At the beginning of the 20th century for some scholars of the relations between legislation and society, it was clear that a new era had begun, this one replaced the liberal era and its emphasis on the individual, Dicey called this era the collectivist era. The debate sought to find out if the State was still present in the economy, if the public administration grew constantly, and if there was a drop in the growth of public spending. There has been no debate on the changes in the representation system.
The article deals with the proposals of those who turned their attention to the modes of mediation between social reality and the State, the various forms of displacement and distortion of interests and the indirect connection between the demands of civil society and the response offered by the state.
The simplified image of a representation system postulates the existence of a set of interests that civil society presents to the political system, and to which the latter with its various mechanisms provides answers. Interests means demands, that is, explicit demands for political measures. Certain criteria are needed to define the agents with the right to act as bearers of interests and to define the resources that they can offer in exchange for the satisfaction of the demands. The criteria used to define the units of representation underwent a substantial change and geography became a criterion to define the electoral districts; the emergence of organized mass parties and stably organized interest groups introduced new principles and identification.
The organized mass party proposes an ideology as the principle of identification. Consequently, the objectives of the representational unit (the party) lack specificity and become more rigid, and the representational structure acquires its own autonomy. Likewise, there is a division between the interpreters of the ideology and the followers, it is up to the former to decide on the type and degree of coherence between short and long-term goals, this greater or lesser flexibility on the goals is beyond the control of those represented.
It is possible to distinguish three levels in political action: The first is that of the social base of interests (common objectives), the second is that of the active militants of parties and social movements, the criterion of rationality is based on the reinforcement of the collective solidarity. The third level is that of the leaders, the professionals of politics, where the criterion of rationality is the maximization of individual benefits, but in terms of the acquisition of political power.
The same ideology can be seen as a technique to strengthen the organization. In reality the ideology reinforces the solidarity of those who belong to the organization by generating the feeling that they all share certain goals towards which lasting collective action can be directed. Ideology also offers a criterion to control the actions of leaders.
In long-lasting ideological mass parties, three types of motivations are present: Individualistic for officials, leaders, and professionals in politics; For the simple participants, motivation is the gratification of belonging, sociability, mutual support and a sense of identity; for voters the motivation is again individualistic.
Parties represent the solution to the problem of political identity in all those cases in which such ascribed identities have completely disappeared and where mobility and freedom of choice are maximum. The parties, as more or less long-lived social bodies, then become the epicenter of identification and the expression of politically representative interests.
The effects of the emergence of organized mass parties were:
- There is a strong tendency to view interests in an aggregate way, thus favoring very general demands. A high degree of aggregation is likely to go along with some ideology. The ability to define interests is unevenly distributed throughout the hierarchy The remediation work between interests and decision centers becomes a professional task.
These consequences do not extend to the entire field of political action, social movements are another of these alternatives. But the most important alternative is one that relates to durable representation of special interests. This form characterizes the pluralist system more than mass parties.
Shortly after the decline of the estate system, voluntary associations emerged, pursued specific goals through collective action, and were created through the free choice of their members. Over time these organizations gave rise to truly interest-centered organizations, the transformation was a gradual process, first they grew in size and geographic scope, then they became politicized.
It can be said that the degree of multiplicity and diffusion of the objectives of the association and the degree of coordination to which the association is subjected are the two main variables to analyze a system of representation of associative interests.
A representative system includes certain individuals and not others, they have limits. Within these limits there are or no more decision-making organizations that respond to demands by selecting them according to certain criteria and ensuring an acceptable redistribution of resources. In this regard, there are two main processes in the formation of modern states: on the one hand, the formation of identity and territorial specificity, first in relation to the empire and then to the other national states; on the other, the affirmation of central monarchical power with respect to local, feudal and corporate power. A third element in the process of historical development of the State is the emancipation of this respect to religion and the legitimation of the State as guarantor of the long-term interests of society.
In reality, the assumption of an ideological national identity plays from the beginning an important role in the formation of systems of representation. The idea that in the long term national interests subsume all individual interests, made it possible for liberal constitutional doctrine to present the members of a national parliament as "representing the whole nation" and not just the particular interests of the voters. who chose it.
During the decades of the 60s and 70s the pluralist system of representation seems to have gone through a crisis, new movements appeared that threatened to wage unconventional wars; these signs become more ominous within the framework of the third crisis of capitalism.
To explain the persistence of political parties in representative regimes, four hypotheses are proposed:
- The illusory choice, the principle of popular sovereignty implies that the people must somehow choose, the parties are there to allow them to do so Cohesion, the high bureaucracy and also the political personnel that come from their ranks, are obliged to have a sectoral vision of the government, the parties are required to train these officials Responsible polling, the representatives are in a position to poll the electorate and thus transmit useful information for the government The reduction of complexity, political parties reduce excess of problems that the State would have to deal with if all the demands of society came directly. A fifth hypothesis could refer to the role of party politicians in the decision-making process.
The party with its enduring structure and public exposure is a kind of guarantor of political mediation, a kind of political credit institution, made possible by a continuous check of available credit through elections.
Political parties flourish when other bases of trust are absent or politically dormant, and citizens are in need of stable structures to which they can refer for orientation.
Thus, the more organized a system is to represent the interests of large occupational categories, and the less space it leaves for ideology, the more difficulties it will find in ensuring the reproduction of its forms and political representation.
However, in the last 20 years, new or old actors have been seen breaking onto the scene, acting in a new way and raising new themes. Meanwhile, political systems have generally shown themselves incapable of reacting positively to these impulses. In some cases the groups in power have entrenched themselves and state action has become repressive.
Why are there too many demands? Why does a pluralist system not have the mechanisms to channel it? This can be answered if we remember that pluralist mechanisms provide an unlimited possibility for the redefinition of interests and for access to a public forum, without being able to define a “common good” or in general, goals that each segment of society should accept as their own. The shape seems the only interest, but that is not enough. However apparently the same system is looking for its alternatives and solutions.
The functioning of the system itself creates unpredictability and wears down activism and political commitment. It creates tensions and strains in the development of personal identities that break down when social movements dissolve or bureaucratize. The waste and loss of social commitment thus seem to become unbearable after each restoration process. Pluralism, a proud product of Western political inventiveness, increasingly generates indifference or pessimism.
