Introduction
Democracy allows people to make the right decisions because the powers have been given to them. Three democratic models try to explain how democracy is disseminated to reach a fair and final decision. Dewey’s experimentalist model, the Condorcet Jury Theorem, and the Diversity Trump’s Ability; integrate three aspects of diversity, voting and feedback. Democracy advocates for the accommodation of all citizens to ensure fairness and sharing of epistemic knowledge, which helps reach a final and fair decision because all people have been accommodated through participation. The paper will show how democracy is practised through the three democratic models and a case study from South Asia to illustrate the importance of epistemic knowledge in ensuring a fair decision is reached.
Summary
Dewey’s experimentalist model gives a clear picture of how the involvement of various features of democracy is integrated to solve problems affecting the public interests by involving epistemic knowers. Social epistemology provides information about institutions concerning their roles in solving problems assigned to them and how they can increase their epistemic powers, making it easy to handle the challenges they face. Fredrick Hayek stated that it is difficult for a state to allocate resources through central state planning because the central body cannot collect together the widely dispersed information to ensure the challenge is solved. Therefore, he suggested that the only way that can be utilized to transmit information is using the market prices, which distinctively transmit the information to the central planners who have no access; it is easy to allocate resources to designated markets than states (Anderson, 2006). Socially transmitted information is transmitted using votes, talks, and market prices. It is essential to understand that institutional epistemology advocates for assessing epistemic powers where different power forms are utilized to achieve democracy. The Dewey model provides an opportunity to represent dissent because different approaches ensure a decision is reached. The community forests of South Asia are used to give an illustration of how they manage forest commons to ensure community products are sustainably provided. The group does not allow women to be part of the community forest practice; this fact affects the epistemic powers of the group because women have unutilized epistemic powers that could lead to the provision of better ways of increasing forestry commodities for community use. The Deweyan epistemic analysis of democracy requires constant reforms in democratic institutions because democracy provides a powerful tool that advocates for advancement. The epistemic needs should align with the problems to be solved.
Generally, democracy is supposed to solve problems based on public interests by involving citizens and the law. It is the reason why many democracies elect leaders to represent the majority who establish a preferred religion which prevents rivals from using the law to solve the problem. Engaging citizens and the law makes it easy to find satisfaction in solving the problem. Modern-day democracies have made their citizens decline the fact that states cannot dictate people on how their religion should be (Anderson, 2006). The need to solve problems in democratic states in the institutions is based on the public interests; thus, votes and takes are given priority rather than market prices which transmit information concerning private preferences which do not market public interests. Talks help in articulating proposals, and votes ratify them. The taking and voting process ensures that the decision is fair to the citizens and the law has been followed.
Sometimes laws contribute to wrong decisions; epistemic democrats question whether epistemic institutions can be relied on to make the right decisions for the public interests. For democratic institutions to succeed, internal and external decision-making processes should be utilized effectively, and the problems identified should be deemed acceptable by the public. Democratic institutions engage in procedural processes that ensure they reach a decision that is acceptable to the public and solves the designated problems affecting the public. The majority represent the citizens, and they for a religion that prevents the rivals from preventing a public agenda by engaging in fair decision-making processes that solve the issues affecting citizens and utilize the law. Market prices represent private preferences; thus, they are not given priority in solving problems. Democratic states should fully utilize the law to ensure a fair decision is reached (Anderson, 2006).
The epistemic models of democracy show the type of problems that democracy should solve depending on the internal and external criteria utilized. There are three models that aim at providing the epistemic analysis of democracy. For instance, the Condorcet Jury Theorem, the Diversity Trump’s ability Theorem, and Dewey’s experimentalist account of democracy. The Condorcet Jury Theorem is common, which states that if the voters encounter two situations, they vote independently of one another or vote depending on their judgment of what is likely to be the right solution to the problem. The Condorcet Jury Theorem shows the epistemic powers of democracy, but the reality is that the citizens are given a variety of options to vote for, which gives the supermajority a low chance of making the right decision (Anderson, 2006). It also assumes homogeneity as it is based on the epistemic diversity of the voters. It is important to ensure that democracy is modelled to its epistemic success, which embraces voters’ diversity. The Diversity Trump’s Ability Theorem solves some of the deficiencies highlighted by the Condorcet Jury Theorem. Dewey’s experimentalist model is the most complex and dynamic of the three because it accommodates many democratic aspects and provides for the assessment of epistemic powers based on social arrangements. Epistemic powers are realized when citizens are given equal opportunities and not insults and threats.
Dewey’s experimentalist account of democracy is full of intelligence because it evaluates the epistemic powers of specific democratic institutions. The case study involving Bina Agarwal’s research on community forestry groups (CFGs) in Nepal and India gives a clear picture of Dewey’s experimentalist model of democracy as it aims at improving the epistemic powers of the CFG institutions. The democratic institutions of the communities are organized in the form of villages, and they are tasked with managing forestry commons. The aim is to ensure that the degraded forests provide little more than monsoon grass and twigs. Within a period of five to seven years, the villages started to enjoy flourishing forests, high income, and significant biodiversity since the commons started managing it. However, women were negatively affected by the process because they were not actively engaged in the process. In the villages, there are gendered roles; the maintenance of the forests forced women to go for long distances to fetch firewood and fodder for farm animals, which would take them longer than before because of the distance involved (Anderson, 2006). Women needed help from their daughters, limiting their education. Women wanted to access the forests to collect wood and argued that they needed mixed group guards to stop rule breakers. Women’s knowledge of the type of firewood and forage trees to be collected should be considered to solve the problems encountered in the villages. If women are given an opportunity to speak up, they can easily be corrected because they have shared the knowledge they have about forests. Dissent works along with experimentation; this, the discovery of how to make the dissent effective is through deliberation.
