Constitutional Fallacies

Melissa Schwartzberg

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    Defenders of epistemic democracy propose that the “wisdom of the many” will result in superior outcomes: in this context, they hold that widespread participation will yield better constitutional norms. While this argument, featured prominently in Hélène Landemore’s recent work, raises significant normative concerns, this essay focuses on the causal mechanism it posits and the evidence adduced for the claim. Drawing on Jeremy Bentham’s critiques of common lawyers’ claims to wisdom, this essay argues it is better to defend inclusivity on the grounds that it will promote the people’s interests, rather than on the epistemic value of popular participation.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)323-337
    Number of pages15
    JournalCritical Review
    Volume36
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 2024

    Keywords

    • common law
    • constitutionalism
    • epistemic democracy
    • Jeremy Bentham
    • participatory democracy

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Political Science and International Relations
    • Literature and Literary Theory

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Constitutional Fallacies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this