Cited by 10Political Theory and DemocracyPolitical Philosophy and EthicsCritical Theory and Political Philosophy

The Demos and Its Critics

Maltais, Aaron, Rosenberg, Jonas Hultin, Beckman, Ludvig·2019·The Review of Politics

Abstract

The “demos paradox” is the idea that the composition of a demos could never secure democratic legitimacy because the composition of a demos cannot itself be democratically decided. Those who view this problem as unsolvable argue that this insight allows them to adopt a critical perspective towards common ideas about who has legitimate standing to participate in democratic decision-making. We argue that the opposite is true and that endorsing the demos paradox actually undermines our ability to critically engage with common ideas about legitimate standing. We challenge the conception of legitimacy that lurks behind the demos paradox and argue that the real impossibility is to endorse democracy without also being committed to significant procedure-independent standards for the legitimate composition of the demos. We show that trying to solve the problem of the demos by appeal to some normative conception of democratic legitimacy is a worthwhile project that is not undermined by paradox.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0034670519000214

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Neither the conservative nor the radical response to the boundary problem is wholly satisfactory.

    “Neither of these responses seems wholly satisfactory, however”

    From Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem (2020) · cites this paper as Maltais, Rosenberg and Beckman, 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maltais, A., Rosenberg, J. H., & Beckman, L.
Venue
The Review of Politics
Published
2019
Volume
81
Issue
3
Pages
435-457
ISSN
  • 0034-6705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-6858
OpenAlex
W2963109381
Cited by
10
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Review of Politics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Critical Theory and Political Philosophy
Keywords
democratic legitimacy, democratic participation, procedural democracy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review