Representative democracy portrays the uniqueness of political order in modern society. In representative democracy, the eligible citizen’s vote for their preferred representatives in order to pass laws on their behalf. Great Britain and the United States serve as good examples of representative democracy. Citizens elect both the members of the Congress and the president, and the local and state officials. Elected officials have to listen to the population and make legislation that best suits the country. In a representative democratic government, these conditions have to be met. First, there has to be a chance for genuine competition when selecting leaders. Secondly, communication must be free both from the press and within the public. Third, voters must believe that a proper choice exists between the candidates. This is an essential equality distribution of election power that authorizes the government.
Direct democracy government originated from Greek. Later on, after careful consideration of this issue, the Greek came up with a way where a small subset would do the voting. In Greek, the concept of eligible voters included men only. In a direct democracy, all citizens vote on all issues. For example, if a country is considering an increase in tax, all eligible voters will vote either for or against. This is a participatory government. However, it is complicated having the citizen’s vote on all issues and considering the large size of states like Great Britain or the United States of America. The main argument on how to measure the effectiveness of representative democracy is policy results in comparison with public opinion. This paper seeks to prove that representative democracy is a justifiable form of democracy.
Representative democracy is an efficient legislative body[1]. The lawmaking arm of government is controlled by state laws and the constitution. It is entrusted with drafting and implementing policies based on priorities. In contrast, a direct democracy allows all the participant/voters to make their contribution in national decision making. According to Winston Churchill, the worst government is a democratic government. There is wastage of resources and time. It is a justifiable form since it enhances good citizen representation[2]. Representative democracy does not allow every voter to contribute directly to the states governing. For example, In Great Britain, constituents elect members of parliament to represent them. In this scenario, the electorates have the right to say or chose who will be elected to hold a particular office. The elected members will have to make decisions based on what is good for their electorates, for the majority but more importantly what is right for the state. If the voters find something unfavorable or improperly drafted, they can inform their representative to work on it.
Representative democracy is in a better position to deal with significant voters.[3] Whereas direct democracy seems to work well with a relatively small number, a big number of people will be problematic to run efficiently. With representative democracy, it does away with this difficulty. This is because the representative will be the central point of discussions, legislation and implementation. Many people are not willing to keep voting on all matters that do not even concern/affect them. Voting a representative whose ideas agrees with yours will take less effort. Many political issues are so complex such that they are difficult for an average electorate to comprehend. Political matters are so sophisticated that even the members of parliament take a lot of time in consultation with the experts to understand. Educating all voters on such issues will be time-consuming, wastage of money and they may end up having not comprehended anything. Assuming an uninformed voter was to vote on such matters, the results will be highly damaging.
Representative democracy is the way to go since the wellbeing of the society cannot be sidelined by the needs of a single individual[4]. An average electorate will prioritize his/her needs before society’s needs. However, if a law is benefitting a small group while sidelining the larger society, then the likelihood of that law passing is null. It embraces common components. It gives all citizens an opportunity to hold the office bearers into account when the term ends[5]. This is an opportunity too to dismiss them from office if their performance was not satisfactory unlike the direct democracy. Representative democracy is an elite’s government[6]. Representatives are not purely subjects or bound by constituent’s wishes. Therefore, a representative government is a combination of democratic components and non-democratic components.
This form of government preserves the essential features of a democratic participation by relieving the citizens and the states from continuous politics. For example, if all the 300,000,000 United States citizens were to participate in voting booths, vast resources will be required. This can lead to borrowing if a country were not adequately fully prepared. There is protection against the firebrands and the demagogues who quite often gets annoyed thereby making wrong decisions. If they are removed from deciding such crucial roles, the systems will be very stable and political mistakes will be blocked. On the other hand, it allows selection based on merits[7]. The process of selecting representatives mercilessly blocks ad filters out the less qualified such that decision will be made by the best suited.
There is little or no misuse of public funds. The representatives are acutely aware that their performance is always on the check and at the end of their term they will be held into account[8]. On the other hand, while legislating, the representatives must seek the views of their electorates and cater for their interests. Participation is encouraged[9]. Representation has made many citizens realize their voice/say in government. People have become more inclined in seeking education and updating with current issues about their countries as well as globally. This has, in turn, resulted in an increased number of voter turnouts during polls willing to exercise their democratic right. Political equality is enhanced. The common problem is that a majority may result in an outcome that violates the fundamental rights and the critical minority rights.
Indirectness encourages the formation of political parties and political associations. In return, these associations will organize public participation. This form influences the direction to be taken by the parties. Representation unifies a vast territory in which communities rule themselves on matters about their local government but must submit to the central power,military wise and taxation wise.
The primary reason behind the birth of representation was power, its containment, and control and to unify the diverse large population[10]. This form is the place to run to. Since there are elected officials from all the areas of the state, a person has a place to run to in case they have an issue they feel should be addressed or changed. The officials have to direct them. As a result of structural reasons, dictatorships will never get a soft ground to rule. This is because they require personnel to head and run different departments and sectors. Most of his works will be run by these state officers. In the event that they do not cooperate, he will either be removed from office or overthrown. Dictators, he will tend disposing incomes on loyalties.
