Trusteeship
Trusteeship is the traditional form of representation said to operate in UK politics. It is based on the idea that elected politicians should not act as delegates but as trustees. Truestees act on
behalf of others, using their superiour knowledge, better education or greater experience. This form of representation is sometimes called 'Burkean representation', as its classic expresssionwas found in a speech by Edmund Burke (1729-97) gave to the electors of Bristol in 1774. Burke declared that 'Your representative owes you, not his industry alone, but his judgement and he betrays, instead of serving you,if he sacrifices it to your opinion'. In other words, represenatives should think for themselves and use their own judgement because the of people may not know their own best interests. Until the 1950s, constitutional theory in the UK (despite changing political practice) held that MPs were Burkean representatives.
However, the idea of trusteeship has also attracted servere criticism:
- Allowing politicians to think for themselves creates a 'gap' between the views of ordinary citizens and the views of their representatives. This could mean that representatives act in their own interests, or in the interests of people like themselves (middle-class males, on the whole), rather than in the interests of the mass of the people.
- The trusteeship model is largly out of date. Since the development of the party system in the late 19th century, the scope MPs have had to think and act on the basis of their own 'mature judgement' has been very limited. Burkean represenation is now only applicable in cases such as 'free votes', or backbench revolts.
The doctrine of the mandate
The doctrine of the mandate is the most influential theory of representationin modern politics. It is largely based on the idea that, in winningan election, a party gains a 'popular' mandate that authories it to carry out the policies on which it fought the election. These are the policies that are contained in election manifestos. This implies that it is the party, rather than individual politicians, that carries out representation. If this is the case, the doctrine of the mandate model provides a clear justification for party unity and party disipline. In effect, politicians serve their constituents not by thinking for themselves, but by remaining loyal to their party and its policies. This leads to what can be called 'mandate democracy'. The strength of the mandate docterine is that it takes account of the undoubted importance in modern politics of party labels and party policies. In UK elections, most voters on most occasions vote for a party and give little or no attention to the strengths or weaknesses of individual candidates.
However, the doctrine of the mandate has also been critiszed:
- It is based on a highly questionable model of voting behaviour. There is little evidence that voters vote 'rationally', choosing between parties on the basis of their manifesto commitments. A variety of 'non-rational' factors affect how people vote.
- Even if voters are influenced by policies, a vote is unlikely to indicate support for its entire manifesto, meaning that the doctrine of the mandate is, at best, a very blunt weapon.
- Their is no way of forcing governments, once elected, to carry out their manifesto commitments. Manifestos often include 'vote-winning' policies that proves to be dificult in practice implement.
- It is unclear who the mandate falls to: the party or the prime minister. There has been a growing tendancy for prime ministers to claim a 'personal mandate', on the basis of their role in leading the party to power. However, the idea of a personal mandate may simply allow prime ministers to act however they wish.
Descriptive representation
Descriptive representation is based on the idea that representatives should typify or resemble the group they claim to represent. This notion is embodied in the idea of a 'representative cross-section', as used by market researchers and opinion pollsters. By this standard, a representative government would constitute a
microcosm of the larger society, containing members drawn from all groups and sections in society (in terms of social class, gender, religion, ethanicity, age, and so on), and in numbers that are proportional to the size of the groups in society at large. By this standard, there are signifiacant concerns about the quality of representation across the political system, steming in particular from the 'under-representation' of groups such as women, the working class and ethnic minorities. This certainly applies to Parliament, but also to the senior judicary. The basis for this kind of representation is that it is necessary for people share the experiences of a particular group in order to be fully able to identify with its interests. They must have 'walked in their shoes'.
However, concerns have also been expressed about the value of descriptive representation:
- If all represntatives simply advance the interests of the groups from which they come, representation becomes exclusive or narrow, with no one being able to defend the commen good or advance a broader public interest.
- A government that is a microcosm of society would reflect the society's weaknesses as well as its strengths. What would be the advantage, for example, of government resembling society if the majority of the population are apathetic, ill-informed and poorly educated?
- It is difficult to see how decriptive representation can be reconciled with electoral choice. For example, the Labour Party's attempt to boost female representation in Parliament through all-women shortlists of Parliamentary candidates was declared illegal under equal opportunities legislation
types of represenation
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Arnold Schwarzenegger
