define representation government

• Humanities ›
• The U. S. Government ›
• U.S. Political System ›

Representative Democracy: Definition, Pros, and Cons

Edward Kimmel from Takoma Park, MD / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY 2.0

• B.S., Texas A&M University

Representative democracy is a form of government in which the people elect officials to create laws and policies on their behalf. Nearly 60 percent of the world’s countries employ a form of government based on representative democracy, including the United States, (a democratic republic), the United Kingdom (a constitutional monarchy), and France (a unitary state). Representative democracy is sometimes called indirect democracy.

Representative Democracy Definition

In a representative democracy, the people elect officials to create and vote on laws, policies, and other matters of government on society's behalf. In this manner, representative democracy is the opposite of direct democracy , in which the people vote on every law or policy themselves at every level of government. Representative democracy is typically employed in larger countries where the number of citizens involved would make direct democracy unmanageable. 

Common characteristics of representative democracy include:

• The powers of the elected representatives are defined by a constitution that establishes the basic laws, principles, and framework of the government.
• The constitution may provide for some forms of limited direct democracy, such as recall elections and ballot initiative elections.
• Elected representatives may also have the power to select other government leaders, such as a prime minister or president.
• An independent judiciary body, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, may have the power to declare laws enacted by the representatives to be unconstitutional.

In some representative democracies with bicameral legislatures, one chamber is not elected by the people. For example, members of the British Parliament’s House of Lords and the Senate of Canada obtain their positions through appointment, heredity, or official function.

Representative democracy stands out in sharp contrast to forms of government like totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and fascism , which allow the people little to no elected representation.

Brief History

The ancient Roman Republic was the first state in the Western world known to have a representative form of government. Today’s representative democracies more closely resemble the Roman than the Greek models of democracy, because the Roman model vested supreme power in the people and their elected representatives. 

Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester in 13th century Britain, is considered one of the fathers of representative government. In 1258, de Montfort held a famous parliament that stripped King Henry III of unlimited authority. A second de Montfort parliament in 1265 incorporated ordinary citizens. During the 17th century, the English Parliament pioneered some of the ideas and systems of liberal democracy culminating in the Glorious Revolution and passage of the Bill of Rights of 1689.

The American Revolution led to the creation of the United States Constitution in 1787, providing for a legislative House of Representatives directly elected by the people every two years. Until the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, U.S. Senators were not directly elected by the people. Women, men who owned no property, and Black persons did not gain the right to vote until the 19th and 20th centuries.

Representative Democracy in the U.S.

In the U.S., representative democracy is employed at the national government and state government levels. At the national government level, the people elect the president and the officials who represent them in the two chambers of Congress: the House of Representatives and the Senate. At the state government level, the people elect the governor and members of the state legislatures, who rule according to the state constitutions.

The President of the United States, Congress, and the federal courts share powers reserved to the national government by the U.S. Constitution. In creating a functional system called “ federalism ,” the U.S. Constitution also shares certain political powers with the states.

Pros and Cons of Representative Democracy

Representative democracy is the most prevalent form of government. As such, it has advantages and disadvantages for the government and the people.

Representative democracies are efficient. A single elected official represents the desires of a large number of people. In the U.S., for example, just two Senators represent all of the people in their states. By conducting a limited number of national elections, countries with representative democracies save time and money, which can then be devoted to other public needs.

A representative democracy is empowering. The people of each representative democracy's political subdivisions (state, district, region, etc.) choose the representatives who make their voices heard by the national government. Should those representatives fail to meet the expectations of their constituents , the voters can replace them in the next election.

Representative democracies encourage participation. When people are confident that they have a say in their government's decisions, they are more likely to remain aware of issues affecting their country and vote as a way of making their opinions on those issues heard.

A representative democracy is not always reliable. The votes of elected officials in a representative democracy may not always reflect the will of the people. The officials are not bound by law to vote the way the people who elected them want them to vote. Unless term limits apply to the official in question, the only options available to dissatisfied constituents are to vote the representative out of office in the next regular election or, in some cases, to demand a recall election.

Representative democracies can become inefficient. Governments shaped by representative democracy may develop into massive bureaucracies , which are notoriously slow to take action, especially on momentous issues.

A representative democracy can invite corruption. Candidates may misrepresent their stances on issues or policy goals to achieve political power. While in office, politicians may act in the service of personal financial gain rather than for the benefit of their constituents (sometimes to the direct detriment of their constituents).

In a final analysis, a representative democracy should truly result in a government created “by the people, for the people.” However, its success in doing so depends on the people’s freedom to express their wishes to their representatives and the willingness of those representatives to act accordingly.

• Desilver, Drew. "Despite global concerns about democracy, more than half of countries are democratic." Pew Research Center, 14 May 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/14/more-than-half-of-countries-are-democratic/.
• Kateb, George. "The Moral Distinctiveness of Representative Democracy." Institute of Education Sciences, 3 September 1979, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED175775.
• "Lesson 1: The Importance of Representative Democracy." Unicam Focus, Nebraska Legislature, 2020, https://nebraskalegislature.gov/education/lesson1.php.
• Russell, Greg. "Constitutionalism: America & Beyond." U.S. Department of State, 2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20141024130317/http:/www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html.
• Direct Democracy: Definition, Examples, Pros and Cons
• Republic vs. Democracy: What Is the Difference?
• Electoral College Pros and Cons
• What Is a Bicameral Legislature and Why Does the U.S. Have One?
• What Is Incrementalism in Government? Definition and Examples
• Reasons to Keep the Electoral College
• What Is Populism? Definition and Examples
• What Is Redistricting? Definition and Examples
• Understanding the Ballot Initiative Process
• What Was the US Second Party System? History and Significance
• How Vacancies in the US Congress are Filled
• House and Senate Agendas and Resources
• How Many Members Are in the House of Representatives?
• About the Speaker of the House of Representatives
• Constituent Services: What Your Members of Congress Can Do For You
• Qualifications to be a US Representative

All Subjects

Intro to American Government

Study guides for every class, that actually explain what's on your next test, representation, from class:.

Representation refers to the process by which individuals or groups have their interests and concerns brought forth and considered in the political decision-making process. It is a fundamental principle of democratic governance, ensuring that the will and needs of the people are reflected in the actions and policies of the government.

congrats on reading the definition of Representation . now let's actually learn it.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

• Representation is a key principle of democracy, ensuring that the diverse voices and interests of the people are heard and considered in the political process.
• Elitism and pluralism are two competing perspectives on how representation should function in a political system, with elitism favoring rule by a small, elite class and pluralism recognizing the distribution of power among various groups.
• Congressional representation is a critical aspect of the American political system, with members of Congress elected to serve as the voice of their constituents at the federal level.
• The concept of representation is closely tied to the idea of political participation, as citizens must have the ability to actively engage in the political process and influence the decisions that affect their lives.
• Ensuring fair and equitable representation is an ongoing challenge in many political systems, as marginalized or underrepresented groups may face barriers to having their interests effectively represented.

Review Questions

• The principle of representation is central to the debate between elitism and pluralism. Elitism holds that a small, elite group should make decisions on behalf of the people, with the assumption that this elite group can adequately represent the interests of the broader population. In contrast, pluralism recognizes that power and influence are distributed among various groups and interests in society, and that effective representation requires the consideration of diverse perspectives and the inclusion of a wide range of stakeholders in the political process.
• Congressional representation is a crucial aspect of the American political system, as members of Congress are elected to serve as the voice of their constituents at the federal level. Through this system of representation, citizens are able to have their interests and concerns brought forth and considered in the policymaking process. Congressional representatives are responsible for advocating for their constituents' needs, introducing and voting on legislation, and holding the executive branch accountable. Effective congressional representation is essential for ensuring that the diverse perspectives and interests of the American people are reflected in the decisions and actions of the federal government.
• Ensuring fair and equitable representation is an ongoing challenge in many political systems, as marginalized or underrepresented groups may face barriers to having their interests effectively represented. Factors such as socioeconomic status, race, gender, and geographic location can all influence an individual's or group's ability to participate in the political process and have their concerns addressed. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, including efforts to remove barriers to political participation, increase the diversity of elected officials, and implement policies and institutions that promote the inclusion of diverse perspectives in the decision-making process. Ultimately, the goal of fair and equitable representation is to ensure that the political system truly reflects the will and needs of all citizens, rather than being dominated by a narrow set of interests.

Related terms

The belief that a small, elite group should make decisions and govern on behalf of the people, rather than the people directly participating in the political process.

The recognition that power and influence in a society is distributed among various groups and interests, rather than being concentrated in the hands of a single elite.

