Books by Ivan Cerovac
Rowman & Littlefield, 2022
John Stuart Mill and Epistemic Democracy explores the epistemic, or cognitive, character of democ... more John Stuart Mill and Epistemic Democracy explores the epistemic, or cognitive, character of democratic institutional practices and the protection of basic liberties in Mill's political thought. Mapping Mill's theory of representative democracy and critically engaging Mill's more controversial issues, Ivan Cerovac identifies the epistemic criteria within these proposals and uses them as a basis for unifying Mill's political thought. The book addresses the epistemic role of wide democratic participation on the one hand and institutional mechanisms used to filter the public will—such as political representation, plural voting proposals, partisanship, division of epistemic and political labor—on the other, and it analyzes how Mill tries to resolve the conflict between political and epistemic values. Characterizing Mill as both a political instrumentalist and an epistemic democrat, Cerovac sets Mill's theory in a broader explanatory framework and compares it with contemporary accounts of epistemic justification. Emphasizing Mill's normative considerations regarding franchise and the exercise of political power over others, this book discusses how to implement the epistemic ideal in real-world politics. It will be a fascinating read for anyone interested in democratic decision-making.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Palgrave Macmillan, 2020
This compelling new book explores whether the ability of democratic procedures to produce correct... more This compelling new book explores whether the ability of democratic procedures to produce correct outcomes increases the legitimacy of such political decisions. Mapping and critically engaging with the main theories of epistemic democracy, it additionally evaluates arguments for different democratic decision-making procedures related to aggregative and deliberative democracy.
Addressing both positions that are too epistemic, such as Epistrocracy and Scholocracy, as well as those that are not epistemic enough, such as Pure Epistemic Proceduralism and Pragmatist Deliberative Democracy, Cerovac builds an innovative structure that can be used to bring order to numerous accounts of epistemic democracy. Introducing an appropriate account of epistemic democracy, Cerovac proceeds to analyse whether such epistemic value is better achieved through aggregative or deliberative procedures.
Drawing particularly on the work of David Estlund, and including a discussion on the implementation of the epistemic ideal to real world politics, this is a fascinating read for all those interested in democratic decision-making.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Book Chapters by Ivan Cerovac
The Epistemology of Democracy, 2023
Equal electoral influence has been the fundamental democratic norm for almost a century. It is no... more Equal electoral influence has been the fundamental democratic norm for almost a century. It is now universally regarded as a vital component of democracy's legitimacy-generating potential. However, economic inequalities have an indisputable effect on decision-making procedures. Several devices operating within the informal political sphere transform financial into political power. The economically privileged minority impacts electoral results through campaign contributions and media ownership. It shapes policymaking by lobbying or utilizing economic endowment to set the agenda or limit the scope of political decisions. Still, the unequal distribution of political power in the informal political sphere has been disregarded or only sporadically addressed. This paper analyses how economic inequalities and mechanisms that translate economic to political power impair democratic procedures. Economic inequality erodes democratic procedures' moral and epistemic qualities by damaging procedural fairness and tarnishing their ability to produce correct or efficient outcomes. Finally, this paper proposes two approaches to preserve democracy's legitimacy-generating potential. While the first approach strives to curb the mechanisms that transfer inequality from one sphere of life into another, the second advocates for an egalitarian economic system and endeavors to alleviate existing disparities. However, tackling the problem in non-ideal circumstances requires balancing policies adopted from both approaches.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Political Ideas and Public Policy, 2021
In this chapter we will present three systems of political ideas that are most common today: (neo... more In this chapter we will present three systems of political ideas that are most common today: (neo)liberalism, conservatism and social democracy. In order to make this overview as systematic as possible, we will first explain the conditions in which these ideologies emerge and take their form. Then we will connect them with three political ideals and try to see how they relate to the personal and economic freedoms of individuals, and thus propose a clear distinction between their fundamental principles. Afterwards, we will present in more detail the basic principles of each ideology as well as some examples of these ideologies in modern political practice. At the end of this chapter , we will illustrate the differences between these ideologies in several tables.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Political Behavior