Referendums are very costly. With a representative democracy, it is economical and saves money since it will only involve a small number as compared to the whole population[11]. Plans and projects demanding the entire country participation are costly. Money set aside will be used to finance other activities. Many people are not knowledgeable on matters of making laws. Representatives have a more comprehensive knowledge, experience, and their expertise level is beyond doubts. Therefore, they stand a better chance to negotiate in any trade and business issues in favor of their countries. Moreover, once the representative is elected into office, all the electorate burdens are assumed by him/her. The electorates resume their healthy lives.
A significant advantage of representation is that control measures can quickly be put in place to limit the actions of an elected representative. Petitions to recall and similar applicable rules can be applied to allow a region or district to eject an elected leader from office for misconduct or failure to meet the expectations[12]. Also, the government is prompted to react very fast. In case of an emergency, the representative democracy gives the government a chance to respond quickly to whatever circumstances threatening a place. Hence the public does not have to vote. Officials from the government can assess the situation and decide what action to take.
Formation of a Governmental presence in a district is allowed. For example, in the United States, the government has three stages; the local, national and regional. Each of the three can be structured. Additionally, elected officials can aggregate the different demands of their electorates into a more rational and politically logical progress. In an ideal setting, the best government is that which its sovereignty power rests in the entire population. All citizens have the responsibility of taking an active part in the government formation. In a country with a massive population, direct democracy is unrealistic. Therefore, a democratic government could rather be representative since it is more conducive to organizing good qualities of people/representatives to champion the welfare of the common people. The interests and right of any person are only safe when a person is disposed to stand up for all[13]. A government will only rule over significant regions when people have both local unity and public feeling and concerns for the members of belonging to the larger community.
Unlike direct democracies which have very high operating costs, the cost involved in an indirect democracy is relatively low. This means the burden to the taxpayer is reduced because, at the end of the day, all operational costs will shift to the taxpayer[14]. For example, the cost incurred in production and distribution of election materials, referendums, and human personnel. Similarly, the cost of distributing information on specific documents pertaining to bills or law is lower to a representative democracy as compared to other forms. To add on this, in a non-representative democracy where materials and documents will be used during an election, bills or referendums, large quantities will be produced. This poses a greater danger to our environment since many trees will be cut down election waste materials will accumulate.
It enhances transparency. Any societal progress and improvement rest in people’s hands. This means representative democracy places greater roles on electorates. For example, the right of electing the right people, holding them accountable and raising issues with them. Additionally, a representative government removes fear from the minds of the people thus giving an assurance of continued stability. In the past and with different forms of democracy such as the populist, dictatorial etc., a lot of people were castigated. Violence and violation of human rights were carried on a broad daylight. E.g. the Nazi in Germany.
There is an accelerated growth. Different citizens from different regions or districts will participate in an election with an aim of electing the best, learned, experienced and development-oriented member. No state will place unlearned non-policy oriented representative in power. This means when the best brain is working, a region, district or the entire state will achieve an accelerated growth within a short time hence economic growth.
As discussed earlier, the citizens have the right to make their representative accountable. Similarly, the representatives are the people’s eye. I.e. they must hold the national government accountable to make it responsible. This act of holding the government accountable can best be achieved in a representative authority. By holding the government accountable, several malpractices will be eliminated[15]. For example, corruption, racism, and gender imbalances. Also, with indirect democracy, the process of making a decision is very fast. This is due to the level of expertise of the elected office bearers, and the number of people involved is less, therefore, little time will be taken as compared to direct democracies.
For a long time, the minorities e.g. the unlearned, unemployed, immigrants, handicapped and all other groups that fall under the minority categories can only receive their attention through a representative democracy. This is because an indirect democracy is more people oriented than a direct democracy that is personal[16]. Everyone has an equal chance to be heard and attended to. There is a high level of trust in indirect settings. The electorates trust their representative since it is on merit. For example, in some countries and states, there are organized debates where the potential representatives are interviewed gauging their policy and issues articulation. Such a debate creates a high level of trust on a candidate. The betterment of a nation depends on several factors and three pillars namely; the economic, political and social pillars. The extent to which they are enjoyed maintains a stable government and country. In a representative system, there is a long-term wellness of a nation. Equally, elections are scheduled to take place every one in four or five years. Nevertheless, the government will be providing services
However, representative democracy has received negative criticisms.[17] For instance, it can readily decentralize into gridlock. From 2016 political succession in the United States, it is apparent that it is challenging to evade gridlock for every representative has unique personal priorities to pursue. Normally, there are more than two political parties having different policies and agendas. When these platforms merge, gridlock erupts which stops most of the activities from being done. Similarly, government structure needs trust. The masses choose a representative who they trust to pursue their needs. Certainly, someone having a secret ambition can co-opt an election, emerge as a representative and then pursue something completely different from the statement of political party’s policies. Some politicians in nations have been known to betray their subjects by demonstrating lack of interest in their welfare once they take the competed for office. Apparently, a justification for representative democracy can lack proper foundations due to varying characters of these leaders
Representative democracy follows to some extent the decision from majority thereby ignoring the minority. There are various cases where the majority rules at expense of the minority. For instance, South Africa’s apartheid and the USA’s civil right movement. The form of governance relied on the structure of majority rule to formulate and implement policies. In some cases, the minority decision can have more function grounds than majority rule which can be unethically right. On the same, the system of government can risk the lives of representatives who are on the minority side. It is apparent that representative democracy system of government can lack appropriateness due to emphasizing on majority rule and ignore minority rule which is sometimes the most logical decision.
