Cognitive and epistemological limits of Democracy

Analytically, this is possible in relation to single-rulers and groupocracy. Moreover, in both cases, depending on the availability of active suffrage, there are two options. If the circle of electors of the single-holder is limited to a certain group, then we are talking about a qualified (aristocratic) elective monarchy or a qualified presidential republic. If the electors are the entire population, then there is a people's elective monarchy or, accordingly, a people's presidential republic. The concept of "the entire population" is controversial. As a rule, the participation of the "entire" population is recognized if all adult citizens are allowed to vote, although the issue of the grounds for depriving children of voting rights is discussed in the literature.4. Situational limitation of life.The principle of holding office for life in monarchies and aristocracies does not exclude the possibility of early termination of office. A case that does not cause controversy is a voluntary resignation, for example, the abdication of a monarch from the throne. In the Netherlands it has become almost a political custom, with all three of the last queens abdicating in favor of an heir or heir. A more complicated case is the removal from power without the consent of the person being removed. Although in this case the term of office is not initially limited, the person holding it may be removed against his will. This may take place in the course of a palace coup or according to a prescribed formal procedure (“impeachment”).The possibility of optional removal from power brings an elective monarchy closer to a presidential republic, especially one in which there is no limit on the number of re-elections. The difference lies in the form of social control over the "one-holder". In the case of impeachment, control is situational. Although in the presence of an institutionalized impeachment procedure, its initiation and conduct may not only be the right, but also the duty of the competent authorities, the reason for this may never come. On the contrary, holding elections is regular and unconditional.The second difference is the nature of the grounds for removal. In the case of impeachment, these are exclusively negative phenomena, abuse of power, violation of some rights, etc. On the contrary, in the case of elections, the reasons for the defeat of an official who re-nominated his candidacy may be different. This is either a “punishment” for some mistakes, or the presence of a better candidate, or a situation that is sometimes described with a strange but capacious phrase “the people are tired and want a change of faces.”Let's complete the comparison of these two forms of government with one more important remark. If the impeachment of a life-long monocrat can be initiated by the population, then this form of government becomes even closer to a presidential republic.1. Democracy in Safe ModeAs shown above, the degree of "democratic" actually existing democracies is much lower than is commonly believed at rallies and in popular literature. This is bad news for radical democrats, but good news for Russian society, since the strengthening of elements of democracy in Russia a) perhaps, b) does not carry unjustified risks.The combination of controlled succession in the office of the President with the formation of the Government following the results of the elections can be a successful compromise, allowing to solve a number of problems inherent in the Soviet and modern Russian systems of power.First, it will reduce the risk of accidental "fateful" changes. It is important to understand that the factor of chance is present in both subsystems of the bipolar center. Controlled succession is no guarantee against the infiltration of power by persons whose actions lead to unplanned “fatefulness”. In this case, the elective component can play a stabilizing role.Secondly, it will provide the system of state power with more flexibility, more evenly distribute responsibility and, possibly, help to avoid the adoption of inexplicable (and still not clearly explained by anyone) decisions, such as the abolition of the Supreme Arbitration Court or the law on bloggers.2. Democracy "in Italian" is also democracy.The only serious objective obstacle to strengthening the role of the parliament are doubts about the ability of Russian political parties to fulfill the function assigned to them as a link between society and power. This is a complex problem that deserves separate consideration. Below we will give only some considerations demonstrating that different assessments of the situation that has developed in the field of party building in our country are possible.As a rule, when speaking about parties, Russian practitioners and theoreticians have before their eyes a picture of a close-knit cadre party of like-minded people. That is how the German parties are organized. Some associations known to us from history are still associated with the presence of a party card in Germany, and the issue of paying party dues periodically leads to entertaining public discussions. However, parties of this type do not exist in all known democracies.For example, the German parties are absolutely impossible to compare with the American parties. A popular topic concerning the systemic German parties is the drop in the number of their members. Discussion of this issue in relation to American parties does not make sense due to the lack of an institution of membership comparable to the German one.Nor is there any evidence to support the view that parties must necessarily enjoy the stable support of a certain segment of the population whose interests they represent. As the Italian experience shows, parties of "one" person are also possible in a democracy.Forza Italia was created by Silvio Berlusconi after he decided to crown his career as a successful media mogul with a career in politics. The scheme that worked in this case looks like this:The fundamental difference between these two schemes is the place occupied by the elections. In a democracy, even if it is an "Italian" democracy, elections are not the last, final, and