Congressional Representation : The process by which members of the U.S. Congress are elected to represent the interests and concerns of their constituents at the federal level.

" Representation " also found in:

Subjects ( 186 ).

• AP Calculus AB/BC
• AP European History
• AP Human Geography
• AP Spanish Language
• AP US Government
• AP US History
• Advanced Media Writing
• Advanced Public Speaking
• Advertising and Society
• African American History – 1865 to Present
• African American Literature – Before 1900
• African Diaspora Studies
• Algebraic Combinatorics
• Algebraic Geometry
• American Art – 1945 to Present
• Anthropology of Globalization
• Art Curation and Gallery Management
• Art History II – Renaissance to Modern Era
• Art History – Theories and Methods
• Art Theory and Criticism
• Art and Colonialism
• Art and Philosophy
• Art and Politics
• Art and Social Justice
• Art and Technology
• Art and Trauma Studies
• Art in the Dutch Golden Age
• Art of the Interview
• Baroque Art
• Bioengineering Signals and Systems
• Body Art and Performance
• Business Semiotics
• COMmunicator
• Children's Television
• Cities and the Arts
• City in Film
• Civil Procedure
• Classical Poetics
• Communication and Popular Culture
• Conservation Biology
• Contemporary Art
• Courts and Society
• Creative Producing I
• Critical TV Studies
• Curatorial Studies
• Disability and Art
• Documentary Forms
• Documentary Photography
• Documentary Production
• Elementary Algebraic Geometry
• English Grammar and Usage
• Ethnomusicology
• Feminism in Television
• Feminist Art History
• Feminist Political Thought
• Film Criticism
• Film History and Form
• Film Industry
• Film and Media Theory
• Filmmaking for Journalists
• Folklore and Visual Culture
• Global Media
• Governmental Public Affairs
• Greek Philosophy
• History of Art Criticism
• History of Graphic Design
• History of Modern Philosophy
• History of Photography
• History of Scientific Illustration
• History of Video Games as Art
• Human Storyteller
• Indigenous Arts
• Indigenous Issues Across the Americas
• Installation Art
• Intermediate Cinematography
• International Organization
• Intro to African Visual Arts
• Intro to Anthropology
• Intro to Aristotle
• Intro to Art
• Intro to Chicanx and Latinx Studies
• Intro to Cognitive Science
• Intro to Comparative Politics
• Intro to Contemporary Literature
• Intro to Creative Writing
• Intro to Ethnic Studies
• Intro to Film Theory
• Intro to Gender Studies
• Intro to Literary Theory
• Intro to Musics of the World
• Intro to Native American Studies
• Intro to Performance Studies
• Intro to Political Science
• Intro to Political Sociology
• Intro to Stage Directing
• Intro to Women's Studies
• Issues of Race and Gender
• Language and Popular Culture
• Latin American Literature – Before 1900
• Latin American Politics
• Lie Algebras and Lie Groups
• Literary Theory and Criticism
• Literature of Journalism
• Media Criticism
• Media Effects
• Media Expression and Communication
• Media Literacy
• Media Strategies and Management
• Modern East Asian Fiction
• Multimedia Reporting
• Multimedia Skills
• Music and Social Protest
• Musical Theater Performance
• Narrative Documentary Production
• Narrative Journalism
• Narrative Radio
• Native American Literature
• News Photography
• Noncommutative Geometry
• Nonprofit Leadership
• Origins of Rome
• Outsider Art
• People of the Arctic
• Performance Studies
• Photojournalism I
• Photojournalism II
• Playwriting Workshop
• Political Campaigns
• Political Economy of International Relations
• Pop Art and Mass Culture
• Postcolonial Art
• Principles of Marketing
• Product Branding
• Queer Art History
• Queer Theory
• Race and Gender in Media
• Representation Theory
• Rescuing Lost Stories
• Screenwriting II
• Semiotics in Art
• Signal Processing
• Social Media and Journalism
• Social Problems and Public Policy
• Sports Reporting and Production
• Sports Storytelling
• State Politics and the American Federal System
• State and Federal Constitutions
• Storytelling for Film and Television
• Surrealism and Dada
• TV Criticism
• TV Newsroom
• Television Studies
• Theater Production
• Theater for Social Change
• Theories of International Relations
• Thinking Like a Mathematician
• Trademark Law
• Trauma Journalism
• UK Constitution and Government
• Understanding Film
• Understanding Media
• Understanding Television
• Universal Algebra
• VR/AR Art and Immersive Experiences
• Visual Cultures of California
• Visual Storytelling
• Von Neumann Algebras
• Women and Politics
• Women and World History
• Women in Art History
• World Literature II
• World Music
• Writing the Situation Comedy
• Writing the Television Pilot

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..

• Additional Documents
• Bill of Rights
• Citizenship
• Constitution
• Days Of Year
• Declaration of Independence
• Impeachment
• Important roles
• Original Documents
• Presidential News
• Territories
• Thanksgiving
• US Naturalization Test
• womens rights

Contact: ✉️ [email protected] ☎️ (803) 302-3545

What is a representative democracy.

Every country has a choice in how it creates its system of government and law-making processes. Democracies allow for citizens to have their say to some extent. However, there are big differences between systems. The US is a representative democracy, but what does that mean and what was the alternative?

Table of Contents

Representative democracy is a government system that creates an extra stage between public votes and law creation. Instead of voting for laws, citizens elect officials to craft, debate, and sign laws. The idea is that citizens trust those elected politicians to carry out the will of those that elected them.

This is the most popular way of governing, with 60 percent of nations using representative democracy with elected officials. The United States is a prime example, with its houses and political parties.

The United Kingdom is similar in that it elects representatives for constituencies and they vote on laws in parliament. The UK has the difference of being a monarchy but the monarch has little political power.

The idea of representative democracy for the United States came from the framers of the Constitution . They didn’t approve of giving the public greater powers and feared a “tyranny of the majority.” The belief was that by bringing in elected officials, individuals had a better chance of being heard over a majority with extreme views.

The concept of bringing in elected representatives then came into law via the constitution . The framers agreed that these elected representatives would be able to select the president and that there should be a Supreme Court to uphold the constitution.

It was also decided that those elected to the House of Representatives would serve two years terms. However, they were not elected by citizens through public vote until 1913 and the 17th Amendment .

Examples Of Representative Democracy In The United States Today.

The basic ideas brought forward by the framers are still in place today. There are elected representatives across the two chambers of Congress. Voters elect those in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Additional elected representatives are found at the state level with governors and state legislatures.

Then there is the system of the presidential elections . The public doesn’t really get much of a say in who leads the country for the next four years. They can vote for representatives based on their political party, and party delegates will vote for candidates at their conference.

Many voters just have to wait and see who gets the nomination past the primaries and then vote by party, rather than by person.

This all makes sense in the political world as deals and alliances are made before a new term. But, the best person for the role isn’t necessarily one with mass public appeal. That is where it helps that the president only has limited powers.

What Are the Benefits Of This Representative Approach?

Some important benefits show why this method remains in place. There are benefits in having state senators taking care of business for their citizens. Voters have the chance to put their preferred representative in charge and then not have to worry about ballots until major elections. They can still write to officials and campaign, but there is no pressure to vote on everything that has major national implications.

State representatives should be able to vote based on the will of the people and do what is best for their area. They should also have the knowledge and influence to keep the process in motion.

What Are The Disadvantages Of The Representative Approach?

Although this method works, it isn’t perfect. The biggest problem is that these officials aren’t legally obligated to reflect the will of the people. They can say they will do one thing and then do another. Political influence, monetary gain, and other corrupt factors can damage the integrity of the office.

An additional issue here is that this disconnect from political processes can cause voter apathy. If citizens believe their views don’t matter, where is the incentive to vote?

What Is The Alternative To Representative Democracy?

Representative democracy is also known as indirect democracy because citizens don’t have that direct link between voting and changes in laws. They take the indirect route via their representatives. The alternative to this is direct democracy. Direct democracy is where there is no middleman representative to carry out the will of the people. Instead, voters get a direct say on passing and amending laws at the ballot. We can see this in the form of referendums, but there are also examples of more overreaching direct democracies.

Examples Of Direct Democracy Across The World.

The direct democracy approach isn’t that common anymore. Those that favor a democratic system to a republic tend to go for the indirect approach because of the benefits above. However, there are two examples of societies with a stronger use of the direct approach.

The first takes us back to ancient times. The Ancient Greeks used a similar system where it was expected that citizens would vote on all matters. This meant all men over the age of 20 voting on everything from major laws to court cases.

