X} RI)

NiVRbifY PbhS
S aa C)xlnrd Contents
r fr,; it
Hi. it Herr
ut of Ii,ures inS lox
5. iJu!: ajo ti Saraani K Acknowledgnueuzts
ire no ilipto Sladrid Steiho irro Mci. 0 1 Hi. iiairhr
ll haroha farpu [Or! lit
Introduction
Ren i drs and Opportunities. iecenl itt one ol political
I Ia ii or
ii K wile [lit tutir j repi entation
w ted rade uair 1 Irk [1,ti rot Pro 2. Mapping the representative claim
K ann 55! retaIn ,ibri ulftier
itt
en th
-
mud Snort
3. Variations and resources
I only ito.
4 The elected and the unclected
Dcl ates and tnt rvcntions
II ho ISO
a yl ol I. cti I oslo, 6. Representation, legitimacy, and democracy
I or P _iti j
S - t - - P Ni. p 0 it ira ri. P aIR! mdi Ii ft [ odiucil Notes
5, 1 1 010 11,110 1 ni till 01 05 015
it in en lt P Bthliograpl y
It d rat wi r Indea
i trot non trio, coring xlii t t
51 1 1 5 1! 1- 0 ,rau ii wit t K I,r- 5[)Clt tft
dl.,. 0! P 1 :11l\ rt issy ir(s, at the add ci,abut,
In i.ui,ii. ltti_ tuok H dill iidw bhtinlInt; no i,ei
It id np 1 0 10 t ondnttn r I ny no at
1 s(attlsgingsriilulrat 101
iii,,, V I onin a i ii ncr I N nher 20100 440 La
dl, sOt iubrrrhet u.n seer. Poindidliet it, tnd;a
P d in Ii Eit,i, ii
a P
151 LS ii ) H 08
 Li f gz s 4cknowledgment.
41 In preparing this book 1 have benefited hugely from opportunities to
presei nd cxchange ideas with a great many colleaguts. ma ml
Ia rc ns tic I ik so r fort ial discussk rs n a variety fsettings F ave prem td m t n o
k try to claril my thinking, and in that regard I would like to offer mc
sincere thanks to Rebecca Abers, Henrik Bang, l)avid Beetham, lugrid son
B ezer Geothey Brennan Ian Budge, I)ario Castiglion, Ka n is
Sarah Childs, John Clarke, Drude l)alherup, Andy Dobson, I I I k
Iorben Bech Dyrberg, Robyn Eckersiey, Bob Goodm, asmin Gunarat
BOX nam, Richard Katz, John Keane, Margaret Keck, Vivien Lowndes, (eorg
Lutz, Tony MeGrew, Fiona Mackay, Jane Mansbridge, M helk Mich to
Mike Mills, laura Montanaro, Janet Newman, Raia Prokhovnil i
Rehield, Jennifer Rubenstein, Marian Sawer, Philippe Schmitter, Crahaii
Smith, Judith Squires, Sophie Stoffel, John Street, Grahame Thonipsoi
lasse Thornassen, Jacob Torfing, John Uhr, Nadia Urhinati, Mark W an
and Aft ert Weak iF tee anonymous referees for Oxford F. mvc sity s
offered exceptionally helpful and detailed comments on an earlier version
of the manuscript, and I would like to thank them for their investment 01
time ad effort
There $ widespread renewed interest in political represt. ti o ii
I am grateful to organisers and participants in workshops and conferenem
in the UK and elsewhere for the chance to present my ideas. Spending
three months as Visiting Fellow in Social and Political [h iv the
Australian National University in 2005 gay me a welcome o no to I
to explore early versions of these ideas, for which I owe thanks to Bob
Goodin in particular. 1 would also like to single out others for particular
opportunities provided to me: John Keane, Sonia Alon o and Wolf ing
Mulerl from WZB Berlin and Westminster University or ti krl i ic
Lisbon workshops on The Future of Representative Democraiy I nra
Montanaro and fellow participants in the APSA Boston (2008) workshop
B me and Beyond; Stephen Macedo, Nadia Urbinati and Mark Warrer Ihi
th v rkshop Beyond Eta tions at Princeton University (M08 M i ,
Yeck, I conaido Avritzer and Rebecca Abers for Retlunkrng Repr ten it ion
 So - hi )iitc
I a ii ic &1la,w study arid Conference Center
1,15 I 1 (aln and So an Childs ki the ECPR workshop on The
Stdtiat I keprtstotouzw: of )Vomen in Helsinki (2007); and Kris
and co)leaCues from the rije Universiteit Brussel for the
)PpOitUn V to exploit. cam rt h impli ations of the representative claim
Introduction
a I aOl gratt.tuL lo the Open University, not least tor its
ets[ndsicn a approat. ii to rest. arch leave and fhr the high levels of support
1 det. lie wit
Ot ollmgues in thc l a l)epartment of Politics and
1 Ici I tudwa md the wid r I y of Social St. iences. Part ular TI is book introduces a new of looking at political
way rep nentation in
iliaii r or) and Mar I i in the POLlS off r U c guise of the representative laim. Representative unstable
ci in s a
iii ,i an to) to or his though p n h nd I ghly variable. They encompass and implicate many diffe t roupa
Itnivez
1 Sprake ar liii g a id ii d viduals; they show us that representation dymiarnic hi t i and
is
nida ctioi d elus)y. id crucial the ry constitution of politics Re re
to
[ha l)r p a laims opqa c a ross bojder and,sun t they,enotc ii&
pcis,
gh 4 m.we rclationsEps rather ulstitutions, and the irk
on. Is t inc I demo ratically and undemocratically We need to look losal ow,
hulta to) a id by whom, they are made rcceivejuded
[this book i tively on (am s ti II I oft cal ideas and practices are more closely inteitwin d tl i we often
a vicud pub ish d am grateful to a i t idge th nk, In part, the impetus behind the book comes I i urrent turd or
a, iv esI era lission to use material from Michael Saward, pressing problems of political life. The politics of representation iii
tK p: ttion pp. 1 o3 9h in i drcsa l)ohson and Robyn Eckersley many countries and contexts is both changing fast and troubling there
ala Pot cal I i1t.ory and the Ti oioi,it.ai Challenge (2006) Cambridge is more than a little talk of a crisis of representation. This should provoke
iiiaeraitv Pren, 21k)ti, ind Michael Saward, Making representations: fresh thinking about what representation in politics is, and what it be. can
nod a am. strategies of political parties, I:uropean Review, Volume 16(03): But prevailing ideas about representation are looking tired and oun 01
2 Lltie 00$ t.ademia Europaea. published by Cambridge Uni date; in key respects they are not up to the job. A number of political
emits Pi n I mi diateftil to Wiley Biackwell for pennission to use material theorists have recognized this issue and have tackled it I discuss their
rant 1 o Sonar Represeritation and democracy: revisions and work throughout the book, and in Chapter 1 in particular but the debate
osail I ha iolev Prnpt.css 45 pp 10001013, and Michael needs to be taken further
Saw ition and out) i sentaflon and th ii elect he pressing problems and real-world changes that pm imp this con
n ltix il Philo 0) pp.) 22, 1 a r ,ratcful to
er m varied
ore
br peru ii from 1 e Sawa d,
(her a decline n voting iaWs in most established demo aacic i 0 i ing
chsaffe tic i from mainstream representative politi s,
the d clinc of political parties and rising distrust of politi aa m
the Icreasing rol especially in international politics, o c i atorv
od c and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) whi I i c often
r unrepresentative
as unaccountable; and
or
 1 itroduc i r
newed k nanc s for hi hi representatIon of niaiginalued groups such widespread acceptance of the analysis of Hanna Pitkin tin more tharu
a noflien, coltuial nilnonties, and even future generations and in
thirty years after the publication of her book The Concept otReprescum raio
on nat C.
967 ii key rease r behind the lack of cii seal alt onion on at iw
t t aba ye by y s, c ca eok diii wadhi es 199(3 ii A iglo ncriean political theory it any rate. But a. v hi
the nied tbr hesli thinking about representation. \ho, several years Pitkin herself nois challenges important aspects of the thinking behind hi_u
th ,
lcd o. Ipation spLaks jir dL S fbr the people of Iraq? Who claims classic book, on the basis of the troubling real world developments nut
p 111 , hc ii is iv Is I wuu i Ii
least th ins1 act c big r oney on represer tativ democracy ry bly
en ii y ut iit c ye esi. live ma cy 1 aq. nd there ii other re ens for this renewed attention that re son ste i u
n.t ut ili C)ai wai mmg t\hose vOn. S are most powerful in debates to political theory as a discipline. For example, the dominant deliberanvi
iddrt.ss C \n ong po[iticictns, experts, corporate leaders, and green cam thread in democratic theory in recent years which has emphasized the

