Disclaimer: This commentary is inspired by a debate in political philosophy, and references Kashmir to make arguments more contextually relevant. It is not intended to advocate for replacing democracy-in whatever capacity – in the valley.
A common solution explored whilst citing the flaws of the democratic system is to replace it with ‘rule by experts’- also known as epistocracy. The motivation behind this is that experts, being equipped with the ability to form policies and directives, are at least objectively better at governance as compared to any other segment or entity.
Furthermore, it is argued that it is unfair for citizens who are ‘incompetent’, ‘ignorant’, ‘irrational’ or ‘morally unreasonable’ to command political power over others by deciding the regime that rules over them. It also holds that an innocent individual should not have to suffer in this type of system.
Historically, people have been unjustly barred from voting based on factors like race or gender. Hence, epistocrats assert that if voting restrictions can exist for the wrong reasons, it is not unreasonable to consider that there might be valid reasons—such as intellectual ability or expertise—to limit voting rights. For instance, modern democracies already prevent children, felons, and those deemed mentally unfit from voting or holding power due to their perceived lack of competence. In this sense, democracies are already somewhat epistocratic, which opens the door to arguments in favour of governance by experts, as I will explore further.
Is Democracy Always Just?
A system is democratic to the extent that the key political power rests equally in the hands of the people- at least at large; it is a method of decision-making that determines how a regime may use its authority, including the threat of force, to ensure compliance with its laws and regulations. The competence principle, to put it simply, holds that it is not just to deprive people of life, liberty or property or change their life prospects substantially using coercion as well as threats of coercion as a consequence of decisions that an incompetent decision-making body makes.
Thus, this suggests that:
i) People with poor judgement or bad moral character must not serve on a decision-making body.
ii) When it is known that certain decisions were made incompetently, they must not be enforced and people should have no obligation to submit to these.
For these reasons, it can be argued that since democracies can, in principle, allow ‘ignorant’, ‘misinformed’, ‘morally unreasonable’ or ‘irrational individuals’ to wield their political power over others, it dispenses political power in an irresponsible manner.
Can an Uninformed Electorate Harm Democracy?
Let us further delve into this concept by exploring three types of electorates to make this idea clearer;
First, the uninformed electorate: These voters are indifferent to the policies or the candidates’ qualifications and make their choice based on arbitrary factors, such as the candidate’s popularity in their constituency or simply voting because of a familiar last name such as Bhatt or Lone.
Second, the irrational electorate: These voters pay some attention to the election and key issues but base their decision on rumors or deeply ingrained biases, such as believing a candidate is “better” simply because of their affiliation with a powerful family or local political dynasty, without considering their actual abilities or agenda.
Third, the morally unreasonable electorate: This group allows prejudice to guide their decision, for instance, voting only for a candidate from their village or community while disregarding more capable candidates from other regions of Kashmir, purely because of regional loyalties or biases.
Because in all these cases, decision-making amounts to imposing a rule on innocent individuals without possessing adequate grounds for such selection, this casts doubt on the legitimacy of the outcome. When high-stake decisions are imposed upon innocent persons, all individual decisions need to be made in a competent manner and by reasonable persons, which can be argued to be unlikely in a democracy.
Is ‘rule by experts’ a better alternative?
While the idea of ‘rule by experts’ may seem appealing, especially when ordinary citizens are perceived to lack the wisdom of experts, it faces significant challenges. To begin with, access to education is often a privilege reserved for certain races, classes, and even genders; giving special consideration to these groups would only amplify existing biases. This would lead to a systematic overrepresentation of some groups and the underrepresentation of others in the electorate, likely resulting in unjust outcomes that benefit privileged groups while disadvantaged others. For example, if only individuals from affluent families in Kashmir—such as those with access to private schools or resources to study abroad—are eligible to govern, they are likely to share similar priorities and interests, meaning that rule by experts would primarily serve those interests.
Critics of this system argue that such disparities in political inclusion, whether based on class, race, or gender, are inherently unjust. In Kashmir, for instance, consider how individuals from urban areas like Srinagar often have easier access to higher education and resources compared to those in remote regions such as Kupwara or Kulgam. If policies were designed to give more electoral power to the educated, it would likely result in an overrepresentation of urban elites while marginalizing rural populations.
Beyond issues of representation, another objection to epistocracy is that while experts may make reasonable decisions on behalf of the public, these decisions may not always be meaningful or acceptable to the people. This is because understanding or appreciating such decisions often requires training and intellect that non-experts may lack. Furthermore, when experts dictate what people should believe, it raises concerns about domination, undermining a key moral and political value: political inclusion. In such a system, experts impose not only an obligation to believe them but also a duty to obey, restricting individuals’ ability to form their own opinions, reflect on what the state should do, or develop arguments to challenge authority.
Even if citizens might voluntarily trust experts to manage public affairs, the trust demanded under such a system is coercive. Rule by experts risks domination, where dissent is dismissed as irrational, further entrenching inequality and limiting genuine public participation. Ultimately, such a system risks undermining the very principles of fairness and inclusion it seeks to improve.
Is there an ideal solution?
To enable meaningful participation that upholds the value of political inclusion, it is essential for people to be free to hold their own beliefs, express their views, reflect on issues, and develop reasons to challenge state policies. This is important because the exchange of beliefs is a way of treating others with dignity and recognizing them as autonomous individuals.
At the same time, it is also important to recognize that promoting mutual respect does not require every aspect of a system to operate in the same way or to the same degree. For example, consider a public debate where certain participants resort to inflammatory or divisive language—it could silence voices offering practical, well-informed, and inclusive perspectives. In such cases, restricting such uncivil or partisan speech can be potentially justified to ensure that the focus remains on constructive dialogue and genuine problem-solving.
In the context of a pure epistocracy, where experts possess specialised knowledge in both politics and morality, political inclusion may indeed be limited. However, proponents of epistocracy argue that this system has the potential to deliver better outcomes compared to traditional democracy. Moreover, they point out that democracies already impose certain exclusions, such as for children, felons, and those deemed mentally unfit, based on their suitability for political decision-making. In this sense, democracies and epistocracies are not entirely different.
Overall, an epistocracy could consider reasonable limitations while ensuring that these exclusions are grounded in fairness and necessity. While political inclusion is a key value, it may sometimes need to be balanced with the need for effective governance and informed decision-making, provided that such restrictions are implemented thoughtfully and justly. But regardless of which system of governance is in place, any restrictions must be implemented thoughtfully and justly, with clear safeguards to prevent misuse, perpetuation of systemic inequalities, or the marginalization of vulnerable groups.
References
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23012924
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11158-017-9385-y
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/02691728.2017.1317867?needAccess=true&role=button
https://brighterkashmir.com/educational-reforms-bridging-kashmirs-rural-urban-divide
https://philosophy.brown.edu/sites/default/files/papers/WhyNotEpistocracy.pdf
Leave a Reply
You must belogged in to post a comment.