book. I didn't want it to take off with all these big and bold claims about why democracy is in crisis and how we can save democracy at the end of the day. These are obviously like very big questions, but started out with a more relatable example maybe, about collective decision making in everyday practice. And I thought that it is helpful to first think about an everyday example of collective decision making to pump the reader's intuitions a bit and to make it relatable. And to start with the little things that we're all facing in one way or the other in our everyday practice, and lives. And I went to the movies with, I think, eight people. And we had agreed to see a sci-fi movie in advance, but we hadn't agreed on a specific movie or so. So, we were standing in front of the cinema, and we had casually articulated our preferences for seeing one of the sci-fi movies that had just come out but didn't make a specific decision. And it happens to be a case that I am very well informed about sci-fi movies, and I fancy myself as somewhat of an expert in these matters. And I guess the problem was this, there were two sci-fi movies on the program. One, at least from my perspective, was an excellent film series with a beautiful storyline located in a complex cosmos of interstellar political relations. And one was a series that builds on noise effects rather than the intricacies of time travel. And although we have this preliminary agreement to see a sci-fi movie, there was no agreement at all about which of those two movies we should actually watch right now. So, members of our group held remarkably different interests and preferences with regards to features that matter in selecting sci-fi movies in the first place. And this is the most crucial challenge at this point. I not only consider myself an expert in sci-fi, I also conceive of myself as a Democrat who does not impose her interests or preferences on others. And this presented me with a serious dilemma. On the one hand, I reject any kind of paternalistic decision making, I don't want to impose my interests or preferences on others. And on the other hand, I was really not willing to let people who cannot even tell a TARDIS from a tricorder decide which movie to watch. So, I felt that there was the right answer to the question, “what movie should we see tonight?” And what is more, I felt that I was perfectly able to make that decision, and to choose the most aesthetically pleasing, politically inspiring and entertaining movie. And to make things even worse, all people who joined me or like the whole group, we were all social scientists or philosophers who conceived of themselves as Democrats in every fiber of their being. And in consequence, we had a very, very lengthy discussion about the right course of action, the standard that should be applied in choosing movies and our respective interests and visions of how to have a relaxed evening. So, we finally kind of resolved this conflict by watching neither of the sci-fi movies but a romantic comedy. So, in a nutshell, at least from my viewpoint, inclusive democratic deliberation led to the worst conceivable result. So, I was definitely not happy about this outcome. And I felt that was all valid standards for having a good time and choosing good movies or having a nice evening considered a very, very bad result. And at the same time, I was and still am a bit torn. Did I consider this collective decision after inclusive democratic deliberation by people who actually trained in inclusive democratic deliberation to be illegitimate, and arguably, some of the rivals other than my disputable and disputed expert status in this situation mattered in selecting this movie at the end of the day. And we wanted to make a decision and we wanted to jointly watch a movie at some point. We also wanted to remain friends and therefore excluded blackmailing and other forms of physical or non-physical violence from our action portfolio. And at the same time, we had different preferences, competing interests, and there was no quick and easy solution, no straightforward right method to resolve our disagreement. And I took this example, as a point of departure to illustrate what I and also Jeremy Waldron, for example, terms, the circumstances of politics. There was a situation of deep and perennial disagreement, where the actors involved had competing interests and preferences, despite all these deliberations, and so on that couldn't be resolved at the end of the day. But we nevertheless needed and wanted to act in concert and needed to make a decision to proceed. And therefore, this was quite like an apt analogy to the circumstances of politics.

TFC: It sounds like you're caught between the difficulty of what is the best film and what is the best film for this particular group. That kind of brings into question the idea of political truth.

DF: Yes, exactly. So, in the book, I am claiming that in the circumstances of politics, there is at the end of the day, no such thing as political truth. And when we think about political truth, we need to be a bit careful I use this here as a technical term. In a nutshell, I'm arguing that what should be done, either in terms of making policies or reforming democratic institutions and so on, is always subject to perennial political and philosophical disagreements at many levels. And I am also elaborating there and claiming it's not just about factual truth, even if we admit that there is something like factual truth, which I don't deny at the end of the day. And even if we believe that there are some things as valid moral principles and arguments, even for committed more cognitivists, even when we take these stances, I think when it comes to concrete political questions, to the question, “what should be done?”, there is still this element that there are competing interests, and on behalf of the people involved, and these interests are legitimate. So political truths and the decision about what should be done is way more complex than we often think. And that was my point of departure in the book. So I'm denying that there's such thing as political truth, which doesn't mean that I'm a relativist or anything like that, with regards to factual truths, for example.