ii at i v ii I w wh sit y e r gh a ic
democratic le of talking rather than voting haspronipted c i -ci
( ) iii ati I I RI 101 it, fo get to deliberate, where and how, which is very much au u o
e ball .nome our rcceuvd ideas about political representation matters. rpresentation.
( annkr, for example, el e widespread sense of remoteness of elected It is not that progress is undetectable. Consider arguments and nstiti
tic Ii Cit . C sic m iii ies hi ze c ncr i ma r enacting r presentation in te. ritorial ways that re a mat
-
to
g p ul ,er un sic. he ou dc. hi, h i ation $ ate ( g Held l99)
, w indeed non err tori I a
a d tln retoa a ni resen dtive, or von are not) and as institutionally representation, including ones which seek to have nonhuman mi_rests
lcuelaed in (eleeS ions alone confer fepresefltativeness) ran readily led o represented within human polities (Eckersley 2004). Further, a good deal
de -ito it r se live icr en d p tics tot t. $ is both of rece it em mica! work illuminates issues of indigen s at I mit iity
r U Ii 1) cc rv i v C t nat on. ( ar -

q.re entatioi , t e representation of women, g oup e me em

I 11 res siting tin theouc can I nope to show- open our eyes to new descriptive representation in deliberative forums, and the ambiguities of
les of Jeprrsenla000, e ectoral and nunelector al, which might help representatives roles (see, e.g., the essays in Sawer and Zappala 2(11)1;
d os id a C en e hr etc s ai ma I ayco;k 2004 Saward 2000). But mainstream approaches to epre
isa iii.
rc it s a n. In fi i or i ipo ry tson lace indue limits on creative thinking about who, or vh t, i a
btn il varlc ly,,pourj[titisamu1tisidedpiocess of chaimmalung represented politically, and how this might be done, in thesc and other
.oid due !tcqption uhid )udgident of alairns, Conventional representative fields. A fuller conception of representation, which stresses its dynamic
tuti s. s Ii a 1001 par ilie rei in c nil repr ntat ye and creative aspects as well as its narrowly institutional ones an its
ft n r vay i wiit. s
potential for radical xtension, can open up further ways hr u t I s
d tl in i an ithiii ishi h) it is pohticault important. Looking ibout political inclusion going an important step further, I would aiguc.

uli Cii Ic n of the re iescntative rlaim leads us to question a range than even provocative work such as Helds or Eckersleys has taken us sO tar,
l i ut ion iid I lois n in y ta n at tile We nit r exam My aim is to offer a more fundamental reappraisal of the id s of
Ci ti f3d UH di (.1
political representation Seeing representation as a dym arnie p oe
tta ng ii he ian as fixed n stable. claim-making, and not, for example, as a static fact of electoral pi lines,
Ioliuc iii theort has a genuine i ole to play here; there is real scope for can help us to make sense of great changes in the daily politics of
s his pn 1 km isei hi_or In emit an here sas h m sot se representation. Crucially it can also help us to bring ideas of cult mral
I w t i 1 i _t I i h sts Iii and a sthetic representation into our thinking about i olitica e r its a
ion vhere they I elong.
-
 Inirodw iiOfl Iutrodisction
quite tlcssly c inputs hIs is us t took about the representation as symbolizing, esemhhng, portrayi i, standi s for
mde 1ii i -cot ,oo it aries I key a ting o a coil mvlty, acting for individuals, auth r veil i ii
t a w ii kmrnr200S authori,ed p rtraying r acting for, microcosmic represer tati vi
i \m d Ri mm 21) his rich, the Ic t a id )fl, Although the Latin word repraesentare in ancient Rome mu it irne
,rmcil I m tot meal Lurmer ts mnlorirm the conIc it of my amgument. I make thing close to to present, the theatrical term persona a chamacter
orn brmcl dud highly selective comments here to show how that is guise adopted for the stage, is perhaps closer to modern political usage
ii. Middle Age Christian thinking and practice developed other senses of
Poit rr,o ICS I part is I in I omplex products of their times. Sonic, representation: spiritual, as in Christ representing God md Lorporate as
s irti levi-ic il. in sual I poll a ifirmer and , in the )O( represcnting Christ to Christendom, for example c in
II s ha l early sense of one person or body being able to speak for e a
a I H ui sea u ii r i. t r ipo symbolize, another body ofpeople emerged, though this was not i ia y t
y a knue ii take insight such v is as, u gether. form that involved authorization byhe represented of the repl eve native.
ins nlini Ssitn a ta ( name of tspes ol rcpiesefltatlori, no one complete Notions of consent underpinning the authority of political representatives
In iieit hut each providing a s flal piece in a jigsaw My approach differs. emerged in a more recognizably modern form around the time or the
am mtLr ste.! less in hxating a correct theory of repesentation, or in English Civil War, not least in Hobbess Leviathon.
iliding eorv by I secna iemwitf he work eheori Sever 1 of these urrents make their way through later centu i in
iii My st um t liny pres ntati n orming or uorphng into new modes such as virtual, rept blicam c io
k fc f s inc )catic r crein trustee, delegate at d others. So, from m mo len ( I
icr ins ml en nent, ss its amic char1er perspect v, and to ateneralize perhaps to much, the earliest us ings
ther th ii its corrutly understood forms or types. Insofar as it can he ere connected more to theatrical esentation and relgious symbol
clueved, I seek this understandin by deploying a perspective thLi ism. Subsequent meanings moved toward more political seism. qf ing
ioinmon in othcr hisoxical and contcrnporary works ora parliament portriiiliTihefl tandmg or speaking tor an carthi)
Hi ne is ed uric i s fro ii the history ot tninking about representatio n from acting for a oDe.
iii! s elf 5 :rha most ut is i tempt t knit t1viy without actual autho atmoiit acting for sniafler gr up in.!
y ii hc t a 1 rat, d other m4jyjdijajs. witliauthQgatjoL I
tic ad se nd tel atil ret h, foday the term tends to be used in specialized way fbt. Ifl
(Ito i cc in 1 i, histi Ily reft r to theat cal and sy nbolic
epresusta ion heloic neing adapted to use in more strictly political As 1 hope to -
ontesrs \i the most general level, the history of representation and to kniit to ether these dis arat
are d iJjgv
mgmiate luna ha osered, over wide sweep of history, varied ways in To do so we require an analytical tool built
hi Ii on I Of oil mi or him.! uld be to stand r anothe That from a perspective that differs substantially from received content oram v
Ta. L v tin . us f ret. ideas .p.esentaL.on The tool I fabricate and depla1 v ill h
mm us Ii s for nulatic n elaborates the idea of the representative claim it links five central it ru.
nit i lx )Us i icing h to a gen ral of representation, th maker, the subject, the object, the referei u c ft
om mula, itterent UI ent has cmcrged from legal, artistic, religious, audience. These terms and their important interconnections will he cx
mhi]osophicak and dramatic spheres. from Rote to early modern times. plained in Chapters 2 and 3 in particular. This analytical tool is designed
hem e mm e from thcsc spi eres .oniplex varied, and overlapping notions of to incorporate ypbolic, mimeti, corporate, individual, electoral, and
 1nrcduciwi Jot rsiuctton
n F is y I c Ii Ia I sI W that it r pres r bIt a 1 tin n aking and las 1 i. e s i i s
o l w ( a apft a n oil tplc a ticuhsritws of politKal reprasentation roles as resources that saried actors can use in the makinat of i a 1 scflt,uiiS a
o It oatI s ilia jr .o uopie, otheiia dimensions of representative claims This chapter further elaborates the aestheti OH I a tiltiii it
lie I -
I II \ I IV I p o IT C 0 CfLSt I in my r - I Sal itive ci urn and thereft r ti it ira p c it n
cai ic I hat tam at I iiiaI1a sepanila and oppose different,
it I
ieiated threads in manifestation of representation and examines

tiae notion 01 tue ulaqilIts
lila to ol j ltiea [ej rese Vat on It lIfters i wa U look at pohtical
of repr sentatk n Cf representation is 1
eve
w here r perhaps i n ow cit i
n a i H 0 ii o ci ry n dcc ral parti. ijaxi
terms thai settle it as a I ct ather than a claim, and fail as a Chapter 4 takes the framework elaborated thus tar and homes II, Ito
I l to pie tHIfl sud ae lily ha sor of vlatonship
t i nd c( nto versial question of i onclective iepr sen ibo F e Itt 1
a o m a It h I t I idp n t icsa ways Ii ittS (a active rci resentative claims are usad as a iv, y Ic do ass ea I
p0 isV lie repiest 11101
clamis, and their multiple
HOta Hi aillig OH ye practical types and examples of nonelective represental loll. 1 lie chapacl
o-a t
goas on to oinin son e of the main modes ft ret eptu H re 1 s i
i I a n I lot i is ch d, n cka ii sti ed and dde ided claims, setting up the discussion in the hnal chapter 0 tha judgn cot
Is iCes iha tuihiw I In p151 1 iii rs a cused critique of Pitkins of claims in terms of democratic legitimacy. Ihe broader aise1aln-u ii
Ia I, P p1 o ii e it n viii is P ei ni as In ae ork s d Iressed i i u n w 1 I ak I
0 a ma is t I a P ii c s id vhy t ii atters, It lions of the represantahon of women, hitura. generations. and itaiws,
at, bhst as the need 10(0cm more on what representatio doeV hoh
n and the representative role of political parties in the past uid the future
P s it v d vi mt p iv Pc inor tinpo ant I at- ( ti a cenir si

