Introduction: Deliberative democracy, West and East
Democracies today face turbulent times. Populism, polarization, and entrenched inequality threaten their foundations, while authoritarianism continues to rise—democracy has declined for 18 consecutive years. In this climate of division, democratic governments increasingly struggle to make decisions that are both legitimate and widely accepted.
In academic circles, many theorists promote deliberation as a remedy. The concept is straightforward: Democratic decisions are made more legitimate, intelligent, and socially stabilizing through the exchange of reasons among those affected. Its proponents argue that public deliberation among citizens is the essence of democratic legitimacy. Ideally, this process aims for consensus oriented toward the shared good.
This model contrasts with the prevailing aggregative model, which sees democracy as a competition among self-interested actors resolved by counting votes. The aggregative model arose in response to twentieth-century mass democracy in an increasingly pluralistic society. It holds that in an age of value pluralism and given the average citizen’s political disinterest, policy ignorance, and susceptibility to elite manipulation or coercion, participation should be limited to occasional voting for one leader or another cast by a subset of the electorate as part of a competitive struggle for power. As Joseph Schumpeter explains, democracy “does not and cannot mean that the people actually rule in any obvious sense of ‘people’ and ‘rule.’ Rather, it means only that people have the opportunity of accepting or refusing the men [sic] who are to rule them.”
Modernity rendered the classical republican model of democracy—with its focus on a search for a common good or general will of the people—less applicable. Instead, theorists shifted emphasis to aggregating individual preferences via interest groups and political parties, with periodic elections determining leadership. Most modern democracies reflect this aggregative or “realist” (power politics) model as their zeitgeist, while deliberative approaches remain largely theoretical or experimental.
Deliberation, by contrast, emphasizes shaping preferences through reasoned dialogue, offering a means to challenge power imbalances and elite control. Proponents of deliberative democracy believe that simply aggregating interests or securing a preponderance of power often fails to meet moral standards such as fairness, equality, inclusiveness, or truthfulness. They argue that the true source of democratic legitimacy lies in the collective engagement and judgment of the people.
Despite the complexity of modern society, democracies should not abandon the search for consensus on the common good. Instead, they should adopt deliberative measures aimed at restoring meaning, stability, and trust to the political process. Deliberation and accountability for one’s positions through reason-giving should replace exclusive reliance on voting and consent as the foundation of democratic legitimacy.
The Western tradition of deliberation spans from Aristotle and Mill to Rawls and Habermas. Yet, most discussions remain Western-centric.
This essay introduces an underappreciated Eastern example: the Buddhist sangha. Dating to the sixth century BCE, the sangha—Buddha’s monastic community—embodied principles of equality, participation, and public reasoning. In contrast to the hierarchical norms of its time, the sangha offered an inclusive, deliberative model of governance. This essay argues that Buddhist political thought, as embodied in the sangha, offers meaningful insights for revitalizing modern deliberation.
Such a revitalization, consistent with the Buddhist example, requires first and foremost a change of mind. In Buddhism, the law of karma states that all actions of body, speech, and mind are causes, and all experiences are their effects. Karma refers primarily to volition, specifically the mental intention that initiates any action. As the teachings put it: “All experience is preceded by mind, led by mind, made by mind.”
Our political world, likewise, is the effect of the collective karma of its citizens. Because karma originates in the mind, our mental intentions shape policy and institutional outcomes. As discussed below, Buddha and the sangha inculcated and honored the political principles of equality, nonharm, pragmatism, and the common good—principles that make deliberative governance possible.
Before one can practice equality, nonharm, or altruism through dialogue and policymaking, Buddhism maintains that individuals must first cultivate mental states that make such interactions conceivable, desirable, and attainable. Buddhist monks and nuns train their minds to develop the qualities that support deliberative governance.
These values or intentions are not in ascendance in many liberal democracies today. But they are not foreign to Western thought; they have simply fallen out of fashion. Modern democracies emphasize individual autonomy, economic competition, and political contestation often at the expense of social virtues like compassion, care, and collective concern. Yet this emphasis has not always prevailed. A return to what Adam Smith (yes, that Adam Smith) called “human-heartedness” and “beneficence”—the virtue of acting in another’s best interest through generosity and care—is still possible if there is the collective will.
The sangha as a model of deliberation
The Buddhist sangha was a democratic community with regular open assemblies where rules and policies were discussed and decided. Inspired by the republics of ancient India, Buddha established a community where monks and nuns participated equally in governance. The Vinaya, a monastic rulebook, was the sangha’s constitution, outlining principles for dialogue, voting, ethics, and duties.