TFC: I'm very curious when this book came out, you mentioned it's just over a year ago now, how did your colleagues, how did the readership respond to this book?

DF: What was interesting was after I submitted the book, and maybe even after I got the first proofs, I took a position as a visiting Lecturer and visiting Researcher in Nairobi, and then a bit later on also in Dar es Salam. And I lived for a time in Dar es Salam in Tanzania and in Nairobi. And I sort of had feedback from the Global North, from the colleagues there with whom I have been working and from the Global South, and these, the feedback was actually remarkably different, and in many cases. So, on behalf of fellow democratic theorists in the Global North, what may have felt particularly scary, is actually the claim that I'm promoting radical openness. And in contradistinction to many other proceduralist theorists or philosophers, I'm arguing that we need to take proceduralism all the way down. So, I am arguing that political theorists as a matter of fact, or political philosophers, that depends on how you draw these disciplinary boundaries, have, to put it very briefly, and maybe also, like in a bit of a provocative way, have nothing substantive to say about how democratic institutions or the very rules of the Democratic game can or should be reformed. And this claim to take proceduralism all the way down, obviously, feels a bit scary. Also, when we have a look at different episodes in history, and so on. I have a German passport so I'm not total stranger to, to what can happen in bad phases of history in terms of politics. In the Global North, this claim that everything is up for grabs, even the basic values and principles of democratic self-rule found some criticism, although there was like a heated debate, it was usually friendly criticism, but it found criticism. Simone Chambers, a deliberative theorist, for example, who wrote a very sympathetic review of the book concluded with “the ‘everything up for grabs’ position inherent in radical proceduralism seems frankly dangerous under present conditions”. And at the same time, Goodin, for example, also very famous political philosopher, wrote, “it's a brave democratic theorist, however, who would go for the pure, my terminology, radical proceduralist position, repudiating any substantive constraints on what counts as the democratic decision?” And my argument is at the end of the day, yeah, you need to be courageous to do that. But you don't have to be reckless when you do it [laugh]. 

TFC: I have many questions. This one answer I guess the first one is that you said you took a risk that you kind of question, what is the role of a political theorist or the political philosopher. How do you conceive the role of, of these people?

DF: I think it's wrong to just talk about democracy, full stop. From my perspective, there are many, many forms of doing democracy and of exercising democratic self rule. And this could be well in a more deliberative way with citizens assemblies, and so on making crucial decisions and being more closely connected to political elites, or administrative elites and so on. So institutionalizing citizens assemblies at the end of the day, in a more external way than it's currently the case, this could also be a more participatory approach. Could be many things. But my crucial point here is, I think there's more than one way to do democracy. And there are many democratic practices that can be combined in different ways to Yeah, make collectively binding decisions and create a space where we can all live together, hopefully, peacefully. And that's a development. I've been working on that with a couple of colleagues. But I'm definitely not the only one. And I think that's crucial to keep in mind. So I'm not sure if it's the worst form of government, apart from all the others as any form of government, a form of government, where you don't have any final security that everything will turn out right that all interests are like, taken serious and so on. It's a work in progress. It's fallible. It's is always up for contestation and dispute or it should be always up for contestation and dispute and this is one of my core claims. But I wouldn't say that it's democracy, full stop, I think we should be way more open to explore diverse democratic practices and ways of doing democracy and not just think about democracy as electoral democracy, party democracy, full stop, at least not for each and every part of the world. Also, when we have a look at Homegrown models of democracy on the African continent, in sub Sahara Africa, we have been working with colleagues who advocate for different forms of doing democracy in a more cooperative manner, or something like that, and not as a competitive process between different parties, for example, and I think we should be open for that. And that's where I'm struggling with this code. I think there are better and worse forms of doing democracy and better and worse forms of combining democratic practices.

(TFC) I have many questions from this one answer. I guess the first one is that you said you took a risk, that you kind of question, what is the role of a political theorist or the political philosopher? How do you conceive the role of these people?

