Agonistic Democracy and the Civilising Virtues of Public Debate

Abstract

Politicians are more often lawyers than economists. The latter prefer to keep behind the scenes. They advise policy-makers rather than act for themselves. Probably this is not just modesty. Secretly the adviser of the prince cherishes the ambition to exercise more power or influence than those who decorate the public scene themselves, and this is even true for free-marketeers rejecting almost all government intervention in economic life. This background position entails various advantages and drawbacks. The adviser is not permanently in the picture. He does not have to face the critical questions and comments of the press as frequently as the politician does, but neither does he enjoy the applause of the larger public. If it comes at all, it will be destined for the politician. The man or the woman behind the policy-maker will at most get a discrete tap on the shoulder for his well-documented file. That should do. I heartily agree that the economists of CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) have merited their tap on the shoulder. They have done an excellent job. But will they be heard? Is it useful for the general public to be able to learn approximately the cost of political options and electoral programmes? I will argue that after all it does make sense, but before coming to that conclusion, I will show that this is less evident than it seems at first sight. As the reader probably expects from a philosopher, I will raise other than just pragmatic arguments.