Page 276 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Unit 12: Politics of Representation and Participation

Representation and Responsiveness: Role of the Representative and Doctrine Notes
of the Legislative Mandate
The way the subject of representation has been discussed by eminent writers has led to the rise and
development of different theories. Keeping it in view, L.P. Baradat has referred to these important
theories:
1. Reactionary Theory: As given by Thomas Hobbes and Alexander Hamilton, it is based on the
need for order and authority. The executive (preferably a strong monarch or a President) and a
legislature subject to its authority serve public interest. While they should be open to popular
input, being of superior knowledge and judgment, they should not be hindered by popular
sentiment. It is the duty of the people to support the state and accept governmental policies
willingly in the confidence that the politicians have acted in the best interest of the people.
2. Elitist Theory: It stands on the assumption that the ‘chosen best’ are capable of representing
people’s interest. It is the element of merit that really counts. Elitists like Pareto, Mosca and
Michels recognise no place for the role of popular control. The rule of the ‘chosen few’ is the
best arrangement to serve public interest.
3. Conservative Theory: Supported by leaders like Edmund Burke and James Madison, it sanctions
popular control without encouraging public participation in the governing process. In this
variant, the people choose those who are to govern them from an elite group. Yet the people do
not have the right to instruct their representatives or even, compel them to reflect a particular
position on a given issue. If, however, the officials do not satisfy the public, they may replace
them by other members of the elite in the next election.
4. Liberal Theory: As given by thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, it lays down that
all people are essentially equal and, for this reason, capable of ruling. This mass-oriented theory
requires the representative to act as a messenger for his constituents rather than as a policy-
maker. Hence, the public officials are obliged to vote the way their constituents desire.
5. Radical Theory: As advanced by great democrats like Rousseau, it calls for the greatest amount
of popular input. Rejecting the case of representative government altogether, it holds that only
the people themselves are capable of representing their own views on important issues. In this
way, this theory alone supports the case of pure democracy.
A comparative study of different theories on the subject of representation, as given above, leaves the
impression that none but the liberal theory should be described as acceptable to most of the people in
the present age of democracy.
The issue of ‘representation’ has also been studied through the analysis of ‘responsiveness’ of a
system. For instance, Lowenberg and Kim have laid more emphasis on the ‘responsive’ aspect of the
representation. According to them, from the vantage point of view of the members of parliament,
responsiveness includes: a conceptualisation of the constituents who comprise their partners in
relationship; the use of various channels of communication through which to listen and hear; and the
propensity to consider and answer the demands of the constituents. Reference should be made to the
view of Eulau and Karps at this stage who have described four possible components of responsiveness
in this manner:
1. ‘Policy responsiveness’ where the target is the great public issues that agitate the political process.
2. ‘Service responsiveness’ which involves the efforts of the representative to secure particularised
benefits for individuals or groups in his constituency.
3. ‘Allocation responsiveness’ that refers to the representative’s effort to obtain benefits for his
constituency through pork-barrel exchanges in the appropriations, process through
administrative interventions.
4. ‘Symbolic responsiveness’ that involves public gestures of a sort that create a sense of trust and
support in the relationship between the representative and his constituents.
The notable feature of the assertion of these two writers is that not one but all components should be
taken into the representational nexus. In other words, it “is configuration of the component aspects

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 271