Topics Justice

Question Since society is composed of individuals composed into organisations, should all organisations have the essential features of democracy (such as elections, plebiscite on major issues, reverse appraisal)?

Accepted:
May 25, 2006

Comments

The reason for this is weaker in the case of organizations than in the case of societies -- mainly because the former are much easier to leave or to avoid altogether. If you don't like the undemocratic structure of General Motors or the Catholic Church, you can decline to join these organizations or exit fairly easily, perhaps finding another job or becoming self-employed, or joining another denomination or none. By contrast, people born into an undemocratic society could not avoid this fate and typically find it quite hard to exit: They must find another country willing to accept them and must then uproot themselves and move there.

One can then say that, in the case of organizations, the resons for mandating democracy are outweighed by considerations of freedom: If people want to belong to a hierarchal corporation or church, there is some reason to give them this option.

This sort of answer is pretty standard (suggested by Rawls and many others). But for it to work, it must really be fairly easy to avoid or to leave undemocratic organizations. If one would be ostracized for living outside any hierarchical religious organizations, or if refusal to work for a hierarchical corporation would land one in life-threatening poverty, then one's membership in such an organization is not really voluntary and considerations of freedom thus lose their weight. For hierarchical organizations to be acceptable, their members should have a real option to live outside them -- by being able, at least, to join or form a democratically organized corporation or religious denomination or by being able to remain outside such organizations (worshipping without a religious group, being self-employed).

Another possible flaw in the standard answer is that it sees the main point of democracy in the protection of citizens' interests. This is surely one important point of democratic procedures. But another point is that of enabling citizens to fulfill their responsibilities with regard to the policies of the collective (to which they contribute their labor, taxes, and more). If a country wages an unjust war, for example, then its adult citizens have a collective responsibility to stop it. And they can much better fulfill this responsibility if their country is a democracy. This point applies analogously to corporations and churches as well, the more so the more powerful they are. It is good when their members can "vote with their feet." But it is better when they also have ways of contesting and challenging their organization's policies when they find them morally dubious.

Question Since society is composed of individuals composed into organisations, should all organisations have the essential features of democracy (such as elections, plebiscite on major issues, reverse appraisal)? Accepted:May 25, 2006

Question Since society is composed of individuals composed into organisations, should all organisations have the essential features of democracy (such as elections, plebiscite on major issues, reverse appraisal)?

Accepted:
May 25, 2006