A defense of specialized citizenship

What does it take to be a good democratic citizen? Many scholars emphasize that being a good citizen is difficult because there is so much citizens should know to participate responsibly in politics. These critics implicitly assume that citizens should aspire to be “omnicompetent citizens:” fully informed about the issues of the day, candidates’ stances on them, and relevant scientific knowledge. In this article, I advance an alternative, less demanding standard of good citizenship in which citizens focus their political concern on just a few issues, or even a single one. I defend this model of specialized citizenship from the objection that it licenses myopic and irresponsible decision making by citizens with two complementary arguments. The first draws from the work of Bernard Williams to demonstrate the ethical permissibility of citizens making decisions based on even single issues when they implicate citizens’ fundamental commitments. The second argument suggests that such seemingly blinkered decision-making may, when operating systemically, improve democratic decision making via a division of labor between citizens specializing in different issues. I conclude that there may be less of a tension between the demands of ordinary life and those of a flourishing democracy than previously thought.