In the last three chapters we have looked at how democracy can only function well if it manages to engender sufficient togetherness through establishing a shared mission, robust defence of mutual respect, and coherent membership arrangements among those who seek to govern themselves. In addition to these elements, for any group to steer itself democratically, its members must be able to discuss options and resolve differences with a high degree of objectivity. Without a common basis on which conflicting ideas can be explored and assessed, people will have no means of deciding what claims should be taken into account, or what demands are groundless. Between the autocracy imposed by some imperious know-it-all and the anarchy of perpetual disputes, democracy can offer a viable alternative, provided it operates with the objectivity that comes from collaborative learning, critical re-examination, and responsible communication. In this chapter, we will consider why collaborative learning is indispensable, what lessons should be learnt from past attempts to acquire reliable knowledge, and how the development of collaborative learning can be better supported.

Democratic objectivity and collaborative learning

When the arguments over whether or not there should be universal suffrage intensified in the middle of the 19th century, John Stuart Mill cautioned both sides about the need to build democracy on proper foundations. If rule by a few should not be risked because it could open the door to being controlled by fools and knaves, he observed, majoritarian rule could also be dangerous if public decisions were driven not by informed debates, but by rash or ignorant assessments. In his Considerations on Representative Government he maintained that while the vote should be extended to all adult men and women, there should be basic requirements to ensure that people had some rudimentary skills in digesting information presented to them before they were eligible to vote (Mill, 2008).

Mill's suggestion of testing people on the ability to read, write, and do simple arithmetic to determine if they should be admitted onto the electoral register drew criticisms from all quarters. The conservative-minded insisted that people needed much more than the basic skills Mill mentioned to be able to judge what they should vote for, and hence the franchise should be restricted to the minority who had the luxury to cultivate the necessary understanding.