The critique
Democracy tends to assume that good decisions are often an outcome of solving a problem, which is not often the case. Epistemic democrats should be ready to reject forms that follow pure proceduralism, where democracy is valued for specifically intrinsic purposes. Institutions are granted powers to ensure that they exercise democracy based on public interests. It is important for institutions to collect information from the general public because it is needed to give guidance on how a particular problem can be solved. Dewey’s experimentalism models are dynamic because it considers many aspects of democracy before it concludes an agenda. It is considered powerful because it utilizes diversity based on culture. Democracy requires consideration of several aspects to ensure fairness and solving a problem. The institutions that ensure democracy is practised should ensure they collect information from relevant sources, such as engaging in talks and involving the general public through voting. When states decide to use market prices, it is a kind of private preference which does not cater for the needs of the majority.
Social democracy serves to develop new ways of strengthening a capitalist system which is likely to replace the socialist system. When conflicts arise, social democracy fails to address the issues inherent in capitalism. For instance, in the CFGs in India and Nepal, the roles were gendered, and they were institutionalized according to villages (Anderson, 2006). The roles required women to fetch firewood used for heating, bathing water, and cook and collect monsoon grass which was used as fodder for the farm animals. With the implementation of new forest rules, women were not allowed to collect firewood from the nearby forests because they were conserved from degradation and hence forced to move far to look for grass and firewood. They would spend more time, and sometimes they had to engage their daughters to help them, which affected their education process (Anderson, 2006). Men did not engage women in reaching the decision to prohibit women from collecting firewood and fodder from nearby forests. If they engaged women in the process, they would share epistemic knowledge, which would help them understand the best forage for firewood and fodder and know the regions of the forests that had the best. The processes benefitted the group by reducing degradation, increasing income, and increasing biodiversity; women suffered more because they did not participate in the decision-making process. Sidelining or not involving a particular group leads to conflicts despite the decision aimed at achieving good for the community. The village needed to gather information from diverse sources to ensure a solution was established. Men’s decisions tended to be a private preference because the decision was not diverse in any way.
It makes many people unaware of what is good for them. Men who took the obligation of protecting the forests in Nepal and India did not have the knowledge of the forests but had a goal of ensuring they protected the forests. The gendered roles prevented them from having epistemic knowledge, which could have identified accessible regions where women could get fodder and firewood for domestic purposes. The CFGs made the decision without participation; hence no feedback from all. The decision reached by males was to help the community because it increased biodiversity and income to the communities (Anderson, 2006). If women shared epistemic knowledge of the forest, they could not be limited from accessing the forests or being sent far away to look for fodder and grass. Women recommended mixed security in the forests because they did not want to be subjected to sexual harassment and needed to be protected too. Epistemic knowledge is important to ensure that all participants are engaged in the decision-making process. Despite the outcome being beneficial to the community, women were affected because men did not consult them prior. It makes the implementation of democracy a challenge, and solving problems involves conflicts from affected parties.
Epistemic democratic theories are concerned with the ability of epistemic institutions to use knowledge, experiment, communicate, and make judgments to provide solutions to prevailing problems. It has also been identified that the theories do not identify themselves with a specific form of democracy because the epistemic knowers disagree with such questions and address the general aspects of democracy (Anderson, 2006). They are majorly concerned with the epistemic value of being included and providing equal political arrangements. Epistemic democracy ensures that it tracks the records of ensuring that truth, justice, and fairness are guaranteed to ensure a collective interest is attained in the process. The theories ensure that the majority interests are catered for by engaging in talks, votes, and giving feedback. The case study about the South Asia communities tries to illustrate how Dewey’s experimentalist model is effective in achieving democracy, unlike other models. Dewey’s experimentalist model is regarded as the most powerful because it is dynamic and caters for everyone’s needs based on their culture. It recommends that despite the presence of gender roles in a community, it is necessary to consult with the involved group to ensure they share epistemic knowledge about a particular issue that is likely to affect them significantly. The directly affected parties should be given a significant opportunity to participate in the process of making better decisions to solve the prevailing problem (Anderson, 2006). Men aimed at protecting the forests, but they did not consider women who collected firewood and grass from the forest for home use. Epistemic theorists are associated with using the wisdom of the crowd and collective intelligence to come up with a solution. The engagement of all participants, especially those who are directly involved, should be given priority since they have more knowledge about the area that is being assessed. Women had more epistemic knowledge than men in the CFGs but were not considered when deciding to conserve the forest, but they did not understand that not all parts of the forests were good for firewood and grass collection. The villages, as the democratic institutions, should have consulted the women. Discrimination affects democracy because the main source of information is not utilized; general assumptions were made to ensure that they preserved the forests and prevented further degradation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, epistemic theories do not address any specific form of democracy. They analyze a situation and use the wisdom of the crowd. Problems are required to be solved by democratic institutions because they are required to consider the epistemic needs of the public to ensure their interests are served. Everyone’s concerns should be represented to ensure a conflict does not arise after a decision is reached, like in the South Asia case. The practical interest of the participants represents the epistemic powers of democracy and tries to foresee the likely challenges of implementing a decision.
References
Anderson, E. (2006). The Epistemology of Democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3(1), 8–22. doi:10.1353/epi.0.0000.
write