"Which is to be Master?": The indefensibility of political representation

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Which_is_to_be_Master.pdf294.9 kBAdobe PDFDownload
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
Online since: 2014-01-30T08:45:00Z
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
Journal: Philosophical Inquiry
Volume: 31
Issue: 3-4
Start page: 1
End page: 10
Keywords: Legitimate commandDemocracyPolitical 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) 50

checked on May 25, 2018

Download(s) 50

checked on May 25, 2018

Google ScholarTM



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.