r to tI e idea of tf a r nt v 1 i I
o o aji lianjjpjjy bite; how we need to dowipy nonelective representation, the making of portralais of the represented.
p dogies and highlirht nan lies)
d wF141 is going on in representation); and the multiple potential sites of representativ e pro tice ala. lobor ii
i I I F k o y id I ia u nal w th pa t iF se three important sasec tier an ii lea a
l jIIriafliddalU shemid
lie phe oserishelming focuj of studies
nt book, there is a good deal of focus on specitle institutions, praatiec, and
ot,ai no
places this is political theory hecouse it St lys hs to tcii HI lIlil s al I
a r cc to it spite of the fact, in the concluding Chapici , I cvi -w sc no as, o
Hi, ime UI m at tr OtiOlis as an onahitcal tool. Framed by a
and step hack to consider what these nea approaches iiI igiiiiIciit
itat in 0 nt sp -jail a laim) r ther might mean for dernociatic representation and rapras n ativ ft ic
a I
-
sI f 11 a o i d a as i so ae letail I axplore F )W we might judge tha den oe atic ahai ctcr of pr el
II I ICs (OIl it P elements of the repieselitative claim. Repre live claims, not by offering an independent theory of tegltimas i htil to
i it ita a a ida to I a thr a d so ect tands I ran explorit g 11 e ondaion under which cartain a an atitue is-s II I.
1 it it It Ic
F rga tet in he hap er shows
n
ences nay make assessments of claims. The chaptei further pinpoll t to as
lIds stii P 0 all iplc * in ol political representation we need to various points of received wisdom about represeniat is e deinocria a io
5 111 Ii iii i ii e as ft ix ke nd ha id ene U be ravi ed, sorn I which might he eor P lcrcd a H I g
i- IP 110 sq, ed oil to aptuie the a Sence and to
,ihtletv aid I a Os i ol he iepreseiitatlse claim approach. Chapter 3
1 ft l( II I IC ( Ii v IS I r
I a - aI a -a eanijile at Hi,ula and multiple claims, and internal
\iI 110) Ii a) i explores the CfUeiJl role of performance in
),OlIls
 Retnainders and opportunities
are limits of the styles of theorizing within which people arc working,
1 others arise from an unwillingness to challenge basic typologies are.
ategorics of thi ki ig about poftical represciltation,
I vu ssed r it briefe i form, and going from h r get
th o i al as nptions especially to the more pa ti ular c ll
ss tk ns espe MU the key limitations which are taker i the.
eprc atior subs quent cliai is, of the pr vailmg orthod xy are as fol ws.
I. It focuses too strongly on the definition of representation (what it is) and
less systematically on the constitution of representation (what it does); in
i\ U tO ike ire i din non hi it here are soW seriously troubling, odoi&it mies ky ways in which the formerjypar sine on the latter.
ii i lai i hi a I it. ft hi our idea, I political represen 2. it ignores or downplays (in an importantly different sense te iu
dli III is pi t sipt hi w work i Ut edirne is on of typresentation, in otter words wia $ crtions
dS Is id sci I 1 ii s of repi scntation construct in thei stead for ex rip 1
hr prL ented
tp Wis It n ads i ipora I iiows a tic i ly and vcrtl normativ C iefltatio 0 1 iality
cit ir tirw ii w thu i such what is accepted as counting as representation, especiahv wha
I Ire it atures occ a ng oi fO itical i rpi esent itlon are large and may count as democratic or legitimate representation; this limitation
ar red, an I I ar i ot 5
1 oing to provide a systematic overview, 1 focus on results in a reduction of interpretive depth and a fuller sense of the rich
r u cii eenut.c of thinUi that visung theories do not open up and plurality of representative practices.
11 TUC onn C 10115 It) IC iI isorld t rends that these theories do not
4. It overemphasizes forms, roles, and typologies in politi al representa
ci Ic not to there i ing ol in in these I ries;
ior and parti as a consequence overlooks te real dynamics
m hall idos ly B hortc r s arc
ere entati,
,
11 vhat is gitig on fri rcprceataIkri
t t d cidsafresl
id c vy an ig rc t on t 1 1 c mt
It focuses t o losely on formal, and especially electora ci r rita
)1 il cii c tli (out! tli i icMon I thtical rq cnta to the exciusi n f other modes of representation.
t so 1[l a t i at political ide, or an achieved state ot affairs, 6. It misleadingly emphasizes, or more often simply assumes the etiicac
:t. seitng twnu t.lection Rather, it a deeper level, representation is a of thyithatjh nationallevel remains the sole or defining site ci
hi fldHe.t piocess of rIauii-nsakin and the reption of claims. representation. >
I dist.ss selected rece it works on the theory of political representation, 7. It is at times disengaged from real-world problems and issues that base
t i pai t host. 1 nina I cm 1 Pitkin, J Manshridg and an impact on our ideas of representation.
\ndrr I ai 1 Mai g, N nati, a i i e a.
1L ii t an b 1 cad as on of the directions nut Laker a w S
k .Iiw ii
miss d I discuss each of the writers n dicatd i
Id IS I itt s tld But opportunities
atise v bringing into chef key efforts to address this set of problem. nd sc
ii t hesc a cases s cfer to a n, cial
rem SW 01551 S C I avoidat Ic
oti ers that are linked to them) My analyses of key works will not map in i
I S I CI I I imitations in our
iii rt. iii ii reking iIout ohtical representation. Sm k tat these limitations straightforward or one-to-one way onto the set of seven key problems: thr
picture as more nuanced than that. It is to the credit of some ot these
 Re a unders and oppo tunitie
k edd r downplayed his n turn, has led many observer to bu 11
it ci) s 10 1 irned at about the ole the rpresentatlve when in fact these role r
nk 1 ut politiea better conceived as re ourees which can be used to support poli 1 a
resentative I explore how the problem of unidirectu alit vs
to be re
2
ii F e book, nd why L matters that we address the issu I cc ai
a 1 ss Fin 1 ing vi w of pediucal representation
a fleet
r ph i I
iril 11 1 ( S W Nl) Jill N LOSUl
Ut tu f I KiN $ I I( TORIAI IABI FM Y
1 1
( ittO
itkir I rs lf ails the elusive niultisided coneep )f re c t
IlK ic
ug iw u zk hat needs to w pieced togethe befon a
ti tve what it really means A second metaphor Pitlun uses to e I
on I asi task is hat of a carch for a rathcr complicated, 5 1
to ugge t three linienuonal structure in the middle of a dark n losuI
1st nt e ingf theorists have given us photographs of this structure, she say tk r ft
tbl y o ofl cr5. in various ingles rhese photographs offer different iriages o our
tingil he no is of the obje t itsel6 Yet: says Pitkin, there is something th e i
t Cr 961 09) middle in th dark, which all of them are photographing, and t i ca r
ilassi g photographs together can be used to reconstruct it in coml let
Inc 11 (1961 1O ii) Similarly, the enclosure creates in mid
outside, like a frame around a photograph
5 1 itive t iat There is of eoursc, nothing unusual about using such ai h r
1
c aa ,o ncapsuLat an issue in this case, the metaphors sugges on cii
i
sigmui ant about the character and limits of conventional app a I c
gi ment F th t political representation. A jigsaw is a framed, rectangular c st
i mragcs us to
Withir its frame is something complete or able to be compl tec F
is mg tl rpr sented or strongly implies that she can locate the conceptual equivak
r ha etc istic of complete image of representations meaning, through cm itie ci 131 i i
y a fwitmg of a i umber of historical md contemporary accounts and pi Urn i
k h repr ti c ni st defensible arguments Both metaphors carry the el n s i
g 1 s set of ntei that i isidc the frame (in the dark) a more or less complets nsw
puzzl of representation is to be found i it true that in o i p 1
5. iu it attentioi
lynar c haracter working within a set of assumptions coming out I rdiriar 1
it i ci sidelined I hilosophy strongly influenced by Austin and (lavell, I Ii s r
 wool is 110 J ipport tii1 s Remainder and opportun ties
t Ii. 1 (1 COUfl cc tw Pitkin 69) soles th fascist theory of epr: stat i as
whit presi t i hi extci 11w v ik o 1 ntext nsitivc and here the peoph in a sense repirsent the rulem, rather than thc uher s
ewtrLes .i ei tam pluralisni ofreferene. Nesertheless, it remains the case around. Therefore, symbolic, descriptive, and constitutive forms of repre
tat tier us: ti tfl phatoiiaphu and franiing metaphors leads her to the sentation are set to one side by Pitkin in terms of her effort to locate th
w t by in i diet u ii us w no up w a hr icr re of c htu.aI presentation Pitkins emphasi on ret rcsent n a
air ist I ivi y i To g at d oduetive; my argur lent tha by te z
is
ipp he d r de ow rther I e catcg ry of ietlvity we ea build on hu efforts I ntro
C iI goii, od that aav ir appruir1i it, ma he reasonable enough. My cing new modes of representation into our work. 2 fo a degree, this
iwcrn hes ss di die opportumties missed in the drive toward it, especiah involves reinstating to the core of our analysis that which Pitkin sidelined.
ti s f 1 p hhtr and velop thi. ialysi 1 ret sentati ns This work matters fot two key reasons First., represe itatior not
ii Ii Vt i. ix ii o utive s de Li a ti i g ti made, or onstructd, by someone ft r so e re
Ii nl i to or or ys inc ow kin di c es or a purpose; itither, the mode of its constructedness qualifie stror p
up 1 1 I V1CH )t flit oncept of reprrsentation which the book its manifest character. Representation has makers the detailed mean

