The global debate on the future of democracy in the 21st century increasingly revolves around principles and values that regulate social and political life. This article compares three distinct perspectives:
- The Principled Democracy Project by Daniel Jabłoński.
- Ronald Dworkin’s philosophy, particularly from A Matter of Principle (1985).
- Jürgen Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy.
Principled Democracy – A Practical Model for Citizens
The Principled Democracy Project, outlined on demokracjapryncypialna.pl, proposes a radical reconstruction of the political system. Its most innovative feature is the fourfold division of power, where citizens join the legislative, executive, and judicial branches as a controlling and supervisory authority.
With the support of the Digital Democratic Application, citizens could:
- actively participate in legislative processes,
- vote on principles behind laws through social consultations,
- revoke mandates of representatives who fail to honor voters’ will,
- initiate and process civic projects,
- exercise a citizens’ veto against unjust laws.
This model is built on the conviction that principles and values must form the foundation of all political decisions. Its structure resembles blockchain technology – decentralized, orderly, and resistant to manipulation.
Ronald Dworkin – Principles as the Foundation of Law
Ronald Dworkin, one of the most influential legal philosophers of the 20th century, argued in A Matter of Principle (1985) that law is not only a set of rules but also a system grounded in moral principles.
According to Dworkin:
- Principles express fundamental rights and freedoms that take precedence over ordinary legal rules.
- Democracy is not limited to majority voting but must safeguard individual rights and shared values.
- A state under the rule of law should be viewed as an interpretive community, where decisions align with justice and equality.
From the standpoint of principled democracy, Dworkin strengthens the claim that political processes cannot rely solely on mechanical procedures. They must be anchored in values.
Jürgen Habermas – Deliberation and the Public Sphere
Jürgen Habermas, the German philosopher and sociologist, advanced the concept of deliberative democracy. In his vision, the strength of democracy lies in an active public sphere, where citizens engage in open debates as equals.
Habermas emphasized that:
- Representative democracy should evolve into a model where discussion and argumentation are the foundation of decision-making.
- Society needs free spaces for exchanging arguments, enabling consensus through rational deliberation.
- Without an active public sphere, the nation-state loses legitimacy, and democracy risks becoming merely performative.
Principled Democracy, Legal Philosophy, and the Public Sphere – Similarities and Differences
Principled Democracy, on the one hand, provides digital tools for direct citizen oversight and, therefore, frames principles as the basis of law and governance. Dworkin, on the other hand, highlights the role of legal principles in protecting justice and equality, especially beyond formal rules. Moreover, Habermas emphasizes communication, discourse, and, above all, the vitality of the public sphere.
In essence, what unites these approaches is the belief that values and principles are the core of democracy; in other words, they are not merely an accessory to procedures. However, their differences lie in focus: Jabłoński concentrates on practical mechanisms, whereas Dworkin focuses on legal philosophy, and meanwhile Habermas stresses public deliberation. As a result, although they share a common foundation, they diverge in emphasis and application.
Conclusion – Democracy Built on Principles
Principled democracy is not only a political project but also a conceptual bridge connecting Dworkin’s philosophy of law and Habermas’s deliberative theory. Each perspective highlights that without principles and values, democracy loses its meaning.
👉Real change comes only when shared values shape laws, institutions, and public debate rather than partisan interests. Citizens and officials must socially negotiate and consistently respect these principles. In this way, shared values give democracy a solid foundation, and decision-makers ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in public decisions.