The first rule of democracy is to preserve democracy. It’s a turn of phrase that, contrary to the wisdom of a popular motion picture, demands that we talk about democracy; specifically, in ways that advance a constructively shared, non-partisan discussion.

Underpinning this ideal is a minimal standard for democratic competence, according to two UB philosophers.

Understanding what determines that level of competence would support clear priorities in the areas of civic education and institutional reform, according to Alexandra Oprea and Daniel Stephens, assistant professors of philosophy, College of Arts and Sciences, who have co-written a thought-provoking paper on the subject that was recently published in the journal Politics, Philosophy & Economics.

The minimal standard Oprea and Stephens outline is not a threshold voters should meet to guarantee their franchise; it’s a way of pointing voters toward the kinds of questions they should be asking about candidates ahead of an election cycle.

The authors say the first duty of a democratic citizen is voting in ways that keep their democracy a democracy. Their proposed standard is equally straightforward: A voter is considered democratically competent with respect to a given election provided that the voter knows how to vote for the candidates or policies that, if chosen, would not predictably bring about the end of the electoral democracy, and intends to vote in such a way.

Those two components must work in concert. A voter might be able to identify anti-democratic candidates, but the standard is effective only if that voter intends to avoid voting for those candidates. Oprea and Stephens see their minimal standard as a thoughtful instrument that can serve as one of the possible safeguards protecting democracy and democratic institutions.

“We’re thinking about what things should be top of mind as voters prepare to cast their ballots,” says Oprea, the paper’s corresponding author, who lectures in UB’s Philosophy, Politics and Economics program. “Our standard is something voters can use for themselves, their friends or social networks.

“We’re not talking about something that an institution or bureaucracy would exploit for partisan gain.”

The paper is part of a larger project by Oprea and Stephens that asks how to best participate as a citizen in a democracy. They look first at voting.

“How can you do the job of a democratic citizen well?” asks Stephens. 

He says that too many answers to the question rely on voters getting their desired policy outcomes. But the more fundamental necessity is keeping the democracy up and running.

“Policies can definitely be relevant to sustaining democracy, insofar as good policies promote prosperity and stability,” says Stephens. “But the causal story from most policies’ effect on democracy can be complex and difficult to trace. 

“Raising capital gains taxes might have some effect in preserving or undermining democracy, but it is far less clear than the effect of voting for people who say that, if elected, they’ll ignore the Constitution.”

Setting priorities for civic education that look beyond partisanship and teach instead how to care about democracy can help apply the minimal standard.

“So much of the current political moment is about which side is winning,” says Oprea. “But civics education, which has fallen in this country behind other subject areas, can provide lessons about understanding the constitution of a voter’s state; the U.S. Constitution and a candidate’s relationship to the document; knowing how a bill becomes law; and the limits of executive power.

“We always knew civics was something to care about, but polarization has made it harder for voters to focus on,” Oprea says.

Oprea and Stephens share a story at the conclusion of their paper about a meeting that followed the close of the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia. A passerby, Mrs. Powel, asked Benjamin Franklin if the founders had created a monarchy or a republic.

“A republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin replied.

The story might be apocryphal, but the fragility of democracy is a reality, according to the authors.

“This minimal standard of democratic competence can make the prospect of keeping our democracies intact a little less iffy,” they say.