The sangha admitted all, regardless of caste, tribe, status, or gender. Membership was based on free choice, not birth or kinship. Although nuns were subject to certain restrictions, after protracted debate with his cousin Ananda, Buddha conceded that the universal accessibility of enlightenment required the sangha be open to women as well as men. Though self-selected, the sangha was, by any measure and for its era, exceedingly diverse and inclusive. Buddha called it “the sangha of the four quarters,” meaning open to all.
Decisions were made by consensus or, failing that, by majority vote with quorum rules. Minority interests were acknowledged, and all parties were expected to explore mutually acceptable resolutions to disagreement. All members were equal; courtesy, not obedience, was expected toward seniors. Sangha governance was, in a word, democratic.
The sovereign assembly granted monks and nuns suffrage at 20, and executive and judicial functions were transparent and democratic. Assemblies were chaired by an elected member whose authority ended with the session. The sangha practiced self-government without a permanent central authority.
Motions were presented and debated repeatedly before adoption. When consensus couldn’t be reached, special procedures—like majority voting—were used.
Executive offices, such as the secretariat (Bihara), were filled through similar procedures. Office holders were accountable and subject to discipline for code violations.
The sangha’s constitution and detailed regulations codified the rule of law and its equal application. Though the original lawgiver, Buddha urged followers to amend his teachings, reflecting belief in rationality, adaptability, and responsive rule.
How closely have Buddhist sanghas followed this constitution model in practice? The answer is complex. Though the Vinaya has guided the sangha for millennia, practice has not always matched its democratic ideals. As a general matter, during Buddha’s lifetime and in many other cases since, some sanghas closely adhered to the Vinaya, while others did not.
This variation stems from each sangha’s autonomy in interpreting and applying the Vinaya’s foundational rules—a reflection of Buddhism’s fundamental principle of decentralized authority. It is essential to recognize that in Buddhism there is no central organizing institution or individual—no Vatican and no Pope. Over 2,500 years, across continents and cultures, and among tens of thousands of sanghas, Buddhist governance has varied substantially.
Lessons from the sangha for contemporary deliberation
The sangha’s existence speaks directly to critiques of deliberation. Opponents argue it is unrealistic due to human limitations, time constraints, and structural inequality. Some claim politics is inherently competitive and driven by power, not reason, or that voters lack the knowledge or motivation for deliberation making deliberative democracy an impossibility.
The sangha offers a compelling rebuttal. It shows that a diverse group can sustain deliberative governance for centuries. When supported by institutional structure and shared norms, ordinary people can engage meaningfully in public reasoning. The claim that deliberation is unrealistic or utopian is unpersuasive in light of the sangha’s example.
Equally important, the sangha reveals the sociopolitical conditions that allow deliberation to flourish—both historically and today. These conditions are rooted in the Buddha’s political principles as reflected in the sutras (the discourses) and the Vinaya:
1. Equality over hierarchy
The first political principle of Buddha’s teachings is the belief in the equality and dignity of all individuals. Buddha emphasized that all human beings possess inherent worth and the capacity for enlightenment, referred to as “Buddha nature” in some schools. In stark contrast to the prevailing Brahmin teachings of his time, he rejected the caste system and argued that virtues were distributed equally, not hierarchically, across society. Buddha stated: “Now since both dark and bright qualities, which are blamed and praised by the wise, are scattered indiscriminately among the four castes, the wise do not recognize the claim about the Brahmin caste being the highest … [anyone can] become emancipated … by virtue of dharma.”
2. Nonharm (compassion) over violence or coercion
The second foundational principle of Buddhist politics is nonharm (ahimsa). Because all individuals are intrinsically equal and capable of goodness—and because all experience suffering—each person deserves compassion and, at a minimum, should not be harmed by the state. This principle translates into a political ethic of nonviolence and protection of individual rights. A righteous ruler, according to Buddha, must adhere to ethical precepts: refraining from killing, stealing, lying, or exploiting others. More affirmatively, a successful leader must act with kindness, patience, generosity, and equanimity. In this way, compassion and equality form the ethical core of Buddhist social justice, while good government requires both moral and legal restraints on power.
3. Pragmatic problem-solving over ideological rigidity
The third element of Buddha’s political teachings is his pragmatic and nondoctrinaire approach to governance. Rather than overtly endorsing a particular form of government, Buddha, befriended and advised both republics and monarchies, implying that legitimacy derives less from structure than from virtue and intention.