a vis I hen oiv d. tI1i w., ing and significance of this notion, central to the idea of the representative
coot ibty claim, is discussed in Chapter 2. And second, the symboli and ft
nd stas ac for ire
I I sul slam ft arc, not separable. Policy substance carries ymboh v ilmi
nessages; delcnse policy in the United Kingdom r U iitc tat
I opt mid lob pit hot tw( odes stand ng .
m,r I (iii 01 ohjw I) trance, for example, carries varied symbols connected to th nation
P
national independence, national strength, and so on (though these play
5. b ,s pe \ ct tni ys Cwt ig br Views )f type B are more out differently in different countries and cultures).
Nb l i ifl HI C t my i g ii ticular n it is worth reiterating the point that despite almost defining v ay I
0 11 iii i I e I gc rmiati inS aker I representations there aic interesting hints at varo u
onk sona b ii .1 0 IC im rtant 1 nseqt ice of he typcs of vhere Pitkin shows us some of what her own definitions lead her to set
mepresatation being expresird in this way: by this very process of catego aside. She writes, shortly after introducing her version of the acting Ior!
ri: tieii litkmr sideliiws categories of active symbolic or aesthetic represen standing for schema, that Each of these kinds of representing by standing
,ii ) 1 51 flu, sid b u ins ntei i p it cs ( to for things descriptive and symnbolicj brings with it a cot e pond
e i It r ix ix a V S not or if activity the making of a descriptive represent t ) u
101. th i mew s syn olual eprese Itative d a reation ot a symbol (1967, 12). Later, Pitlun shows interest in tI
(oi dcnionsen trait of some group, or those who present them way in which symbols or paintings represent (1967, 54). But subsequent
es o symbolic representatives of some set of interests. More precisely, ly, she sets these insights to one side on the grounds that one cannot hold
ito the lb n ix d wit ii P is a urn y are lot an inanimate object responsible above all, she wishes to make norman

e 9 points uhout the proper role of elected political representat yes n Pit.ki
Oil C fl maly mt IV ng n y yea ater 1km (2004) i salysis, the maker of representations the painter, for exampl or mo
t td that n (.oropm she had equated democracy and representation pertinently in the present contest the politician, spin doctor, or campaign
misleadingis lactor that I discuss further in Chapter 6.) Uhus, there manager is present but is not seen as significant to democratic represen
ire nictil m ki wh hem I nselv as sy bohzi i a nat on, tation, or to political representation more generally.
1 1 o i. e ato v hi h she
 Is 101 ,ndciS 0 ha apportwl itUs Remainders and opportunities
it wo l dio. uss rqresentational art, Pitkin wiites that Represen the represented only works if the latter is a clearly known cr knowahlv
an o h ans the so or ti itt ii the artist something very close quantity. The politician need make no representations, construct nm,
s in 11 1st is all somethi out I ii ges, of it, or I imselL The nere transfe of informat s enougt
hat 1 I
s ap i a c I iy if i iation v 1 ow eady availability and reliability ho does
usntr
1 ilit ant lv t figu I . htkin i p esents h r theory of political epresen i as givil
a in .1 a p hi alit gi thing at his t wst meaning I representation, and on c msequence of r drive I
0i 10 a a magmes I WHIt I ould that he a key pa of this normative meaning is that she (In largely defines awa what 1 will
pull a i ns n ition beans, It representing is a constitutive argue is a central aspect of political representation the active making oI