Critics here may point out the lack of majority representation as there were no women, slaves, or immigrants voting. But, the same was true for a lot of modern indirect democracies until relatively recently.

Then there is the current method of direct democracy in Switzerland. This is a modified approach where there isn’t the same constant voting on laws as in Ancient Greece, but there is more power than in the United States.

The main difference here is that any law passed by the elected legislative branch is open to a public veto. Voters also have the opportunity to vote for the government to consider amendments to the constitution.

Does The US Have Any Form Of Direct Democracy?

While the United States is celebrated as one of the leading models in representative and indirect democracy, there are examples of direct democracy at play. Direct democracy is still essential for certain areas of governing where voters need a direct voice.

We see this as far down the chain as town hall meetings and as high as referendums at major ballots. When used appropriately, direct democracy can have an important role to play. However, differences between the states make things more complicated.

There are plenty of variations in the role of direct democracy depending on the state. Some states don’t allow for much at all in the way of direct action, such as recalls or vetos. Others have plenty of provisions in place to ensure that voters have a greater say. Nevada is a great example of a state with its own rules as there is an option here that doesn’t apply anywhere else.

Get Smarter on US News, History, and the Constitution

Join the thousands of fellow patriots who rely on our 5-minute newsletter to stay informed on the key events and trends that shaped our nation's past and continue to shape its present.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Examples Of Direct Democracy In Action.

1) nevada’s statue affirmation..

Nevada allows for a process of statute affirmation. Voters can put a question on a ballot to affirm a state law, but only if they collect enough signatures from state voters. A lack of affirmation can lead to a change in the law but a majority vote for affirmation means that the state is barred from amending it.

That doesn’t mean that the law can’t change in the future, however. Voters can vote to amend or repeal the law at a later date. It is an interesting process that only applies to the state of Nevada.

2) Recalls.

Recalls occur when state officials and representatives are removed from power. This could be due to them abusing their post or overwhelming low popularity figures.

This all starts with a circulation of petitions by recall organizers. If there is a strong enough level of support then the prospect of a recall goes to public vote so all voters can have their say. The rules vary by state with three permitting recalls or any public official and eleven not allowing for any recalls at all.

Vetos aren’t just for those in high political office. There are cases where voters can veto and then repeal state laws deemed inappropriate. This power helps states evolve to the will of the people instead of holding onto outdated ideas.

A veto referendum starts with campaigning by citizens, much like the repeal process. The matter can end up on a public ballot where voters are asked if they want the law to remain or to get rid of it. A majority vote in favor of repealing the law should lead to its suspension. While this is a great way for citizens to engage with state politics, only 23 states allow for veto referendums at the state level

3) Amendments.

It isn’t always appropriate to repeal a law entirely unless completely unfit for purpose. There are times when amendments to laws are more practical and possibly more likely to pass a vote.

One example is the legislatively referred constitutional amendment . Here, the state legislature has passed a proposed amendment to the state constitution. But, it can’t become law until it goes onto a statewide ballot and is ratified by the public. This is one of the most common forms of direct vote. It is only Delaware that doesn’t need voter approval to amend the state constitution .

A similar form of amendment vote is the initiated state statute. This is another way of getting a change to the state constitution, only this one is initiated by the people. As with so many of these methods, there are different rules in different states. 21 states allow for an indirect approach when citizens can initiate statutes that go to representatives. Just Utah and Washington allow for both direct and indirect initiated state statutes.

What Are The Benefits Of A Direct System?

There are aspects to direct democracy that are essential for modern governing. One of the notable benefits of a direct system is the level of transparency. While the indirect system leaves room for corruption and self-serving individuals, there is less room for that here.

There is a great open forum for debate with a democratic vote that represents a majority view. On top of this, government officials in charge of signing in laws can’t feign ignorance over public opinion.

There is also the idea that citizens in direct democracy systems are more inclined to vote if they know that their vote counts. However, there is also the idea that those disinterested in politics or certain ideas will decline and create a disproportionate minority vote in favor of an issue.

What Are The Problems Of A Direct System?

Some disadvantages show why the U.S. doesn’t use the direct system in the same way as Switzerland. This idea of diminishing enthusiasm for voting could be a problem if there are too many ballots. There has to be some level of control over how many laws are in the hands of the people or else it would never end – especially with state and federal laws.

There is also the issue that if you put a notion to every eligible voter you won’t get a clear idea of what people want. Some will be strongly opposed, others strongly in favor, and many more asking for changes that suit their personal needs.

Is A Balance Between Indirect And Direct Democracy The Best Approach?

Because there are such strong pros and cons to both methods, a balance of the two is effective. The size of the US and the complex needs of all the states makes full direct democracy impossible to uphold. The role of elected representatives makes it easier for whole states to feel heard – even if the process is flawed.

However, the importance of upholding the will of the people means that representatives can’t hold all the power. There are times where public ballots are essential for the evolution of laws and the integrity of the political system.

Were The Framers Right To Choose Representative Democracy?

In short, regardless of our personal feelings towards elected officials, we can’t deny they are essential. Representative democracy was the right choice for serving the country and getting things done. It may be flawed, but at least there are direct democratic options to call on where necessary.

Edward Savey

One response.

I am trying to answer the question of why we would choose to elect an official/politician versus placing a job opening, and having applicants interview to be hired. I have my own thoughts on why being subordinate to an agenda you don’t support positions the person to carry out matters that otherwise they would not, and yet being subordinate or insubordinate would cause serious consequences in ones allegiance/alliance to their superior.

In addition I believe that freedom of speech would seriously hinder a hired representative to represent the will of the people and remain subordinate to their boss, rendering constant turnover. and terminations.

I really need to explain why we elect leaders to represent and not hire them as employees instead. help?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Virginia Plan vs New Jersey Plan

What is the electoral college and how does it work, what is a limited government, checks and balances in the us constitution, please enter your email address to be updated of new content:.

© 2023 US Constitution All rights reserved

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Political Representation

The concept of political representation is misleadingly simple: everyone seems to know what it is, yet few can agree on any particular definition. In fact, there is an extensive literature that offers many different definitions of this elusive concept. [Classic treatments of the concept of political representations within this literature include Pennock and Chapman 1968; Pitkin, 1967 and Schwartz, 1988.] Hanna Pitkin (1967) provides, perhaps, one of the most straightforward definitions: to represent is simply to “make present again.” On this definition, political representation is the activity of making citizens’ voices, opinions, and perspectives “present” in public policy making processes. Political representation occurs when political actors speak, advocate, symbolize, and act on the behalf of others in the political arena. In short, political representation is a kind of political assistance. This seemingly straightforward definition, however, is not adequate as it stands. For it leaves the concept of political representation underspecified. Indeed, as we will see, the concept of political representation has multiple and competing dimensions: our common understanding of political representation is one that contains different, and conflicting, conceptions of how political representatives should represent and so holds representatives to standards that are mutually incompatible. In leaving these dimensions underspecified, this definition fails to capture this paradoxical character of the concept.

This encyclopedia entry has three main goals. The first is to provide a general overview of the meaning of political representation, identifying the key components of this concept. The second is to highlight several important advances that have been made by the contemporary literature on political representation. These advances point to new forms of political representation, ones that are not limited to the relationship between formal representatives and their constituents. The third goal is to reveal several persistent problems with theories of political representation and thereby to propose some future areas of research.

1.1 Delegate vs. Trustee

1.2 pitkin’s four views of representation, 2. changing political realities and changing concepts of political representation, 3. contemporary advances, 4. future areas of study, a. general discussions of representation, b. arguments against representation, c. non-electoral forms of representation, d. representation and electoral design, e. representation and accountability, f. descriptive representation, other internet resources, related entries, 1. key components of political representation.

Political representation, on almost any account, will exhibit the following five components:

• some party that is representing (the representative, an organization, movement, state agency, etc.);
• some party that is being represented (the constituents, the clients, etc.);
• something that is being represented (opinions, perspectives, interests, discourses, etc.); and
• a setting within which the activity of representation is taking place (the political context).
• something that is being left out (the opinions, interests, and perspectives not voiced).

Theories of political representation often begin by specifying the terms for the first four components. For instance, democratic theorists often limit the types of representatives being discussed to formal representatives — that is, to representatives who hold elected offices. One reason that the concept of representation remains elusive is that theories of representation often apply only to particular kinds of political actors within a particular context. How individuals represent an electoral district is treated as distinct from how social movements, judicial bodies, or informal organizations represent. Consequently, it is unclear how different forms of representation relate to each other. Andrew Rehfeld (2006) has offered a general theory of representation which simply identifies representation by reference to a relevant audience accepting a person as its representative. One consequence of Rehfeld’s general approach to representation is that it allows for undemocratic cases of representation.

