Demopolis

1. Democracy's Core: Collective, Limited Self-Government

Combining history with political theory, this book restores the core meaning of democracy as collective and limited self-government by citizens.

Redefining Democracy. Before the rise of liberalism, democracy fundamentally meant collective and limited self-government by citizens, rather than majority tyranny or a system solely focused on human rights. This foundational understanding is crucial for appreciating democracy's unique contributions to social order. It emphasizes that citizens, as a collective, hold political power and willingly bear the costs of self-governance because it benefits them individually and as a group.

Beyond Majority Rule. The original Greek term "demokratia" (demos + kratos) signified "the People's capacity to do things" – to make history through joint action at scale, not merely the unconstrained domination of the many poor over the wealthy few. This capacity implies a demos that is empowered to organize public affairs effectively, rather than simply exercising numerical superiority. The historical evolution of Athenian democracy, for instance, saw a shift towards formal rules that limited the assembly's direct legislative authority, demonstrating an early recognition of the need for self-imposed constraints.

A Stable Foundation. This basic form of democracy, exemplified by ancient Athens and imagined in "Demopolis," provides a stable foundation for a state. It offers a realistic alternative to autocracy for societies, including religious or otherwise nonliberal ones, seeking to establish a secure, prosperous, and nontyrannical community. The core idea is that a robust political framework can be established without first agreeing on all aspects of moral value or distributive justice.

2. Ancient Athens: A Historical Blueprint for Basic Democracy

For 180 years, Athenian political culture evolved and Athenian government proved itself to be highly adaptive.

Historical Feasibility. Classical Athens, from the late sixth to the late fourth century BCE, serves as the best-documented historical case of a long-lasting democracy in a complex society before liberal thought. With a citizen population in the tens of thousands and a diverse social fabric, Athens demonstrated that collective self-government at scale was not only possible but could be robust and adaptive. This historical reality refutes claims that such an order is inherently unsustainable or uncompetitive.

Adaptive Governance. Athenian democracy was characterized by direct citizen participation in legislative assemblies, juries, and allotted magistracies. Crucially, it evolved over time, introducing innovations like pay for public service and, significantly, distinguishing between ordinary decrees and fundamental constitutional laws. This legal evolution, particularly after the Peloponnesian War, showed a mature understanding that the demos needed to impose self-limitations to ensure stability and protect the interests of all citizens, including the wealthy.

Beyond Liberal Norms. While Athens was not a liberal society (it had slavery, excluded women from voting, and had a state religion), its democratic principles of political liberty, equality, and civic dignity were robustly supported. The Athenian experience highlights that a functional democracy can exist without the full "liberal suite" of values, providing a historical counter-example to the notion that democracy is inherently tied to modern liberalism.

3. Demopolis: A Thought Experiment for Masterless Cooperation

Call that country Demopolis and its government basic democracy.

A Hypothetical State. "Demopolis" is a thought experiment imagining a modern state founded by a diverse group of people who share a fundamental preference for nonautocracy. These "Founders" aim to establish a secure, prosperous, and nontyrannical community, recognizing that social cooperation is essential for flourishing but rejecting the need for a master. This setup allows for exploring the minimal constitutional framework required for basic democracy, abstracted from specific historical or cultural baggage.

Three Core Ends. The citizens of Demopolis agree on three non-negotiable ends for their state:

• Security: Robust against internal and external threats.
• Prosperity: Ample opportunity for residents to gain wealth and pursue life plans.
• Nontyranny: No individual or faction monopolizes political authority.
  These ends are mutually reinforcing and cannot be traded off against each other, forming the bedrock of the state's legitimacy.

Rational Self-Interest and Participation. The Founders are assumed to be moderately rational, self-interested, and strategic individuals who understand that achieving these ends requires collective action and, therefore, individual participation. They are willing to pay the costs of self-governance, but not at the expense of all other personal projects. This framework allows for the subsequent development of rules concerning normatively weighty matters, including rights and distributive justice, without predetermining their outcomes.

4. Legitimacy: Beyond Material Goods to Democratic Values

In order for a rational individual to freely and reliably choose option A (democratic citizen) over option B (subject of a benevolent autocrat), the total value to the individual produced by the gray box (participation costs) and black box (time spent on socially valued projects) in option A must be greater than the value produced by the black box in option B.

Justifying Participation Costs. For democracy to be legitimate to future citizens who didn't participate in its founding, it must offer compelling reasons to accept its coercive authority and the relatively high costs of civic participation. Beyond merely providing security and prosperity (which a benevolent autocrat might also offer), democracy must deliver unique "democratic goods" that outweigh these opportunity costs. This justification forms the core of Demopolis's civic education.