iv v, o U that ciiti a R nvolvas OPel ing construvtions or images of symbols or images of what is to be represented. lhe reasons why she does
a itd aiidInLes, then th answer can only be the latter are understandable, stemming as they do from the fact that
l1iiiflI she takes representation to mean democratic represe nation and
so hat i piesef t art r S I In ther that I understand democratic representation n 1 riited
ii if ha cat tiorit
1 Modcs of repiesentation in which kJ 1 ia
01 liP (19 a C co astitu ts and audiences through images and projecti ) is re Ia
111) ii I on ill al rep i in, Pit i i es onfined by P tkir to the fascist theory of representattor which is
ii ol 0 11 a Tep mi f ins with t ccl to political life democratic and therefore not in fact representation. By following Pitkm
-h ,ltvi 0 thI, Of I Oh flttiti)hl (ii the way a landsvape painting might too closely we stand to lose a sense of contingency, and the strong elenwnt
0-Il the a w ,ib1\ trees stal a in the field that day), For Pitkin, when of dynamic constructedness of representative politics (along with the
0 1fl10. S I iihol. ,intl ,it,ilitic r piesentation, it is the inanimate importance of those who do the constructing) across a variety ol demo
ie I I
11 1 ng. t L n that
tie si inhol, or the
represents. map -
cratic and other contexts. By contrast, I wish to suggest that (a) the searvh
111 ill ol th ol LI
ther ig or ol, etc I r oi e, best neaning can restrict unduly the Ihctors allew I to ci
Is i ial n I inalvsis a id fruitless and (b) regarding the politic ia i i n
s Ha (and rc ci er) c repiesentatlons (images and symbol ) is me
I it 11. &jh ii au in p tot, mdci tanding political representation, including in its Ianiilia elect
he In I icu a ittsttt is to sup Iormatioi, i this guise. I would add that framing research into representation as primar
I p ople 1 ha a it ion 1 is i lot an acting for but a giving normative can also bear unduly restrictive consequences.
,It bill II iHdt,ull ,bfiuut ,i iiakiu ot reprvsentati ins ii)Ut (1967, 83). . fhere are many pitfalls in the attempt to say that all different meanings
1ii,1PilIO tIii- move, itkin sidelines more vomplex and politically
5 of representation are grammatical modulations of a single and identical
Ilphls smg l Iv, III aspv
t H the svmholi and aesthetic sides of represen meaning (l)errida 1982, 299). We should not imagine that we can
I alt ii it I er I ad Umut t highly dl vision the mcover, or discover, the essence of representation, or assuni that thc
stoic no live p vho )thers I only nc supe ioi mode of representing the problem of re ntat
i
La ly oi e p c ci ideally cc could locate a key for exploring political c r s nt
re i ii I irac vs which i in act fo mded on and which encourages us to
- fi
b mu 1, ten ,)s, iOiitte non al rn.tested s me tlnfting and multilayered dynamics. Relatedly I am arguing w resist
I 0 1,1 I lc lu ( it no iii ihi a uslv acvcptable characteriza an overly strong legislative impulse in addressing representation. A
on Pitl ,n s assumption readily give information about
that one can important thread in political theory in recent years has been centrally
 P r and oppo to Reniazndcrs and oppornuies
I si legislal nterprc 1 , view I h m presentat vs., we see, for exa iipk tI it iss ii
is tin sa IL I tit w I cy i 1 mili mt constraining y nit gi usdi
Is e its I i) imid n 1n r d delegate trustee frames u h rs
ci a) say or nina If assur hxs.d know hi sd of interests In the r pm sentcx
I
cli r that ) alics ml the ide tical to b a I I ate om a ustee is built pie isel u on the Ic
*
P or lita ii ar ni i a partisul i i sophisneated ods. or bility of the interests ottlie represented. My argument is that th 5 has Isa
C )i I
ukL sip rhil pi ir a little more detail iii shapter 5. of the represented is precisely what we ought to he putting into questmon.
I cmi 1. place am eCntt uage the dea that representation. is con In terms of the seven critical points I outlined at the beginning ot they
ii ic Ic d. and a a kes part of that, also to highlight the necessaty figute chapter, exploring core aspects of Pitkins classic work leaves the need to
I the ikem so rejr sentatiuns. It is not lust inanimate objects, like deepen and extend our grasp of the ways in which representation is
p minIm le - imp
. Iii. ep ess ut In the aesthetic sense. People do too, constitutive of the represented; and how representation itself is made, or
i coil purposes t s and anus. i orporatlolls at d olith constitu ed Think of Pitkmn s preferred definition of representat i a
ther m s an aile repres t is in sub tam iv acting for others. What sup ort, this definitiom l ill
1
on ti j m , m ,e portia s.d UI ci mined
the subsummmcc, 1
I sv Ieti i lea ill justmfis.atmomi. of both be built? We ns <d is los. i t
iiit )is I I tin It s ml repis. ss.ntati 1 as a dynan-aic process, red inking existing y og
a ligurs ioiitis a other ke their 1mm t itkins implicit but strong placing of lepresenta u ly
ispi mis I tie m nencies h iltries, and I IS Ives. withi i a it iiioinous national frameworks, and her framing sB rc r 5 Ia
i I hs u rep e it itlons ama mini to a st bstantis e acting for, and tions dynamics by normatne prescription, are further points of departure
III the I it politica) teircscfltatls)mi 011151 mak them on board. lo put the for the analysis in the following chapters. As sophisticated and important
plant si ghile difterenily: A might well represent B \\ hat B is
1 what as it is, Pitkins classic book prioritizes the search for correct dchniticn
r iiaass air lakeul to characterize her ot hum (or it) as an and characterizes that search as a more or less internal or philosophii)
La r thci pinI a) ousttuCtiOt1 icr example, is often highly task of bringing together, comparing, and criticizing extant philosoplocal
chit )Ic filmS) pm r 1 b and ad)usi himself or herself or Itself to positions to the detriment of examining the dynamics of representation
H veusion activity I to the vs. ii art of invocat on Meaning matters but it matters in more contextual) lie
ntatm y repr )nstructi ig C I it St ways that Pitkins overall approach can allow. We need to 1
ci I yom a Iv is. d meanings of ii akers and recipients of claims, meanings in th *u
I K v liii sip of laimns and so on Claims of representation are thunsel m
de wing i makng claims, to a considerable degree, representation ha is x
ii for ii. i. it aside I F. ilysis, hut o m Id both or claim ndependent meaning, rather its meaning is iii i I I gh
ii cit from ut lb iius to highligb key but neglected aspect ol invocation.
mepicsc i ation. and explo how it alters in turn our understanding of Pitkins analysis is recognized as extraordinarily rich and thoulittul,
huse aspects wins ii Pitkin and others do explore in detail. We must ask Pitkin herself has acknowledged that its limitations are products in pan ot
ihord the mdentty ot the represented, not just of represeniatives. We need the dominant assumptions and limitations of its time. Prom my i erspcc
in a 5cr, to liberate the politician as artist, as a maker of representations, live, a key assumption to question is the one that arguably is Ills least
a lrascr of the rep esented Further regarding the politician as questioned: prioritizing the fixing of a philosophically derives] single h 5 si
in ik m nntatior to me it w light more ir ditional meaning for representation pushes into the background reprcsentat as
 Rerna nder and opportunlue
i, he irod Iii of nor d e ci ts and their Interpretation; in view, and to give the national and electoral assumption this mos e wa
6wt IC nt toie it crsstalhze: into a rio. Similarly, ifwe reinstate to based on. I argue that a focus on variation is fine, but prior focus (iii
. -o worh active svmbohe Tepresentation, and see claims instance deepens and extends it; in other words, instances where repie
euicrrons atout Likuuss. ssmpathy, and capacity as part and parcel sentation is claimed, and perhaps created, may add new or hybrid types to
C i pICS&II alive daims then other th ngs that Pitkin took largely for familiar lists of variations, In short, coming out of our reading of Pitkin,
a iiieu 196 an also h opened up. if representation is in large one task is to open up new directions for our thinking about representa
,CasUO a ,Juct I leposentative Li mm, then the definition of repre- fion by not foreclosing the possibilities that lie in a richer contingency and
ut.ui i top at r Lertain institutions ian, and should, he relaxed, fluidity of meaning, a more detailed and less taxonomic interpretation
i fat is iv tie tioiis r entation to nation state -) and the embracing of the constitutive dimension, or the aclivi making of
L\ls r L ak in studyi i i tion need not cent on representations. In these brief comments, I have tried to I ov th it to d
t ion, Raihi i i task of tnt at di g s s natty respects, to woik with the grain of Pitkin ii al rather
p t dan i sources d
act t ian gon t .
v tin it may v k a
in sb Is u
UCFNI INNOVATI( N IN] Ii. 1 11(1
a lain t i sonic d
I lair i s e ion %om
) I I PRISENTATION
0
I, rtanl 10 ii y adoptii p di c
a good deal of other work to budd on as well Ii tst ot thd
I t ill th t In lii na to bring new o
( lapter reviews key aspects of a number of twenty-first dntury works
, a on tlit I a anne, resentatisi relationships
since to my mind many timely and innovative additions to, and msisions
. si usi ii i ned n ( hapter
of, key ideas of representation have been produced quite recent]v, Again,
I In rL ii LII ehrncnts t th argument in tills hook that Hanna Pitirin
i nut ii. is, She did for csnmpli. note the role of audiences in
the particular angle I adopt in these brief critiques stems from the
remainder of issues from current orthodoxy the seven points I nun
r pr ,Liii,ifl tn te[ rest itatu n to someone), but confined this crucial

,a ion to ian jpulalive st niholic representation She did convey some lined at the beginning of this chapter. I do not directly refer to these points

at each step; the key themes will emerge as we proceed and I offer a itiore
.L 1 I r presented b ing sometl ing that Is actively constructed
systematic summary at the end of the chapter.
1 1
ug i clii ll,i hut endi I h sidelimng this critical part of the
In a rich and thoughtful review of empirical research on political ripu
it ii on 5 ental ion. Pitkius so s presentation its an acti ty is
ent itlon in the United States, Mansbridge (2003) gener ite new c itegoriLs
nupt throughout tin of seeing repress a
n an effort to capture new empirical realities of representati n. In o douig.
vi r e, as a ire t Pitkin also c Ii ed that
she extends usefully both the frameworks within which w tI ink bout
a I & of ii for othlargely
representation, and the set of types of representatior that h I inc
text, porter ii us a
.
namfest, at least in the United States She suggests that ti i cvd ts
lik v i r a
there being significant empirical foims of representation vhi i c
10 1 cal sit p 0
n t pr lously been highlighted in the vies of reprcn itation a ing
hut si nattoi 1 ct( ral
horn the standard pri missory account of representation wl audi
if tin. pint resent,itic i
1 ale able,
d tes make promises l r to elections and can he held t i it wit Ii
I r slove Ii 1 II I or and n pick e tel
 Rern inders and opporrvn it tes
f sf r t I A I th rdly, it suggests that the for nal pro x.rtic
t t de ni eahaus it important properties Infor nal ohtic
) at mc tioi md deliberation over time during i i be w
he ek to and lion a n aigns fo xample matters too

Vi 1(1 tlLUV. I I sory So, th or. die es ects Mansbridge helps u L iovc
d !rs(1IL, tftt c I V)tes) K fuit a r We need more detailed accour ts f a t
Cia lion and a n bridge i se t on with respect to what would b
no tEas urn is or eleora1 ft a d twa uld be constituents respond. We nd 1st to t
upal aeIO md I in r v ire looking Mansi ide bct ccr the lines hints that a repres itativ
Itier tmo in n Inn ku aid a eferences, and on degre in t dark about constituent preferences a id t I
Ut in for (Ia in r do so Ii a in o ratic account ime bI t influer ce those preferences. How do reprcscn tiv
oh v Ii a s a. re n d ar I V & preferences puts iepi .enlati cncssa Is it about preferences only, or is it also aho at in I
laOs ia in di i intl pmtr ) tin ii s ords and acuens responsiv n css? And further, Mansbridges analysis hovers shghtl i u an
iii iflhlUc 1k c I In) I U or a pi terr a e n u otes Communication fortahie between its explicit US context and the universal-sounding naturt
i c ci. a pliarnIaticu anu present and tutuie cc Ostituents becomes cru of the new forms she introduces. What difference does political seulturai
sit shilu our emphasis trorn he plomissory lorms has the context make to the sorts of claims and how they are communicatedi In
repi asenidi iCe done a hat rises said thes 00 ild do in office? to the these respects, we can take stock of, and build upon, Mansbridges insights
tnlftrpalors form in i influence future uotcr preferences so that they with respect to anticipatory representation.
sell sttt to no neat toned \ecording to the latter ftarrn, the representa Mansbridges second innovative form of representation offers a build
o writ jet rn wa s tiu,it Ire ot she thinks CII appeal to future voters, ing block in one key respect. Gyroscopic representation refers to situations
id attempt to inapt OrIon Voteis pielerence in amenable wayin where constituents have no real control over the actions of a represi. tative
I anla rpdtors for n iakcs the hroadei debate on poheical representa once they are elected. Being authorized to act for a constituency at the
ii the in to Oft ot the ke issues outline I earlier in the chapter, in election is the only clear form of accountability in cases of gyrocopiL
iOniC main sons 1 rrst. as \lanshridge states, it moves our attention from representation. in Mansbridges eyes, the key normative criteria for Iudg
nit na in ad ne r Ltionsliips - the principal represented) and the agent ing the representative for this form rests with the quality of deliberation
lsarii.iliei U sisfr niic relationships in the sense of multiple flows that takes place at the time of the election how well do the voters know

