Abstract

Democracy is usually seen as the regime of political equality. But there are many differences about the content of this equality and the reasons that can be invoked to justify it. Two types of arguments seem to be opposed on this point. One can consider, as R. Dahl for example, that political equality is required so that the election of the leaders can appear legitimate and not disputed. The argument is then procedural. One can also consider, as T. Nagel for example, that this justification is insufficient because it is external to the democratic idea, and that if this implies that all have the same political status, it is because democracy is the general system of equality, and political equality is its first form. The argument is then substantial. The aim of this article is twofold. First, I try to understand why the defenders of a substantial conception of democracy blame those who define it in procedural terms. Next, I try to understand the reason why the procedural justification of political equality could be irrelevant, and must be completed by substantial arguments.