for this reason, a redundant element. The quality of parties is an important feature, but even more important is the presence of competition between them and at least the potential to win elections.Ultimately, if the mechanisms of real democracies are subjected to critical analysis, many scandalous limitations and serious deviations from the ideal can be found in them. It will not be possible to find only one thing - mass manipulations in the elections. From time to time, the “slips” that occur in connection with the counting of votes61 only emphasize this.3. "Sword and abacus": division of labor.By its logic, the proposed model is comparable to the mechanism of a constitutional or dualistic monarchy, in which all three elements - the monarch, government and parliament - play their important roles. In historically known constitutional monarchies, the following distribution of competencies developed. The crown held powers in the field of defense and foreign policy, while the government, supported by a parliamentary majority, dealt with economic and social issues. In this context, Schumpeter's description of a hybrid noble-bourgeois model of society management is interesting: some of the functions where a "firm hand" is required were assigned to the elements of public authority occupied by representatives of the aristocracy and nobility, the other, where required organizational and entrepreneurial talent - on the representatives of the bourgeoisie.Apparently, the distribution of competence in the dualistic monarchy was of a “natural” nature, which is confirmed by modern Russian experience. The current Russian government can take credit for serious successes in the field of foreign policy and defense construction. However, the constructed model of the economy cannot be considered successful. Its shortcomings are well known. The primitive structure of the Russian economy is not only an economic problem, but also a cultural and social one. Persons wishing to engage in labor or business in the "real" sector will not find too many opportunities for the meaningful application of their strengths and capitals. If geopolitical successes are not accompanied by the necessary changes within Russian society, then an unfavorable development scenario is inevitable.Obviously, to manage the army and the defense industry, on the one hand, and to regulate the civilian economy, on the other, different people and different skills are needed. This is another argument for the bipolar structure of the highest Russian power.ConclusionThus, the following conclusions can be drawn.In philosophy, there are many different concepts that offer their own theory of the development of science and consciousness. Non-classical epistemologies have been declaring themselves for a long time, but they manifest themselves in full only in the middle of the 20th century. Like any field of philosophy, epistemology pursues its own interests and has its own objects of research. In fact, the whole world is the subject of the theory of knowledge. Thus, the development of any sciences, whether physical and mathematical, natural or humanitarian, depends on epistemological positions, epistemological theories.Epistemology is a field of philosophy, the subject of which is knowledge itself, its structure, functioning and development; the logical structure of cognitive acts, the conditions for their implementation in time, the internal structure of the subject and its role in the systematization of the object, the scope of the knowable and its boundaries. One of the goals of epistemology, as a theory of scientific knowledge, is to explain the status of science. In summary, epistemology examines:How is knowledge structured?- what will be the object and the mechanism for implementing the knowledge of the object in practice;- what types of knowledge can be;- development of knowledge and determination of the universal laws of life.The object in epistemology is considered, on the one hand, as an element in the structure of knowledge, on the other hand, as a material reality. In classical epistemology, the subject is not taken into account, but some objectively existing structures of knowledge are taken into account.Epistemology, having an interdisciplinary character with various disciplines: history, culture, sociology, provides the ground and tools for a new understanding of the old and the acquisition of new knowledge.Of the many supporters of pragmatic public administration, only a small part shares the "pure" foundations of pragmatism, understands its essential aspects, features and functions, factors of variability, possibilities of influence and tasks. The overwhelming majority shares only a pragmatic perspective, not representing its complexity, perceiving pragmatism often from the point of view of practicality and evaluating the significance of a goal or idea by subsequent events through the prism of utility.Speaking about the situation in modern Russia,it can be noted that the political ideal of development still takes place: the rule of law and democracy. However, the state regime still pursues the interests of the political elite and the financial and industrial oligarchy to a greater extent, rather than the majority of citizens of the Russian Federation. With all this, in accordance with the Constitution, from a formal legal point of view, Russia is a legal, democratic and federal state with a republican form of government. A person, his freedoms and rights are proclaimed the highest value, which the state undertakes to guarantee. The only source of power is the people, who express their will in elections and referendums. Do not forget that the key role in building democracy is played by the dynamic elements of the legal system, such as lawmaking, the implementation of law, legal thinking.The Constitution proclaims the Russian Federation a social state, the policy of which is defined as the creation of conditions aimed at ensuring a decent life and free development of the individual and a person, a minimum wage is established, labor protection and health of people are guaranteed, state support for the family is fixed, childhood, motherhood, fatherhood. The