However, Rehfeld’s general theory of representation does not specify what representative do or should do in order to be recognized as a representative. And what exactly representatives do has been a hotly contested issue. In particular, a controversy has raged over whether representatives should act as delegates or trustees .

Historically, the theoretical literature on political representation has focused on whether representatives should act as delegates or as trustees . Representatives who are delegates simply follow the expressed preferences of their constituents. James Madison (1787–8) describes representative government as “the delegation of the government...to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.” Madison recognized that “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” Consequently, Madison suggests having a diverse and large population as a way to decrease the problems with bad representation. In other words, the preferences of the represented can partially safeguard against the problems of faction.

In contrast, trustees are representatives who follow their own understanding of the best action to pursue. Edmund Burke (1790) is famous for arguing that

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interest each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole… You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament (115).

The delegate and the trustee conception of political representation place competing and contradictory demands on the behavior of representatives. [For a discussion of the similarities and differences between Madison’s and Burke’s conception of representation, see Pitkin 1967, 191–192.] Delegate conceptions of representation require representatives to follow their constituents’ preferences, while trustee conceptions require representatives to follow their own judgment about the proper course of action. Any adequate theory of representation must grapple with these contradictory demands.

Famously, Hanna Pitkin argues that theorists should not try to reconcile the paradoxical nature of the concept of representation. Rather, they should aim to preserve this paradox by recommending that citizens safeguard the autonomy of both the representative and of those being represented. The autonomy of the representative is preserved by allowing them to make decisions based on his or her understanding of the represented’s interests (the trustee conception of representation). The autonomy of those being represented is preserved by having the preferences of the represented influence evaluations of representatives (the delegate conception of representation). Representatives must act in ways that safeguard the capacity of the represented to authorize and to hold their representatives accountable and uphold the capacity of the representative to act independently of the wishes of the represented.

Objective interests are the key for determining whether the autonomy of representative and the autonomy of the represented have been breached. However, Pitkin never adequately specifies how we are to identify constituents’ objective interests. At points, she implies that constituents should have some say in what are their objective interests, but ultimately she merely shifts her focus away from this paradox to the recommendation that representatives should be evaluated on the basis of the reasons they give for disobeying the preferences of their constituents. For Pitkin, assessments about representatives will depend on the issue at hand and the political environment in which a representative acts. To understand the multiple and conflicting standards within the concept of representation is to reveal the futility of holding all representatives to some fixed set of guidelines. In this way, Pitkin concludes that standards for evaluating representatives defy generalizations. Moreover, individuals, especially democratic citizens, are likely to disagree deeply about what representatives should be doing.

Pitkin offers one of the most comprehensive discussions of the concept of political representation, attending to its contradictory character in her The Concept of Representation . This classic discussion of the concept of representation is one of the most influential and oft-cited works in the literature on political representation. (For a discussion of her influence, see Dovi 2016). Adopting a Wittgensteinian approach to language, Pitkin maintains that in order to understand the concept of political representation, one must consider the different ways in which the term is used. Each of these different uses of the term provides a different view of the concept. Pitkin compares the concept of representation to “ a rather complicated, convoluted, three–dimensional structure in the middle of a dark enclosure.” Political theorists provide “flash-bulb photographs of the structure taken from different angles” [1967, 10]. More specifically, political theorists have provided four main views of the concept of representation. Unfortunately, Pitkin never explains how these different views of political representation fit together. At times, she implies that the concept of representation is unified. At other times, she emphasizes the conflicts between these different views, e.g. how descriptive representation is opposed to accountability. Drawing on her flash-bulb metaphor, Pitkin argues that one must know the context in which the concept of representation is placed in order to determine its meaning. For Pitkin, the contemporary usage of the term “representation” can signficantly change its meaning.

For Pitkin, disagreements about representation can be partially reconciled by clarifying which view of representation is being invoked. Pitkin identifies at least four different views of representation: formalistic representation, descriptive representation, symbolic representation, and substantive representation. (For a brief description of each of these views, see chart below.) Each view provides a different approach for examining representation. The different views of representation can also provide different standards for assessing representatives. So disagreements about what representatives ought to be doing are aggravated by the fact that people adopt the wrong view of representation or misapply the standards of representation. Pitkin has in many ways set the terms of contemporary discussions about representation by providing this schematic overview of the concept of political representation.

1. Formalistic Representation : Brief Description . The institutional arrangements that precede and initiate representation. Formal representation has two dimensions: authorization and accountability. Main Research Question . What is the institutional position of a representative? Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . None. ( Authorization ): Brief Description . The means by which a representative obtains his or her standing, status, position or office. Main Research Questions . What is the process by which a representative gains power (e.g., elections) and what are the ways in which a representative can enforce his or her decisions? Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . No standards for assessing how well a representative behaves. One can merely assess whether a representative legitimately holds his or her position. pdf include--> ( Accountability ): Brief Description . The ability of constituents to punish their representative for failing to act in accordance with their wishes (e.g. voting an elected official out of office) or the responsiveness of the representative to the constituents. Main Research Question . What are the sanctioning mechanisms available to constituents? Is the representative responsive towards his or her constituents’ preferences? Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . No standards for assessing how well a representative behaves. One can merely determine whether a representative can be sanctioned or has been responsive.

Brief Description . The ways that a representative “stands for” the represented — that is, the meaning that a representative has for those being represented.

Main Research Question . What kind of response is invoked by the representative in those being represented?

Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . Representatives are assessed by the degree of acceptance that the representative has among the represented.

Brief Description . The extent to which a representative resembles those being represented.

Main Research Question . Does the representative look like, have common interests with, or share certain experiences with the represented?

Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . Assess the representative by the accuracy of the resemblance between the representative and the represented.

Brief Description . The activity of representatives—that is, the actions taken on behalf of, in the interest of, as an agent of, and as a substitute for the represented.

Main Research Question . Does the representative advance the policy preferences that serve the interests of the represented?

Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . Assess a representative by the extent to which policy outcomes advanced by a representative serve “the best interests” of their constituents.

One cannot overestimate the extent to which Pitkin has shaped contemporary understandings of political representation, especially among political scientists. For example, her claim that descriptive representation opposes accountability is often the starting point for contemporary discussions about whether marginalized groups need representatives from their groups.

Similarly, Pitkin’s conclusions about the paradoxical nature of political representation support the tendency among contemporary theorists and political scientists to focus on formal procedures of authorization and accountability (formalistic representation). In particular, there has been a lot of theoretical attention paid to the proper design of representative institutions (e.g. Amy 1996; Barber, 2001; Christiano 1996; Guinier 1994). This focus is certainly understandable, since one way to resolve the disputes about what representatives should be doing is to “let the people decide.” In other words, establishing fair procedures for reconciling conflicts provides democratic citizens one way to settle conflicts about the proper behavior of representatives. In this way, theoretical discussions of political representation tend to depict political representation as primarily a principal-agent relationship. The emphasis on elections also explains why discussions about the concept of political representation frequently collapse into discussions of democracy. Political representation is understood as a way of 1) establishing the legitimacy of democratic institutions and 2) creating institutional incentives for governments to be responsive to citizens.

David Plotke (1997) has noted that this emphasis on mechanisms of authorization and accountability was especially useful in the context of the Cold War. For this understanding of political representation (specifically, its demarcation from participatory democracy) was useful for distinguishing Western democracies from Communist countries. Those political systems that held competitive elections were considered to be democratic (Schumpeter 1976). Plotke questions whether such a distinction continues to be useful. Plotke recommends that we broaden the scope of our understanding of political representation to encompass interest representation and thereby return to debating what is the proper activity of representatives. Plotke’s insight into why traditional understandings of political representation resonated prior to the end of the Cold War suggests that modern understandings of political representation are to some extent contingent on political realities. For this reason, those who attempt to define political representation should recognize how changing political realities can affect contemporary understandings of political representation. Again, following Pitkin, ideas about political representation appear contingent on existing political practices of representation. Our understandings of representation are inextricably shaped by the manner in which people are currently being represented. For an informative discussion of the history of representation, see Monica Brito Vieira and David Runican’s Representation .

