Rethinking Representation Notes

Rethinking Representation

Introduction

  • Author: Jane Mansbridge (Harvard University)

  • Publication Date: November 2003, American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 4

  • Main Thesis: The paper critiques the traditional promissory representation model, introducing three additional forms: anticipatory, gyroscopic, and surrogate representation, that while they do not fully meet democratic accountability criteria, generate their own normative criteria for evaluation.

Types of Representation
Promissory Representation

  • Defined as the traditional model of representation based on the principal-agent relationship.

    • Principal: Voter (constituent)

    • Agent: Representative

    • Characteristics:

    • Forward-looking power relation: VT1 → RT2 (voter power at Time 1 attempts to control representative at Time 2).

    • Accountability focuses on whether representatives keep promises made at the last election.

    • Normative elements:

    • Representatives are responsible to voters, bonded by promises.

    • Critiques of promissory representation:

      • Reflects voters' immediate will, but not necessarily their considered will.

      • Breaking promises (e.g. George Bush's tax promise) can lead to voter anger.

Anticipatory Representation

  • Concept: Representation driven by the anticipation of how voters will react in future elections (Time 3).

    • Relation established: RT2 ← VT3 (actions of representative at Time 2 are influenced by anticipated preferences of voters at Time 3).

    • Distinction from promissory representation:

    • This model requires a backward-looking assessment of power based on future voter reaction rather than a straightforward fulfillment of past promises.

    • Influences representative behavior more than just compliance with past promises.

  • Suggestions:

    • Representatives may utilize polls and public opinion to gauge future preferences.

    • The relationship is interactive and develops through a continuous dialogue between constituents and representatives, emphasizing a system of mutual influence rather than mere compliance.

  • Normative criteria shift:

    • Quality of communication between voters and representatives becomes crucial.

    • The effectiveness of anticipatory representation values educating voters about representative decisions.

Gyroscopic Representation

  • Definition: A model where representatives act based on their principles and beliefs, functioning independently of direct electoral control after being elected (self-propelled).

    • Feedback for representatives: accountability is largely to self-derived beliefs and internal principles rather than direct electoral feedback.

    • Key elements:

    • Predictability of representatives's behavior based on their internal character, with less emphasis on direct accountability.

    • Voters place representatives in the system they believe will inherently act in accordance with their values without needing frequent feedback or instruction.

    • Normative implications:

    • Voters empower the system rather than controlling individual representatives directly.

    • Disconnect exists where the representative does not factor electoral preferences into decision making.

Surrogate Representation

  • Concept: Representation by individuals who are not directly elected by voters in a particular district but advocate for their interests (often seen as collective or institutional).

    • Examples:

    • National figures may represent interests well beyond their own electoral base; e.g., a gay Congressman advocating for gay rights on a national scale.

    • Surrogacy often found in the context of monetary contributions where affluent individuals may exert influence beyond long-standing electoral ties.

    • Lack of accountability:

    • Representatives and the constituents they serve often do not have a direct democratic linkage.

    • However, surrogate representatives may feel a sense of moral responsibility to support broader causes, especially concerning marginalized communities.

  • Normative scrutiny:

    • Evaluation of the system at large rather than individual relationships points to a system's ability to facilitate representation of diverse interests and perspectives, demanding proportional representation in legislative decision-making.

Normative Criteria for Judging Representation

  • Proposed criteria should be plural rather than singular, aiming for:

    • Deliberative orientation and systemic analysis rather than dyadic relations.

    • Emphasis on quality of communication and education within the representative systems, moving away from simple promise-keeping into engaging with the broader interests of constituents.

  • Importance of mutual influence:

    • All representations must strive for effective communication and deliberative engagement to ensure democratic legitimacy.

Conclusion

  • The paper encourages a re-evaluation of how we understand representation beyond straightforward electoral accountability. Each model provides a lens through which to understand the evolving nature of political representation in modern democracies.

  • Continuing the dialogue about representation is critical as the environment and needs of constituents evolve.

References

  • (The references following this discussion provide a comprehensive academic material base for the concepts outlined in the paper).

,