Democratic Goods as Compensation. These non-material democratic goods are intrinsic to the practice of self-governance and are unavailable or less abundant under autocracy. They include:

• Free exercise of constitutive human capacities (sociability, reason, communication).
• Political liberty, political equality, and civic dignity.
  These goods are not mere luxuries but are intimately bound up with democracy's ability to reliably deliver material well-being.

Empirical Support for Democratic Well-being. Modern social science offers evidence that democracy correlates positively with economic development, stability, and even subjective happiness. Studies suggest that reduced hierarchy and increased control over one's destiny, characteristic of democratic societies, contribute to better health outcomes. This empirical backing strengthens the argument that democracy is not just morally preferable but also functionally superior in promoting human flourishing.

5. Free Exercise of Human Capacities: An Intrinsic Democratic Good

Democracy, unlike other forms of political organization, not only permits, but requires, for its continued existence, the conjoint exercise of these three fundamental capacities by participatory citizens.

Constitutive Human Capacities. Humans possess inherent and distinctive capacities for sociability, strategic rationality, and high-order interpersonal communication. Both Aristotle and Hobbes, despite their profound disagreements, recognized these as fundamental to human existence and necessary for social cooperation. The free and active exercise of these capacities is argued to be an intrinsic good, essential for human flourishing beyond mere material survival.

Democracy's Unique Offering. While these capacities can be exercised in various social settings, democracy uniquely demands and enables their full, conjoint exercise at the highest level of collective decision-making – in matters of state governance. This means citizens actively employ reason and communication to make consequential decisions, take responsibility for their implementation, and bear their consequences. This active engagement refines, broadens, and deepens these inherent human capacities.

Beyond Paternalism. A benevolent tyrant might allow deliberation in civil society but forbid it at the state level, effectively infantilizing subjects by denying them the opportunity to exercise their capacities on the most important matters. This denial is a harm, akin to a caged cat unable to pounce. Democracy, by contrast, rejects paternalism, requiring citizens to act as responsible adults in public life. This intrinsic benefit of free exercise provides a powerful justification for the costs of participation, making citizens "cheat themselves" if they free ride.

6. Civic Dignity: The Foundation of Political Liberty and Equality

Democratic citizens are simultaneously secure in their political liberty, and in their legal and political equality, when majoritarian power and the powers wielded by individuals and groups are limited by constitutional guarantees ensuring immunity against arbitrary threats to persons or their property.

Dignity as a Lived Experience. For political liberty and equality to be meaningful, citizens must experience civic dignity – the social acceptance of their worthiness for political participation and immunity from humiliation and infantilization. This goes beyond formal rights, ensuring that even the weakest citizens are treated with respect and their voices are heard. Humiliation and infantilization undermine the very conditions necessary for active, free, and equal participation.

A Self-Reinforcing Equilibrium. Civic dignity is sustained by common knowledge of rules forbidding indignity, and by citizens' rational self-interest in defending the dignity of others. This creates a social equilibrium where individuals are motivated to act pro-socially, knowing their own dignity is reciprocally protected. This system:

• Engages civic courage to defend against dignitary threats.
• Promotes self-restraint against arrogant behavior.
• Allows for recognition of merit through public honors without undermining baseline dignity.
  This mechanism helps solve Hobbes's problem of honor-seeking individuals destabilizing the state.

Regulating Liberty and Equality. Civic dignity acts as a crucial constraint on the extremes of both libertarianism and egalitarianism. It pushes back against:

• Excessive libertarianism: By requiring public provision of resources (e.g., education, welfare) to ensure all citizens have the capacity to make meaningful choices and participate.
• Excessive egalitarianism: By forbidding paternalistic interventions that infantilize citizens by eliminating all risk or choice in the name of perfect equality.
  Dignity thus defines a "Zone of Dignity" within which distributive justice policies can operate, ensuring a balance that preserves adult agency and participation.

7. Knowledge and Expertise: Driving Democratic Security and Prosperity

The growth of the stock of knowledge and its effective uses counterbalance the relatively high operating costs of collective self-governance.

Epistemic Advantage. A well-organized basic democracy can leverage the diverse knowledge and skills of its citizens to make better policy decisions, thereby enhancing security and prosperity. Unlike autocracies, which often suppress dissent and limit information, democracy's commitment to political liberty, equality, and dignity encourages citizens to invest in human capital and share useful knowledge without fear of exploitation. This epistemic depth and diversity provide a comparative advantage.

Relevant Expertise Aggregation (REA). To effectively utilize expertise without succumbing to rule by experts, democracy can employ mechanisms like Relevant Expertise Aggregation. This process involves:

• Dividing complex issues into specific domains of expertise.
• Identifying reliable experts in each domain.
• Weighting domains according to their relevance.
• Aggregating citizen judgments on options, informed by expert testimony.
  This approach, exemplified by ancient Athens' response to the Persian invasion, allows a large body of citizens to make informed, high-stakes decisions.

