What Does “Representation” Mean?
Nov 14th, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 10 Comments |
Current national democracies (in America, Britain, Iraq, etc.) depend on the concept of “representation.” To represent is to re-present, to make present (again).
We use the same word of pictures and attorneys.
A picture presents how a person is/was/looks/looked. It makes a person present (again) by embodying his/her appearance.
An attorney acts or speaks for a person. She/he makes a person present by embodying the person’s intentions. (Like Christians are meant to do when they pray, or do other things “in Jesus’ name“).
Political representatives are which kind?
They certainly aren’t accurate pictures of their constituencies, which are usually split (often down the middle). They can’t point to themselves and say, “I am the way they are. If you have seen me, you have seen them” (like Jesus said of God).
And how can they carry out the wishes of a divided constituency? They can’t be representatives in the way attorneys are.
(Just look at the congressional approval ratings recently in the US . . . .)
I think that the best way that our representatives can represent us is to be true to the ideals that they campaigned on. When they were elected, it meant that the majority of those interested enough to vote believed in what they campaigned on (or believed in their past record).
Of course, this is exactly where so many politicians fail to represent us. They cave in to lobbyists and to their party leaders. They make compromises in the ‘game” of legislative negotiation. Sometimes they break promises because they never intended to keep them.
Do we even want our representatives to accurately reflect their consituencies? It seems to me that society is at a place that we actually could pull of a pretty good semblance of a direct (rather than representational) democracy. Using the internet and other technologies, we could all cast a vote nearly instaneously on nearly any issue we’d care to.
Personally, when I decide that I’m with a candidate on overall issues of policy, character, and philosophy I hope he votes his conscience for at least three reasons:
#1) Most people aren’t very good at choosing what they need over what they want, I don’t think I’m particularly better or worse than the rest of the American public… As paternalistic as it sounds, I think we need somebody who can make the tough decisions that we might not be wise enough to make.
#2) It’s not practical for me to expect myself (or most of the public) to be familiarized with the nitty gritty of many issues. This doesn’t mean I don’t care, it doesn’t mean I don’t formulate opinions, it doesn’t mean I don’t have a responsibility to stay informed. But seriously, who’s actually read the whole of the USA patriot act? We all have pretty intense opinions, but I’d rather the person making the decisions has actually read the whole thing.
#3) There are some issue which for safety’s sake we can’t make public, yet decisions needs to be made. Issues of national security, etc.
I guess, I’m looking for lawyerly representation in my government, to sum up.
RGuy–
Why are they called representatives of “the people” then, if they only represent the majority?
And why choose who gets represented based on whether more than half of other people agree with them?
:-)
Jeff–
The “Not In Our Name!” signs I see in my Democrat neighbors’ front yards would imply we do.
It seems to me that society is at a place that we actually could pull of a pretty good semblance of a direct (rather than representational) democracy.
Perhaps so. But the right way to do government can’t have just now appeared on earth. And as you point out, there are good reasons for thinking that non-representative democracy wouldn’t be very effective.
That’s cool. But how is that supposed to work out when you belong to one the various opposed factions that your representative is supposed to be acting for?
:-)
That’s a great question.
I think our system is fairly confused.
There are a variety of obvious ways that a senator (or rep.; which ever) for example is intended to represent a geographical region. The most obvious way in which this happens is that they are voted for by a geographical region– as a resident of Massachusetts, for example, I don’t vote for Alaska’s senator.
However, there are more subtle things that are easy to forget about… Consider the committee system. If the senator of Alaska joins, for example, the Armed Services committee, to the members of the Armed Services (and the gazillions of people impacted by the Armed Services) become a group that the Alaskan is meant to represent? Or is the entire motivation for the Alaskan senator to gain committee membership simply to leverage the Armed Service’s stuff for the interests of Alaska?
Furthermore, did we set the Senate and the House up as large bodies for the exact same reason we want tons of voters– is one part of the belief that “truthiness” (thanks Stephen Colbert) pops up wherever we get enough educated people together?
Thirdly, it seems to me that we the system is quite ingeniously set up checks and balances between global and regionalism just as it sets up checks and balances between the branches…
I guess I want lawyerly rather literal/pictural representation because I want somebody who will vote as I would if I was put in that position… not somebody who will vote based on where I am right now. If there are consistent or important issues that my “representative” isn’t reflecting my values on, then this is a problem, unless I can be made to understand why the disconnect is occuring. Though I have a disdain for politicians who are ignoring everything about what got them elected (i.e. the people and the people’s values) I might have a deeper disdain for a politician who polls, polls, polls, expresses only the popular opinion, etc.
Indeed. Nicely articulated.
What’s strange is that not only didn’t you vote for the Senators from Alaska, but a good number of the citizens of Massachusetts didn’t vote for either Kerry or Kennedy.
I think it’s intriguing how democracy begins as “the rule of the people,” morphs into “the rule of the majority” as the votes are counted on election day, and ends up as “the rule of the minority” on swearing-in day (there are, after all, only 500-some members of congress from a nation of millions).
Direct democracy is definitely not established in the Constution, and was denounced in the Federalist Papers.
Although the place I live doesn’t have it, I like direct democracy for local communities.
I also like the Quaker idea of concensus, although that would be very hard to use in a large-scale, secular environment.
Quaker idea of consensus, eh? Following Andrew’s example, I just did a little reading on that. Interesting. Sounds good for smallish groups.
thanks for the GREAT post! Very useful…
Thanks so much!
[...] (1) Representation. [...]