Democracy has evolved over the last 300 years to give more people representation in decision-making. Excluded populations — including women, Catholics, ethnic minorities, and individuals without property — have gained political rights. There is an ongoing campaign to lower the voting age to 16. Many activists on climate justice believe we should go one step further, arguing that representation for future generations should be baked into our democratic institutions. But why end there?
A more radical proposal is to give the natural world, starting with non-human animals, a “voice” in our democracy.
It may seem fanciful but Trinity College Dublin philosopher Dr Pablo Magaña Fernández is determined to give the idea a fair hearing — and to persuade us in the process to become less anthropocentric.
Four proposals have been put forward by political theorists: First, reserving several seats in parliament for specific “representatives of animals”, such as members of an animal rights party. Second, changing the electoral system to allow such a group a greater say in parliament. Third, creating an ombudsman for animals — an independent office tasked with protecting and representing their interests. And fourth, staging deliberative initiatives, allowing citizens to reflect on issues that affect animals — the 2022 Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss could be seen as a model upon which to build.
“Conceptually speaking, I think, all these proposals make sense. The crucial question is practical: namely which of these proposals is likely to achieve the best combination of feasibility, success, durability, democratic legitimacy, and immunity from abuse and manipulation,” says Magaña Fernández, an Irish Research Council research fellow who is participating in a public lecture series on “Democracy at a Crossroads” this month.
He explains further as this week’s Unthinkable guest:
Why go beyond existing political institutions to protect animal welfare?
“We can improve animals’ wellbeing through the law — for example, by passing stricter animal welfare legislation or granting them legal personhood, perhaps even some fundamental rights. But only up to a point. If policymakers can, with little cost, disregard animals’ interests — who cannot, after all, vote them out of office — political decisions are likely to be biased in anthropocentric ways.
“When a political system is biased in these ways, the laws it creates will — to some extent — inherit such biases, thus constraining what judges or animal-focused legal advocacy groups can achieve through the law. The extra step of representing animals in policymaking seeks precisely to affect policymakers’ incentives — to make it, in short, costlier to disregard animals’ interests.”
Which animals should be represented?
“My view is that this is, and should be best left as an open question. I like to think about this by way of the following analogy: we can pass animal welfare laws even if we disagree about whether such protections should be extended, say, to invertebrates. Then, as we acquire higher-quality scientific evidence about which animals are conscious, whether they can suffer etc, we can suggest amendments, and subject them to public debate.
“I suggest we do the same with representation: we may disagree about the moral status of ants, spiders, or lobsters, but we largely agree about ‘higher mammals’, for instance. So we can start there, and leave the conversation open. Moreover, representing animals can only succeed if it’s practicable. If we don’t know enough about ants’ minds, or citizens do not care about them, it is highly unlikely that, here and now, any such proposal could be even slightly successful.”
Should XL Bully dogs have a ‘voice’?
“That’s a good — and hard — question. Similarly, one might wonder what to do with predators and prey — should they get ‘two voices’? As I see it, the main problem, right now, is that policymakers can quite easily ignore animal interests, even when these are deeply affected by the decisions they make ... In this sense, I do believe XL Bully dogs should receive ‘a fair hearing’ in politics, so to speak. Of course, that doesn’t tell us how to resolve the substantive issue. But, not even in the case of humans, does representation settle substantive questions. Public deliberation, discussion, and negotiation are indispensable. We simply don’t know of any other way to make publicly acceptable collective decisions. And, again, any proposal that ignores this, no matter how well it sounds on paper, will be impracticable.”
[ XL bully dogs: Is this the end for one of the most feared breeds in Ireland?Opens in new window ]
Are there any examples of these ideas being trialled internationally?
“Since 2020, Spain has a directorate-general of animal rights, which although limited in its power, has been instrumental in championing the new animal welfare law passed in 2023 — which, despite its flaws, remains an important improvement. In 2022, the United Kingdom created an animal sentience committee tasked with investigating the impact of policymaking on animal welfare, which is empowered to complain to — and request answers from — the secretary of state. And institutions for future generations have been tested, with different degrees of success, in Finland, New Zealand, Israel, Hungary and Wales. Because they have received larger empirical scrutiny, and since the challenges are similar — the unborn cannot vote either, we can also turn to them for advice and improvement.”
- Dr Pablo Magaña Fernández will participate in a public lecture on “The Moral Limits of Democracy” at TCD on October 10th