More handpicked essays just for you.
Direct democracy vs representative democracy essay
Direct vs representative democracy essay
Direct vs representative democracy essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
While the Principal-Agent model of representation has endured rigorous testing over hundreds of years it and has taken on various incarnations it still shows signs that it is an ineffective system. The detrimental problem with the limitations of this model is not that it is flawed in itself but that it has adverse effects on the public some of which are explored in the writings of Geoffrey Brennan, Alan Hamlin, and Melissa Williams. In this study several other models will be examined but only to use as reference for a more favorable model that addresses many of the problems of the principal-agent model. While several authors try to dispute the potentiality of direct democracy but the contrary will be argued here as it has the possibility to reshape the idea of representation as well as how policy is determined.
The problems within the Principal-Agent model are numerous and detrimental to the functionality of the system when a cost/benefit analysis is applied to the Principal actor (i.e. the public). While Geoffrey Brennan and Alan Hamlin see the principal-agent model as a sort of least worst system that, while flawed, is still mendable while still maintaining it's central characteristics. One of the main criticisms against the Principal-Agent model is concerning a question that has been asked for almost as long as representative government: Does the representative make decisions that his/her constituency wants or do they do what is in their “interest”? Edmund Burke, in his famous speech to the Electors of Bristol, remarked that a representative's “mature judgment” and “enlightened conscience” allows him/her to choose what is in the best interest of their constituency. This form of thinking is necessarily implied in ...
... middle of paper ...
...ill fitting to a system which carries the name “Democracy”.
The Principal-Agent model is either regarded as a system which is the most practical or as the best system that can realistically exist, both assuming that a simpler, more direct system is unfeasible. To realize the limitations of the Principal-Agent system is to understand the flaws that render the model as destructive to the institution of democracy that can be mended in due time. While examining the essential problems of the Principal-Agent modal it is clear that the Agent actor is the cause of many of the disabilities that afflict this model by perpetuating a false sense of representation. It becomes fully apparent that this model cannot continue in it's current form without causing further harm to those that lack proper representation or to those that yearn for more equitable representation.
“ … we… need an alternative to winner-take-all majoritarianism… with Nikolas’s help… I call [this] the ‘principle of taking turns.’ [It] does better than simple majority rule… it accommodates the values of self-government, fairness, deliberation, compromise, and consensus that lie at the heart of the democratic ideal” (para.
Representation: the effort of elected officials to look out for the interests of those who elect them
Throughout history there have been significant debates, theories and agendas set forward as to what the best form of government is. Many of those individuals and groups who have written on the topic have their critics because they offer points that are highly controversial in theory and problematic when put into practice. John Locke and Publius, which is the collective name for Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, both published essays with regards to the nature of government and largely championed the notion of democracy. With Locke writing on constitutional government in England and Publius writing on and essentially establishing governmental mechanisms in the United States, both parties inspired the rise of liberalism and democratic government in the modern world (Tinder, 67). However, there are questions to be asked of them and indeed comparisons to be made. This essay will examine the arguments set forth by Publius and Locke with a view to proving that they do indeed champion strong government and arguably exclude arbitrary governmental traits that may constrain attempts to do what is best for the individual rather than the people as a whole. In effect, the constraints they put in place in their texts established a balance of power that had its limits and weaknesses but ultimately appeared to be fair.
Janda, Kenneth. Berry, Jeffrey. Goldman, Jerry (2008). The Challenge of Democracy (9th ed.). Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Several states try to allow citizens to make decisions without elected officials. Referendums, initiatives, and sunshine laws are all ways that the states incorporate the public into lawmaking and government decisions. However, the United States is not a direct democracy because it includes elements of a republic. The government has more than five hundred thousand elected officials that answer to the public. The constitutional framers believed that the majority in a direct democracy would get carried away and make decisions that only benefit themselves. That is why the government was set up to be able to check the power of the majority. Because the government is a mixed system that combines a democracy and a republic, it is not considered a direct
In a democratic government, functions of representation can sometimes become skewed or misunderstood. I will examine the different institutions of government including the legislature, the executive, the bureaucracy, and the courts pointing to their differences in trustee vs. delegate functions of representation.
The executive branch is in charge in making many major decisions in daily government; by implementing the idea of leadership reviews it forces the head of parties to keep their policies in check and keep with their promises. This essay will argue that leadership reviews help to keep the government in check and hold them to their principles. Shown though the use of responsible government and voting checks this allows the public to be reassured that their elected officials are following through with promises that they made. In other words, leadership reviews are a useful way of assuring the public that the leaders of parties are not doing something that will negatively affect the economy and being held accountable to their words.
William E. Hudson defines four such models in his book American Democracy in Peril: the Protective, Developmental, Pluralist, and Participatory models of democracy (Hudson, 8-19). Of these models, perhaps Participatory comes closest to an ideal, pure democracy of rule by the people (16-19). In practice, however, establishing a stable ideal democracy is not entirely feasible. In a country the size of the United States, it quickly becomes unwieldy if not impossible to have direct rule by the people. To overcome this, the compromise of the representative system allows the people to choose who will rule on a regular basis.
Dye, T. R., Zeigler, H., & Schubert, L. (2012). The Irony of Democracy (15th ed.).
According to one of rational choice theory’s prominent and more thoughtful contemporary exponents, Peter C. Ordeshook, “four books mark the beginning of modern political theory: Anthony Downs’s An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), Duncan Black’s Theory of Committees and Elections (1958), William H. Riker’s A Theory of Political Coalitions (1962), and James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock’s The Calculus of Consent (1962). These volumes, along with Kenneth Arrow’s Social Choice and Individual Values (1951), began such a wealth of research that political scientists today have difficulty digesting and synthesizing all but small parts of it. Consequently, the full value of this research often goes unrealized…” (Ordeshook 1986, ix)
Agency Theory or Principal Agent Theory is the relationship that involved the contractual link between the shareholders (the principals) that provide capital to the company and the management (agent) who runs the company. The principals will engage the agent to carry out some services on their behalf and would normally delegate some decision-making authority to the agents. However, as the number of shareholders and the complexity of operations grew, the agent, who had the expertise and essential knowledge to operate the business and company tend to increasingly gained effective control and put them in a position where they were prone to pursue their own interests instead of shareholder’s interest.
In deciphering what constitutes the brilliance of democracy then, we find that it is not citizens’ ability to make informed decisions or an unflawed and subtly manipulated election process, but the unapparent way in which democracy persuades citizens – informed or not - and leaders – corrupt or not – toward working to build better, more prosperous societies.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.
‘The doctrine of dichotomy implied that the politicians and their direct appointees have the right to make policy decisions for the polity but it is the duty of the bureaucrats to carry those policies in good faith’ (Pfiffner, 2004, p. 2).
There is then what we call Public Accountability and according to M. Bovines public accountability is the distinctive feature of modern democratic governance, therefore democracy remains a paper procedure if those in power cannot be held accountable in public for their acts and omission, for their decisions, their policies and their expectations. Therefore, in my own understanding I would say that public accountability is meant to reveal its strengths for the purpose of the municipalities, departments, institutions and public entities, their programmes of action and their resources, especially