Why Democracy Matters: Intrinsic and Instrumental Justifications

Most people accept that democracy is a good system of government, but few stop to ask why. Is democracy valuable because of what it produces, such as stability, growth, and accountable leaders? Or is there something good about it regardless of the results it delivers? Political theorists answer this question in two broad ways. They argue that democracy has intrinsic value, meaning it is worthwhile in itself, and instrumental value, meaning it is worthwhile for the good outcomes it tends to bring about. Understanding both justifications helps explain why democracy continues to be defended even when it produces slow decisions, messy compromises, or governments people dislike.

Two ways of valuing democracy
The intrinsic justification: democracy as fairness and equality
Political equality at the core
Affirming individual agency
The instrumental justification: democracy for its good effects
Fostering political competition
Minimising the abuse of power
Promoting human development and responsibility
Majority rule and the moral case for democracy
Why majority rule is considered fair
The limits of majority rule
How the two justifications work together

Two ways of valuing democracy

When we say something has value, we can mean two different things. A medicine has instrumental value because it cures disease, not because the pill itself is pleasant. Friendship, by contrast, has intrinsic value: we cherish it for its own sake, not only for what it gets us. Democracy is unusual because thinkers defend it on both grounds at once.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy draws this exact line. Those who defend democracy purely on instrumental grounds argue that the democratic process should be judged only by the quality of decisions it produces. A classical utilitarian, for instance, cares only about maximising overall welfare and has no separate place for the fairness or equality built into the voting process itself. Intrinsic defenders disagree. They hold that democracy embodies values like fairness, equality, and liberty that matter even before we look at outcomes. Most real-world defences of democracy combine the two, and the two justifications often reinforce each other.

The intrinsic justification: democracy as fairness and equality

The intrinsic case rests on a simple but powerful idea. Decisions made by a government shape nearly every aspect of people’s lives, from taxes and schooling to who can marry whom. If those decisions affect everyone, then everyone has an equal claim to a say in making them. Democracy is the only system that takes this claim of equal standing seriously.

Political equality at the core

At its heart, democracy treats citizens as political equals. No one’s vote counts for more because they are richer, more educated, or born into a higher social position. This is why the principle of one person, one vote is so central. It is not just a counting rule; it is a statement that every citizen has equal worth in deciding how they will be governed.

India’s adoption of universal adult franchise illustrates the intrinsic argument vividly. Article 326 of the Constitution gave every adult citizen the right to vote regardless of caste, religion, gender, wealth, or education. A poor farmer and a wealthy industrialist cast exactly one vote each, and each vote carries identical value. What makes this remarkable is the timing. India embraced full adult suffrage in 1950, at a moment of widespread poverty and low literacy, while Britain achieved full universal suffrage only in 1928 and the United States guaranteed voting rights regardless of race only with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The decision was not justified mainly by predicting better policies. It was justified because treating citizens as equals was the right thing to do.

Affirming individual agency

The intrinsic value of democracy also lies in what it says about each individual. By giving people a vote and a voice, democracy affirms that they are agents capable of judging their own interests and shaping the rules they live under. Much of democracy’s intrinsic worth comes from this affirmation of agency, the recognition that the people who must obey the laws should also be the people who make them. Even if some other system somehow produced equally good policies, it would still deny citizens this standing.

The instrumental justification: democracy for its good effects

The second case is more practical. Whatever its inherent worth, democracy is also valued because it tends to produce better consequences than the alternatives. Three of these consequences are especially important: political competition, the prevention of power abuse, and human development.

Fostering political competition

In a democracy, multiple parties and candidates compete for office. This competition is valuable because it forces those in power to keep earning public support. Leaders who ignore citizens’ needs can be voted out, so they have a constant incentive to be responsive. Competition also discourages corruption, because rivals and a free press are watching for failures they can expose. In short, the threat of losing the next election keeps governments on their toes in a way that no permanent ruler ever has to worry about.

Minimising the abuse of power

Concentrated power tends to be abused. When authority rests with a single ruler or a small clique, there is little to stop them from acting in their own interest at the expense of everyone else. Democracy disperses power and ties it to periodic elections, checks and balances, and constitutional limits. Modern democratic governance relies on checks and balances, constitutional protections, and institutions that prevent the concentration of power, alongside competitive elections and peaceful transfers of authority. This is perhaps the most reliable instrumental benefit: democracy makes tyranny harder.

