Accountability Debates: The Federalists, The Anti-Federalists, and Democratic Deficits

Abstract

Motivated by an interest in contemporary debates over global governance, this essay examines competing visions of accountability expressed in the U.S. ratification debates. Whereas the Federalists believed accountability and good governance would be best realized if citizens are kept at a distance from government, the Anti-Federalists believed republican accountability depends upon the active participation of diverse citizens, a type of participation that is undermined when government grows distant. These different perspectives challenge conventional oppositions between concentrated power and democratic legitimacy and between popular participation and effective government. They also illustrate how republican forms of accountability can serve conflicting agendas. Drawing from these debates can help clarify challenges faced today by those seeking to create global governance institutions that are both effective and legitimate.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.