Elite decision making refers to a collective decision-making process that focuses on the instrume... more Elite decision making refers to a collective decision-making process that focuses on the instrumental quality of laws, public policies, and political decisions it produces. Since the process aims at producing outcomes of considerable substantive quality, it organizes the existing capacities within a political community to achieve the desired outcome, thus giving greater (or even all) political power to a small group of people (i.e., experts) who are considered to be better at producing correct political decisions. This term has been a central issue in numerous discussions for the last 2,500 years and still represents a relevant political idea because of its strong influence regarding which political system we can see as legitimate. This entry briefly introduces the rationale for elite decision making and discusses various forms elite decision making can take in democratic and nondemocratic systems. The entry concludes with a few influential objections raised against elite decision-making procedures.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Političke ideje i javne politike: priručnik za političke aktiviste
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Papers by Ivan Cerovac
Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, 2024
This paper explores the implications of cognitive disability on deliberative democracy and propos... more This paper explores the implications of cognitive disability on deliberative democracy and proposes possible solutions to ensure that people with cognitive disabilities participate meaningfully in democratic decision making. Although deliberative democracy is considered a cognitive process, people with cognitive disabilities may lack the capacity to participate. The paper explores a joint-effort model of deliberation that includes people with cognitive disabilities as equal participants, using bodily communication as a source of information. However, we argue that it is too ambitious to include individuals with severe cognitive impairments who are unable to fully understand their position, critically analyze others' perspectives, and modify their opinions based on the epistemic contributions of other members. Therefore, we propose a model that recognizes the epistemic significance of individuals who do not meet the criteria for deliberators but can contribute as a useful source of information. The proposed model avoids epistemic and political injustices during deliberative processes and advocates proceduralist justification of deliberated outcomes. The paper highlights the need for inclusive deliberative processes that recognize the contributions of individuals with cognitive disabilities.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Prolegomena, 2023
This paper examines the detrimental effects of fake news on individual well-being and explores me... more This paper examines the detrimental effects of fake news on individual well-being and explores measures that individuals and governments can adopt to mitigate these effects. While current discussions predominantly focus on the harm fake news causes to the political community, this paper shifts its attention to studying the harm inflicted on individual citizens who are exposed to and influenced by fake news. By drawing on Martha Nussbaum’s capability theory, the paper evaluates the impact of fake news on individuals’ well-being, particularly in relation to the development of personal health, which is a crucial capability for leading a fulfilling life. Having established that fake news poses a significant threat to this fundamental capability, the paper explores various approaches that individuals and governments can employ to minimize the detrimental effects of fake news on individual well-being.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Prolegomena, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2022
Ovaj rad nastoji pomiriti korištenje znanstvenih razloga u kolektivnim procesima političkog odluč... more Ovaj rad nastoji pomiriti korištenje znanstvenih razloga u kolektivnim procesima političkog odlučivanja sa zahtjevima javnog uma. Kroz njega se prvo izlažu argumenti za usku interpretaciju javnog uma, a potom se pokazuje kako ta interpretacija omogućuje korištenje (kontroverznih) znanstvenih razloga u procesima političkog odlučivanja. Rad nastoji pokazati kako epistemička demokracija može istovremeno prihvatiti zahtjeve javnog uma i zagovarati korištenje znanstvenih razloga u javnom odlučivanju. Njegov inovativni doprinos usmjeren je na naglašavanje razlikovanja između više razina političkog odlučivanja u Rawlsovoj političkoj filozofiji i argumente kako različite razine zahtijevaju i različit stupanj pouzdanosti znanstvenih razloga, odnosno različit stupanj kvalificiranog slaganja oko njih.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Social Epistemology, 2021
This paper proposes four comprehensive institutional measures for countering epistemic injustice.... more This paper proposes four comprehensive institutional measures for countering epistemic injustice. Driven by the distinction between transactional and structural injustice, we argue that approaches which call for individual virtue overlook the social inequalities that reproduce unjust epistemic relationships. The task of remedying epistemic injustice, therefore, falls upon institutions. First, we review recent empirical research to show why the virtue theoretical model fails to address even transactional instances of epistemic injustice. We then argue that, due to unequal access to education, seemingly justified ascriptions of trust can entrench differential epistemic development. We have limited our proposal to four measures that shield vulnerable groups against injustice and improve the epistemic environment. Institutional epistemic justice demands that, first, all groups enjoy fair and equal access to education and the opportunity to acquire the socially recognized markers of credibility. Second, epistemic justice requires that marginalized groups have access to the relevant public platforms, such as politics and journalism, for voicing their social perspectives. Third, fair access to public positions can aid vulnerable groups in attaining rewarding careers, publicly affirming their epistemic resources, and rupturing the cycle of epistemic disadvantage. As our fourth and final measure, we propose institutional mechanisms for eliminating identity markers from formal epistemic exchanges.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, 2021
