Page 277 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes of responsiveness that might yield a viable theory of representative government under modern
conditions of social complexity.”
Political philosophers and writers have since long considered the problem of proper relationship
between the rulers and the ruled. This issue has become of more immediate significance with the
development of representative government. The question arises as to what is the proper function of
a representative whom the people have chosen to act for them in matters of legislation. Garner points
out three positions in this regard:
1. The representative is regarded as a deputy, a delegate or an agent of the particular constituency
which elects him, charged primarily with procuring legislation for the advancement of the
local interests of his constituency, obtained appropriations of money for the constitution of
public works therein, and of securing other favours which lie within the powers of the legislature
or government to bestow.
2. He may be regarded as the representative of the whole state, elected to consult with other
representatives and charged primarily with the case and advancement of the general interests,
and only secondarily with the promotion of the particular interests of the immediate constituency.
3. He may be regarded as the mouthpiece or the spokesman of the political party which is in
majority in the constituency from which he is elected and, as such, he is bound by the will of his
party whatever may be his own personal views in regard to the expediency or wisdom of
particular legislative policies.

What was the tripartite typology?

John Wahlke has suggested a tripartite typology by which the role of a representative can be analysed:
1. The trustee-deputy role, according to which a deputy can see himself as a delegate of his
constituents and be willing to accept instructions, or can act as he thinks necessary without
seeking their advice or consultation.
2. The facilitator-neutral role, according to which the representative consults interest groups and
others to different degrees and attempting to perform some services for his constituents.
3. The district-state or country role, according to which the deputy decides whether the interests of
his own area or that of the country as a whole should predominate in his actions
However, within the framework of legislative functioning, Joseph la Palombara divides the role of
the legislators into these categories:
1. The Ritualist: He is the law-maker par excellence whose expertise centres on the process of
turning proposals into legislation. He regularly attends the sessions of the chamber as well as
its committees and follows the intricacies of procedures very scrupulously.
2. The Opportunist: He is not interested in the law-making function of the legislature but tries to
raise his status for other purposes.
3. The Tribune: He is deeply involved in the articulation of interests, in the communication of
demands, in the task of discovering what is desired by his constituents or the voters in general.
4. The Broker: He tries to aggregate conflicting interests.
5. The Inventor: He finds his major role in the creation of public policies that make of legislative
outputs reasonably workable responses to many of the needs and requests that the legislature
must confront.
We may say that the theory regarding the role of a representative has undergone serious transformation
in modern times owing to new conditions and circumstances. The idea of the role of a representative
in early stages of the development of a representative regime was to regard the deputy as the special
agent of the class or estate, nobility, clergy, commons, peasantry or town population which chose

272 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY