The Ideal of Self-Governance

Very short summary: In this essay, I characterize the ideal of self-governance and show why it is connected to the notion of polycentricity, and more specifically, democratic polycentricity. Self-governance is about ensuring that individual and social preferences are appropriately related. This cannot be systematically guaranteed through purely private (market relations) nor purely public (state coercion) institutional arrangements. The frontiers between the public and the private are constantly and unexpectedly moving, and polycentric governance is the best way to permit the required adjustment.

I’ve written recently about the surge of interest in the concept of polycentricity in contemporary liberal thought. Today, I want to embed this discussion within a broader intellectual context. More specifically, I shall argue that most recent developments in liberal thought are related to what I call the ideal of self-governance.

The ideal of self-governance is best expressed by the U.S. Constitution’s first three words, “We the people.” These words state that the ultimate justification of government is to serve its citizens. Similarly, the third article of the 1958 French Constitution states that “national sovereignty belongs to the People who exercise it by means of their representatives and by referendum.” Self-governance refers to this idea that, as free and equal individuals, we should be in control of our destiny. Either we make choices ourselves, or, if not possible or too complicated, we delegate this responsibility to representatives that are endowed with the task of pursuing our interests and abiding by our values when in office.

Attentive readers may have noticed that the title of this essay uses “ideal” rather than “idea” of self-governance. In our less-than-ideal societies, self-governance is never fully realized. For reasons I’ll develop below, it may just be impossible to achieve. In some cases, it may even be undesirable. However, the fact that an ideal cannot be achieved or should sometimes not be realized doesn’t imply that it is irrelevant and should be ignored. Considerations of feasibility and desirability are obviously relevant, especially in the political domain. That means that pursuing the ideal is not the only aim that matters. Nonetheless, insofar as we agree that realizing self-governance is feasible and doesn’t have adverse consequences, it is a relevant consideration to justify our political institutions and choices.

What distinguishes self-governance from other political ideals is that it is largely shared by otherwise very different moral and political stances. Indeed, even leaders whose decisions actually ...