This paper engages an elaborate critique that Prijić-Samaržija uses to disqualify moderate episte... more This paper engages an elaborate critique that Prijić-Samaržija uses to disqualify moderate epistemic proceduralism as a proper approach to political legitimacy. The paper offers an alternative interpretation of Estlund's position, arguing that his position (contrary to Prijić-Samaržija's reading) represents a veritist account that locates procedure's epistemic value in its ability to produce the correct outcome. Furthermore, by introducing the distinction between collective decision-making procedures and collective decision-authorization procedures, it argues that moderate epistemic proceduralism can accommodate the special role of experts in its theoretical framework.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Etica e Politica, 2021
This paper presents a unified response to the critics of my book Epistemic Democracy and Politica... more This paper presents a unified response to the critics of my book Epistemic Democracy and Political Legitimacy. The discussion focuses on three important issues. First, I discuss advantages of a procedural (rather than substantive) interpretation of Rawls' public reason as the basis for my account of epistemic democracy. Second, I elaborate on the proper role of experts (moral and technical) in democratic decision-making and decision-authorization processes, thus sketching how controversial conclusions of science can enter public deliberation and represent valid reasons for ordinary laws and policies (those that do not address constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice). Third, I focus on the transformative effect that public deliberation can (and should) have on citizens' political participation, thereby addressing some challenges to the sustainability of epistemic democracy.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 2019
This paper discusses the epistemic value of political parties and other partisan associations fro... more This paper discusses the epistemic value of political parties and other partisan associations from the standpoint of epistemic democracy. It examines whether political parties contribute to the quality of democratic deliberation, thus increasing the epistemic value of democratic decision-making procedures, or represent a threat that polarizes the society and impedes and distorts the public deliberation. The paper introduces several arguments that support the epistemic value of partisanship. Partisan associations empower otherwise marginalized social groups or groups that have disproportionally small political infl uence by facilitating political education or by connecting citizens and experts who share the same values. Partisan associations also help us resist the epistemi-cally damaging effects of hermeneutical (epistemic) injustice by enabling marginalized citizens to construct alternative discourses. However, though partisanship might facilitate the transmission of knowledge, this deliberative tool will only be used in a group of like-minded citizens (i.e. within a political party), thus increasing the polarization between the parties and citizens alike, and decreasing the epistemic value of such collective decision-making procedures. The paper analyses some epistemic strategies (like red-teaming or building a critical thinking culture) that can help us avoid or (at least) reduce the epistemically damaging effects of polarization. However, internal action (from within a deliberative group) might not be enough. Making the deliberation on political issues public and spreading it through different forms of citizens' organizations will ensure that political deliberation is not closed within a single homogenous deliberating group (i.e. the party). These practices should signifi cantly reduce the damaging effects of group polarization.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Političke perspektive
Prigovor nekonzistentnosti koji se ponekad upućuje političkoj filozofiji j. S. Milla poprima razl... more Prigovor nekonzistentnosti koji se ponekad upućuje političkoj filozofiji j. S. Milla poprima različite oblike, a u ovom se radu obrađuje slučaj nekonzistentnosti između antipaternalizma izraženog u O slobodi i paternalističkog opravdanja demokracije i prijedloga višestrukog prava glasa u Razmišljanjima o predstavničkoj vlasti. rad polazi od karakterizacije Milla kao demokratskog instrumentalista, te ističe kako Millovo opravdanje edukativne uloge demokracije i epistemičke vrijednosti višestrukog prava glasa ne mora biti utemeljeno na paternalističkim idejama. Povezivanjem Millove teze, kako država može intervenirati u slobodu pojedinca kada čini neku radnju kojom krši dužnost koju ima prema drugima, s estlundovom idejom političkog opravdanja putem normativ-nog pristanka rad pokazuje kako Millovo opravdanje demokracije (i višestrukog prava glasa) može biti utemeljeno na dužnostima koje imamo prema drugima, a ne na paternalizmu.
