REPRESENTATION Matt Bennett mpb74@cam.ac.uk drmattbennett.weebly.com democracy REPRESENTATION Matt Bennett mpb74@cam.ac.uk drmattbennett.weebly.com

Self-rule and justification FORMS OF POPULAR SELF-RULE WAYS OF JUSTIFYING DEMOCRACY The Demos participates in political decision-making Non-instrumental: democratic decision procedures are intrinsically valuable Political decisions reflect the will of the Demos Instrumental: democratic procedures produce valuable decisions

FORMS OF POPULAR SELF-RULE FORMS OF REPRESENTATION The Demos participates in political decision-making Representatives are our delegates Political decisions reflect the will of the Demos Representatives are our trustees

Delegates “Representatives-as-delegates” are a solution to the problem of scale and complexity A political delegate acts as the voice of citizens when they cannot participate directly in deliberation and decisions Classical example: the Federalist Papers James Madison: a Republic solves the problem of scale by “delegation of government…to a small number of citizens by the rest” (Federalist paper no.10).

Trustees “Representatives-as-trustees” are a solution to the problem of voter incompetence A trustee is granted the responsibility of delivering good and/or just policy and law Classical example: Edmund Burke’s Speech to the Electors of Bristol

Representatives and Interests Representatives act ”in the interest” of citizens. But this is ambiguous That which is in my interest is that which is objectively good for me What I want and what is in my interest may diverge A person is not always the best judge of what is in their interest Reps in this regard are trustees That which is in my interest is that which I consciously value What I want is ipso facto what is in my interest Consulting a person is at least a good indicator of what is in their interest Reps in this regard are delegates

Authorisation theories Representatives are appointed by citizens as public officials instructed to fulfil some specific task stipulated by the citizens Reps makes decisions with normative consequences for those represented Rep’s actions and decisions cannot be ascribed to the citizens, while the normative consequences of those actions can (From Hanna Pitkin’s The Concept of Representation)

Authorisation theories Representatives are appointed by citizens as public officials instructed to fulfil some specific task stipulated by the citizens Reps are required to: have at least a minimal understanding of the normative consequences of their decisions use this power to fulfil the authorised task (From Hanna Pitkin’s The Concept of Representation)

Problems with authorisation theories Any appointed public worker comes under this description Where is accountability? The duties in the relationship between representative and represented are heavily weighted against the latter

Accountability theories A person/institution represents others iff those others are able to hold the actions of that person/institution to account What are elections for? Authorisation theory: granting power to our representatives Accountability theory: the chance to take that power away Problem: if citizens are apathetic, representatives can do what they want and still count as representative

Symbolism Symbolising: making present that which would otherwise be absent Symbols elicit affective response similar to the symbolised This requires uptake from observers Political representation of this kind requires uptake from those who are represented

Symbolising and Representing Symbols represent one thing and symbolise another Consider the fish symbol in Christian iconography Fish = ichthys Ichthys is an acronym, ΙΧΘΥΣ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ" “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour”

Descriptive Political Representation John Adams: a representative body “should be an exact portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should think, feel, reason and act like them” (letter to John Penn, 1776) Ilhan Omar Rashida Tlaib Hilary Clinton

Problems with theories of representation Authorisation theory – fails because the power is in the hands of the rep, and they can do whatever they want! Accountability theory – fails because there are no particular actions that must be done by a rep, just whichever actions would get them elected/re-elected Symbolism or descriptive theory – tells us what has to be true of someone’s background or political ideology for them to be sufficiently representative. But doesn’t tell us what that person needs to do in politics A theory of representation must specify norms for action

Pitkin’s theory of representation Representatives must “act in the interest of the represented, in a manner that is responsive to them” This requires: Representatives using their own discretion and judgement – their actions must be their own Those represented understood to be capable of their own judgement The potential for conflict between the judgement of representatives and represented Representative endeavours to avoid conflict, explain it when it occurs Conflict is not frequent or normal

Electoral systems – First Past the Post First Past the Post (e.g. UK General Elections) One representative per constituency Voters cast a single vote for an individual candidate Candidate with a simple majority is elected as representative

Electoral System – Proportional Representation Proportional Representation (e.g. Dutch General Elections) Constituencies have multiple representatives Voters cast a single vote for a political party. Parties have a number of candidates for the constituency. These candidates are sometimes known to voters (open-list PR) and sometimes not (closed-list PR) Each party is granted the number of representative seats for the constituency proportional to the vote for that party within that constituency (If 10 seats in a constituency are available, and a party receives 40% of the votes, that party gets 4 seats)

vote share/seat share (PR) Dutch General Election 2017 Party % Vote Seats (of 150) % Seats People’s Party 21.3 33 22 Freedom Party 13.1 20 13.3 Christian Democrats 12.4 19 12.6 Democrats 66 12.2

vote share/seat share (FPTP)

Marginal Parties

Power sharing