Instrumental and Non Instrumental Value of Democracy Paper Example

Introduction

Democracy can be justified both instrumental and non-instrumental terms. The instrumental explanations give justifications of democracy by looking at it consequentially. Vitally, the instrumental values are evident when the outcomes for democracy are compared to the consequences of other methods of making government decisions. Therefore, the instrumental justifications of democracy are critical when democracy proves to give better outcomes compared to other methods. However, if individuals only argue in favor of democracy in purely instrumental terms, there would be lack of arguments for the same in instances where non-democratic methods turn out to produce better results as compared to democratic ones. As a result, the instrumental justifications of democracy are insufficient, and it is essential to give arguments for democracy by looking at its non-instrumental value. The non-instrumental terms give reasons for justice by reference to its inherent qualities. This essay focuses on explaining the instrumental justifications for democracy including the arguments that democracy provides a chance for making better decisions, offers an opportunity for intellectual development to the citizens and a sense of legitimacy that lacks in other methods of government. This essay proceeds to give the shortcomings of the instrumental justifications for democracy and emphasis on how the inclusion of the non-instrumental values of freedom such as liberty, public reason and equality provides a complete rationale for participation by all in government.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Epistemologically, democracy results in better and correct decisions compared to other approaches to decision-making. Participation by all provides the right procedure for making decisions. Collective deliberation advances the quality of judgments since debates and discussions offer a chance of gathering extensive information about the issue in question (Swift, 2006, p.213). In most instances, political decisions involve judgments on complicated and empirical issues where people may have divergent views about the likely outcomes of the alternatives judgments. Collective decision making improves the quality of decisions by encouraging individuals to be public-spirited while pursuing common goals. Vitally, democracy does not always get the answer right instead it increases the chance of arriving at the correct decision as compared to other approaches such as aristocracy and laissez-faire leadership.

Democracy contributes to the moral and intellectual development of the participants. Democracy has profound impacts on the character of the participants. A system that deprives citizens the opportunity for self-rule stunts their intellectual growth. Similar to the way children cannot develop to become responsible adults without being accorded a chance to make decisions on private matters, non-democratic decision-making systems are equally infantilizing and depriving adults an opportunity to create intellectual capabilities. Democratic societies encourage individuals to be autonomous and to think more carefully because their deliberations affect the results of the decisions (Swift, 2006, 219). Also, democracy enhances the moral character of the citizens. In participatory decision making, individuals have to listen to others, and they are forced to give justifications to others about their choices. Also, individuals uphold morality since they are forced to have the interests of others in mind. Importantly, individuals act in justice and the common good. Vitally, a society made up of rational, autonomous and moral decision makers is likely to produce good legislation as compared to a community where decisions are made by a small number of self-centered people who exert their authority over unreflective and slavish subjects.

The democratic government gives legitimacy to government decisions, a quality that lacks in the nondemocratic types of government. Individuals tend to accept the decisions emanating from their involvement as morally binding and valid. One is likely to regard democratic decisions as legitimate even in instances where individuals think there lacks the right answers to government questions and participation is not good at finding them (Swift, 2006, p.220). In politics, what matters most is what people think about the choices are made more than their quality. Individuals become more willing to obey democratic decisions because they accord respect to the procedure applied to make them. Political legitimacy emanates from the manner in which actual relations between the government and citizens.

The Shortcomings of Instrumental Qualities of Democracy

The epistemic notions about justice are preoccupied with justifying participation from the consequences and due to such preoccupation; they lack to appreciate the internal relations that exist in a democratic government. Importantly, democracy can be justified from the relations that it brings about as compared to the benefits. The relations that exist in a democratic government are understood by looking at the freedom argument, a non-instrumental value of democracy that draws its core notions on respect for the different opinions, emphasis on relations and individual autonomy. The relational norm regarding freedom for independence recognizes the equality of citizens before the law as emanating from the necessary procedures of democracy (Swift, 2006, p.213). Autonomy is understood as the related idea where individuals do not have another person as the master of their destiny.