As mentioned earlier, theoretical discussions of political representation have focused mainly on the formal procedures of authorization and accountability within nation states, that is, on what Pitkin called formalistic representation. However, such a focus is no longer satisfactory due to international and domestic political transformations. [For an extensive discussion of international and domestic transformations, see Mark Warren and Dario Castioglione (2004).] Increasingly international, transnational and non-governmental actors play an important role in advancing public policies on behalf of democratic citizens—that is, acting as representatives for those citizens. Such actors “speak for,” “act for” and can even “stand for” individuals within a nation-state. It is no longer desirable to limit one’s understanding of political representation to elected officials within the nation-state. After all, increasingly state “contract out” important responsibilities to non-state actors, e.g. environmental regulation. As a result, elected officials do not necessarily possess “the capacity to act,” the capacity that Pitkin uses to identify who is a representative. So, as the powers of nation-state have been disseminated to international and transnational actors, elected representatives are not necessarily the agents who determine how policies are implemented. Given these changes, the traditional focus of political representation, that is, on elections within nation-states, is insufficient for understanding how public policies are being made and implemented. The complexity of modern representative processes and the multiple locations of political power suggest that contemporary notions of accountability are inadequate. Grant and Keohane (2005) have recently updated notions of accountability, suggesting that the scope of political representation needs to be expanded in order to reflect contemporary realities in the international arena. Michael Saward (2009) has proposed an innovative type of criteria that should be used for evaluating non-elective representative claims. John Dryzek and Simon Niemayer (2008) has proposed an alternative conception of representation, what he calls discursive representation, to reflect the fact that transnational actors represent discourses, not real people. By discourses, they mean “a set of categories and concepts embodying specific assumptions, judgments, contentions, dispositions, and capabilities.” The concept of discursive representation can potentially redeem the promise of deliberative democracy when the deliberative participation of all affected by a collective decision is infeasible.

Domestic transformations also reveal the need to update contemporary understandings of political representation. Associational life — social movements, interest groups, and civic associations—is increasingly recognized as important for the survival of representative democracies. The extent to which interest groups write public policies or play a central role in implementing and regulating policies is the extent to which the division between formal and informal representation has been blurred. The fluid relationship between the career paths of formal and informal representatives also suggests that contemporary realities do not justify focusing mainly on formal representatives. Mark Warren’s concept of citizen representatives (2008) opens up a theoretical framework for exploring how citizens represent themselves and serve in representative capacities.

Given these changes, it is necessary to revisit our conceptual understanding of political representation, specifically of democratic representation. For as Jane Mansbridge has recently noted, normative understandings of representation have not kept up with recent empirical research and contemporary democratic practices. In her important article “Rethinking Representation” Mansbridge identifies four forms of representation in modern democracies: promissory, anticipatory, gyroscopic and surrogacy. Promissory representation is a form of representation in which representatives are to be evaluated by the promises they make to constituents during campaigns. Promissory representation strongly resembles Pitkin’s discussion of formalistic representation. For both are primarily concerned with the ways that constituents give their consent to the authority of a representative. Drawing on recent empirical work, Mansbridge argues for the existence of three additional forms of representation. In anticipatory representation, representatives focus on what they think their constituents will reward in the next election and not on what they promised during the campaign of the previous election. Thus, anticipatory representation challenges those who understand accountability as primarily a retrospective activity. In gyroscopic representation, representatives “look within” to derive from their own experience conceptions of interest and principles to serve as a basis for their action. Finally, surrogate representation occurs when a legislator represents constituents outside of their districts. For Mansbridge, each of these different forms of representation generates a different normative criterion by which representatives should be assessed. All four forms of representation, then, are ways that democratic citizens can be legitimately represented within a democratic regime. Yet none of the latter three forms representation operates through the formal mechanisms of authorization and accountability. Recently, Mansbridge (2009) has gone further by suggesting that political science has focused too much on the sanctions model of accountability and that another model, what she calls the selection model, can be more effective at soliciting the desired behavior from representatives. According to Mansbridge, a sanction model of accountability presumes that the representative has different interests from the represented and that the represented should not only monitor but reward the good representative and punish the bad. In contrast, the selection model of accountability presumes that representatives have self-motivated and exogenous reasons for carrying out the represented’s wishes. In this way, Mansbridge broadens our understanding of accountability to allow for good representation to occur outside of formal sanctioning mechanisms.

Mansbridge’s rethinking of the meaning of representation holds an important insight for contemporary discussions of democratic representation. By specifying the different forms of representation within a democratic polity, Mansbridge teaches us that we should refer to the multiple forms of democratic representation. Democratic representation should not be conceived as a monolithic concept. Moreover, what is abundantly clear is that democratic representation should no longer be treated as consisting simply in a relationship between elected officials and constituents within her voting district. Political representation should no longer be understood as a simple principal-agent relationship. Andrew Rehfeld has gone farther, maintaining that political representation should no longer be territorially based. In other words, Rehfeld (2005) argues that constituencies, e.g. electoral districts, should not be constructed based on where citizens live.

Lisa Disch (2011) also complicates our understanding of democratic representation as a principal-agent relationship by uncovering a dilemma that arises between expectations of democratic responsiveness to constituents and recent empirical findings regarding the context dependency of individual constituents’ preferences. In response to this dilemma, Disch proposes a mobilization conception of political representation and develops a systemic understanding of reflexivity as the measure of its legitimacy.

By far, one of the most important shifts in the literature on representation has been the “constructivist turn.” Constructivist approaches to representation emphasize the representative’s role in creating and framing the identities and claims of the represented. Here Michael Saward’s The Representative Claim is exemplary. For Saward, representation entails a series of relationships: “A maker of representations (M) puts forward a subject (S) which stands for an object (O) which is related to a referent (R) and is offered to an audience (A)” (2006, 302). Instead of presuming a pre-existing set of interests of the represented that representatives “bring into” the political arena, Saward stresses how representative claim-making is a “deeply culturally inflected practice.” Saward explicitly denies that theorists can know what are the interests of the represented. For this reason, the represented should have the ultimate say in judging the claims of the representative. The task of the representative is to create claims that will resonate with appropriate audiences.

Saward therefore does not evaluate representatives by the extent to which they advance the preferences or interests of the represented. Instead he focuses on the institutional and collective conditions in which claim-making takes place. The constructivist turn examines the conditions for claim-making, not the activities of particular representatives.

Saward’s “constructivist turn” has generated a new research direction for both political theorists and empirical scientists. For example, Lisa Disch (2015) considers whether the constructivist turn is a “normative dead” end, that is, whether the epistemological commitments of constructivism that deny the ability to identify interests will undermine the normative commitments to democratic politics. Disch offers an alternative approach, what she calls “the citizen standpoint”. This standpoint does not mean taking at face value whomever or whatever citizens regard as representing them. Rather, it is “an epistemological and political achievement that does not exist spontaneously but develops out of the activism of political movements together with the critical theories and transformative empirical research to which they give rise” (2015, 493). (For other critical engagements with Saward’s work, see Schaap et al, 2012 and Nässtrom, 2011).

There have been a number of important advances in theorizing the concept of political representation. In particular, these advances call into question the traditional way of thinking of political representation as a principal-agent relationship. Most notably, Melissa Williams’ recent work has recommended reenvisioning the activity of representation in light of the experiences of historically disadvantaged groups. In particular, she recommends understanding representation as “mediation.” In particular, Williams (1998, 8) identifies three different dimensions of political life that representatives must “mediate:” the dynamics of legislative decision-making, the nature of legislator-constituent relations, and the basis for aggregating citizens into representable constituencies. She explains each aspect by using a corresponding theme (voice, trust, and memory) and by drawing on the experiences of marginalized groups in the United States. For example, drawing on the experiences of American women trying to gain equal citizenship, Williams argues that historically disadvantaged groups need a “voice” in legislative decision-making. The “heavily deliberative” quality of legislative institutions requires the presence of individuals who have direct access to historically excluded perspectives.

In addition, Williams explains how representatives need to mediate the representative-constituent relationship in order to build “trust.” For Williams, trust is the cornerstone for democratic accountability. Relying on the experiences of African-Americans, Williams shows the consistent patterns of betrayal of African-Americans by privileged white citizens that give them good reason for distrusting white representatives and the institutions themselves. For Williams, relationships of distrust can be “at least partially mended if the disadvantaged group is represented by its own members”(1998, 14). Finally, representation involves mediating how groups are defined. The boundaries of groups according to Williams are partially established by past experiences — what Williams calls “memory.” Having certain shared patterns of marginalization justifies certain institutional mechanisms to guarantee presence.

