We have noted so far that politics guided by deliberative tenets represents the most faithful practical embodiment of solidarity, as preferences under this framework must be justified to a socially interconnected constituency in order to count as legitimate. We also noted that if deliberative behaviour is to stand any chance of becoming patterned under conditions of inequality and disrespect, democratic practice requires the incorporation of group entitlements, as the institutional presence they guarantee for the disadvantaged motivates others to take their claims seriously.

This, however, remains an incomplete picture as far as the institutionalisation of solidarity is concerned, as it still leaves untouched the issue of how such reforms can be promoted when those small in numbers and strength must mobilise from a starting point of democratic marginalisation. To turn to deliberative theory for answers is to risk descending into the circular logic outlined in Chapter 2, as deliberation under conditions of inequality and disrespect can replicate the status quo, rather than bring about the reforms necessary for an expansion of relations of mutual responsibility. Put differently, we may know what reforms are required to deepen democracy and cultivate mutual answerability. But the presence of injustices means we cannot rely on democratic channels to implement these reforms, as the powerful will be in a structural position to withstand political pressure for change that threatens their status of privilege.

This chapter explores how actors in positions of strength can be influenced to adopt proposals that move society in the direction of solidarity by actors in positions of weakness. It is argued that democratic channels can be plausible routes for the disruption of circuits of domination, but that they require a combination of external influence and strategic action in order to be effective.

Strategic action, in the context intended here, refers to behaviour guided by a cost-benefit calculation, which, ideally, brings those in power to perceive intransigence on demands for reform as costly and responsiveness as beneficial. External influence refers to the involvement of parties beyond the nation-state where the struggle for reform is ensuing, which, owing to their superior material and discursive capabilities, have the capacity to amplify pressure for just institutional change already coming from within.