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 the representative cannot let those that they are representing down as qualities are deemed here to be inherent, and so unlike policies, will not change. Therefore to quote Pitkin (1967, p.39) “anything done after the right kind of authorization and within its limits” is seen to be representative of the will of the people. However, the disregard for rational voting in this approach is detrimental to its utility. To assume that the electorate vote on their representatives qualities would mean that the same result would occur every time two candidates ran against each other. This seems an irrational assumption, logically if one candidate changed their policies it would be reasonable to assume a change in support would follow. This is a point reinforced by Harrop and Miller (1987, p.145) who correctly argue that individuals vote on a rational basis on individual issues which they feel will benefit them most. This approach to voting further intensifies the point that representative democracy cannot be seen to represent the people as a whole. The reason for this is that a representative can be elected on the strength of individual policies such as being nationalist. In a representative democracy this then also gives them the mandate to pursue other policies as they please regardless of whether this reflects those they represent. For example a candidate may get elected for his nationalist approach, but then may use this power to pursue socialist economic goals. Therefore the people who vote in a rational sense for their own individual and specific benefits cannot be seen to rule in this approach either.
This issue of the freedom of the elected representative to act as they choose is one that has much scholarly debate. It is a point raised by Rousseau (1968, p.141) who argues that the people are “free only during election of members of parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved”.Whilst the counter argument could be raised to this that government’s are always concerned with what people think because they want to stay in power the next time there are elections, in reality it is commonplace for politicians to alter policies after being elected. Therefore to say that the people rule in such a system is incorrect. The people only rule in choosing who they want to rule them, as Schumpeter (1976, p.270) states representative democracy “means only that the people have the opportunity of accepting or refusing the men who are to rule them”. Therefore it is incorrect to claim that the people rule in a representative democracy as the only direct impact citizens have is in passing on legislative power to others. As Urbinati (2006, p.3) highlights “elections mean that popular sovereignty appears only at fixed and rare intervals”. I would go as far as arguing that representation is in fact a tool used to minimize political participation of the masses by forcing them to pass on their legislative powers to an executive elite. By giving the electorate the choice of who holds legislative powers it keeps the masses content with the idea that they are directly ruling.
The issue of access to the representative is one that also raises points that show in a representative democracy the people do not rule. This is particularly relevant to citizen participation as James Madison argues (in Verba, 1999, p.252), that representative democracy refines the views of the people by passing them through the selected few. The issue with representative democracy in this case is that if those selected hear only from some of the people, then the representative is likely to give increased time to them. One alternative to remedy this is the implementation of compulsory voting, however this is not a theoretical necessity of representative democracy, thus if compulsory voting is introduced without the consensus of the people then the people cannot be seen to be ruling.
As an alternative that could ensure that the people are better represented and thus seen to rule in representative democracy the point has been raised by Dovi (2002, pp.745-754) that descriptive representatives need to be selected based on their relationship to citizens. Therefore race, gender, and sexuality quotas amongst others will have to be met in the make up of the representatives. This approach does have credibility in ensuring that all voices in society are heard, which is not necessarily the case with elected representatives. However the problems with such an approach are that people don’t only belong to one characteristic group and the boundaries between groups can often be merged. This is highlighted by Young (1986, p.350) who illustrates this point using the example of a Latino representative who might inadvertently represent straight Latinos at the expense of gay and lesbian Latinos.
Whilst the theoretical issues with representative democracy as an approach which allows the people to rule have been highlighted, there are also some crucial modern practical issues. Whilst the rise of non governmental organizations and lobby groups amongst others can be seen to give the people more power by acting on behalf of different societal groups to influence public policy, crucially none of these actually have any constitutional powers. Similarly to counter impact these public based pressure groups there exists numerous transnational companies which crucially have the financial strength to alter government policy. In a representative democracy therefore, the people do not rule as private companies can be given special consideration in the formation of laws, this is the kind of access which is not open to the public. In contrast direct democracy would give power to the people by bypassing these organizations and allowing the people to decide policy. Therefore in a broader sense as the powers of nation-state have declined due to the rise of transnational actors, elected representatives no longer hold complete responsibility for deciding the public policies that directly impact the citizens who authorized them. Therefore if in modern representative democracies policies are not being decided by those who were authorized to decide them by the public, then the people cannot be seen to be ruling
Whilst this problem in a modern sense is crucial in undermining the ability of representative democracy to be seen as rule by the people, the issue of agenda setting is also of great significance. This is a point raised by the Centre For Women and Democracy (2011, p.3) who highlighted that in the UK in 2011 local elections “there were 318 wards – over 14% ‐ in which none of the main three parties stood a female candidate”. Therefore those wishing to be represented by a female in these constituencies were effectively ignored, hence the people cannot be seen to rule. This is what Bachrach and Baratz (1962, pp. 947-952) with their neo elitist approach see as the crucial non decision making which in the case of representative democracy is used as a tool to restrict the power of the masses. Policies such as a charge for candidates who don’t receive a certain amount of votes discourage those from outside the traditional party system from standing for election.
This issue of agenda setting is heightened by the unavoidable party system that arises from representative democracy. The effect the party system has on agenda setting is that it makes it easier because the power is generally in the hands of a few major groups who can dictate the nature of elections. Whilst it could be argued that a party system is unavoidable, in reality, there are always going to be individuals who agree in certain areas and disagree in certain areas and will use their similarities to their political advantage. Even in what is seen as the beacon of democracy of ancient Athens, Bonner (1961, pp. 45, 61) argues there were crude party organizations which allowed statesmen to ensure their majority. In the same way that parties set the agenda for the voter in who they vote for, they also set the agenda for the representative by forcing them to stick to party policy which is often influenced by individuals who are not elected. Therefore the strength that parties have in representative democracy is another factor that emphasises the argument that the people cannot be seen to rule.
As has been shown in this essay, representative democracy is an approach to government which in very few senses equates to rule by the people. The numerous theoretical issues with representative democracy are accentuated by the modern problems surrounding the declining power of the representative. Whilst typically democracy is seen as a form of government by the people, in the case of representative democracy this is clearly not the case.
Bibliography
Bachrach, P. & Baratz, S., “Two Faces of Power” The American Political Science Review, Volume 56, Issue 4 (Dec., 1962), pp. 947-952
Bonner, R.J., Aspects of Athenian Democracy, (New York: Russell & Russell, 1961)
Burke, E. The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. Volume I. (London: Henry G. Bohn. 1854)
Centre For Women and Democracy (May 2011), Representative Democracy? Women in the 2011 Local Government Elections in England [online] Available at: [Accessed 27.02.2012]
Dovi, S., “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Or Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?,” The American Political Science Review, Volume 96, Issue 4 (Dec., 2002) pp. 745–754
Harrop, M. and Miller, W.L., Elections and Voters. (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1987)
Pitkin, H.F., The Concept of Representation, (Berkeley: University of California, 1967)
Rousseau, J.J., The Social Contract on Principles of Political Right (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968)
Schumpeter, J.A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (London: Routledge, 1974)
Urbinati, N., Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006)
Verba, S., “Representative Democracy and Democratic Citizens: Philosophical and Empirical Understandings” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Lecture at Brasenose College, Oxford May 10 and 11, 1999) Available at [Accessed 27.02.2012]
Young, I. M.,. “Deferring Group Representation” in Nomos: Group Rights (New York: New York University Press, 1986).