La justificación de la democracia

consensos aparentes y pseudo dilemas

Abstract

The first aim of this paper is to bring order to the discussion of the main arguments in defense of the democratic political system from different conceptions. The nature of the conflicting arguments is identified, and a reconstruction in which these arguments fit consistently is provided. Secondly, the paper seeks to demonstrate that an adequate understanding of all the issues involved in the justification of democratic authority requires a reflection on the normative claim that accompanies any authority, whether democratic or not. This leads us to address the problem of the justification of authority s normative claim from a perspective that is relevant, not only for political philosophy, but also for the philosophy of law. One of the strongest arguments which has been raised against the justification of the normative claim of authority is explained: that of the paradox of authority as conceived by R. P. Wolff. Finally, this paradox is brought face to face against two theories of authority expressly designed to resolve it: the conception of authority as service developed by Joseph Raz, and the epistemological conception of democracy of Carlos S. Nino, thereby testing the adequacy of both theories.