Representation And Representative Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Representation is one of the more vexing, even mysterious, concepts in politics. How can a political system make present that which is not present? To many political thinkers it is an impossibility. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for one, simply believed that “the instant a people chooses representatives, it is no longer free; it no longer exists.” And, yet, the idea of providing a coherent understanding of representation is one of the central endeavors of modern thought and appears to be absolutely essential in our judgment of the legitimacy of modern, representative democracy. Indeed, without a proper appreciation of representation it is hard to see how any government can be considered a democracy. Of course, the idea of representation and the importance of someone or something standing for something else exists in the political practices of many types of regimes.

Representation: Two Dimensions

The concept of representation is a complex one; however, there are two fundamental ways in which we employ the idea. First, what is being represented—an individual, a district, or the nation itself? Thus, a president or monarch can stand for the nation, or a flag symbolize a country, and a U.S. senator represent a state. Second, representation is judged on whether it is authorized or it is typical. Thus, certain people are authorized to act on behalf of others—a lawyer is authorized to represent a client and a congressman legally represents constituents. In this way, someone or group of people consent to the representation. However, we can ask also if something or someone can be representative because it is typical of or has the same traits of some other group. For instance, we can ask if a legislature reflects the entire population with regard to race, ethnicity, or gender. Of course, it is an open question as to what characteristics should be regarded as needing representing when evaluating how representative something is. In the case of typical representation, the judgment is about institutions because we must ask what is typical of bodies and not individuals. Furthermore, this form of representation as typical may not require the consent or involvement of those who are represented.

The Representative: Delegate Or Trustee

It is often said that the ancients had no clear notion of representation, and the first major political theorist to wrestle directly with the idea was Thomas Hobbes. His thoughts on representation highlight many of the key ideas and problems associated with the concept ever since. If one person can represent another person, or group, what is the exact relationship between the representative and those he represents? What does the appointment of the representative entail—what is he or she authorized to do.The classic formulation is that representatives are either delegates or trustees. By delegate we mean someone who is delegated to present the political beliefs or ideas of the represented group. Whatever the representative’s personal belief is matters not; what is of prime importance is that the person should reflect the views of those being represented. The trustee model departs sharply from delegate mode. The most famous and eloquent proponent of the trustee model is that of Edmund Burke, who argued that representatives are chosen for their judgment and wisdom. Furthermore, Burke argued that in whatever body representatives gather (e.g., parliament, congress), deliberation must take place. Because that is the case, the collective reflections and considerations of that body must not be compromised by the parochial interests that may be well represented by the delegate model.

Yet, this simple dichotomy is only partially helpful. The task of a representative in the delegate model is severely constrained by the practical question of knowing what the constituents actual want. Is there any good way to know what it is that they believe? Do the constituents have all the facts, have they reflected on those facts, and can they even appreciate the collective deliberations undertaken in the hearings, committee meetings, and constant debate that occur in legislatures? Furthermore, even if one could know what the majority of one’s constituents believe, what of the minority? In what sense are they represented? Have they lost representation if the representative votes against their desires? Such questions seem to push us to some notion of representatives as trustees. After all, we know that the average citizen has only limited interest in and knowledge of the day-to-day world of politicians. If that is the case, whatever we may say is the correct understanding of representatives, they function as trustees at least some of the time.

Finally, as an empirical question, research has shown that representatives balance these two ideals in their actions. What then becomes of paramount importance is how representatives are held accountable for their actions—which would lead us to consider the issue of elections or the reappointment process however defined. Hence, from this perspective, representation is vital to our understanding of the health of political regimes and their overall legitimacy.

Representation And Misrepresentation

In considering this broader question of the health and legitimacy of the political system, representation directs us to think about what would be a good representation of the people and what would be misrepresentation of the constituents. In some sense, if the selection process is fair, then misrepresentation is impossible—the representative has the legal office and what that person does is binding, and constituents’ only recourse would be at the reappointment moment. Yet, to many, this seems wrong. There is the notion, at least in democracies, that the people are sovereign at all times. If that is the case then regardless of the time, whatever the actions of the representative may be, they are continually subject to the judgment of the people. For only the people have the authority to act. If this is so, the issue of accountability is paramount for representative democracy. Indeed, the failure of a representative to act correctly can be subject to continual evaluation, and, despite the recourse to elections, clear violations of the duty of the representative can lead to a recall or even, if need be, rebellious acts. In an increasingly complex and diverse world, the quality and opportunity for input from the citizens is vital. The effort to find new and effective ways to enlist voting and participation is essential in making democracy work. Thus, in recent years, various political entities (e.g., states, localities) have experimented with voting through the mail or via the Internet. If these ways are not successful, Rousseau’s original challenge to the very idea of representation will stand as an indictment of modern democracy.

Bibliography:

Manin, Bernard. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Pitkin, Hannah. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.
Schwartz, Nancy. The Blue Guitar: Political Representation and the Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Wood, Gordon. Representation in the American Revolution. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008.

This example Representation And Representative Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.