My research engages with epistocracy, the notion that competent persons ought to enjoy exclusive or enhanced political power. I examine the influence of this idea on constitution-making in the United States, Britain and India. I then draw upon these case studies to develop a normative critique of epistocracy.
Alongside this project, I have also been working on how constitutions ought to regulate the relationship between political parties and legislative assemblies. For more on this subject, you can read my paper on the epistemic impact of strict party discipline for legislative deliberation available here. For the next phase of this research, I am working on party constitutions, and the grounds on which these could be regulated to facilitate their legislative role.
I am currently also thinking about states’ epistemic obligations towards asylum-seekers. In particular, I am interested in relatively ‘costless’ duties that Southern states ought to fulfil. This includes, among other things, the duty to offer resistance against norms that foster misrecognition of asylum-seekers.
The Indian Constituent Assembly: Deliberations on Democracy, ed. Udit Bhatia (London and New Delhi: Routledge, 2017)
Cracking the Whip: The Deliberative Costs of Strict Party Discipline, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, forthcoming (Available as OnlineFirst)
Between Regulation and Minority Educational Rights, Journal of Political Ideologies, forthcoming
Rethinking the Epistemic Case against Epistocracy, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, forthcoming (Available as OnlineFirst)
‘Precautions in a Democratic Experiment: The Nexus between Political Power and Competence’. In Constituent Assemblies, eds. Jon Elster, Roberto Gargarella, Vatsal Naresh and Bjorn Rasch. (Cambridge University Press, 2018)