There are underlying assumptions about what representatives are and what they are supposed to do that are rarely discussed among voters or representatives themselves. It is often assumed that everyone knows what a representative is and what they should do, but in reality people differ significantly on this question. It turns out that this very question can teach us a lot about democracy while providing insight into our own political preferences and that of others. While reading articles and comments on kos it occurred to me that frequently people base arguments regarding representatives on one of these models of representation. The judgement of writers as to the wisdom or folly of the actions of a particular representative are really arguments based on how much or how little the representative adhered to the expectations contained in their particular model.
I will start with direct democracy and proceed from there to representative democracy where I will discuss the primary models of representative and how they differ. In a direct democracy there are no representatives and people vote and/or deliberate on policy directly usually in some kind of assembly. Many states in the US and countries around the world have a modified version of direct democracy with referendums, initiatives and recalls. Referendum, initiatives, and recalls are semi-direct democracy. Referendum, initiatives, and recalls were primarily adopted in the western United States in the early 20th Century as progressive measures to combat corruption and bring about reforms:
Most of these provisions for direct democracy were adopted between 1898 and 1918, when a confluence of reform movements (‘farmers’ cooperatives, labour organisations, prohibitionists, suffragettes) took on powerful corporate interests that controlled state legislatures. They succeeded in amending state constitutions, particularly, but not exclusively, in the west.
One factor that determines a preference for semi-direct democracy is political culture. You will typically find most opponents of semi-direct democracy in the southern United States while the most enthusiastic embrace of semi-direct democracy is in the states on the west coast. You would have a hard time finding a voter in Washington, Oregon or California opposed to semi-direct democracy. It is also worth noting that semi-direct democracy is a fairly recent phenomenon in the US and it has had plenty of supporters and critics. There were some forms of direct democracy and semi-direct democracy in the colonial period and among native peoples but it was limited to small communities of people who had a lot of commonalities and little inequality.
The next model of representation is the delegate model (sometimes called the rubber stamp but this can be confused with a representative who just approves what a dictator wants so it is rarely called that in democracies). A delegate is a representative who simply listens to the views of their constituents and then articulates those views for their constituents in some kind of assembly. In this model the delegate shouldn't use their own ideas or political judgement to represent people; they should faithfully represent the views of the people they represent at all times. The delegate model gained popularity in the colonial era and the American Revolution but it eventually lost favor among many people in the United States after the Constitutional Convention and the rise of a new political regime.
The next model is most associated with classical conservatism as espoused by Edmund Burke. There are some similarities between some segments of conservatives in the United States today and Burke’s conservatism, but there are many differences as well. The trustee model was popular in the early republic among the political class and is still very much alive today. This model is called the trustee model of representation and it gives more freedom of action to the representative when compared to the delegate model. It is based onthe trust people place in the representative to make good decisions on their behalf because ideally the representative will be a person of high character and ability. In this model the representative uses their own judgement, experience, and expertise to legislate in the way they think is best for the people. Here is a quote from Edmund Burke that encapsulates the representative in the trustee model:
Edmund Burke, who formulated the model, stated in a speech, "You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament...your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your own opinion".
The trustee model is a repudiation of the delegate model because Burke and adherents of this model often think it is undesirable to act according to their constituent’s views.
The next model is one that developed in the United States alongside political parties and it is called the mandate model of representation. Unlike the trustee model, the representative in the mandate model is most often restricted from independent action by a political party. The mandate model really came into being during the presidency of Andrew Jackson and has been with us ever since. Jackson’s Democratic Party and Jackson’s campaign against the Bank of the United States gave rise to the mandate model:
With nullification abated, Jackson returned to the Bank War. His relationship with “the people” throughout his first term convinced him that he was the only elected official in the United States that represented all “the people.” As such, Jackson believed he had to use his office to carry out their will.
He interpreted his victory over Clay and the Bank in 1832 as “the people’s” mandate to destroy the powerful Bank and replace it with a decentralized government banking system. While Jackson pushed his banking plan through Congress he handicapped the Bank by ordering the removal of government deposits.
Here is political scientist Robert Dahl discussing Jackson and the mandate model of representation:
A history of the theory of the presidential mandate has not been written and I have no intention of supplying one here. However, if anyone could be said to have created the myth of the presidential mandate, surely it would be Andrew Jackson. Although he never used the word “mandate,” so far as I know, he was the first American president to claim not only that the president is uniquely representative of all the people but that his election confers on him a mandate from the people in support of his policy. Jackson’s claim was a fateful step in the democratization of the constitutional system of the United States - or rather what I prefer to call, for reasons I shall explain in the next lecture, the pseudo democratization of the presidency.
One of the main problems with this model is that it allows presidents to pretend to follow the voters when actually presidents have policies in mind that are very different from what the voters want. The same can be said for congressmen and senators. Essentially, voters provide a mandate to enact a host of policies that are developed by parties, candidates and these days think tanks. This model is one that retains a little of both of the trustee model and the delegate model because it is like the delegate model in that the representative is restrained by the party and whatever campaign promises they made. But it allows representatives to pursue their own agenda based not on their judgement as in the trustee model but by simply claiming to have a mandate. George W. Bush was explicitly invoking the mandate model after his reelection in 2004:
President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."
Bush staked his claim to a broad mandate and announced his top priorities at a post-election news conference, saying his 3.5 million vote victory had won him political capital that he would spend enacting his conservative agenda.
"I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush told reporters. "It is my style."
What Bush said here is a common view among representatives who adhere to the mandate model but they rarely say it out loud. Again the problem here is that while Bush did win the election in 2004 it is not likely that all of the policies he wanted to enact were supported by the majority of people. He claimed his victory was a mandate from the people to enact his policy priorities whether they are supported by the people or not.
It is unlikely that a representative acts consistently according to one of these models all the time. There can be variations in their approach to issues depending, for example, on how important an issue is to them or their constituents. Likewise, voters often vary their preference for one model or the other in different circumstances that means that their expectations for a representative can change along with their opinion of the representative. This is the politico model of representation wherein representatives adopt different models of representation at different times. This model is is probably the closest to describing how people actually think about representation but I think that most people will have a preference for one of the models over others.
The last model of representation I will discuss here is one that has gained in popularity in recent decades. The resemblance model of representation basically says that in order for a representative to be effective they should be a member of whatever group they represent. People who prefer the resemblance model of representation usually want to see more working class representatives, African American representatives, and representatives who are women. I would say that this model has been gaining more adherents just in the past decade or so but it has not really broke out to challenge the other models. One problem with this model is that it isn’t clear that a representative will be effective and democratic just because they are members of a group they are representing. I think there is some truth to this criticism as there are a lot of women in politics opposed to abortion, child care legislation, SNAP benefits, and enforcement of sexual harassment laws in the workplace.
Democracy is a system of government that holds that all power emanates from the people and that the people are sovereign. In order to make decisions and enact policy in a democratic way there are representatives who act as agents for the people, or there is direct democracy. There are people who think we should implement direct democracy and cut out representatives altogether. But I think one advantage of having representatives is that ideally they will deliberate and debate political issues to arrive at good legislation that is faithful to democracy. However, we often fall short of the ideal so I think it is valuable to also have semi-direct democracy at the same time to help ensure that legislation is democratic. There is nothing like initiative, referendum and recall on the federal level and there is unlikely to be anytime soon just like direct democracy is unlikely in our country. So it is important to consider these models of representation in order to hold representatives accountable and to understand how candidates and people in government view the role of representative in a democracy. In doing so we can strengthen democracy and we will have a better chance to get legislation that people really want enacted into law.