___
The appeal to inconsistency, which is sometimes raised against j. S. Mill’s political philosophy, takes various forms, and this paper focuses on the appeal to inconsistency between antipaternalism promoted in On Liberty and paternalistic justification of democracy and plural voting proposal introduced in Considerations on Representative Government. The paper characterises Mill as a democratic instrumentalist and emphasises that Mill’s justification of educational role of democracy and the epistemic value of plural voting proposal need not be grounded in paternalistic ideas. By combining Mill’s claim that the government can intervene and limit the freedom of an individual when she is performing an action by which a distinctive duty she has towards others is violated with Estlund’s idea of political justification through normative consent, the paper shows that Mill’s justification of democracy (and of plural voting proposal) can be grounded in duties we have towards others, and not in paternalism.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Genetic enhancement represents an improvement of human abilities and talents, giving those who ar... more Genetic enhancement represents an improvement of human abilities and talents, giving those who are thus enhanced a competitive advantage over others. If genetic enhancement technologies are privately funded and only a small group of wealthy people has access to them, their competitive advantage might be further increased, and the existing social, economic and political inequalities might be increased as well. I discuss Baccarini's regulation proposal according to which genetic enhancement can remain privately funded and (at least for some time) accessible only to a small group of people, provided that the benefits of their enhancement (e.g. increased productivity, better health care) are distributed is accordance with the lax difference principle (i.e. to the greatest reasonable advantage of the worst-off citizens). I have some doubts regarding this proposal. Namely, I argue that there are other more important principles (i.e. the principle of equal liberty and the principle of fair equality of opportunity) that have lexical priority over the difference principle, and offer several arguments supporting this claim. In the rest of the paper I argue that privately funded genetic enhancement, available only to a small number of wealthy citizens, can lead to the violation of both the principle of equal liberty and the principle of fair equality of opportunity. It should therefore be replaced with publicly funded genetic enhancement available to all citizens.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Democratic procedures are characterized by the equal status of all citizens participating in the ... more Democratic procedures are characterized by the equal status of all citizens participating in the decision-making process. This procedural fairness represents one of the central aspects of democracy's legitimacy-generating potential and should not be rejected or weakened. However, citizens specialize in different areas and inevitably some citizens become more competent (i.e. become experts) regarding some political issues. Democratic procedure would loose much of its appeal if it would be unable to take advantage of the experts' knowledge. In this paper I follow Kitcher and Christiano in embracing a form of division of epistemic (and political) labor - citizens and their political representatives should deliberate and set aims the political community is to pursue, while experts and policy-makers should devise means (laws, public policies and political decisions) needed to achieve the aims set by citizens. However, citizens should not blindly trust the experts - their epistemic authority is derivative and social and academic networks and structures should be employed in order to enable citizens to assess and evaluate experts' competence, but experts' impartiality regarding the issue at hand as well. Consequently, the process should not be unidirectional: experts should be able to help citizens select feasible and coherent aims, while citizens should be able to help experts in creating policies and decisions. Deliberative democracy is an appropriate political setting for this kind of bidirectional communication.