This paper critically examines the contested relationship between scientific authority and democratic legitimacy-two foundational pillars of contemporary governance whose normative underpinnings and institutional logics often stand in tension. Whereas science is grounded in methodological rigour, empirical validation, and claims to universality, democratic systems are premised on inclusivity, deliberation, and the contestation of values and interests. Drawing on science and technology studies, democratic theory, and epistemic governance, this paper addresses how to reconcile the asymmetrical epistemic capacities of scientific experts with the normative imperative of citizen participation in democratic decision-making. Employing qualitative methods, including content and thematic analysis of key academic literature published between 2004 and 2024, the paper maps the conceptual terrain of the science-democracy nexus. The findings suggest that, while scientific expertise remains indispensable to effective governance, its institutional integration frequently creates a technocratic deficit, resulting in limited deliberative engagement from the public, thereby undermining democratic legitimacy. The paper hypothesises that innovative participatory mechanisms offer a promising pathway towards reconciliation; however, empirical evidence indicates that such models remain largely underdeveloped and inconsistently implemented. By analysing contemporary configurations of expertise within democratic institutions, this paper proposes a conceptual framework for reconfiguring the division of epistemic labour. It argues that cultivating epistemic pluralism and institutional reflexivity is vital not only for enhancing the quality and legitimacy of policy outcomes but also for rebuilding public trust in both scientific and democratic processes. The paper concludes that democratic resilience in the face of complex, multi-dimensional challenges necessitates institutional innovations that actively bridge the epistemic divide between expert authority and participatory governance. The results offer clear guidance for policymakers and meaningfully advance discussions on expertise and public participation in democratic governance.
Patrick Agyare (Mon,) studied this question.