Dr. Alexandra Oprea spoke to Davidson students on Thursday. Photo from the University at Buffalo.
Should we value justice or democracy first? While intuition may guide us toward the former, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at University of Buffalo Dr. Alexandra Oprea argues that both logic and experience suggest we should put greater weight on preserving democracy, even at the expense of justice.
On Thursday, April 10, Davidson’s Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) department invited Oprea to speak about the ways we can become good democratic citizens. Her lecture challenged attendees to reconsider conventional conceptions of a “good” citizen, instead proposing her own framework: the minimal standard of democratic competence.
Oprea is currently an assistant professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University at Buffalo, where she teaches political philosophy from an interdisciplinary lens. She earned both her bachelor’s and PhD in political science from Duke University. A prolific scholar, her articles have appeared in journals such as the American Political Science Review, British Journal of Political Science and The Philosophical Quarterly.
Drawing from her personal experience, Oprea began her lecture by recounting her upbringing in post-communist Romania, having been born shortly after the 1989 revolution, a period of violent, civil unrest that overthrew the communist regime. She witnessed firsthand the challenges a country faces in transitioning to a democracy. When she later came to America, these experiences prompted a deeper question: how can a country founded on democratic ideals ensure the long-term survival of its democratic system?
In trying to answer this question, Oprea explored two kinds of citizenship. “When I think about citizenship and civic virtue, I think about the people who are extraordinary, who are willing to risk their lives to do something incredible. Then, I think about all the other citizens who are just willing to be good citizens when given the opportunity.”
The latter group, she argues, is more important to consider because it applies to the common citizen, often disinterested in politics but still engaged in civil society. There is only one thing she expects this citizen to do: act in a way that “prioritizes the continuation of democratic systems.” This conduct constitutes the minimal standard of democratic competence.
This standard challenges the conventional beliefs that a good democratic citizen is either the most civically engaged or informed about all policy issues. She argues her standard is more realistic and inclusive of diverse beliefs–positing democracy as the most preferable form of government, and therefore the greatest priority for citizens.
The primary obligation of this standard comes in the ballot box when the public votes for its representatives. Even if the candidate’s policy promises their favorite policies, Oprea says if that candidate threatens democracy, then the citizens must vote against them.
“Let’s say for example that we have an anti-democratic candidate on the agenda that disrespects the rule of law, free speech, and constitutional term limits.,” Oprea said. “Then the good democratic citizen must vote against that candidate even if they offer their favorite policies.”
Oprea pinpointed an important threat to this obligation in an increasingly polarized political climate. With greater polarization, she argues that it has become more “economically costly” to forsake their policy interest and vote against the anti-democratic candidate. The voter faces a dilemma where if the anti-democratic have all the policies they support, then the other candidate will have more policies they vehemently disagree with. Therefore, citizens committed to democratic principles risk enduring a government whose policies sharply conflict with their interests.
To resolve this polarization and help sustain democracy, Oprea proposed a bottom-up solution where citizens associate more with each other in nonpolitical spaces to foster mutual connection and in turn reduce ideological divide. So, instead of the politically passionate activist who might worsen polarization, Oprea thinks democracy demands more disinterested citizens who act as “political neutrons.” These “political neutrons,” she explains, can create nonpartisan spaces, serving as “useful centers for people to gather around, connect through and participate in shared activities” in order to bridge the ideological divide.
Concluding her lecture, Oprea encouraged citizens to reflect: “Take seriously some other ways to help democracy, rather than just sitting around with people you agree with and pointing out that the other side is awful.”
When it came time for questions, students and faculty were eager to challenge every facet of her argument. From her premise that democracy is the best form of government to the feasibility of her metric, the audience was highly scrutinous of her lecture. Zeyad Elmasheiti ‘28, who attended the event, thought Oprea was astute in pointing out the dangers of political polarization but expressed skepticism toward her concept of “political neutrons.”
“I get where she’s coming from,” Elmasheiti said. “But I think not talking is the problem. I argue all the time with my friends who have different political beliefs, but that’s how we understand each other.”
Associate Professor of Philosophy Dr. Daniel Layman, who chairs Davidson’s PPE department, praised Oprea’s interdisciplinarity. “As a professor of political theory, she accordingly focused on democratic theory, but you can see the other social science disciplines of PPE within her research, like polling data and cost-benefit analyses. She used empirical evidence to support her deductive conclusions.”
Oprea’s lecture added a thoughtful perspective to the ongoing discourse at Davidson surrounding democratic values and civic responsibility. By drawing from both personal experience and interdisciplinary research, she introduced a framework that prompted students to reflect on the role of the average citizen in sustaining democracy.