(DF) I think it's wrong to just talk about democracy, full stop. From my perspective, there are many, many forms of doing democracy and of exercising democratic self-rule. And this could be, well in a more deliberative way, with citizens assemblies and so on making crucial decisions and being more closely connected to political elites, or administrative elites and so on. So, institutionalizing citizens assemblies at the end of the day, in a more external way than it's currently the case. This could also be a more participatory approach. Could be many things, but my crucial point here is, I think there's more than one way to do democracy. And there are many democratic practices that can be combined in different ways to, yeah, make collectively binding decisions and create a space where we can all live together, hopefully, peacefully. And that's a development. I've been working on that with a couple of colleagues. But I'm definitely not the only one. And I think that's crucial to keep in mind. So, I'm not sure if it's the worst form of government, apart from all the others as any form of government, a form of government where you don't have any final security that everything will turn out right, that all interests are like, taken serious and so on. It's a work in progress. It's fallible. It's always up for contestation and dispute, or it should be always up for contestation and dispute, and this is one of my core claims. But I wouldn't say that it's democracy, full stop, I think we should be way more open to explore diverse democratic practices and ways of doing democracy and not just think about democracy as electoral democracy, party democracy, full stop. At least not for each and every part of the world. Also, when we have a look at home-grown models of democracy on the African continent, in sub-Sahara Africa, we have been working with colleagues who advocate for different forms of doing democracy in a more cooperative manner, or something like that, and not as a competitive process between different parties, for example, and I think we should be open for that. And that's where I'm struggling with this code. I think there are better and worse forms of doing democracy and better and worse forms of combining democratic practices.

(TFC) You give the interesting analogy, and there's many interesting analogies in the book, between you know, if you have a problem with the plumbing you call a plumber. But a problem with politics, it's not quite the same. You don't call an expert as such?

(DF) Well, yes, and no, I mean, I wouldn't., but there has been, and I think this was also part of the motivation for writing the book. There has been quite a tendency to resolve or try to resolve democratic crisis in increasingly complex political environments by including more expert expertise, expert knowledge, or even arranging expert councils for certain issues. And in the book, also arguing against these expert Socratic tendencies, because from my point of view, and from the point of view that I'm defending with regards to political truth, this always comes with a paternalistic threat, when you engage experts in policymaking, and when they actually get, like, the big role in this overall process of reforming democracy or reforming policies. And I'm searching in the book for genuinely democratic alternative to such reform proposals, that sort of was the motivation to write the book. And so, I definitely wouldn't call a plumber. And the plumber example is actually, I believe, from Jason Brennan, who also comes up with this example somewhere, albeit with like, with totally different intentions. So, he's arguing for, well, for more expert councils, and so on in policymaking, and my argument there is okay, when you are calling a plumber, there's sort of an issue that can be resolved with one particular strategy. I'm not an expert in plumbing issues. But as I said before, when it comes to politics, it's not just about having some kind of technical problem that you could resolve when you, well, have the right training and some factual knowledge. But it is about competing interests of the people of the citizenry that is affected. It is about our values at the end of the day. And it's certainly also about facts. But that's only one part of the whole story. When we ask the question, how should we make political decisions? How should we renew or reform democracy?

(TFC) It is a really interesting analogy. And it's an interesting issue. And these issues, I say, the book came out a year ago, we've seen issues change, where do you see the field going over the next, say, five years.

(DF) So what was very interesting for me while I was in Nairobi, for example, at the African Women's Studies Center of the University of Nairobi, is that this very idea of radical openness that seemed to be a bit scary, threatening, however you want to put it for many scholars and the global north actually found like, very interesting and supportive resonance there. So there, when I when I gave my presentation and talked about the book and also explained what I mean by radical openness and there's no such thing as political truth, in the sense I just elaborated on. They actually said something like, “Okay, finally, this is an approach where nobody is telling us what to do. There's no paternalistic statement, sort of prescribing us how to do democracy, how to live our lives, and what a good life for us here, for example, in in Kenya, or Tanzania, in Sub Saharan Africa, East Africa can or should mean.” And for me, this was fairly interesting because they perceived this notion of radical openness as an empowering notion, they actually labeled it like that. So, because they said, “Okay, now we can step in, and we can do the thinking, and yeah, sort of develop institutions, norms, values that fit to our country, in our history, and our value system and so on.” And I guess against the backdrop of colonialism, and well, political systems, party democracy, the Westminster system can, yeah, being opposed on people, that makes a lot of sense. And also makes a lot of sense, when we think about the fact that Western knowledge or knowledge produced in the West, I'm not sure, on the global north, it's always a bit tricky in terms of terminology, there is often implicitly or explicitly still conceived of as something like superior knowledge or so, and many, it's like, I think the consequences of colonialism, you can still perceive them there, when it comes to university curricula, when it comes to the political system at large, when it comes to the readings that students have to do, and what they perceive of as legitimate knowledge. And what like their main reference point is when I think about how to live in a better world, and deconstructing that, and deconstructing the claim, that there is actually something like universal political truth, in terms of what should be done for them was like, as I said, an empowering notion and created a lengthy, lengthy debate, which was like very invigorating, there were human rights lawyers, and so on, and among the graduate students, and was really interesting to debate these issues there. So, it was interesting to compare, or the caution on behalf of Western democratic theorists, global North democratic theorists, also a bit of the fear of democratic theorists of what may happen when we hand all this over to the citizens. And in the book, I'm actually referring to, and also elaborating a bit, on one very famous example for how things can go wrong when we give power to the citizens. And that's the German case. I mean, for me, that's also well, family wise, and like due to my heritage, sort of a relevant issue. And what we can see there, and this is often taken as a case, to when you want to make an argument for why you shouldn't give all the power to citizens, and why there should be severe limitations to what citizens can decide upon, for example, on the referendum. And when you have a closer look on what happened when the Weimar Republic broke down, you can actually see, from my point of view, but I'm luckily not the only one, that there was a plebiscite at the end of the day, sure, but it was more an ex post facto legitimation, of a decision that had already been carefully prepared by political and traditional elite specs. And I guess this is not like a principled argument that nothing bad can happen, bad things can happen, and as a radical procedure list, I have to bite that bullet, and I'm doing. I'm counting on citizens and their passion and activism. At the end of the day, I have to do that, and I have to be a bit courageous. But I think I'm not reckless, when actually have a look at historic examples, and also experiments that have been conducted, bringing citizens into the process of reforming or renewing democracy.

