Democracy is about collective self-rule under conditions that afford everyone political standing and consideration in matters of common concern. But in today’s globalized world, democratic states must respond to a growing number of demands for inclusion from beyond their borders, on issues ranging from migration, to trade, to human rights and the environment. Under these conditions, there is an urgent need for a principled means of determining who is entitled to inclusion, and on what basis. Defenders of the All-Affected Principle claim that inclusions should track the impacts that decisions can have on people’s lives. Defenders of the All-Subjected Principle adopt a similar strategy but use a narrower threshold for inclusion. My argument is that neither principle entirely satisfies. The problem is that both principles are too backwards looking. I offer an alternative formula for democratic inclusion that captures the underlying wrong to which complaints about undemocratic exclusion are seeking to draw our attention. One complaint is about domination: being exposed to the arbitrary and one-sided power of others. Another complaint is about usurpation: having your judgement displaced, without your consent. Using these two complaints as a guide does a much better job explaining when inclusion is justified and the appropriate institutional response.

This introductory chapter examines arguments for and against adopting the All-Affected Principle (AAP) as a criterion for democratic inclusion, and the alternatives. For many, the attraction of the AAP lies in its straightforward simplicity: If you are affected by a collective decision, you should be able to influence it. Yet there remains sharp disagreement among scholars of democracy about how to best formulate the AAP and the circumstances in which it applies. Surveying the literature, we argue that appeals to the AAP will vary according to: (1) organizational scope; (2) decision-making context; (3) kinds of influence; (4) how influence is allocated; (5) the definition of “affectedness”; and (6) the stringency of any participatory requirements. Whether the AAP is consistent with existing arrangements, or requires a more radical redrawing of democratic boundaries, is a question on which opinions may differ significantly. We conclude by discussing the trade-offs between more versus less ambitious versions of the AAP, the implications for addressing pressing governance challenges, and the future of the democratic project more generally.