Williams offers her understanding of representation as mediation as a supplement to what she regards as the traditional conception of liberal representation. Williams identifies two strands in liberal representation. The first strand she describes as the “ideal of fair representation as an outcome of free and open elections in which every citizen has an equally weighted vote” (1998, 57). The second strand is interest-group pluralism, which Williams describes as the “theory of the organization of shared social interests with the purpose of securing the equitable representation … of those groups in public policies” ( ibid .). Together, the two strands provide a coherent approach for achieving fair representation, but the traditional conception of liberal representation as made up of simply these two strands is inadequate. In particular, Williams criticizes the traditional conception of liberal representation for failing to take into account the injustices experienced by marginalized groups in the United States. Thus, Williams expands accounts of political representation beyond the question of institutional design and thus, in effect, challenges those who understand representation as simply a matter of formal procedures of authorization and accountability.

Another way of reenvisioning representation was offered by Nadia Urbinati (2000, 2002). Urbinati argues for understanding representation as advocacy. For Urbinati, the point of representation should not be the aggregation of interests, but the preservation of disagreements necessary for preserving liberty. Urbinati identifies two main features of advocacy: 1) the representative’s passionate link to the electors’ cause and 2) the representative’s relative autonomy of judgment. Urbinati emphasizes the importance of the former for motivating representatives to deliberate with each other and their constituents. For Urbinati the benefit of conceptualizing representation as advocacy is that it improves our understanding of deliberative democracy. In particular, it avoids a common mistake made by many contemporary deliberative democrats: focusing on the formal procedures of deliberation at the expense of examining the sources of inequality within civil society, e.g. the family. One benefit of Urbinati’s understanding of representation is its emphasis on the importance of opinion and consent formation. In particular, her agonistic conception of representation highlights the importance of disagreements and rhetoric to the procedures, practices, and ethos of democracy. Her account expands the scope of theoretical discussions of representation away from formal procedures of authorization to the deliberative and expressive dimensions of representative institutions. In this way, her agonistic understanding of representation provides a theoretical tool to those who wish to explain how non-state actors “represent.”

Other conceptual advancements have helped clarify the meaning of particular aspects of representation. For instance, Andrew Rehfeld (2009) has argued that we need to disaggregate the delegate/trustee distinction. Rehfeld highlights how representatives can be delegates and trustees in at least three different ways. For this reason, we should replace the traditional delegate/trustee distinction with three distinctions (aims, source of judgment, and responsiveness). By collapsing these three different ways of being delegates and trustees, political theorists and political scientists overlook the ways in which representatives are often partial delegates and partial trustees.

Other political theorists have asked us to rethink central aspects of our understanding of democratic representation. In Inclusion and Democracy Iris Marion Young asks us to rethink the importance of descriptive representation. Young stresses that attempts to include more voices in the political arena can suppress other voices. She illustrates this point using the example of a Latino representative who might inadvertently represent straight Latinos at the expense of gay and lesbian Latinos (1986, 350). For Young, the suppression of differences is a problem for all representation (1986, 351). Representatives of large districts or of small communities must negotiate the difficulty of one person representing many. Because such a difficulty is constitutive of representation, it is unreasonable to assume that representation should be characterized by a “relationship of identity.” The legitimacy of a representative is not primarily a function of his or her similarities to the represented. For Young, the representative should not be treated as a substitute for the represented. Consequently, Young recommends reconceptualizing representation as a differentiated relationship (2000, 125–127; 1986, 357). There are two main benefits of Young’s understanding of representation. First, her understanding of representation encourages us to recognize the diversity of those being represented. Second, her analysis of representation emphasizes the importance of recognizing how representative institutions include as well as they exclude. Democratic citizens need to remain vigilant about the ways in which providing representation for some groups comes at the expense of excluding others. Building on Young’s insight, Suzanne Dovi (2009) has argued that we should not conceptualize representation simply in terms of how we bring marginalized groups into democratic politics; rather, democratic representation can require limiting the influence of overrepresented privileged groups.

Moreover, based on this way of understanding political representation, Young provides an alterative account of democratic representation. Specifically, she envisions democratic representation as a dynamic process, one that moves between moments of authorization and moments of accountability (2000, 129). It is the movement between these moments that makes the process “democratic.” This fluidity allows citizens to authorize their representatives and for traces of that authorization to be evident in what the representatives do and how representatives are held accountable. The appropriateness of any given representative is therefore partially dependent on future behavior as well as on his or her past relationships. For this reason, Young maintains that evaluation of this process must be continuously “deferred.” We must assess representation dynamically, that is, assess the whole ongoing processes of authorization and accountability of representatives. Young’s discussion of the dynamic of representation emphasizes the ways in which evaluations of representatives are incomplete, needing to incorporate the extent to which democratic citizens need to suspend their evaluations of representatives and the extent to which representatives can face unanticipated issues.

Another insight about democratic representation that comes from the literature on descriptive representation is the importance of contingencies. Here the work of Jane Mansbridge on descriptive representation has been particularly influential. Mansbridge recommends that we evaluate descriptive representatives by contexts and certain functions. More specifically, Mansbridge (1999, 628) focuses on four functions and their related contexts in which disadvantaged groups would want to be represented by someone who belongs to their group. Those four functions are “(1) adequate communication in contexts of mistrust, (2) innovative thinking in contexts of uncrystallized, not fully articulated, interests, … (3) creating a social meaning of ‘ability to rule’ for members of a group in historical contexts where the ability has been seriously questioned and (4) increasing the polity’s de facto legitimacy in contexts of past discrimination.” For Mansbridge, descriptive representatives are needed when marginalized groups distrust members of relatively more privileged groups and when marginalized groups possess political preferences that have not been fully formed. The need for descriptive representation is contingent on certain functions.

Mansbridge’s insight about the contingency of descriptive representation suggests that at some point descriptive representatives might not be necessary. However, she doesn’t specify how we are to know if interests have become crystallized or trust has formed to the point that the need for descriptive representation would be obsolete. Thus, Mansbridge’s discussion of descriptive representation suggests that standards for evaluating representatives are fluid and flexible. For an interesting discussion of the problems with unified or fixed standards for evaluating Latino representatives, see Christina Beltran’s The Trouble with Unity .

Mansbridge’s discussion of descriptive representation points to another trend within the literature on political representation — namely, the trend to derive normative accounts of representation from the representative’s function. Russell Hardin (2004) captured this trend most clearly in his position that “if we wish to assess the morality of elected officials, we must understand their function as our representatives and then infer how they can fulfill this function.” For Hardin, only an empirical explanation of the role of a representative is necessary for determining what a representative should be doing. Following Hardin, Suzanne Dovi (2007) identifies three democratic standards for evaluating the performance of representatives: those of fair-mindedness, critical trust building, and good gate-keeping. In Ruling Passions , Andrew Sabl (2002) links the proper behavior of representatives to their particular office. In particular, Sabl focuses on three offices: senator, organizer and activist. He argues that the same standards should not be used to evaluate these different offices. Rather, each office is responsible for promoting democratic constancy, what Sabl understands as “the effective pursuit of interest.” Sabl (2002) and Hardin (2004) exemplify the trend to tie the standards for evaluating political representatives to the activity and office of those representatives.

There are three persistent problems associated with political representation. Each of these problems identifies a future area of investigation. The first problem is the proper institutional design for representative institutions within democratic polities. The theoretical literature on political representation has paid a lot of attention to the institutional design of democracies. More specifically, political theorists have recommended everything from proportional representation (e.g. Guinier, 1994 and Christiano, 1996) to citizen juries (Fishkin, 1995). However, with the growing number of democratic states, we are likely to witness more variation among the different forms of political representation. In particular, it is important to be aware of how non-democratic and hybrid regimes can adopt representative institutions to consolidate their power over their citizens. There is likely to be much debate about the advantages and disadvantages of adopting representative institutions.

This leads to a second future line of inquiry — ways in which democratic citizens can be marginalized by representative institutions. This problem is articulated most clearly by Young’s discussion of the difficulties arising from one person representing many. Young suggests that representative institutions can include the opinions, perspectives and interests of some citizens at the expense of marginalizing the opinions, perspectives and interests of others. Hence, a problem with institutional reforms aimed at increasing the representation of historically disadvantaged groups is that such reforms can and often do decrease the responsiveness of representatives. For instance, the creation of black districts has created safe zones for black elected officials so that they are less accountable to their constituents. Any decrease in accountability is especially worrisome given the ways citizens are vulnerable to their representatives. Thus, one future line of research is examining the ways that representative institutions marginalize the interests, opinions and perspectives of democratic citizens.