Nonetheless, Buddha showed a clear preference for democratic and participatory governance, familiar to him from his republican background. In his teachings and practices, he supported citizen engagement, freedom of expression, deliberation, consultation, consensus-building, voting, and popular consent. He emphasized transparency through face-to-face meetings, the primacy of law, public debate, and limited government. These commitments are evident in the sutras’ endorsement of republican principles and in democratic structures encoded in the Vinaya. Buddha’s political thinking remains deeply relevant, aligning closely with liberal democratic ideals—especially in its emphasis on equal rights, protection against tyranny via equality before the law, and participatory deliberation.
4. The shared good over narrow self-interest
The fourth and most distinctive quality of Buddhist politics, in contrast to modern Western liberal democracy, is its emphasis on duties to others as much as rights for oneself. This principle flows from Buddha’s understanding of the interdependence of all things. Where Western systems emphasize procedural choice and individual freedom, Buddhism insists on ethical responsibility to others and the cultivation of virtue. Concern for others is not an abridgement of individual freedom but an opportunity to be free from excessive self-centeredness.
These duties extend beyond compliance with the law and include development of compassion, generosity, and patience. Fundamentally,Buddhist democracy teaches that individuals must not only avoid infringing on other’s freedoms but must also cultivate a sense of universal concern for all beings and the natural world.
Though this duty applies to everyone, institutions and leaders have a special obligation to model and promote these values, and policy should encourage their inculcation and practice. As Thich Nhat Hanh, a contemporary Buddhist writer and monk, observed in the US context: “We have the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast. I think we have to make a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast to counterbalance liberty. Liberty without responsibility is not real liberty.” In this way, Buddhist democracy goes beyond rules-based governance to cultivate an ethical society.
In social science terms, these four principles function as the independent variables explaining the sangha’s success as a deliberative democratic system. Deliberation is possible—with the support of the citizenry’s collective will, or karma.
However, that will appears absent in many Western democracies today, which prioritize inequality, polarization, violence, and self-interest over cooperation. These are not inevitable human failings but political and cultural choices, the karma of modern societies. The failure of deliberation reflects not a lack of human capacity but prevailing systems of value and power.
The problem of scale
The First Buddhist Council (c. 483 BCE), comprising over 500 members (similar in size to modern national legislatures such as the US Congress or the French National Assembly), operated as a deliberative body. Sponsored by King Ajatasatru, the First Council was held in present-day Rajgir and aimed to preserve Buddha’s teachings and monastic code. Senior monks recited and confirmed Buddha’s teachings and rules, which were compiled into the Tripitaka (the three baskets): the Vinaya (monastic rules), the sutras, and the Abhidhamma (higher teachings). This large, deliberative assembly challenges the assumption that deliberation is impractical.
While the overall size of the Buddhist community was much smaller than modern societies, the principles it embraced—decentralization, mutual recognition, and shared norms—can support deliberation in large, diverse polities. The sangha’s authority was highly decentralized. No permanent central government monopolized power or claimed jurisdiction over other sanghas. Instead, individual sanghas coordinated through shared practices and adherence to common norms and vows. Modern federations could emulate this model by promoting local assemblies grounded in shared democratic values. Deliberation at scale is achievable if the four Buddhist political principles noted earlier (equality, compassion, pragmatism, and altruism) are reintegrated into political life.
Conclusion
The democratic sangha institutionalized the Buddha’s dharma (teachings)—impermanence, interdependence, and equality—within a worldly polity. It promoted personal virtue, compassion, and self-governance through peaceful, participatory deliberation.
In today’s crisis of democracy, this case offers both inspiration and instruction. It demonstrates the feasibility of deliberation and provides practical insights for making governance more inclusive, ethical, and effective through measures for finding consensus, strengthening legislative institutions, and scaling deliberation through decentralization.
Recall, however, that in Buddhism society reflects the mental qualities of the individuals who constitute it. Political development begins with individual consciousness: The political system is an expression of its people’s collective mentality (karma). Deliberative, inclusive, and compassionate governance requires citizens who embody those same qualities. Therefore, the path forward involves both personal cultivation and the creation of social and political environments and institutions that support human flourishing—circumstances that Buddhism refers to as “conducive conditions.”
Buddhism does not present its political philosophy as a fixed doctrine but as a means to an end: the awakening of wisdom, compassion, and well-being. The sangha offers not just theoretical insight but lived confirmation that deliberative democracy is possible when supported by the right dispositions, practices, and institutional structures. This model invites modern societies to reimagine democracy—not merely as a procedural mechanism for aggregating preferences, but as a shared ethical project rooted in mutual understanding and collective awakening.