Do the people truly rule in a representative democracy?

Authors Avatar

Democracy   means   'rule   by   the   people.'      Do   the   people   truly   rule   in   a

representative  democracy?

Abstract

This essay argues that the people cannot be seen to truly rule in a representative democracy in both a theoretical and practical sense. Starting with theoretical issues this essay discusses the concept of political representation as one that fails to extensively make present the views of those who are represented. The essay then goes on to analyse modern practical issues with representative democracy that arise from the diminshing power of the representative in comparison to non elected individuals in the political sphere. The essay goes on to conclude therefore that the people cannot be seen to truly rule in a representative democracy

Student number - 110118471

The issue of analysing the extent to which persons can be seen to rule is one that is difficult due to the fact that it is not something which is concretely observable . Key to attempting to answer this question however are three different issues which shall be examined in this essay. Firstly is the issue of whether the concept of representation itself can legitimately be understood as the rule of those who are represented. I plan to analyse this through discussion on how people vote, because this gives an insight into how people intend to be represented. The second issue is that of the frequency of election of the representative. The final issue is a practical one which is relevant in analysing the nature of representative democracy in the modern day. This is the declining power of the representative due to the rising power in unelected transnational bodies in society. I intend to start from the dictionary definition that to rule is “to exercise ultimate power or authority”. I also intend to define representation as the etymological definition which is “to make present again”, whilst defining the people as the whole population of a nation state.  From these definitions representative democracy cannot be seen as a system in which the people truly rule as the people themselves do not directly make decisions, nor are their opinions and needs consistently made present in the political sphere. These are issues that are exaggerated in the modern day with the impact that non elected bodies can have on government policy. Therefore,  as the whole population does not exercise ultimate power over the nation within which they live in a representative democracy, they cannot be seen to rule.

One of the key issues in determining the extent to which the people can be seen to rule in a representative democracy is whether the concept of political representation itself can accurately replicate the desires of those who are represented. To understand this it is important to understand how people vote for their representatives, as this gives an important insight into how people intend to be represented. One proponent of representative democracy, Edmund Burke, (1854, pp. 446–8.) justifies the representation of the masses by a select few by arguing that people vote in a judicial sense for their representative to be a judge of their needs. In opposition to this it could be argued that a representative cannot properly judge the individual needs of everyone they represent. However Burke counters this by stating that representative judges the public interest, which is only betrayed if “instead of serving you… he sacrifices to your opinion”.  Despite this notion, if we take this approach it is clear that in a representative democracy that the people do not rule as the representative is unanswerable to public demand. Unless the representative can judge the needs of those he represents correctly every time then the people cannot be seen to rule. Furthermore Burke’s statement that there is an objective public interest leads to paternalism where the people are not truly being represented, but rather being normatively represented in line with what they ought to want. In this scenario the people are clearly not ruling as their needs are being judged, not by what they want, but by what they should want.  This is a point which is raised by Pitkin (1967, p.189) who argues that “interests are the interests of someone who has a right to help define them”. Pitkin goes on to undermine Burke’s approach by stating that “no reliable elite group exists in society” and thus the representative cannot be seen to be an impartial judge. Therefore in Burke’s approach to representative democracy the people cannot be seen to rule.

Join now!

Whilst this Burkean approach to representation has limited value in showing that the people have actual power, there are other approaches which should be analysed. One approach is that of Manin, (in Urbinati, 2006, pp. 10/11) which argues that people vote based on how similar the candidate is to them. This states that “the elector evaluates the personal skill and qualities of the candidate in relation to…themselves”. This approach to representation could be used to show that the people do rule in a representative democracy as the selection of the representatives is based on inherent qualities not policies.  Consequently ...

This is a preview of the whole essay