Ska kunskap berättiga makt?

Abstract

This study examines whether political ignorance can be a sufficient reason to prefer epistocracy over democracy. Through a philosophical analysis of arguments for and against epistocracy, the study primarily explores Jason Brennan’s critique of democracy in Against Democracy (2016), alongside critical perspectives of democratic theorists such as David Estlund and Hélène Landemore. The analysis shows that Brennan identifies significant epistemic problems within modern democracies, including voter ignorance, irrationality and bias. However, the analysis also indicates that epistocracy introduces serious problems concerning legitimacy, exclusion and elitism, as well as difficulties in defining political competence fairly. The discussion highlights the tension between epistemic quality and values such as political equality and inclusion. While democratic systems evidently have epistemic shortcomings, the study concludes that these do not justify abandoning democracy in favor of epistocracy. Instead, they should rather be understood as reasons for democratic reform.