Scaling Expertise. While direct democracy like Athens' is challenging for modern large states, the REA process can be adapted. A representative citizen council could deliberate on domains and options, publishing its findings to inform voters in referenda. This provides citizens with valuable, pre-processed information, reducing the cognitive burden and enabling more informed collective judgments. This mechanism ensures that even when authority is delegated, the demos retains the capacity for wise decision-making, crucial for its vigilance against elite capture.

8. Delegation Without Tyranny: The Vigilant Demos

The demos, like the many-eyed guardian giant of Greek mythology, Argos Panoptes, can and must remain ever-watchful.

The Threat of Elite Capture. While delegation of authority to representatives is necessary for large-scale modern democracies, it creates a vulnerability: the risk of elite capture. If representatives, as a political class, coordinate to advance their own interests against the common interest of the demos, the state effectively devolves into a tyranny, even if benevolent. This systematic corruption undermines the core end of nontyranny.

The Capable Demos as Safeguard. To prevent elite capture, the demos must retain the credible capacity to revoke delegated authority and govern directly if necessary. This "vigilant demos" acts as a check, ensuring that representatives remain accountable and do not violate their mandate. The threat of direct intervention, even if rarely exercised, incentivizes representatives to act in the common interest, thereby preserving the democratic character of the regime.

Scalability and Simplicity. The ability of a modern demos to govern directly, even temporarily, requires that government remain tractable. This implies a democratic constraint on the unnecessary size and complexity of government, encouraging representatives to design elegant and understandable legislation. This constraint is not an impediment to liberal values but a design challenge, ensuring that the people can always reclaim their governing role without plunging the state into chaos.

9. Basic Democracy: A Robust Foundation for Diverse Societies

Basic democracy will be a candidate for a theory of substantial interest if it has the potential to provide a foundation on which either liberal or nonliberal superstructures of rules and norms may be constructed.

Beyond Liberalism's Constraints. Basic democracy offers a foundational political framework that is neither inherently liberal nor illiberal, making it suitable for a wide range of societies. It avoids the "Scylla" of being too illiberal (e.g., requiring slavery or mandatory piety) and the "Charybdis" of being too liberal (e.g., requiring strict value neutrality). This flexibility is crucial for its relevance in a world with diverse value systems.

Not Necessarily Illiberal. While ancient Athens had illiberal features like slavery and state religion, the book argues these were not necessary for its democratic functioning. A modern Demopolis, informed by contemporary ethics and technology, would not require such conditions. For instance, the leisure for participation can be provided by technology, and the justification for excluding women or non-natives from citizenship is ethically untenable and practically destabilizing in modernity.

Not Necessarily Liberal. Basic democracy does not mandate core liberal tenets such as universal human rights, strict state neutrality on religion, or a strong conception of individual autonomy. A nonliberal society could, in principle, adopt basic democracy, establish a state religion, or maintain certain social hierarchies, so long as these do not undermine the fundamental conditions of citizen participation, political liberty, equality, and civic dignity. This opens a path for nonliberal societies seeking nontyrannical governance.

10. Democracy's Enduring Relevance in a Post-Liberal World

If, as I have argued, basic democracy both supports human flourishing and could be a focal point for a broad-based political coalition, the kind of realistic democratic theory I have attempted in these pages need not be conceived in a spirit of despair.

Addressing Modern Challenges. In an era marked by political polarization, economic disruption, resurgent nationalism, and a questioning of liberal principles, the theory of basic democracy offers a vital framework. It provides a robust, non-ideological foundation for political order that can withstand the potential decline of liberalism without collapsing into autocracy or anarchy. This framework is crucial for navigating a "postliberal world."

A Bulwark Against Populist Tyranny. By clearly defining democracy as collective and limited self-government, grounded in political liberty, equality, and civic dignity, the theory counters populist attempts to redefine "democracy" as mere majoritarian tyranny or ethno-national self-determination. It highlights that genuine self-governance requires an educated, capable demos, vigilant against elite capture and committed to mutual respect, rather than unconstrained popular will.

A Path Forward. Basic democracy offers a common ground for diverse political actors – both liberal democrats seeking to stabilize their regimes and nonliberal societies aspiring to nontyrannical governance. It emphasizes the practical conditions and intrinsic benefits of self-rule, providing a realistic and hopeful alternative to despair. By focusing on what democracy is and does at its core, it equips citizens and policymakers with a clearer understanding of how to build and sustain resilient, self-governing communities in a complex and mutable world.

Last updated: September 6, 2025