In particular, it is necessary for to acknowledge the biases of representative institutions. While E. E. Schattschneider (1960) has long noted the class bias of representative institutions, there is little discussion of how to improve the political representation of the disaffected — that is, the political representation of those citizens who do not have the will, the time, or political resources to participate in politics. The absence of such a discussion is particularly apparent in the literature on descriptive representation, the area that is most concerned with disadvantaged citizens. Anne Phillips (1995) raises the problems with the representation of the poor, e.g. the inability to define class, however, she argues for issues of class to be integrated into a politics of presence. Few theorists have taken up Phillip’s gauntlet and articulated how this integration of class and a politics of presence is to be done. Of course, some have recognized the ways in which interest groups, associations, and individual representatives can betray the least well off (e.g. Strolovitch, 2004). And some (Dovi, 2003) have argued that descriptive representatives need to be selected based on their relationship to citizens who have been unjustly excluded and marginalized by democratic politics. However, it is unclear how to counteract the class bias that pervades domestic and international representative institutions. It is necessary to specify the conditions under which certain groups within a democratic polity require enhanced representation. Recent empirical literature has suggested that the benefits of having descriptive representatives is by no means straightforward (Gay, 2002).

A third and final area of research involves the relationship between representation and democracy. Historically, representation was considered to be in opposition with democracy [See Dahl (1989) for a historical overview of the concept of representation]. When compared to the direct forms of democracy found in the ancient city-states, notably Athens, representative institutions appear to be poor substitutes for the ways that citizens actively ruled themselves. Barber (1984) has famously argued that representative institutions were opposed to strong democracy. In contrast, almost everyone now agrees that democratic political institutions are representative ones.

Bernard Manin (1997)reminds us that the Athenian Assembly, which often exemplifies direct forms of democracy, had only limited powers. According to Manin, the practice of selecting magistrates by lottery is what separates representative democracies from so-called direct democracies. Consequently, Manin argues that the methods of selecting public officials are crucial to understanding what makes representative governments democratic. He identifies four principles distinctive of representative government: 1) Those who govern are appointed by election at regular intervals; 2) The decision-making of those who govern retains a degree of independence from the wishes of the electorate; 3) Those who are governed may give expression to their opinions and political wishes without these being subject to the control of those who govern; and 4) Public decisions undergo the trial of debate (6). For Manin, historical democratic practices hold important lessons for determining whether representative institutions are democratic.

While it is clear that representative institutions are vital institutional components of democratic institutions, much more needs to be said about the meaning of democratic representation. In particular, it is important not to presume that all acts of representation are equally democratic. After all, not all acts of representation within a representative democracy are necessarily instances of democratic representation. Henry Richardson (2002) has explored the undemocratic ways that members of the bureaucracy can represent citizens. [For a more detailed discussion of non-democratic forms of representation, see Apter (1968). Michael Saward (2008) also discusses how existing systems of political representation do not necessarily serve democracy.] Similarly, it is unclear whether a representative who actively seeks to dismantle democratic institutions is representing democratically. Does democratic representation require representatives to advance the preferences of democratic citizens or does it require a commitment to democratic institutions? At this point, answers to such questions are unclear. What is certain is that democratic citizens are likely to disagree about what constitutes democratic representation.

One popular approach to addressing the different and conflicting standards used to evaluate representatives within democratic polities, is to simply equate multiple standards with democratic ones. More specifically, it is argued that democratic standards are pluralistic, accommodating the different standards possessed and used by democratic citizens. Theorists who adopt this approach fail to specify the proper relationship among these standards. For instance, it is unclear how the standards that Mansbridge identifies in the four different forms of representation should relate to each other. Does it matter if promissory forms of representation are replaced by surrogate forms of representation? A similar omission can be found in Pitkin: although Pitkin specifies there is a unified relationship among the different views of representation, she never describes how the different views interact. This omission reflects the lacunae in the literature about how formalistic representation relates to descriptive and substantive representation. Without such a specification, it is not apparent how citizens can determine if they have adequate powers of authorization and accountability.

Currently, it is not clear exactly what makes any given form of representation consistent, let alone consonant, with democratic representation. Is it the synergy among different forms or should we examine descriptive representation in isolation to determine the ways that it can undermine or enhance democratic representation? One tendency is to equate democratic representation simply with the existence of fluid and multiple standards. While it is true that the fact of pluralism provides justification for democratic institutions as Christiano (1996) has argued, it should no longer presumed that all forms of representation are democratic since the actions of representatives can be used to dissolve or weaken democratic institutions. The final research area is to articulate the relationship between different forms of representation and ways that these forms can undermine democratic representation.

