Abstract
"Good representation" is a tricky phrase. The idea of "unreachable goal" is another. First part of the proposition: What can the expression "good representation" mean in a democratic context? If there is such a thing as "good representation," then there is also such a thing as "bad representation." Explicitly, there is, in any case, a premise: a representation that exists or, at least, that is postulated. If we accept this premise, we have to accept another: that of an institutional framework which allows representation. By implication, this framework, which opens up the possibility of an idea of bad or good representation, must be based firstly on objective criteria of discrimination, and secondly on criteria of refinement or gradation between very bad representation and very good representation. Second part of the proposition: an "unreachable goal." This propositional segment can itself be broken down into two approaches. The "unreachable" approach is based on a subjective analysis, on a presupposition that would have to be verified: what would allow us to assert that a good representation is "reachable" or not? Historical experience, political theory? As for the idea of a "goal," this would mean that "good representation" should be a "goal" of political societies: but is this really the case? In the name of what? On what criteria: moral, political, social?
Extract
[...] Second part of the proposition: an "unreachable goal." This propositional segment can itself be broken down into two approaches. The "unreachable" approach is based on a subjective analysis, on a presupposition that would have to be verified: what would allow us to assert that a good representation is "reachable" or not? Historical experience, political theory? As for the idea of a "goal," this would mean that "good representation" should be a "goal" of political societies: but is this really the case? In the name of what? On what criteria: moral, political, social? [...]
[...] In this respect, the democratic ideal offers the most convincing example of effective representation judged to be the most satisfactory way of resolving conflicts since it was theorised in ancient Greece.10 Conflict resolution also involves resolving the sharing of resources, which is profoundly linked to social and economic criteria: "Government that defy the elementary laws of supply and demand will fail to develop and will not institutionalise genuinely democratic systems".11 But the idea of representation and, what is more, of "good representation," is only valid in the context of a representative democracy (and a fortiori a liberal democracy). What happens when the contextual parameter of the representative democratic framework is called into question? What happens when we propose a radicalisation of the democratic ideal - as in the case of the proposal for direct democracy? Or in the case of a move away from the democratic ideal towards illiberal, dictatorial or totalitarian frameworks? Should the idea of representation be retained? And is the idea of good representation still valid? [...]
[...] In fact, the idea of representation is always more or less preserved; it simply varies in its contextual meaning. In direct democracy, representation is only provided by the sovereign without delegation: the individual citizen himself, with contrasting results in terms of the effectiveness of public policies.12 In this case, can we still talk about representation? Yes, insofar as we consider that direct democracy and representative democracy should be complementary: "The more successful the representative government is, the easier its combination with direct democracy. [...]
[...] Whereas in a classic dictatorship, the people temporarily delegate the power of command to a single man with a view to restoring order, in totalitarianism, this power is confiscated from the people for the sole benefit of the totalitarian dictator.18 Thus, National Socialist totalitarianism proclaims that "the Führer is always right" (der Führer hat immer richt), that the Führer is above all law - written and unwritten (whereas the king is limited by natural law and the classical dictator is limited by positive law, which grants him exceptional powers).19 A representation is therefore always a representation according to contextual and general criteria, and the determination of its effectiveness (good or bad) and its fulfilment (impossible or possible) is linked to a framework shared by political agents as a whole. To conclude, yes, good representation is reachable. Representation (of whom, of what) depends on the philosophical, historical, social, economic, institutional and, ultimately, political framework in which that same representation evolves and is tested. Traditionally used in the context of liberal democracy, it finds some expression in dictatorial regimes and direct democracy in a different form. In these frameworks, according to notional evaluation criteria defined structurally by internal and external agents, a good representation is indeed a reachable goal. [...]
[...] ) To summarize: trustees may be brought of as representatives if there is some way of making the interests of those whom they represent present in their actions, independently of whatever the trustees themselves happen to say or do."2 But it is clear that this question leads to that of the control of the trustee (the elected representative) by the owner of sovereignty (the elector): it is itself the subject of a delegation, that organised by the law via the courts of justice. The economist Svetozar Pejovich identifies four fundamental elements of "good representation" in a liberal democracy: property rights, contract law, constitutional law and the independence of the judiciary3. [...]
