"Which is to be Master?": The indefensibility of political representation
|Title:||"Which is to be Master?": The indefensibility of political representation||Authors:||Casey, Gerard||Permanent link:||http://hdl.handle.net/10197/5315||Date:||Sep-2009||Abstract:||Government, the systematic exercise of command by some over others backed by the allegedly legitimate use of violence, requires justification. All government is predicated upon a distinction between rulers and ruled. Who should occupy the position of ruler and who the position of the ruled is a perennial problem. In the contemporary world, representative democracy is the only plausible contender for the role of justified government. The key to the justification and popular acceptance of democracy as a (or the) legitimate form of government is the idea of representation, the idea being that in a representative democracy, the people, in some way, rule themselves and thus bridge the gap between the ruler and ruled. However, if a satisfactory account of representation is not forthcoming, the justificatory status of representative democracy becomes problematic.||Type of material:||Journal Article||Publisher:||Philosophy Documentation Center||Keywords:||Legitimate command;Democracy;Political governance||DOI:||10.5840/philinquiry2009313/41||Language:||en||Status of Item:||Peer reviewed|
|Appears in Collections:||Philosophy Research Collection|
Show full item record
Page view(s) 5075
This item is available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland. No item may be reproduced for commercial purposes. For other possible restrictions on use please refer to the publisher's URL where this is made available, or to notes contained in the item itself. Other terms may apply.