Book Review: Pluralism and Liberal Democracy

sity of the state (p. 3). Those assumptions and various other aspects of Klosko’s argument can be expected to provoke a lively debate among those concerned with developing a “fully adequate” theory of political obligation. Among the claims likely to prove contentious is Klosko’s suggestion that the notion of “reciprocal obligations” based on the principle of fairness can legitimately be understood to require religious seminary (Yeshivot) students in Israel to submit to mandatory military service. And although he acknowledges the problem, the relative sparseness of the empirical evidence he employs to support his assertions concerning the compatibility between his proposed MP theory, judicial decisions, and the beliefs/attitudes of actual citizens is also likely to generate criticism. In Political Obligations, Klosko seeks to do what many have argued cannot be done: namely, develop a “satisfactory” liberal theory of political obligation. He offers a sophisticated yet extremely accessible and engaging analysis of the difficulties associated with that task and the requirements for its successful completion. Whether his argument is persuasive will undoubtedly be a matter of debate. Nevertheless, his study represents a valuable, original, and eloquent contribution to the existing scholarship, one certain to attract widespread attention and stimulate new thinking about the character of political obligation in contemporary liberal democracies.