TFC: Thank you very, very much. There's a lot to think about there, and you set it out so well. Could I ask, is there any question left that you would like me to ask?

DF: Well, maybe, are you a radical proceduralist now?

TFC: I'm still learning what one is, but I do like what I'm learning, is the idea of trust the public and perhaps work on systems to involve the public. I find that very interesting. And you've mentioned it's not just within politics, but it could be for example, the case of Germany with workers councils, so it could be within corporate governance. It doesn't have to be, as you say, in a political, normal political sense of a narrow…

DF: Yeah, I guess it's also more broadly speaking a question of democratizing diverse spaces throughout society. So it could be the workplace, it could be families, it could be sports clubs, it could be all kinds of places. And I think people are socialized in a certain way. And surveys, who just said people are not motivated or interested enough, tend to forget about these crucial socialization processes. And that's sort of a work in progress that I'm dealing with right now, or at least parts of my work in progress that I'm dealing with right now. So how could more democratic maybe more deliberative education even, starting with kindergartens or so look like? And then going on from kindergartens to schools and sports club and so on? Because the socialization processes are so crucial when we think about how can we actually arrive in a society at a society or in a society, where citizens are willing and able and motivated to participate in, in these; for example, citizens assemblies among mini publics, or well take part in referendums and take action for themselves. And that's, I think, a very crucial part also in deliberative democracy scholarship, that still there is work on that, but I think we still need to elaborate on that, because that's sort of the presupposition. At the end of the day, we cannot start with adults, and then complain that they are not the perfect citizens that we want them to be. 

TFC: It’s long term and it's structural

DF: It will take time. No, I guess there's no clear path, how to get from here to there. But at the end of the day, I'm not the one who is, as a political theorist and philosopher, able to propose specific institutions or so. But when we think about some conversation starters and proposals that have been proposed by citizens in Germany and Iceland, for example, these are the citizens that I'm taking as a point of, are this the assemblies and the processes that I'm taking as a point of departure in the sixth chapter of my book to sort of give illustrative examples of what could happen when we engage citizens in a specific way. Then, there were many proposals for deliberative forms of participation. And then obviously, the question arises, okay, is this just something that people who have the right resources, at the end of the day societal elites can afford to do, are able or willing to do? And that cannot be our concern, so we'd have to think about political economy, we have to think about education and all these things. And from that perspective, I believe, yes, starting out, actually very early on with a more democratic form of education is one crucial building block. It's not the solution to everything that could be a crucial building block at the end of the day,

TFC: Dannica Fleuß., thank you very much for joining me. It's been a real, real pleasure.

DF: Thank you very much. pleasure was mine. 

TFC: Goodbye. 

DF: Goodbye.

TFC: Thank you for listening to today's episode. For more information about our guest, and for a transcript of today's episode, please see our show notes on our website. I would like to thank Kirsty Woods, Daniel Ridge for their help with today's episode, and Alex Jungius, from This is Distorted. You've been listening to the Emerald Podcast Series.