form .uon, sunk direct and others mediated for example through the candidates principles and character? How far can they know that he or
rr n uj iii nfl did outk ts, and communication between represen she will do what they say they will do?
tUsi. arid tl air nstituc its. { Plikin made tE t o, though arguably One pertinent point that the discussion of gyroscopic re pre eat Ii
It mis I his introduces a nu re i in less moral, tone by puts onto on analytical agenda is the considerable degree of 6 1 or
I hasiioui the dvina nones of rei res i d plural modes of represe atat yes, and would-be representatives, can have with e t
i n&lrat c irninuon a ii. s between the onsn uenIs Ii ater chapters, 1 propose to take this insight I
oL lisa md tin repre at at I y emphasizes particular thi type of representation suggests that repteselit tb
slit iti t Ii no,ioi 1 1 a radijonal ix t always w elective Or, perhaps more to the point that ft er y
lint mica 1(11CC t r repre 6 ii d four s of re resentation, elective and nonelective ii whi
v
out ole ( In ,. t t I the abilit is s nnct mcs haphazard informal, and systemic at best ra lx
o afi d . a c pta a or vent (such as voting in elections) ii
 Re,naindcrs and opportunitiei
In shor Fv r ju adic al nice it attempts to rethink rep resentat
th t ti or 1 itecture I cc nventaonil ciect ral dei crac n
ten ese t is line Ma isbridge s valuable cifort Ciii, I I
yen ig biai i hei r bu di rth dox elect il framework. Mansbr dye dc es n
it tatum o ition 1w alive wi r me though c se 1, hut note, It i example, that the notion o u y
e toia 1atm that is, a n p i tative m another listrict implies that there is a nonsurrogate entity, which may mean se in thing
am logate re sentatlon turns on representation of interests like the baseline or the standard form. Something like the latter is needed
aid gel etises that ire prmarily nomgeographical, and therefore liter for the idea of the surrogate to make sense. (The alternative line of
nli do i ot map onto standard territorially based constituency modes of thought would be that all representation is, in sonic sense, surrogate repre
epreserlalion lanshhd ites the evample of Barney Frank, a member sentation a thought that links closely to key themes in Chapter 2
o at R prc. ntatis S Mr the stats of Massachusetts who is In Mansbridges terms, this means that direct electoral connections
ap&r 0 dclihcra ii s for gay ii s and constitu r s well between the representative and tile represented form the sian d n
indane ssa huse Other ( 1 have baselir c ye sio i of representation. Surrogates offcr tile sanie ti
enno d Jif . electol npren.ntation at n ye, a
we i r i th ugges we introduction of the idea r
rej cs r tatior by exploring how unelecied representat v s
J ice, notes v ii gate I argue i s i e detail n Chapter 4, offer different things 1 1 1 i I
on mu b I hs thi it can hi t the persons lifferent, that is to what elected representatives I r
a nd inlet a. I p rspi dives hat are widely held but, due sometimes by virtue of the very fact that they are elected representatives
o to ,Ci tCft itored rcprssentotiun, do not have the political voice that Coming out of this brief examination of Mansbridges analysis, let me
ntar in intm s u igiufir ann merit. oftr some key points by way of an interim summary. At the beginning of
lie lea at urrog itd ieplcssntatlon is highly suggestive. The key point the chapter, I noted various weaknesses or limits of existing accounts cit
ii Rgcsls that r e. ntatmn need i it he based on election in political representation. Mansbridges work points the way, in sariou
rd Lli r
t
rprmen I have suggesten s \pionng nonelectoral as respects, to how some of these weaknesses and limits might be addressed.
ye a1 mode su tatien v key theme i book. She argues that we need to examine representation on a more sy n de
hail c it at its in ti si my basis hat takes into account complex modes of communic 1 01
gn nd ti 1 050 deliberatior n olving representatives, constituents, and othc ii d
th d cn Ncve the 1l is is sur 1 right, and it points in turn to somethrng dcepci tI t w
it it node ii lective to explore how unstable and incomplete, probably unavo d b
c I ii i
, nrc ai i. tlc dfl\ e Sc tative claims to replesenlation are formal or informal, eleciota in
hi that nuu then. cOny I It al democratic legitimacy. electoral, and so on. That may come across as a negative point Ut It
an meat sonli at I ioiIv note that Mansbi idge does not take a step need not be taken that way; representation may be highly productise,
hai n esd to take natnela putting forward and interrogating in their perceived as stable and legitimate, and may oil the wheels of democratic
owe tents nonelca ttve eLi ins to representation. Manshridge states that a politics, without being in seine sense ideal or full or complete in any given
surI(g rcpresentative, though not elected by the people for whom he instance. These points will be taken further as I explore claimmaking
a ru wyatt is elan d lie is a representative in another district processes as the drivers of political representation.
hat he or I d ne t he
 iindcrs and iJrrutticI Renianulers and epportutn 1-Id
5/ II iii St yn ot dc ny lements nak ig ip p )liti al r p as nL tion 1-Its I at I t
C Iii it1 I S Cl OiL 1 , 0 1 1 notio 1 1 an udien that u es rules ( I r cogntti( 1 c
CR t ilk 11 10 0 1 her ihod it em i would ave us claimant, helps us to understand what is going on in cases, ( pin pori c
;op io f odd on her insighis with an eye to a yet more cases, of representation. Rehfeld makes the important point that Lepre
stem view who claums representation, how, with what resources, sentation need not be elective, or even more broadly democratic, in ordem
ii , a boss these tors sh I ovet a? Forth r, Mans to be representatio n. l)emocratic representatio n is I ia mode c I polio
ws re tat ay I s b i Ce a i n prcs tion I u the c. i a vanuty of ways i i whieb pout c r pr
ii 1 CL Sn a cc ho a we ation a i as imply by nelcne ice to a relevant udienc icce[ I a P
.1 t( r 1 t Cc r Ii etiva piew LI 00 10 systcn stically s as such (2006, 2 Whew a selection agent (e.g., a democratic conch
.
there Solnethoig about eleLtive pi cesses that generically limits the style ency, or a king) using a decision rule (majority rule through an election,
ad opc it representation that emanates trom them? I believe this is in or a royal command) to choose a representative from a qualified set ithe
P 151, a I i gut II hapit in pant ular. candidates in th election or wh Imever the king thinks is t nahified
5/ dg s d it r ui ntaion
hen q nesentation occu s, or is initiated A. II ese von s ci ,cs ,Rv i
II H ii vi. d sc c ue to
1 i 1-s, t, lelay, cv I siuerilig vuiat us ueguu iii t c no
k 1 pa d Ii s I I it i us hI n th ng abc repres represcn tation.
onion 1 ir a sci lotig lime; ike h Id has been all the more tenacious for Rehfeids suggestion that representation can have different functions a
iuig onipli. asstued ather than openly stated and defended. different contexts, and that success in some ot these functions need not
Ma iii Je,e I it mi se bile pts t/ epresefltatlon to our standard have anything to do with democracy, is important to building i suital 1
si I U tad ii deb aIx isle nd i hl nuanced and pluralisti account of a complix political phei c mci on
it s I p C I Inf I F di I in Rehldd s analysis there is a residual binary distinctic n h tw er d
s 1 is 0 Ii a tul mci i ron (1 may peliti 5/ cratic ci resentation based on election, on thc one hand, and other th -
cpu sdiltatiun. t ie idea that these various tspes are mingled, adapted, democratic representation based on a different mode of selection, on the
tioiiiipdated and in eet used as resources bY people who claim to be other. We need, I suggest, to query this binary more explicitly, seeing
a tat icr I ulut i I mon iuanced understanding (It representa democratic representation as both a difficult thing to achiei e, an I
Ii its t tin tt tin Man I d e h piulLy sb something that in principle might be achievable in specati way
ii x e o c Ix inc lectivc semi- lectve and nonelective actors It is worth i oti g,
(I (ds 5 oulc tepr atmi d in icuiai vh we neec that further work on the notion of the audience is desirabl (laini
coil rai. e 501 a it laos dr unfamiliar deliberative and systemic criteria. representation often involve multiple audiences, and Sometimes overlap
lien, m ,saii a argot that we need to delay consideration of normative ping audiences; there can be differences between intended and actual
r in Ii a miii s has a iore d t di.d an munt of what is going on in audiences, and so on. The notion of the audience is crucial to rpresenra
hot ne no nat Ihc bet r n the fir lion and much neglected in studies of represenutatic n; I pci out
( IS I iS IL rc (icti preferred Ippnoach ta this notion, which differs c insiderably I on i
tlt 11(11 5/ o 5 501 ns ci win iudici c and c is uscd in a rad cally different way from that of Rehfeld, in Chapivi
lIt Oct Od jucig epiesci tauve claims particular.
Other recent author,s have also innovated in ways that are both useful in Second, Rehfeld (like many others) implies that representation is a tact
Lheiue Ves, ant ould Ir tinily h built up n. Andrw Rehfelds distinc a specifiable state of affairs of which we can say unambiguously that it
but aI ho a p afl 111 ay at xists I rhain inpinical condition s are mct fir i given case iii In
 I,tomuicrs antl opportumtzc S Remainders and opportunities
neall t[i,O he regiids tactual case of representation to he good, or claims in transnational and global politics, variously under the heading of
oinileL ept senta L) hc mas I ma) not, but that is a separate legitimacy or accountabiiity (see, e.g., Thompson 1999; Rubenstcin
tint cv, tl ktinit lanty i c, able t ay for 07 Hudson 20( Grant and Keohane 200 ) ibis cont
, of eour
a this lat at i in k cci ise will ft a in 1 v ned types f nonelee i representat i Inc
ig B I y i br IN 105 t ch as Creenpeac aid Amnes y Ii e at
in t, i ri i w ny , B u s sue Ut r n somc detail in Chapt r 4 in par icula i the
I to H L from entatini I Let to of ry prior ace it of the representative cia m In short, ik Manshrid
1
r ii !ad 01 as pr e It can I e moic illuminating, I argue, to ask Rehield raises the specter of nonelective representation; the task now is to
L a at aho Iota/net: tle appelent tact of representation in political life, delve much more into the array of types and contexts involved, driven by a
tic lUci tE an take a nit of independently derived criteria of what is and is recalibrated notion of representation that minimizes initial assumptions
ieU Lcpw rctation aial lit n appts that to cases. The two might be linked, about what counts as representation.
at . Ihfc Id t sample i s in pa ith our et t nitual I inally, and p rhaps most im[ ortantly, Rd ield deploys tI i oliori of -ci
nt i totgiic iteiiab ikin 1
sbnd the audience as th relevant group of people wh must recog i c dam a
ii f nd 4 4 Cp Cse 11011 e a d the nile drIce of th 1uup wi 1 aw
ii, 01 ii iiii ifiC 10 55 il c pa ticula I u i ii n of a ase of representation (00( So
0 1 1 a i u ci riced e gent 1 we 1 - ion of Lihy UN Ambassador is to represent libya at e UN,
ii ii d Hf etint a I I tweer cc! ptlons of ret tesenta -
UN assembly is the relevant audience. Certainly, this analy is is helpful
Ii Ci )IeSencr, on the one hand, and as an esent, on the other
1 this
far as it goes. Audiences accepting (or rejecting or contesting or ignoring
o fi he 015. of he statmp pints 0 my mapping of the representative -
representative claims is a crucial part of the dynamics of political repre
I a Ins nreterrc-d takt on the esent -based eontepflon) in Chapter 2.
-
sentation. But this particular account does not go far enough, in my view
H 1 kifgestlr
- that with r spec t t a poliual representation e
,
Rehfeld implies that either (a) a formal or legal context supplies th -
itt> slicit how it Ic, p0 i g rep! se tation tel vant audien , bjectively as it were (e g.. electoral law etting
I-, (Ii I cii lisp icc tha as wh. B nd ic not iq a given territorial constituency) or (1) t u cad i
I lIe y rdlft itin observci can more or less objectively identify the elevant iudi
d I i tei I s i luest wc re a it tion reading it off from th facts of a given case However, this mi sec a cci
aid Ii inipac I
>1 nook c presentat possibility, one that I have flagged up above, Looking at wider range
i iuiiiucatui, ft i, at Rehtc ds account is how it facilitates exam real-world examples, not least those involving INGOs for instance it
ieI1 I cpresentxtioii outside the national context. l-btkin, and indeed quickly becomes evident that audiences are just as often invoked and
tenshri Iae md otlici 0ntc inporari observers, have taken the nation brought into self-conscious being as part of the process of representative
etc ft lIce ont net of political representa ion
- that is where it
politics. In other words, we need to take fully into account the ilict that
cciii 1 is t it pnon c I imunhty h houses i roperlv representation a constitutive process over time. Audienc s contra
Inst But I ener free c r scala- pand, char g character arc created, ate disbanded or di ha id it
it 1 II Ii CX II i count selves 5 cny and all of these things can and do happen as a 1
t I c it to n est wcv writes r iateral dyr imies f representitive politics So arguably w d it.
LII ic alma i by thc I Nations aniplc, b t not by at audiences, and more gencially at the piocess of representation a
iii, -i di >ncd inn g s r iiiiiemital organi/atiom S (INGOs). Other writers time, resisting impulses to capture a definitive one-shot picture of it (recall
Ii Itt us fulls taken up the issue
noninstitutionalized representation
cit Pitkins use of photographic allusions). Sometimes, theorists need to base
 R ii itiiSi and Remainders and opportunities
(ii ii tations in ttCSL 1 ompiex a d dynamic processes, rather than potentially; the representative institutions and the process of authorixa
T,t seek to a detIiuii i I ut at in ss Os er hem a ne itness which, by its tion themselves call its members into action (2000, 130) These argo
- oat ill laci floe ii j inatory
ase. My in ta an help genuinely to capture what s political ho politica
idi i ex ng 1
i tin
cd t prsc totio S t ic {1VC and take, the mutual eonstitutio i of pre
laity arirpesen dli 1 odoing,thcyhel ut isv leo
in) s it in peare 1 sin ph Ic an .1 n cal tic ransinission belt nodel of es entata
ci I Ann to 0 ii tin d state of democrac sen v icre the array of ntcrests to be represented arc taken u b fixed, cleai
in th it t is ed audience accepted his claim) his audience and visible. 10
a n alt \iIlei icain. he representative chum framework highiights the The other key advance in Youngs work is to question the orthodox
0 IOOCS I iep esentatn ii auduenees are invoked, and perhaps (fleeting opposition between representation, on the one hand, and participation,
at I ei rot it a d t hi ougli e aim and counterclaim.
-
9 on the other. In large-scale mass society, she argues, representation and
on dni ol th o Putk snsbi idge I Rehiekl in s sme par Li ipation mut sally require ach other for politics to be ccplv demo
pitt per a I tin dci i ft hat I at rail Young O00 124), (losely allied to this point are rgu sents ii
U ci isid u fun La. iei diy the time honored separauo i and o os >
ii ci titi I e we r dir ct demociacy and representative democracy I en
d ma ye on in aspc se work f Ii r low d I y the o servat on that direct democracy is the inc rc Icnrocrat
ii. .inn ciii I. n order round out ( ur discussion of the of if e two, but modern mass society requires us to settle for representa
e,ti,iundei 5501 s. tive democracy for practical reasons) an issue I take up in Chapter 5.

