Representation is when elected officials nominally speak for their constituents in the legislature. In most cases, representation in government is usually in the form of voting rights, but some democracies have extended this right further. Throughout the semester, we have talked about many different authors’ views and opinions on what representation is in a democracy. Joseph Schumpeter believes in minimalist democrats and that voting does not result in representation. Iris Marion Young talks about inclusive democrats, where the representative institutions should be designed to ensure equal participation of social groups. John Stuart Mill expresses the idea of representative democrats, where representation is considered to be democratic …show more content…
Schumpeter believes in the idea of a democracy where citizens vote in an electoral process for the main purpose of selecting competing politicians. The elected political leaders have to avoid emotionally charged issues and make the policies and laws with little regard to the demands of ordinary citizens. This idea basically says that the citizens have the power to vote in who they believe will do the best job for society, but other than their vote, they have no real say after that. Schumpeter explains that representation takes away from people’s right of individual will, which is the capacity for an individual to have a preference and take action. He argues, we do not have this capacity when it comes to the complex issues of politics because the basic conditions for political representation and accountability does not exist in …show more content…
He explains all his reasoning and opinions about this in his novel “On Liberty and Other Essays.” A representative government is a system where the people elect their politicians and those politicians are then held accountable for their actions in government. He thinks that representative government is best suited to promote the common good of the people. Mill believes this because of the government’s political participation on the improvement of the moral capacities of the citizens. He says that the governed can and do participate in public debate. Also, during elections they exercise the very deliberative capacities that they are aimed to as a government to develop. In a representative government, the good laws will be established and enforced by the politicians and the bad laws will be reformed. Mill says that a representative government “should be willing and able to fulfill the duties and discharge the functions which are imposed on them” (Mill 265). Mill’s idea of a representative government may sound like it represents the people well enough in our society, but it actually does not. A representative government does not give the people enough say in society, it just makes it look like the people have a lot more say than they actually
In contrast, the representative government indicates where the people can freely vote for representatives exercising governmental powers on behalf of the people’s interests. Dawson J also stated that representative government needs people to elect freely their representative as a minimum requirement. In recent judgments in Australia, the two concepts are interchangeable. However, the notion of representative democracy seems a bit broader than the notion of representative government.
He is was total opposite of Metternich. Mill’s “On liberty” essay was about the individual liberty. To Mill’s, the only important thing is the happiness of the individual, and such happiness may only be accomplished in an enlightened society, in which people are free to partake in their own interests. Thus, Mills stresses the important value of individuality, of personal development, both for the individual and society for future progress. For Mill, an educated person is the one who acts on what he or she understands and who does everything in his or her power to understand. Mill held this model out to all people, not just the specially gifted, and advocates individual initiative over social control. He emphasizes that things done by individuals are done better than those done by governments. Also, individual action advances the mental education of that individual, something that government action cannot ever do, and for government action always poses a threat to liberty and must be carefully
James Madison, who glorified the benefits of the system of government outlined in the Constitution, wrote the tenth essay in the Federalist Papers. In his essay, Madison advocated a republic system of government instead of a democracy because it “promises the cure for which [they are] seeking.” According to Madison, in a republic, unlike in a democracy, a “small number of citizens [are] elected by the rest.” In other words, one difference between a republic and a democracy is the fact that a republic is based on representation, while a democracy is based on the rule of the majority (mob rule). Madison favors the republic form of government because representation (republic) recognized the inalienable rights of all individuals, while democracy is only concerned with the views or needs of the majority. Therefore, in Madison’s mind, a democracy is an unsuitable government, especially for the United States; Madison thought democracy is just handing power over to the ...
Representation: the effort of elected officials to look out for the interests of those who elect them
Mill would probably go right to the word “morally” and would likely say, “Should we base all our laws on morals”? Then he might say: “if you believe that then, whose morals should we base them on”? All people’s morals are not t...
The idea of representative government is deeply rooted in America's history and tradition. It began as far back as the voyage of the Mayflower. The spirit of freedom, self-reliance, the common law, and an understanding of representation, were brought by the settlers from their home. Though many of our ideas about representative government developed from the English model of Parliament, the American tradition of representative government actually began in Jamestown with the “great charter of 1618”and the First Representative Assembly of 1619 and continued on with the Virginia House of Burgesses, the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut and so on all of the way to the drafting and signing of the US Constitution.
On the other hand, John Stuart Mill would have regarded such democracy as a great improvement on what went before, but hold a different attitude toward it. He believes that everyone ought to have a voice, but not everyone should have an equal voice. Mill, in the first place, objects to the distinction between classes and...
...ave the freedm to make mistakes and have discussions and debates in a healthy setting where others can learn from each other, and be able to raise their voice without having to be worried by the idea of being bullied. He strongly believed in having the freedom to develop your own personality and having the strength to make choices. Mills is only able to see progress in society if we enter a world of culture, free conformity, and harm. We must be given the right to free expression, freedom and the right to liberty without the fear of threat or being silenced. It’s because of these justifications that mill believes that mankind would not be justified in silencing an individual just like that one inidivdual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Through these actions, we as humans will create the ultimate gaood for mankind.
One of the main arguments that Mill expressed in On Liberty deals with his liberty principle. This apparently, is "one very simple principle" which defines "the nature and limits of the power which can legitimately be exercised by society over the individual". According to Mill, liberty is what defines the legitimacy of a society - "any society that fails to honor the liberty of the individual is illegitimate. Its use of power cannot be justified if it trespasses on the rightful sphere of individuality".
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
This highlights the idea that true representation involves deliberation and a commitment to the overall wellbeing of the nation. Comparing the delegate model to the trustee model reflects the variations of representative democracy. The differences in the models reveal a significant contrast in the way representatives carry out their roles and responsibilities. The delegate model of representation incorporates elements of a direct democracy, where representatives are voted in by the constituents and are held accountable for their decisions. The constitutes also have the ability to recall them once they have failed to follow orders.
In Considerations on Representative Government, Mill denounces the idea that a despotic monarchy headed by a good despot is the best form of government. Mill goes on to share the reason behind this idea. The reason lies in the supposition that a distinguished individual with absolute power will ensure that all the duties of government is performed intelligently and virtuously. Mill does not disagree with this belief but he finds the need to address it. He states that an “all-seeing” monarch rather than a “good monarch” is needed. The despot would need to be informed correctly and in detail at all time, and be able to oversee every division of administration with effective attention and care in the twenty-four hours per day he has. If not, the
Because the mandate is in the people, direct democracy has an advantage of helping to prevent corrupt practices among leaders. It also eliminates abuse of power. Representative democracy is a type of governing where the majority of the people elect a person to represent their beliefs and ideas. Representative democracy is efficient because it is controlled by
middle of paper ... ... Philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, have debated the role and the extension of government in the people’s lives for centuries. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.
Proportional representation is characterized by governments comprised of multi-party legislatures – a healthy variety in selection for electors makes “voting a more meaningful, political act” (Amy, p. 24) and encourages “good”, active political participation. Proportional representation promotes fierce competition within the political arena – whether the party is a newly-formalized grass-roots movement or an established entity, each must aggressively campaign to draw in voters with a platform to maximize support within their original guidelines. Essentially, to maintain power, a party must cater to the desire of the people, which often leads to the resulting government being most reflective of the rational, “median-voter”, and generally