In conclusion, representative democracy allows all voters to choose their representatives who will legislate on their behalf. This form of government is ideal where a large population is involved. As discussed above, representative democracy is efficient, it allows participation, and the electorate can keep the representative on check as well as re-call them back in case of uns. satisfactory service. Even though it has some weakness, a representative democracy is a justifiable form of democracy.
BibliographyTop of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Top of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Ballard C. Campbell. 2013. Representative democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Pres
Carpentier, Nico. 2011. Media and Participation: a Site of Ideological-democratic Struggle. Bristol: Intellect.
Dovi, Suzanne. 2012. The Good Representative. New York, NY: John Wiley " Sons.
Esaiasson, Peter, Sören Holmberg, Janet Westerlund, and Peter Mayers. 2017. Representation From Above: Members of Parliament and Representative Democracy in Sweden.
Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin. 2014. Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf.
Hough R. 2012. "Do Legislative Petitions Systems Enhance the Relationship between Parliament and Citizen?" Journal of Legislative Studies. 18 (3-4): 479-495.
Judge, David. 2014. Democratic incongruities: representative democracy in Britain.
Lenard, Patti Tamara, and Richard Simeon. 2014. Imperfect Democracies The Democratic Deficit in Canada and the United States.
Montanaro, Laura. 2012. "The Democratic Legitimacy of Self-Appointed Representatives". The Journal of Politics. 74 (4): 1094-1107.
Vivyan, Nick, Markus Wagner, and Jessica Tarlov. 2012. "Representative misconduct, voter perceptions and accountability: Evidence from the 2009 House of Commons expenses scandal". Electoral Studies. 31 (4): 750-763.
Wampler, Brian. 2012. "Participation, Representation, and Social Justice: Using Participatory Governance to Transform Representative Democracy". Polity. 44 (4): 666-682.
Bottom of Form
[1]Top of FormEsaiasson, Peter, Sören Holmberg, Janet Westerlund, and Peter Mayers. 2017. Representation From Above: Members of Parliament and Representative Democracy in Sweden.
Bottom of Form
[2]Top of FormDovi, Suzanne. 2012. The Good Representative. New York, NY: John Wiley " Sons. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-2014111116477.
Bottom of Form
[3] Campbell Ballard. 2013. Representative democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Pres
[4]Top of FormWampler, Brian. 2012. "Participation, Representation, and Social Justice: Using Participatory Governance to Transform Representative Democracy". Polity. 44 (4): 666-682.
Bottom of Form
[5]Top of FormVivyan, Nick, Markus Wagner, and Jessica Tarlov. 2012. "Representative misconduct, voter perceptions, and accountability: Evidence from the 2009 House of Commons expenses scandal". Electoral Studies. 31 (4): 750-763.
Bottom of Form
[6]Top of FormGilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. 2014. Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf.
Bottom of Form
[7]Top of FormWampler, Brian. 2012. "Participation, Representation, and Social Justice: Using Participatory Governance to Transform Representative Democracy". Polity. 44 (4): 666-682.
Bottom of Form
[8]Lenard, Patti Tamara, and Richard Simeon. 2014. Imperfect Democracies The Democratic Deficit in Canada and the United States.
[9]Top of FormCarpentier, Nico. 2011. Media and Participation: a Site of Ideological-democratic Struggle. Bristol: Intellect.Bottom of Form
[10]Montanaro, Laura. 2012. "The Democratic Legitimacy of Self-Appointed Representatives". The Journal of Politics. 74 (4): 1094-1107.
[11] Lenard, Patti Tamara, and Richard Simeon. 2014. Imperfect Democracies The Democratic Deficit in Canada and the United States.
[12]Hough R. 2012. "Do Legislative Petitions Systems Enhance the Relationship between Parliament and Citizen?" Journal of Legislative Studies. 18 (3-4): 479-495.
Bottom of Form
[13] Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. 2014. Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens
[14] Vivyan, Nick, Markus Wagner, and Jessica Tarlov. 2012. "Representative misconduct, voter perceptions and accountability: Evidence from the 2009 House of Commons expenses scandal". Electoral Studies. 31 (4): 750-763.
[15] Vivyan, Nick, Markus Wagner, and Jessica Tarlov. 2012. "Representative misconduct, voter perceptions and accountability: Evidence from the 2009 House of Commons expenses scandal". Electoral Studies. 31 (4): 750-763.
[16] Wampler, Brian. 2012. "Participation, Representation, and Social Justice: Using Participatory Governance to Transform Representative Democracy". Polity. 44 (4): 666-682.
[17]David. Judge. 2014. Democratic incongruities: representative democracy in Britain.
