Why and when is it justifiable, desirable, and even morally necessary to politically limit, or even deny, access and influence to some overrepresented, privileged groups, and how should democratic institutions apply this?
Why?
When?
How?
Political exclusion is not necessarily antidemocratic. It can benefit democracy
Formal?
Oppression principle: when there is oppression (direct or historical)
Informal?
Cohen's categorical inclusion (formal prohibitions that bar certain citizens from being full participants in representative institutions based on their group memberships)
Not desirable and even forbidden, since antidemocratic (violate certain groups' equal political standing and thereby fundamental democratic norms
Yes, when informal exclusions allow democratic institutions to better approximate their ideals
Cohen's integrative marginalisation (the informal norms of democratic procedures prevent certain members from assimilating into dominant political institutions). Example: donations
Cohen's secondary marginalisation (members of of a historically disadvantaged groups police and regulate the meaning of the group's identity)
Yes, desirable way to exclude
Those who oppress (those who refuse to acknowledge and respect the political equality of certain citizens, such as those who belong to certain racial groups
Cautionary note: A democratic ethis should avoid as much as possible the risks associated with marginalisation (1- marginalisation can undermine the rule of law and contribute to illegal government violence, especially when anti-democratic forces are strong and inclined to use extensive violence; 2- marginalisation can create "a surplus of victimseven beyond those who may be the legitimate targets of political and legal action. It leaves a durable legacy of bitterness and antagonism among the guilty and the innocent"
Those who maintain oppression due to their historically privileged status
Oppression pronciple
Political : targets those forms of oppression that significantly violate political equality, and thereby weaken the legitimacy of democratic institutions
Well-informed democratic citizens should be able to prefer candidates or representatives who advance political equality at the exense of those who significantly violate political equality and thereby weaken the legitimacy of democratic institutions.
Not only to reinforce inclusion
Inclusion contains some costs
Inclusion of a disadvantaged group can play against that very group (ex. the use of inclusion argument by California's court to dismiss the fundamental concerns of a latino community)
The political inclusion of of some groups can undermine the adequate representation of other groups.
Inclusion can favour instrumental political bargaining at the expense of transformative politics
Develop citizens' critical conciousness and the oppositional civil society needed for a transformative politics.
Kant's Principle of Right: when coercion impedes coercive force
Rawlsian's standard of reasonableness: exculde the unreasonable from deliberations
Ethics of marginalisation is needed
To be in a position to appreciate how the political inclusion of some groups can undermine the adequate representation of others )eg.., KKK and blacks)
Allows us to ask: what is the proper way to treat those representatives who seek to dominate and oppress others?
It is particularly important when democratic politics is a zero-sum game (when gains for some citizens can only be achieved at the expense of other citizens)