• Andeweg, Rudy B., and Jacques J.A. Thomassen, 2005. “Modes of Political Representation: Toward a new typology,” Legislative Studies Quarterly , 30(4): 507–528.
• Ankersmit, Franklin Rudolph, 2002. Political Representation , Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Alcoff, Linda, 1991. “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique , Winter: 5–32.
• Alonso, Sonia, John Keane, and Wolfgang Merkel (eds.), 2011. The Future of Representative Democracy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Beitz, Charles, 1989. Political Equality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Chapter 6 is on ‘Representation’]
• Burke, Edmund, 1790 [1968]. Reflections on the Revolution in France , London: Penguin Books.
• Dahl, Robert A., 1989. Democracy and Its Critics , New Haven: Yale University.
• Disch, Lisa, 2015. “The Constructivist Turn in Democratic Representation: A Normative Dead-End?,” Constellations , 22(4): 487–499.
• Dovi, Suzanne, 2007. The Good Representative , New York: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
• Downs, Anthony, 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy , New York: Harper.
• Dryzek, John and Simon Niemeyer, 2008. “Discursive Representation,” American Political Science Review , 102(4): 481–493.
• Hardin, Russell, 2004. “Representing Ignorance,” Social Philosophy and Policy , 21: 76–99.
• Lublin, David, 1999. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, 1787–8 [1987]. The Federalist Papers , Isaac Kramnick (ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Mansbridge, Jane, 2003. “Rethinking Representation,” American Political Science Review , 97(4): 515–28.
• Manin, Bernard, 1997. The Principles of Representative Government , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nässtrom, Sofia, 2011. “Where is the representative turn going?” European journal of political theory, , 10(4): 501–510.
• Pennock, J. Roland and John Chapman (eds.), 1968. Representation , New York: Atherton Press.
• Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, 1967. The Concept of Representation , Berkeley: University of California.
• Plotke, David, 1997. “Representation is Democracy,” Constellations , 4: 19–34.
• Rehfeld, Andrew, 2005. The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation, Democratic Legitimacy and Institutional Design , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2006. “Towards a General Theory of Political Representation,” The Journal of Politics , 68: 1–21.
• Rosenstone, Steven and John Hansen, 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America , New York: MacMillian Publishing Company.
• Runciman, David, 2007. “The Paradox of Political Representation,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 15: 93–114.
• Saward, Michael, 2014. “Shape-shifting representation”. American Political Science Review , 108(4): 723–736.
• –––, 2010. The Representative Claim , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2008. “Representation and democracy: revisions and possibilities,” Sociology compass , 2(3): 1000–1013.
• –––, 2006. “The representative claim”. Contemporary political theory , 5(3): 297–318.
• Sabl, Andrew, 2002. Ruling Passions: Political Offices and Democratic Ethics , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Schaap, Andrew, Thompson, Simon, Disch, Lisa, Castiglione, Dario and Saward, Michael, 2012. “Critical exchange on Michael Saward’s The Representative Claim,” Contemporary Political Theory , 11(1): 109–127.
• Schattschneider, E. E., 1960. The Semisovereign People , New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
• Schumpeter, Joseph, 1976. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy , London: Allen and Unwin.
• Schwartz, Nancy, 1988. The Blue Guitar: Political Representation and Community , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Shapiro, Ian, Susan C. Stokes, Elisabeth Jean Wood and Alexander S. Kirshner (eds.), 2009. Political Representation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Urbinati, Nadia, 2000. “Representation as Advocacy: A Study of Democratic Deliberation,” Political Theory , 28: 258–786.
• Urbinati, Nadia and Mark Warren, 2008. “The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory,” Annual Review of Political Science , 11: 387–412
• Vieira, Monica and David Runciman, 2008. Representation , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Vieira, Monica (ed.), 2017. Reclaiming Representation: Contemporary Advances in the Theory of Political Representation , New York: Routledge Press.
• Warren, Mark and Dario Castiglione, 2004. “The Transformation of Democratic Representation,” Democracy and Society , 2(1): 5–22.
• Barber, Benjamin, 1984. Strong Democracy , Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
• Dryzek, John, 1996. “Political Inclusion and the Dynamics of Democratization,” American Political Science Review , 90 (September): 475–487.
• Pateman, Carole, 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 1762, The Social Contract , Judith Masters and Roger Masters (trans.), New York: St. Martins Press, 1978.
• Saward, Michael, 2008. “Representation and Democracy: Revisions and Possibilities,” Sociology Compass , 2: 1000–1013.
• Apter, David, 1968. “Notes for a Theory of Nondemocratic Representation,” in Nomos X , Chapter 19, pp. 278–317.
• Brown, Mark, 2006. “Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 14: 203–225.
• Cohen, Joshua and Joel Rogers, 1995. Associations and Democracy (The Real Utopias Project: Volume 1), Erik Olin Wright (ed.), London: Verso.
• Dalton, Russell J., and Martin P. Wattenberg (eds.), 2002. Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Montanaro, L., 2012. “The Democratic Legitimacy of Self-appointed Representatives,” The Journal of Politics , 74(4): 1094–1107.
• Ryden, David K., 1996. Representation in Crisis: The Constitution, Interest Groups, and Political Parties , Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Truman, David, 1951. The Governmental Process , New York: Knopf.
• Saward, Michael, 2009. “ Authorisation and Authenticity: Representation and the Unelected,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 17: 1–22.
• Steunenberg, Bernard and J. J. A.Thomassen, 2002. The European Parliament : Moving Toward Democracy in the EU , Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Schmitter, Philippe, 2000. “Representation,” in How to democratize the European Union and Why Bother? , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, Ch. 3. pp. 53–74.
• Street, John, 2004. “Celebrity politicians: popular culture and political representation,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations , 6(4): 435–452.
• Strolovitch, Dara Z., 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics , Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Tormey, S., 2012. “Occupy Wall Street: From representation to post-representation,” Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies , 5: 132–137.
• Richardson, Henry, 2002. “Representative government,” in Democratic Autonomy , Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch. 14, pp. 193–202
• Runciman, David, 2010. “Hobbes’s Theory of Representation: anti-democratic or protodemoratic,” in Political Representation , Ian Shapiro, Susan C. Stokes, Elisabeth Jean Wood, and Alexander Kirshner (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Warren, Mark, 2001. Democracy and Association , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2008. “Citizen Representatives,” in Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British ColumbiaCitizens’ Assembly , Mark Warren and Hilary Pearse (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 50–69.
• Warren, Mark and Dario Castiglione, 2004. “The Transformation of Democratic Representation,” Democracy and Society , 2(I): 5, 20–22.
• Amy, Douglas, 1996. Real Choices/New Voices: The Case for Proportional Elections in the United States , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Barber, Kathleen, 2001. A Right to Representation: Proportional Election Systems for the 21 st Century , Columbia: Ohio University Press.
• Canon, David, 1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Christiano, Thomas, 1996. The Rule of the Many , Boulder: Westview Press.
• Cotta, Maurizio and Heinrich Best (eds.), 2007. Democratic Representation in Europe Diversity, Change, and Convergence , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Guinier, Lani, 1994. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy , New York: Free Press.
• Przworksi, Adam, Susan C. Stokes, and Bernard Manin (eds.), 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Thompson, Dennis, 2002. Just Elections , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Jacobs, Lawrence R. and Robert Y. Shapiro, 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Grant, Ruth and Robert O. Keohane, 2005. “Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics,” American Political Science Review , 99 (February): 29–44.
• Mansbridge, Jane, 2004. “Representation Revisited: Introduction to the Case Against Electoral Accountability,” Democracy and Society , 2(I): 12–13.
• –––, 2009. “A Selection Model of Representation,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 17(4): 369–398.
• Pettit, Philip, 2010. “Representation, Responsive and Indicative,” Constellations , 17(3): 426–434.
• Fishkin, John, 1995. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Hibbing, John and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, 2002. Stealth Democracy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Saward, Michael (ed.), 2000. Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association , London: Routledge.
• Severs, E., 2010. “Representation As Claims-Making. Quid Responsiveness?” Representation , 46(4): 411–423.
• Williams, Melissa, 2000. “The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation and Deliberative Democracy,” in Citizenship in Diverse Societies , W. Kymlicka and Wayne Norman (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch 5. pp. 124–153.
• Young, Iris Marion, 1999. “Justice, Inclusion, and Deliberative Democracy” in Deliberative Politics , Stephen Macedo (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University.
• Bentran, Cristina, 2010. The Trouble with Unity: Latino Politics and the Creation of Identity , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Celis, Karen, Sarah Childs, Johanna Kantola and Mona Lena Krook, 2008, “Rethinking Women’s Substantive Representation,” Representation , 44(2): 99–110.
• Childs Sarah, 2008. Women and British Party Politics: Descriptive, Substantive and Symbolic Representation , London: Routledge.
• Dovi, Suzanne, 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Or Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?,” American Political Science Review , 96: 745–754.
• –––, 2007. “Theorizing Women’s Representation in the United States?,” Politics and Gender , 3(3): 297–319. doi: 10.1017/S1743923X07000281
• –––, 2009. “In Praise of Exclusion,” Journal of Politics , 71 (3): 1172–1186.
• –––, 2016. “Measuring Representation: Rethinking the Role of Exclusion” Political Representation , Marc Bühlmann and Jan Fivaz (eds.), London: Routledge.
• Fenno, Richard F., 2003. Going Home: Black Representatives and Their Constituents , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Gay, Claudine, 2002. “Spirals of Trust?,” American Journal of Political Science , 4: 717–32.
• Gould, Carol, 1996. “Diversity and Democracy: Representing Differences,” in Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political , Seyla Benhabib (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University, pp. 171–186.
• Htun, Mala, 2004. “Is Gender like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity Groups,” Perspectives on Politics , 2: 439–458.
• Mansbridge, Jane, 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’,” The Journal of Politics , 61: 628–57.
• –––, 2003. “Rethinking Representation,” American Political Science Review , 97: 515–528.
• Phillips, Anne, 1995. Politics of Presence , New York: Clarendon.
• –––, 1998. “Democracy and Representation: Or, Why Should It Matter Who Our Representatives Are?,” in Feminism and Politics , Oxford: Oxford University. pp. 224–240.
• Pitkin, Hanna, 1967. The Concept of Representation , Los Angeles: University of Press.
• Sapiro, Virginia, 1981. “When are Interests Interesting?,” American Political Science Review , 75 (September): 701–721.
• Strolovitch, Dara Z., 2004. “Affirmative Representation,” Democracy and Society , 2: 3–5.
• Swain, Carol M., 1993. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
• Thomas, Sue, 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies,” Journal of Politics , 53 (November): 958–976.
• –––, 1994. How Women Legislate , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Weldon, S. Laurel, 2002. “Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources of Representation for Women in Democratic Policymaking,” Journal of Politics , 64(4): 1153–1174.
• Williams, Melissa, 1998. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
• Young, Iris Marion, 1986. “Deferring Group Representation,” Nomos: Group Rights , Will Kymlicka and Ian Shapiro (eds.), New York: New York University Press, pp. 349–376.
• –––, 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
• –––, 2000. Inclusion and Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

G. Democratic Representation

• Castiglione, D., 2015. “Trajectories and Transformations of the Democratic Representative System”. Global Policy , 6(S1): 8–16.
• Disch, Lisa, 2011. “Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation,” American Political Science Review , 105(1): 100–114.
• –––, 2012. “Democratic representation and the constituency paradox,” Perspectives on Politics , 10(3): 599–616.
• –––, 2016. “Hanna Pitkin, The Concept of Representation,” The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Contemporary Political Theory , Jacob Levy (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198717133.013.24
• Mansbridge, Jane, 2003. “Rethinking Representation,” American Political Science Review , 97: 515–528.
• Näsström, Sofia, 2006. “Representative democracy as tautology: Ankersmit and Lefort on representation,” European Journal of Political Theory , 5(3): 321–342.
• Urbinati, Nadia, 2011. “Political Representation as Democratic Process,” Redescriptions (Yearbook of Political Thought and Conceptual History: Volume 10), Kari Palonen (ed.), Helsinki: Transaction Publishers.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• FairVote Program for Representative Government
• Proportional Representation Library , provides readings proportional representation elections created by Prof. Douglas J. Amy, Dept. of Politics, Mount Holyoke College
• Representation , an essay by Ann Marie Baldonado on the Postcolonial Studies website at Emory University.
• Representation: John Locke, Second Treatise, §§ 157–58 , in The Founders’ Constitution at the University of Chicago Press
• Popular Basis of Political Authority: David Hume, Of the Original Contract , in The Founders’ Constitution at the University of Chicago Press

Burke, Edmund | democracy

Copyright © 2018 by Suzanne Dovi < sdovi @ email . arizona . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054