Introduction:
The topic of guardianship has sparked many debates over whether or not it can be justified in a democracy. Advocates for guardianship believe it’s necessary to have a minority of knowledgeable elites rule, in order to protect the interests and common good of society (Dahl 56) (Dahl 55). Anti-guardianship supporters consider guardianship a breach to the inviolable rights and power the people are entitled to in a democracy (Dahl 191). Through the lens of Joshua Cohen (“Procedure and Substance in a Deliberative Democracy”), Jeremy Waldron (“The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review”), and Robert A. Dahl (“Democracy and its Critics), I will defend the argument that guardianship is unable to be vindicated in a democracy. Guardianship …show more content…
guardians) “who consist of a minority of adults…who are not subject to the democratic process” (Dahl 57). Dahl is implying that with guardianship, individuals should be restricted from freely participating in politics, whether that’s in the form of active deliberation or just by voting. Rather, deliberation and decisions ought to be left to “a body of highly qualified people” (Dahl 55) because “expert knowledge is enormously important in policymaking” in order to address the common good of all democratic citizens (Dahl 56) (Dahl 55)—with this elite level of knowledge, these guardians are not bounded by the democratic process since they are the crème de la crème in society. Though, the problem with Dahl’s argument is that guardianship violates the rights of democratic citizens (Waldron 1361) (Cohen 172); the power of the people is completely shifted from the people to the guardians, which is against the mission and values of a democracy— “political equality” and “consideration of” the “common good” (Waldron 1361) (Cohen 172). To reiterate, a democracy is a structure of government that’s “‘by the people’ and ‘for the people’” (Cohen 171), not by the guardians and for the people (Dahl 191)—the voice and authority of the people disintegrates with guardianship, compared to representative legislation, which manifests the standards of a
The topic of guardianship has sparked many debates over whether or not it can be justified in a democracy. Advocates for guardianship believe it’s necessary to have a minority of knowledgeable elites rule, in order to protect the interests and common good of society (Dahl 56) (Dahl 55). Anti-guardianship supporters consider guardianship a breach to the inviolable rights and power the people are entitled to in a democracy (Dahl 191). Through the lens of Joshua Cohen (“Procedure and Substance in a Deliberative Democracy”), Jeremy Waldron (“The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review”), and Robert A. Dahl (“Democracy and its Critics), I will defend the argument that guardianship is unable to be vindicated in a democracy. Guardianship …show more content…
guardians) “who consist of a minority of adults…who are not subject to the democratic process” (Dahl 57). Dahl is implying that with guardianship, individuals should be restricted from freely participating in politics, whether that’s in the form of active deliberation or just by voting. Rather, deliberation and decisions ought to be left to “a body of highly qualified people” (Dahl 55) because “expert knowledge is enormously important in policymaking” in order to address the common good of all democratic citizens (Dahl 56) (Dahl 55)—with this elite level of knowledge, these guardians are not bounded by the democratic process since they are the crème de la crème in society. Though, the problem with Dahl’s argument is that guardianship violates the rights of democratic citizens (Waldron 1361) (Cohen 172); the power of the people is completely shifted from the people to the guardians, which is against the mission and values of a democracy— “political equality” and “consideration of” the “common good” (Waldron 1361) (Cohen 172). To reiterate, a democracy is a structure of government that’s “‘by the people’ and ‘for the people’” (Cohen 171), not by the guardians and for the people (Dahl 191)—the voice and authority of the people disintegrates with guardianship, compared to representative legislation, which manifests the standards of a