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This paper discusses the epistemic value of public deliberation in a democratic decision-making p... more This paper discusses the epistemic value of public deliberation in a democratic decision-making process. I first discuss David Estlund's standard account of epistemic democracy – in order to be legitimate, a decision must be a result of both fair and epistemically reliable procedure, i.e., of procedure that in most cases leads us to (procedure-independent) correct outcomes. This approach is characterized by the idea that democratic deliberation only has instrumental epistemic value, i.e., serves as a good means to achieve desired ends – a high correctness probability of the outcomes. I defend this approach from three objections put forward by Fabienne Peter, who claims that Estlund's position is not a practicable conception of democratic legitimacy, that it makes unnecessary demands and that it is normatively misleading. Finally, I argue against pure epistemic proceduralism, an alternative approach that tends to reject consequentialist epistemology in favor of proceduralist epistemology. By doing so, it has lost a way to evaluate the epistemic value of (deliberative) democratic procedures, and is thus vulnerable to the problem of various (reasonable) people holding different epistemic practices and disagreeing on which practice should be the one that is epis-temically valuable and that produces legitimate decisions.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In discussions on democratic legitimacy, Christiano's position is often characterized as a monist... more In discussions on democratic legitimacy, Christiano's position is often characterized as a monistic position, i.e. a strong and persuasive version of fair deliberative pro-ceduralism. Democracy is thus seen as a realization of public equality in collective decision making. The presented case for democracy is non-instrumental, and the quality of outcomes produced by a democratic decision-making process does not constitute or in any way influence the legitimacy – generating features of that decision-making process. I argue that the quality of political decisions produced by a democratic decision-making process should play an important (though not decisive) role in Christiano's argument. Consequently, I claim that his case for democracy should be (at least somewhat) instrumental. I consider four cases from Christiano's The Constitution of Equality that show how outcomes of democratic procedures are very important to Christiano. Furthermore, I argue that these outcomes are so important that, when deciding between two or more fair decision-making procedures, one that produces the best outcomes should be considered legitimate.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This paper clarifi es some of the contested ideas put forward by John Stuart Mill by analyzing th... more This paper clarifi es some of the contested ideas put forward by John Stuart Mill by analyzing the reasons and arguments Mill used to support them and demonstrating how these ideas and arguments supporting them are connected into a coherent system. Mill's theory is placed in wider explanatory framework of democratic legitimacy developed by Thomas Christiano, and is portrayed as a typical example of democratic instrumentalism—a monistic position that focuses on the outcomes and results of a decision-making process. Following this move, the focus is shifted on the understanding of political equality in Mill's political thought. I claim that, contrary to some contemporary interpretations, Mill's theory is based on a few fundamentally inegalitarian ideas. Finally , Mill's view on the role of experts in democratic decision-making is analyzed and compared with contemporary theories advocating democratic expertism—Mill's view is again portrayed as inegalitarian, both to the extent of setting political aims and creating methods for achieving these aims.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This paper discuses Bernard Williams’ argument according to which utili- tarianism is a bad moral... more This paper discuses Bernard Williams’ argument according to which utili- tarianism is a bad moral theory because, by requiring us to reject conscience and our moral emotions in favour of the “lesser of evils”, it violates our moral integrity, itself a deep moral ideal i discuss the implications of this objection, as well as the answer offered by Peter Railton He claims that utilitarianism should respect (and not violate or reject) our conscience and moral emotions because, by violating our integrity for the best consequences, we would become demotivated and unable to act in the long run, and would thus decrease overall utility this paper questions whether Railton’s solution adequately answers Williams’ objection, and argues that a possible answer should be looked for in recent studies in evolutionary psychology and in the very origin of our moral emotions.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Books by Ivan Cerovac
Addressing both positions that are too epistemic, such as Epistrocracy and Scholocracy, as well as those that are not epistemic enough, such as Pure Epistemic Proceduralism and Pragmatist Deliberative Democracy, Cerovac builds an innovative structure that can be used to bring order to numerous accounts of epistemic democracy. Introducing an appropriate account of epistemic democracy, Cerovac proceeds to analyse whether such epistemic value is better achieved through aggregative or deliberative procedures.