tt Manoi I tin uu s 2t10P ) ntt able contribution to thinking about Youngs insights, allied with similar insights by others, lead us toward a
flia rae ad r nesei:uton is to emphasize the politics of diflrence, more dynamic, constitutive, and realistic set of theoretical perspectives on
to p 0 c thu in 1 t rune ot re it seining shiltri p perspectives as representation. However, again, we need to go further, asking what hap
1 11 Ii star interns opin being i idarly pens vhen representation is claimed. In my view, Young i -ilone
a. ier Ip e in no skating little too quickly over the need to interrogat on ely
(C I 11 ci fa ill dynamics of representation precisely because her overriding inte itions
100, spr his prod of a m rmative, that i to get to recommendations about how impi
o itii c ay of s nocs ii t such ma rse and dis ipate; representation (of perspectives in particular). Again, I hope to show in
i1 In till i mdci idaaf ir as (so to peak) move an and out of a persisting the analysis that follows that delaying normative questions in favor of
a a.oP pCrspeCt Se depending air their individual circumstances. This more fine-grained understanding of representations dynamics is highly
s usetul antidote ii standard accounts which maintain, desirable.
mplueitiv not cp a. t
1 that there ire relatively fixed interests to We need to go further in a second key respect, too. Young ends up by
rlatnrs tot rasp confining her analysis to elective representation Her normative points, lo
tot ssio sen ccliv i. ched I a xampk, are about issues of institutional design for leguslatu cii.
1. 1. 5 i prraht argument aga n will be that the richness of the relational and con tilt
it ) I , nia ott ilusi p oces view o epresLntatt. ii can be. lost if it fails to consider r nelecti clai
ice i to ed t not, Yo roves in ward a v of t rcprcsentatio i
a. pi eflt I 100 15 list ntis e of perspectives (and indeed interests and Ihere are parallels here with further prominent work our representation.
,)pHhiaos I. iTs most situations the spesific constituency exists at best Urbinati (2006), for example, usefully explores the dynamics of advoacy
 Reniaznde rs and ovportunities Remainders and opportunities
cud ju eat in r esentafl i hxplorn classic exis and themes in limit iduly the s ape of their insights by not taking nb aceou i mariet
lie at Ii t nd I repr c itatives of ci sin s and contexts of representatio n I at are ix ne cmlv
s rign is R tam g a ii irrow legislature -constituency to Us is c in x a
an at i I ou I be itii i r rcpr e itt ives, of political repr sentation Of course f to and a and e othi
ad tin nkng t s malt r ssibk by the citizen presentative sepa elections matter, as well as parliaments. I shall he expanding on Ii
un ain Fbc pity es o representation dispenses with the sovereign as an and why, they matter in some detail below. The significance at elections
ante IogiLJt cullnJi e entity and allows tar sovereignty as an inherently and legislatures is reiterated in a range of existing, often highly innosatise
UWIX h
0 ( 06 I!) bis point usefully introduces a dynamic, work, Some of It seeks to alter electoral and parliamentar y s stems to
nnn md I to ri iljlioi ch in t i helps allow a more group represntation (Phillips 1995 Williams \ow
It Ic V Ii a 1 ml r ste 2000 Mm isbnd
1 1999) a for proxy lepresentatlv es fi c , oil
1 k ma en a it d no thai pr .nt-gc meration hunman interests (l)obson 991), or