constitution proclaims norms that would satisfy any democracy. However, Russia represents a different state than that proclaimed in the Constitution. It is difficult to determine which one, because there is no fully stable awareness of reality. Such a state of Russia can lead to contradictions between the formal legal democratic foundations and the real ones. And these contradictions cannot but give rise to the social division inherent in authoritarianism. It is known that a relatively stable democracy does not exist without an appropriate level of socio-economic development of the state, which provides a standard of living that suits the majority of citizens. As W. Beck rightly noted, “only those people who have housing, a secure job and, therefore, a materially secure future, are or can become citizens who are able to learn democratic rules of behavior and fill democracy with life. The simple truth says: there are no political freedoms without material security”, and Russians who do not implement in their right the system that ensures and guarantees their socio-economic rights, apparently, are not at all original. So, for example, the very popular American research scientist K. Lash, not without reason, argues that if there were a situation in which the standard of living in most American cities would approach the standard of living in third world countries, democracy in America would have to will assert itself again. It does not seem possible for the modern Russian people to realize the rights proclaimed under the Constitution to exercise direct democracy. Russian democracy can survive only if, in addition to small islands of democracy, parliamentary and presidential elections, a number of constitutional laws are added that would reinforce representative democracy and direct forms of democracy. Only "the openness of the state can be a criterion for its democratic development". In the meantime, unfortunately, the bureaucracy does not allow these institutions to develop. In our opinion, the main feature and feature of the development of democracy at the present stage is that it does not lead to the “growth” of democracy (i.e., not to the expansion and improvement of the democratic principle in political systems), as was the case in the past, but to its "descending". And this follows not so much from the selfish interests of the ruling elites as from the objective imperatives of the functioning of democratic systems in a changing world.List of referencesAnderson, E. Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions.Social Epistemology, 2012.Baehr, J. Democracy, Information Technology, and Virtue Epistemology, in: N. Snow and M.S. Vaccarezza (eds.). Virtues, Democracy, and Online Media. Ethical and Epistemic Issues. Routledge, 2021.Berlin I. Two concepts of liberty.The proper study of mankind. N.Y., 2000.Cassam, O. Conspiracy Theories. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2019.Cassam, O. Vices of the Mind: From the Intellectual to the Political. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.Catala, A. Democracy, Trust, and Epistemic Justice. The Monist, 2015.Code, L. Epistemic Responsibility. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1987.Cohen J. An Epistemic Conception of Democracy. Ethics, 1986.Daston, L. & Galison, P. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books, 2007.Estlund D. The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority. The Modern Schoolman. 1997.Fairweather, A. Bridges Between Virtue Epistemology and Philosophy of Science" in: A. Fairweather (ed.). Virtue Epistemology Naturalized: Bridges Between Virtue Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Springer, 2014.Fairweather A., Alfano M. (eds.). Epistemic Situationism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.Fricker, M. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007.Fuller, S. Postpravda: Znaniekakbor'bazavlast' [Post-truth. Knowledge as Power Game] trans. by D. Kralechkin. Moscow: Izd. domVyssheishkolyekonomiki, 2021.Gauchat, G.W. Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010, American Sociological Review, 2012.Goldman, A.I. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Grofman B., Feld S.L. Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective, The American Political Science Review. 1988.Hansson, S.O. Science Denial as a Form of Pseudoscience, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2017.Harambam, J. The truth is Out There: Conspiracy Culture in an Age of Epistemic Instability. Ph.D. Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 2017.Hofstadter, R. Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963.Kasavin, I.T. Normy v poznaniiipoznanie norm [Norms in Cognition and Cognition of Norms], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2017.Levy, N. & Alfano, M. Knowledge From Vice: Deeply Social Epistemology, Mind, 2020.Rawls J. The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus.Copp D. The Idea of Democracy. Cambridge, 1993.Schwengerer, L. Online Intellectual Virtues and the Extended Mind, Social Epistemology, 2021.Shawn, O. The War on Science: Who Is Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed, 2016.Shevchenko, S.Yu. & Tukhvatulina, L.A. Nesvyatayaprostota: epistemologiyadobrodeteleii tri strategiiotritsaniyanauchnogoznaniya [Unholy Simplicity: Virtue Epistemology and the Three Strategies of Scientific Denialism], VoprosyFilosofii, 2020.Sidky, H. The War on Science, Anti-Intellectualism, and Alternative Ways of Knowing in 21st-century America, Skeptical Inquirer, 2018.Snow, N. & Vaccarezza, M.S. (eds.). Virtues, Democracy, and Online Media. Routledge, 2021.Wittgenstein, L. Filosofskieissledovaniya [Philosophical Investigations], trans. by M.S. Kozlovа & Yu.A. Aseev, in: Wittgenstein, L. Filosofskieraboty [Philosophical Works]. Moscow: Gnozis, 1994.Yla-Anttila, 2018 - Yla-Anttila, T. Populist Knowledge: 'Post-truth' Repertoires of Contesting Epistemic Authorities, European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 2018.Zagzebski, 1996 - Zagzebski, L. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Kindle Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1996.