An Egalitarian Case for Class-Specific Political Institutions

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Vincent Harting
{"title":"An Egalitarian Case for Class-Specific Political Institutions","authors":"Vincent Harting","doi":"10.1177/00905917231178288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Political theorists concerned with ways to counteract the oligarchic tendencies of representative government have recently paid more attention to the employment of “class-specific institutions” (CSIs)—that is, political institutions that formally exclude wealthy elites from decision-making power. This article disputes a general objection levelled against the justifiability of CSIs, according to which their democratic credentials are outweighed by their explicit transgression of formal political equality—what I call the political equality objection. I claim that, although CSIs do not satisfy political equality fully, their exclusionary thrust is inter alia justified in virtue of the fact that they unfold against the background of badly ordered, class-divided societies. Parallel to recent arguments in nonideal theory arguing for the priority of the right to resist economic oppression over the protection of private property rights, access to the empowering properties of CSIs should take priority over the full satisfaction of formal political equality. Yet, I also claim that the justification of CSIs depends on their orientation toward overcoming class divisions because, otherwise, we might end up wrongly naturalizing those divisions—a conclusion that needs to be avoided to reply to the political equality objection. The result is, I believe, a convincing egalitarian case for the democratic justifiability of CSIs.","PeriodicalId":47788,"journal":{"name":"Political Theory","volume":"51 1","pages":"843 - 868"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00905917231178288","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Political theorists concerned with ways to counteract the oligarchic tendencies of representative government have recently paid more attention to the employment of “class-specific institutions” (CSIs)—that is, political institutions that formally exclude wealthy elites from decision-making power. This article disputes a general objection levelled against the justifiability of CSIs, according to which their democratic credentials are outweighed by their explicit transgression of formal political equality—what I call the political equality objection. I claim that, although CSIs do not satisfy political equality fully, their exclusionary thrust is inter alia justified in virtue of the fact that they unfold against the background of badly ordered, class-divided societies. Parallel to recent arguments in nonideal theory arguing for the priority of the right to resist economic oppression over the protection of private property rights, access to the empowering properties of CSIs should take priority over the full satisfaction of formal political equality. Yet, I also claim that the justification of CSIs depends on their orientation toward overcoming class divisions because, otherwise, we might end up wrongly naturalizing those divisions—a conclusion that needs to be avoided to reply to the political equality objection. The result is, I believe, a convincing egalitarian case for the democratic justifiability of CSIs.
阶级政治制度的平等主义案例
关心如何对抗代议制政府的寡头倾向的政治理论家最近更加关注“特定阶级制度”(CSI)的使用,即正式将富裕精英排除在决策权之外的政治制度。这篇文章反驳了对CSI正当性的普遍反对,根据这种反对,他们的民主资格被他们明确违反形式政治平等的行为所压倒——我称之为政治平等反对。我声称,尽管CSI不能完全满足政治平等,但它们的排斥性主旨是合理的,因为它们是在秩序混乱、阶级分裂的社会背景下展开的。与最近非理想理论中主张抵抗经济压迫的权利优先于保护私有产权的论点类似,获得CSI赋予权力的财产应该优先于完全满足形式政治平等。然而,我也声称,CSI的正当性取决于他们克服阶级分歧的方向,否则,我们可能会错误地将这些分歧归化——这是一个需要避免的结论,以回应政治平等的反对意见。我相信,这一结果为CSI的民主正当性提供了一个令人信服的平等主义案例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Political Theory
Political Theory POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Political Theory is an international journal of political thought open to contributions from a wide range of methodological, philosophical, and ideological perspectives. Essays in contemporary and historical political thought, normative and cultural theory, history of ideas, and assessments of current work are welcome. The journal encourages essays that address pressing political and ethical issues or events.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信