A Defence of Mill`s Educational Argument in Favour of Democracy

In Considerations on Representative Government Mill argues that representative democracy is the best form of the state organisation for societies which fulfil necessary conditions for maintaining it. In favour of his thesis, Mill offers two arguments. One of them shows that rights and interests of citizens are best guaranteed when they are protected by citizens themselves. He uses the other (educational) argument to show that representative democracy is the best state organisation, since it offers greatest opportunities for citizen education. In this paper, I will defend only the educational argument in favour of (representative) democracy from Arneson`s criticism. Arneson tries to show that the main source of paternalism in Mill`s theory of government lies in the education of citizens as the main criteria for the good government. Arneson argues that non-democratic societies can equally well educate citizens as democratic societies, which shows that the main goal of Mill`s government is paternalistic. Also, Arneson argues that even if non-democratic societies couldn’t educate citizens equally well as democratic one, educating citizens cannot be the main government goal, since it decreases liberties which are guaranteed by harm principle. I will defend Mill`s main goal of government from both lines of Arneson`s argumentation.