Sparks and Ashes.

The conditions for liberal democracy – by any operational definition of that concept – include some minimum level of knowledge. We can assume everybody knows something about local matters. But total ignorance of non-local matters must make people incompetent to deliberate about those issues. If a majority of citizens know nothing about such problems, are they ready for non-local democracy? This question has been raised by scholars with reference to the pace of democracy in developing countries. But it is equally relevant for some developed countries where widespread ignorance is demonstrable. Some theorists argue that ‘democratic ignorance’ is not harmful because electoral democracies are actually run by well-informed elites. The problem with this model of elite politics is that ignorant citizens vote (even if their voting rate is lower),1 and are sampled in political polls. Elections and polls are used to legitimize both policies and rule by particular elites. Ignorance, therefore, has consequences. There is no democratic society where a majority of the electorate are completely ignorant about non-local matters. But large proportions of the population in some countries are uninformed to the point of ignorance. What is the minimum level of non-local knowledge which should be the goal of a democratic society? This abstract question has implications for education, for political citizenship, and for the evolution of democratic politics in developing and developed countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]