Drawing particularly on the work of David Estlund, and including a discussion on the implementation of the epistemic ideal to real world politics, this is a fascinating read for all those interested in democratic decision-making.
Book Chapters by Ivan Cerovac
Papers by Ivan Cerovac
___
The appeal to inconsistency, which is sometimes raised against j. S. Mill’s political philosophy, takes various forms, and this paper focuses on the appeal to inconsistency between antipaternalism promoted in On Liberty and paternalistic justification of democracy and plural voting proposal introduced in Considerations on Representative Government. The paper characterises Mill as a democratic instrumentalist and emphasises that Mill’s justification of educational role of democracy and the epistemic value of plural voting proposal need not be grounded in paternalistic ideas. By combining Mill’s claim that the government can intervene and limit the freedom of an individual when she is performing an action by which a distinctive duty she has towards others is violated with Estlund’s idea of political justification through normative consent, the paper shows that Mill’s justification of democracy (and of plural voting proposal) can be grounded in duties we have towards others, and not in paternalism.
Addressing both positions that are too epistemic, such as Epistrocracy and Scholocracy, as well as those that are not epistemic enough, such as Pure Epistemic Proceduralism and Pragmatist Deliberative Democracy, Cerovac builds an innovative structure that can be used to bring order to numerous accounts of epistemic democracy. Introducing an appropriate account of epistemic democracy, Cerovac proceeds to analyse whether such epistemic value is better achieved through aggregative or deliberative procedures.
Drawing particularly on the work of David Estlund, and including a discussion on the implementation of the epistemic ideal to real world politics, this is a fascinating read for all those interested in democratic decision-making.
___
The appeal to inconsistency, which is sometimes raised against j. S. Mill’s political philosophy, takes various forms, and this paper focuses on the appeal to inconsistency between antipaternalism promoted in On Liberty and paternalistic justification of democracy and plural voting proposal introduced in Considerations on Representative Government. The paper characterises Mill as a democratic instrumentalist and emphasises that Mill’s justification of educational role of democracy and the epistemic value of plural voting proposal need not be grounded in paternalistic ideas. By combining Mill’s claim that the government can intervene and limit the freedom of an individual when she is performing an action by which a distinctive duty she has towards others is violated with Estlund’s idea of political justification through normative consent, the paper shows that Mill’s justification of democracy (and of plural voting proposal) can be grounded in duties we have towards others, and not in paternalism.
Vijeća građana predstavljaju jednu od demokratskih inovacija poznatih kao javnosti u malom. U njima se nasumično odabrani građani uključuju u učenje, raspravu i odlučivanje o specifičnim javnim temama te u konačnici donose skup preporuka za lokalne vlasti. Ovaj oblik deliberativne demokracije koristi se za povećanje participacije građana, poticanje informiranih rasprava i unapređenje kvalitete samih odluka. Interes za ove inovacije raste i u Hrvatskoj, no njihova je raširena primjena i organizacija tek u začecima. Vijeća građana nisu zamišljena kao alternativa postojećim tradicionalnim demokratskim institucijama na lokalnoj razini, već kao savjetodavna tijela kojima se nastoji ojačati lokalnu demokraciju, povećati povjerenje građana i unaprijediti kvalitetu političkog odlučivanja. Vijeće građana Rijeke prvi je oblik ovakve javnosti