I find that in groups I belong to, the element of democratic life that generates most controversy these days is the expectation that people leave home and screens behind to attend meetings. It seems to me that the people who see online simulations of meetings as more in keeping with democratic principles than “in-person meetings” (yes, they really use that redundant expression) think this way because they see equal voice as the quintessence of democracy.

That way of thinking is well-intentioned. Democratic politics depends on our identifying the moment or point at which people act as equals (we could call it the equality-point). If voices, abstracted from persons, were that equality-point, then the most democratic procedure would be the one that best equalized the opportunity for the voice of each to be heard, even if all that was heard was a digital mediation of each person’s voice. But this view is wrong. Voices aren’t equal: democratic practices are possible only if voices aren’t equal, because in a democratic assembly we cast our votes under the influence of the most persuasive voices.

The root of democratic life, the premise or origin of democratic practice, is ekklesia: a call or invitation. Our reception of a common invitation is the essential point at which democracy reflects our equality with one another. (How we come to know that equality is another matter.) Democracy means that the whole people hears a summons to participate in the community; all are called out from private concerns, from the privation of individualism and inaction, into common life. It is in the nature of an invitation that people might not respond in the same way, or might need to learn how to respond before they can respond, or might not be able to respond today but might be able to some other time.

Democracy is allowed to challenge us. Democracy is in fact a challenge to all of us.