REPRESETAIVE DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS

Representative Democracy in Crisis

Representative Democracy in Crisis

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to expand the boundaries of our knowledge by exploring some relevant facts and figures relating to the topic i.e. “Representative democracy in crisis”. Representative democracy is a form of government in which the citizens of the state exercise their popular sovereignty through legitimately elected representatives. In a representative democracy, the citizens choose their representatives by voting in elections. Typically, the chosen representatives then congregate in a legislative assembly in which they debate policy and determine legislation. Representative democracy, often contrasted with more participatory forms of democracy in which citizens play an active role in the decision-making process.

The classical theory of representative democracy suggests that the representatives should act in accord with the will or interests of the citizens. Yet, the representatives do not simply act as a proxy for the relevant citizens; rather, they have considerable discretion, and so can adopt the positions that they believe will most benefit their constituents or even the population as a whole. Besides, representative democracies often include political parties, with citizens voting for particular representatives in large part because of the party to which they belong in a way that arguably requires the representative to adopt the positions to which his or her party, committed at the time of the election (Thiele, 2003, pp. 81-93).

Because the role of representatives is, at least in part, to act on behalf of their constituents, it is important that the voters have a way of holding the representatives accountable. Accountability has generally been linked here to both transparency and periodic elections on the grounds that transparency enables citizens to keep track of the actions of their representatives, while periodic elections enable citizens to replace their representatives if they are unhappy with their representatives' actions (Sorensen, 1993, pp. 15-89).

Discussion & Analysis

As we have seen, the classical theory of representative democracy broadly supposed that elected politicians would act in accord with the will or interests of their constituents. This supposition is challenged by several themes that have become increasingly prominent in political thought since the early twentieth century, including the dominance of some policy networks by vested interests, the complexity of modern governance, and declining levels of trust and political participation.

Political scientists now often emphasize how business groups become involved with the political process and even come to dominate areas of it. Corporate interests have used their considerable resources to become powerful lobbyists, financiers, and advisors for politicians and, at times, government officials (Mezey , 2008, pp. 32-78). The worry is that their involvement can lead to parliamentary representatives, perhaps intentionally or perhaps unintentionally, acting as the voice of these kinds of elite interests rather than their constituents.

Classical accounts of representative democracy are also threatened by the sheer complexity of modern politics, and especially the rise of nongovernmental nodes of collective decision making. The classic theory of representative democracy suggested that laws (and perhaps public policy), made by elected representatives in a transparent manner and within ...