One of the most striking demonstrations comes from the economist Amartya Sen, who observed that severe famines have largely disappeared from independent India because a functioning democracy with a free press and competitive elections forces governments to respond to crises. A ruler who can be voted out and criticised in newspapers cannot afford to ignore mass starvation. This is the instrumental argument at its sharpest: democracy generates political incentives that protect ordinary people.

Promoting human development and responsibility

A further instrumental benefit concerns what democracy does to citizens themselves. The philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that participating in public life improves people. According to the interpretation of Mill’s view, taking part in collective decisions obliges citizens to weigh the needs of others and not just their own, which sharpens their judgement and strengthens their sense of public responsibility. Democracy, on this view, is a school for citizenship.

Amartya Sen develops a related idea in Development as Freedom. For Sen, democracy has both intrinsic and instrumental value, and democratic institutions promote public reasoning that lets citizens debate policies, challenge injustice, and shape collective decisions. He treats political freedom not merely as a means to economic growth but as a core part of development itself. Through open discussion, societies clarify what counts as a genuine need and decide which deprivations are worth fighting. This points to a “constructive” role for democracy as well: it helps form the very values and priorities a society pursues.

Majority rule and the moral case for democracy

If everyone is to count equally and decisions must still be made, how should a community settle disagreements? The usual answer is majority rule. The moral attraction of democracy lies partly in how it reaches decisions: it weighs everyone’s interests, then resolves disputes by counting heads rather than by force or inherited privilege.

Why majority rule is considered fair

Majority rule is not just convenient; theorists argue it is the uniquely fair way to decide between two options when people are equals. The mathematician Kenneth May showed that simple majority rule is the only decision rule that treats every voter identically and every alternative equally, without privileging anyone. Two of these properties are especially intuitive. Anonymity means it does not matter who casts a vote, only how many votes each side receives. Neutrality means no option gets a head start. Together they capture the idea of equal political standing in mathematical form. Majority rule, then, is best understood as a practical necessity that flows directly from treating citizens as equals.

The limits of majority rule

Yet majority rule cannot be unlimited. A majority can vote for unjust laws, and a permanent majority can oppress a permanent minority. This is the danger James Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville called the tyranny of the majority. The standard democratic answer is to pair majority rule with protected minority rights. As Democracy Web explains, no majority can claim permanent rule, because today’s minority must keep the rights it needs to compete and become tomorrow’s majority. In India this protection takes the form of fundamental rights that cannot be taken away by an ordinary vote, an independent judiciary, and a written Constitution. Majority rule decides ordinary questions; constitutional rights mark the boundaries it may not cross.

How the two justifications work together

It would be a mistake to treat the intrinsic and instrumental arguments as rivals. In practice they support one another. A system that treats citizens as equals (intrinsic) also tends to produce responsive, accountable government (instrumental), because leaders must answer to everyone rather than a favoured few. Likewise, the practice of participating in democratic life builds the civic responsibility that makes the whole system work better over time.

Sen captures this dual nature well. His case for democracy includes not only its inherent worth but also its instrumental role in mobilising information and pressuring governments to respect each person’s interests, as well as its constructive role in forming shared social purposes. The intrinsic argument tells us democracy is the fairest expression of human equality. The instrumental argument tells us it is also, on the whole, the most effective protector of human welfare. Few systems can claim to be both fair in principle and beneficial in practice, and that combination is the deepest reason democracy continues to be defended around the world.

What do you think? If a non-democratic system could somehow guarantee better economic outcomes than a democracy, would the intrinsic value of political equality still be reason enough to choose democracy? And where should the line fall between respecting the will of the majority and protecting the rights of a minority that loses every vote?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

Two ways of valuing democracy 🔗

The intrinsic justification: democracy as fairness and equality 🔗

Political equality at the core 🔗

Affirming individual agency 🔗

The instrumental justification: democracy for its good effects 🔗

Fostering political competition 🔗

Minimising the abuse of power 🔗

Promoting human development and responsibility 🔗

Majority rule and the moral case for democracy 🔗

Why majority rule is considered fair 🔗

The limits of majority rule 🔗

How the two justifications work together 🔗