Extending Democracy
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2021
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
The University of Pacific Law Review
Abstract
This article proposes a different rationale for corporate democracy, one that extends more broadly to all forms of employment. It is based on an equivalence, not an analogy. The equivalence is that subordination feels essentially the same to an individual whether a public or a private entity is carrying it out. As recognized in the public arena, it undermines people’s dignity and autonomy, and at least threatens—and often produces—actual oppression. Based on this equivalence, this article proposes a different argument for corporate democracy. Proponents of democracy in the public sphere believe that the citizens of a nation should control its government. For the same reason, it can be argued that those who work for a living should control the institutions for which they work. Thus, the norms of democracy, when translated into the economic realm, yield the principle that no person should work for their livelihood on terms established by another person. This can be called the principle of popular economic sovereignty.
The operational argument that can instantiate this assertion of equivalence between the state and the corporation is etiological. Both institutions, in their modern form, developed from Medieval corporativist thought. They are conceived as juridical persons, entities that are capable of independent action. As such, they have an equivalent capacity to dominate and oppress the individuals that they control. The way to provide these individuals with a sense of autonomy and protect them from oppression is to constitute them as a separate juridical entity that is authorized to control the state or the corporation, either directly or—in cases where the state or corporation is large—through chosen representatives.
Description
article published in a law review
Keywords
corporate governance, economic sovereignty, worker democracy
Citation
53 University of Pacific Law Review 39 (2021)