This introductory chapter examines arguments for and against adopting the All-Affected Principle (AAP) as a criterion for democratic inclusion, and the alternatives. For many, the attraction of the AAP lies in its straightforward simplicity: If you are affected by a collective decision, you should be able to influence it. Yet there remains sharp disagreement among scholars of democracy about how to best formulate the AAP and the circumstances in which it applies. Surveying the literature, we argue that appeals to the AAP will vary according to: (1) organizational scope; (2) decision-making context; (3) kinds of influence; (4) how influence is allocated; (5) the definition of “affectedness”; and (6) the stringency of any participatory requirements. Whether the AAP is consistent with existing arrangements, or requires a more radical redrawing of democratic boundaries, is a question on which opinions may differ significantly. We conclude by discussing the trade-offs between more versus less ambitious versions of the AAP, the implications for addressing pressing governance challenges, and the future of the democratic project more generally.

While it is common to speak of the crisis of democracy, we prefer to speak of the multiplicity of diabolical challenges that democracy now confronts. Challenges are diabolical when they have multiple dimensions and are potentially catastrophic, subtle, and interconnected. But crucially, there are clever operators who have figured out how to prosper in this environment. The challenges include a problematic political soundscape, right-wing populism, extremism, denial, and authoritarianism, all of which are the subjects of subsequent chapters. We sketch the beginnings of a deliberative response to these challenges, which puts citizens at the center, while recognizing the importance of attending to elites. A deliberative constraint can restrict what elite operators can do. We set out the essential elements of deliberative democracy and how we understand its practice, especially in deliberative systems and the public sphere.

I was working on the final version of this book in English when the great Chilean estallido of October 2019 erupted. Benjamin Vicuña Mackenna said: “Chile sleeps like a groundhog and wakes up like a lion.” For many years Chile was asleep; in mid-October 2019 it woke up.The possible drafting of a new constitution in Chile is only one of the demands of the October protest movement. The social and economic component of this proposal is still pending, and it may have an impact on the peaceful transition process. We should bear in mind that these constitutional moments are volatile and there can also emerge serious risks of instability that can precipitate a crisis of democracy. Democracies may be weakened and destroyed not only by generals but also by civilians. At this crucial constitutional moment Chile, and in other countries, needs to secure respect for democratic rules, recognize political differences, reject violence, and guarantee civil liberties for all. As we have seen throughout this book these rules and practices have long been a part of the best Chilean constitutional, democratic, liberal tradition and could provide solid ground for the construction of the new republic.