Our goal is to develop a vision of a system of democratic institutions and social practices that enable complex societies to cope with the largest possible number of problems identified; a system that is as broadly acceptable as possible.
The task is to coordinate collaborative efforts that start from work on problem-innovation pairs done by individuals or small teams. Since both the framing of a particular problem and the design of democratic innovations that happen in such work will be determined by the normative, theoretical, and ideological frameworks of those who approach a particular problem-innovation pair, deliberation in the PoDS network will be crucial to transform particular results into something that is more broadly acceptable.
Deliberation will also be necessary to take the proposals for innovations that address particular problems to form an overarching system of democratic institutions and social practices that address as many of the identified problems as possible. We envision the process leading to new problems that will also need to be addressed. For example, suggestions to counter misinformation by controlling communication will inevitably lead to questions regarding how to reconcile freedom of expression with the need to defend democracy.
Our Approach
To succeed, the PoDS Network needs to face the challenge of collaborating across a large variety of theoretical, normative, and ideological frameworks. Since many of these are contested, we need to develop methods that enable the PoDS Network to cope with framing conflicts. Without those methods, large-scale research collaboration will not be possible.
PoDS is committed to rejecting the most convenient method to cope with framing conflicts: the exclusion of those who disagree with us. When it comes to envisioning an improved system of democratic governance, collaboration must be as inclusive as possible. This includes efforts to bridge deep divisions in political philosophy and theory such as the cleavage between liberalism and post-liberalism. If we cannot do that, we will hardly be able to address conflicts and polarization in society. We need to learn how to bring a large variety of perspectives, commitments, and approaches into productive dialogue. The academic effort itself needs to become more collaborative and self-reflective. How can we make knowledge production more inclusive across disciplines, regions, methodologies, and ideological commitments? What kinds of methods or infrastructures could sustain a truly democratic science of democracy?
Success, however, cannot be achieved if we include in the deliberations those who are mainly interested in undermining the effort. There must be limits to inclusion. Participation in the PoDS Network requires one commitment: to reject what we call “political supremacy”—a form of governance in which one part of society maintains a systemic and enduring power advantage over other parts, whether it represents a majority or not.[1]
Why do we focus on problems rather than theories of democracy? Given the competition between liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, and other theoretical frameworks, we are concerned that a focus on theories will only intensify the fight for ideological supremacy where each tries to frame all issues in terms of their preferred theory, thus limiting the appeal of PoDS to other researchers. Focusing on problems instead will motivate, we hope, a problem-solving attitude. The question will not be who wins a debate, but which epistemic, theoretical, and normative resources can everybody bring to a collaborative effort to cope with a particular problem. A problem can serve as a focal point from which we can develop—and argue for—those principles, theories, and normative frameworks that are needed to cope with the problem.
[1] We use “political supremacy” instead of better-known concepts such as autocracy, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism because these are defined in different ways. While we hope that what emerges from PoDS includes a way to better engage with political supremacists, this can only come after the tasks laid out here.