The instrumental arguments about democracy do not provide justifications for the moral basis for democracy (Swift, 2006, p.213).The instrumental notions about democracy do not take into account the moral right to democracy. Democracy prevents individuals from exercising power over others. The rights to exercise power over others are in most instances non-fundamental and non-derivative Importantly it is impossible to describe the manner in which individuals relate to each other while they are equal without an understanding of the type of public order under which individuals operate. Civil legal order outlines the nature of relations that individuals impose on each other either when all of them are masters or when they tend to it as collective citizens. As a result, a kind of public legal order is vital while actualizing the relational norms about autonomy. Vitally, public legal order does not just exist. Instead, individuals are involved in creating and remaking the same.

The instrumental notions of democracy tend to hold that democracy will automatically exist when there existsa provision for the rule of law. However, it is vital to recognize the democracy imposes some legal order which prevents disrespect to citizen's decisions. Public legal order and government provide an opportunity for the citizens to act on each other (Swift, 2006, p.213). The general constitutional law provides for the ability of citizens to operate independently in matters that regarding private affairs and positive interactions among decision makers in deliberation about issues concerning an individual life.

The preoccupation with the outcomes of democracy will lead to the question as to whether the results are just regarding law and policy. Such disagreements are solved by assessing the notion that democracy tends to treat all individuals as equal. The lack of shared ideas of judging democratic outcomes is among the reasons why democracy cannot be judged in purely instrumental terms. Ideally, individuals are willing to accept a process that has respect for an equal say in the establishment of justice. Equality is based on the notion that democracy allows for the advancement of interests and the understanding of balance as the distribution of burdens and benefits. Democracy is an approach of treating all individuals as equals in instances where they are interested in creating some order to their shared lives, but they are unable to reach an agreement about the best manner of doing the same. The participatory government allows for peaceful comprise among conflict views, In democratic decision making, every individual point of view is respected, and individuals are given an equal say about the type of decision to make in the event of disagreement (Swift, 2006, p.214). Democracy is justified in that it provides for advancement of the citizen's interests when disagreements arise on the manner to organize their community life. Democracy demands a kind of publicity that is rooted in equality. The advancement of public affairs requires taking into account the collective interests in the case of disagreement. The respect for judgment by each citizen is grounded in the notion of civil equality combined with the fundamental facts and benefits.

The instrumental value of democracy cannot explain the importance of participation when the concept contributes to weaker decisions that the ones that would be reached through other methods. The argument that democracy leads to better decisions compared to other decision-making styles is based on the notion that the consulted people are right. For instance, proponents such as Marquis de Condorcet (1743-94) argue that democracy leads to better decisions since the average person is likely to be right in most of the instances. It is true that the heads of different people are better in making decisions as compared to one head (Swift, 2006, p.214). However, the crowd may not be intelligent at all times, and their participation may lead to the selection of the worst decision. In such instances, democracy cannot be justified using pure instrumental terms.

The epistemic arguments that democracy contributes to the making of the correct decision is subject to extensive criticism. Proponents of the evidence on the ability of democracy in leading to the right choices including Marquis de Condorcet (1743-94) explain the importance of democracy from an argument that the average person is more likely to be correct than wrong (Swift, 2006, p.214). Also, it is not required that fifty percent of citizens have the competency to make the right decisions, but the requirement is an average competency of over fifty percent. The notion may only hold where the inclusion of all voters on average in better as compared to the inclusion of random decision makers. As a result, where random decision makers are proved to be more useful in making decisions compared to participation by all people, then it would provide sufficient grounds for rejecting democracy. Critics are likely to argue that politicians are likely to accord the masses an opportunity to make decisions when they are aware that the public is misinformed and there is the likelihood of them making the wrong choices. Therefore, looking at the inherent value of democracy is vital since though the participants may end up suffering for a decision that they made, they might still be glad that they were involved in reaching the agreement and that their choice to make the wrong decision was respected.

Non Instrumental Values

The democratic methods of decision making are desirable regardless of the consequences due to their emphasis on liberty. In a democratic system of government very individual is accorded an opportunity to a master of their destiny. Self-rule provides individuals with the freedom to make any decisions including the wrong choices. Just like individuals have rights to make wrong decisions for them, groups have in the same manner the freedom to make wrong or unjust decisions for themselves in the matters of common interest. Liberty requires the decision-making process to be by consensus (Swift, 2006, p.213). Instrumentalists tend to li...