Representation develops in three opposite directions: a) as a mandate or delegation, b) as representativeness, c) as responsibility. The first is derived from private law and is characterized by a more legal doctrine; the second is derived from the sociological approach, representation is essentially an existential fact of resemblance; the third direction is related to the responsible government and is the one of interest for the analysis.
In order to better observe the historical evolution, it is convenient to take the French Revolution as the object of analysis. The central issue is that the representatives emerged from the revolution do not represent a constituency but the nation and that there is a great difference between people and nation, this fact marks a fundamental difference with the medieval class representation. While in its current meaning the term representation implies a duality of will, representation as it was understood in 1789 does not call into question more than a single will: that of the represented nation.
To make sense of this difference, it is important to know Burdeau's interpretation: “…. The men of the constituency were neither the dreamers nor the utopians it is said. They knew well what the irrational will of the people was made of…. It was not, therefore, to that will that the prerogatives of sovereignty sought to recognize. Educated in the cult of reason, believers in the virtue of lights, they could not recognize as sovereign will more than a reflective, weighted and unified will… "
Despite the fact that the notion of nation has always been a suspect issue for Anglo-Saxons, even one of the best known enemies of the revolution, the Englishman Burke recognized (speech in 1774 in Bristol) the importance that representatives should not represent those who they rule over them (imperative mandate), but they must represent the nation.
The medieval representative bodies constituted intermediary channels between those who were commanded and the sovereign: they represented someone against someone else. But as the power of the parliament grew, and the more the parliament placed itself at the center of the state organisms, to the same extent the representative bodies assumed a second function, that of ruling over the citizens. That is why a representative body registered within a State must be allowed the autonomy it needs to operate in favor of the State (the legally organized nation).
Representation and elections
Can there be (political) representation without elections? Often the answer is yes. However, a member of parliament cannot be revoked at discretion, and the only control to which he cannot escape is the electoral one, the absence of re-election is the only form of deterrence. This is the reason why the method of creation of the representative acquires a decisive importance, without these mechanisms the represented parties would be at the mercy of their named or presumed representatives. And since political representation is only protected by electoral safeguards, there can be no representation without elections.
If we cannot have political representation without elections, the opposite is not true, we can have elections without representation. The case of the Pope's election is a good example. Political representation cannot exist as long as the representative does not feel the expectation of those whom he represents, and does not feel it as a binding expectation. Therefore representation is not an idea but is also a duty. Therefore the electoral procedure taken by itself could put an absolute boss in office. This does not show that elections are not a necessary means; it only proves that they are not a sufficient means.
Elections are one thing and representation is another. However, modern political representation is elective representation, since it is this association that makes representation, at the same time, political and modern. Virtual representation - where there is a communion of interests and a sympathy in feelings and desires among those who act in the name of any respect for the people, despite the fact that the trustees have not been chosen by the former - requires the support and the guarantees of a representation made "current" by the electoral instrument.
Determination of representative systems
Characteristics and conditions of representative systems: 1) The people freely and periodically elect a body of representatives; 2) Rulers respond responsibly. 3) Rulers are agents or delegates who follow instructions. 4) The people are in tune with the State. 5) The people consent to the decisions of their leaders. 6) The people participate in a significant way in shaping fundamental political decisions. 7) The rulers constitute a representative sample of the ruled. However, each of these concepts has its weaknesses and shortcomings.
Regarding the relationship between responsibility and representativeness, the thesis is that we feel represented by who belongs to our same extraction matrix because we presume that it personifies us, it is totally plausible that a person feels better represented when the representative is someone As the. However, it is possible to hypothesize a parliament that is a perfect mirror of similarities of extraction and that, however, does not actually receive the demands of the society it reflects. This would be explained because responding responsibly takes precedence over similarity.
The idea of responsibility has two sides: a) personal responsibility towards someone, that is, the representative's obligation to answer to the owner; b) the functional or technical responsibility to achieve an adequate level of performance in terms of capacity and efficiency. The first is a dependent responsibility, the second is independent. In the first, the representative acts as another, in the second, responsible behavior is intended for the representative. It follows that the expression "responsible government" implies two expectations: a) that it be receptive and sensitive, having to answer for what it does; b) to act efficiently and competently. One would be a responsive government and the other an efficient government.
But when we come to political representation, another task takes precedence, pursuing the interests of all, whatever the fate of individual interests. This is precisely why the distinction between dependent and independent responsibility is crucial. It is on the basis of its own margin of independence, that is, of functional responsibility, that a government has the right to subordinate sectoral interests in the pursuit of collective interests. We cannot expect a government to yield and at the same time resist the demands of the governed; we cannot simultaneously achieve more responsiveness and more independent responsibility.
There are basically two types of representative systems based on their origin: English type and French type. The English type is based on a uninominal electoral method that attributes a limited margin of choice to the voter and favors a two-party system; while the French type is based on a proportional electoral method that allows the voter a wide margin of choice and facilitates multi-party systems. The English type sacrifices the representativeness of parliament to the existence of efficient government, while the French type sacrifices the efficiency of government to the representativeness of the parliament. We can think of intermediate solutions, more balanced, suitable to reconcile efficiency and representation.
In conclusion, a representative system cannot exist without periodic elections capable of holding the rulers accountable to the ruled.However, a political system qualifies itself as representative when honest electoral practices ensure a reasonable degree of response from the rulers. rulers versus the ruled. On the contrary, a political system does not qualify as representative if a single head exclusively claims the representation of the whole, the representative function must be entrusted to a large collective group to express different interests and points of view.
As electoral numbers are high, parties are a way to reduce them to a manageable format. One thing is the party as a filter of political representation, and another is the party as King as the effective dominus of representation. A realistic vision of representative processes arises from a process with two phases: A relationship between the voters and the party, and a relationship between the party and its representatives. Voters choose the party, but those elected are actually chosen by the party. According to Duverger, the modern representative is entrusted with a double mandate, one from his constituents and one from the party, and it is the party's mandate that prevails over the electoral mandate.
All these developments seem to indicate that the problem continues to be one of responsibility, of improving benefits in terms of functional responsibility without endangering the essentials of dependent responsibility, although the bulk of the literature feels the problem of representativeness much more than that of responsibility. Which has, in light of the previous considerations, an anachronistic flavor.