g hat
a It repie lvi;, iiinii they r respons He and repr se tation by aftcied interests beyond national or ) tituene
ilrillc ,,nvernnmt n. hut not epre.sr ntatzve government (2006, 224). boundaries (Thompson 1999), or to encourage more sophisticated ap
immaime dat use elemem in Urbmnati account is the stress on the proaches to the role of deliberative accountability over time iii legislative
imLurIistances at p litical judgment as tar as they concern citizens; if we representation (Mansbridge 2003). However, legislatures, formal territori
o Ia 6 mon cisc i imsp ci al t it what is i hi and wr ng representation al constituencies and the institutions they support ire not all dma imialter
as I guc i t.a dii wC 5 can nake vell to p litical representation We need to separate analytic shy ( wi
t I y ci d(onot fundamentally drives political iepresentation across va ied a it v
sit iii iii up ies esenta or, and (Ii) this given (albeit important) institutional instance of i dcli
I. ni i n I d not say a eat d a more abot it. I atten I to this representation in terms of elective and legislative representation is to
dtiir alt issue ifl son r detail in Chapter 6. In making such points, Urbinati commit one version of what Holden (1974) calls the definitional tallacv,
pursues mu argume it about representation of subtlety and insight. In 1 hope that looking more sharply at what representation is, both in and
eiisu at tha in man ways highly contemporary) set of chal apart from this one vital instance of it, will enable us to examine reprcsen
s time, howev me inn the use ii ess of 12 1 inatis tation as a creative process that spills beyond legislate res.
irk ii s H i on g pi twenti ft
II ii s 1 it et ac i wledgcd
rcsti is I Tepi ation slain te, ant lily ocuiring i
ad rc to I parhar ntary bodies and procedures Ihus, as with sonic CONCLUSION
other authors considered in this chapter, we can fruitfully pick up and
Cvelop hemes in her work, but do so most efflctively by disembedding Political representation is a complex idea which has been addressed from
Hi 4 kiiui th m iwin In ii mthci cot ssumpt is, which it is less a great many angles by political theorists and others. By offering a distinetise
ipt opt new approach that pulls together a range of existing insights a m huildin
s (I kew lyse h ,ohti s a pres
(variously m or away from them, I hope to remedy a series sh 1) i ftc r
m ml 2 Phillipss
shortcomings that are evident even in the most illun in mting i disc
y ml may ys t r sent the fact of
di is ity in lcgi P ii es, gis en that representing the particulars of diver sions In this chapter, 1 have considered some k y contrihe ns, am
sits is rae tleaIlV i npossible. By confimng themselves, like Young, to attempted to pinpoma where there are advances that we should accept aimil
standaid models at elective orparliarnentary representation, these authors build upon, and where there are arguments that are best revised, Of course, I
 Remainders and opportunities
all .o Ii o v rIsc 1 ire b ok emair to uscd i forms of representation) and thu it cxi a id ng
it it \lai c ii. n in ithot hat P t post ely or iegativdy altering existing typologics. I advocate a significant shifting of our (ran
cd tiu iheor i Pat will set inn and defend aruss the book will be of reference in order to explore what is going on in representation rather
d toe 1w usscd a sp itt. points in the tollowing chapters. than what its (old or new) forms might be, Trustees, delegates, po1itiro
\t tI ,ni ott 4
P 1 or d s ire wh xisti s iogat s stewa I and perspectival rcpresenlanv
, es U shi t g lax
i I son it. an otc Hr nit ating, but they an diarta a or di I
t a md t i pans t r aon o de t chapt grisping vhat an. the welisprings of such roles. My shiftiny ante
- L,i, fdtiSil thus points and piovide a bud snapshot of toe statc of the art. reference set out primarily in Chapters 2 and 3 but followed up in
on arp awl that a ant .xlstmg acrounts focus too tightly and too subsequent chapters will turn typologies on their heads, arguing that

ton 1 p m too a thi and s on k y tacto 1 ese r ale are r fact resources for would- be represen atives
t C us n n c it is ifth sugges c I hit xisting accounts to us too cI sely on r I,
Oil aa ii a ca, itt ii ii w rcp ilati I S, 0 1 especially slectora, representation, to the exclusion o ther as des
to 1w u n abat it th representation. Writers such as Mansbridge and Rehfeld, for example,
1 at aucd that earoinc awuur is mu utteti ignot e or downplay challenge the boundaries of this limitation, without actually breaching
ot mi ifli ii i of rescit ion. \ saw I r Lxatr pie, how them. This is a core their e in Chapter 4 in particular.
a ti c i ri. s Other Sixth I toted h iw existing accounts misleadingly ci p1 aNte o n
1 1 lb I iw (1 8 rc n sir t is hen assume, that the level of the nation state remains tist, ole efin
ns Pu h not ii & it at [he hi. ill ot then analyses) or else they site of political representation. Most of the authors considered so fat d 1
ml ii its toni, to tegistata e awl electtve Lontexis. I go into this issue in this it is part and parcel of seeing representation as confined to elective
-
n i. P tit ht spelhi ott t a lion nons of fbi represenratise claim and legislative contexts. Rehfelds work was a partial exception hut w
Pa 2 Nv
.
set. Ito take th t sauch turthei. In Chapters 4 and I disc uss c pie
a at. y lv ts ma v claims ii at challenge this limitation.
I i, , /, p P ,ic an ico i mor t upirically
v
Finally, I have sugested that a number of existing accounts are disin
OsiliS; b inatysis and interpretation is called for rather than gaged from real-world problems and issues that have an impact on our
a on u ther is one best irswer from political philosophy to ideas of representation. I noted a number of these in the Introduction
sill hot ii hot par is i teas d (no i disrr is Wi h th sir o non-parliamentary representative cl im cr w bor
h it N is r i tt n,l cia ms he nvi onmental agenda and therefore claims abort I rej
0 i I u Rehi gait owls waid flOw 1 cnpti c account sentation of (tot example) nonhuman aninials, we necd an account o
marion hot [its categories are too limited to foster the fine representation as a broad, dynamic, and multifaceted process to enable the
mined count N ieprtscntatio aR dynamics that I argue we now require. theory to be useful, to illuminate what is going on around us. I discuss
stilt wilt pte Iii. ibm thi. unit. that need t elected cases in Chapter 5 especially.
I P c Li it. ii p it isis resentation of the seven points nioves from th mon. i
tat In way tet do side iteti gains hich ye the more particular. Note that the points are linked in a numbcr N wsy
eght asscm angi di rept esentative ci Nms, as I shall in Chapter 6, they for example, privileging too strongly electoral representation in turn
taint a t,reatei chance of being fit for purpose. reinforces the idea of the nation-state as the sole or proper container of
1 our 1 1 h i iigi. I ib Xistli iccoL 5 ow saphas ye tori a. representation, wlsich in turn tends to augment the disengage stem
N t IV re i auth s orthodox approaches (its a world where cross-border and glc b ol
 ustivi h y
ed
if sot work
the rde seaitatrs e need to v ay vi ipping the represer tative claim
ii r. i that n pi
. ion u first at remost a gu e actual
w iuc elections, tatlIr has a prLaflou and curious sort of claim
ii mit a cank u Iarionshg \ll 1 hase done in this chapter, of course, is
sh w we an otenti H go 1w thee than the existing work. I do not In Chapter 1 1 argued that despite its strengths recent work on the theors
tc mat calk show why we )ught to do so, or precisely how we should do of political representation leaves us with a range ot important issues to
y cle s rIm rhat exist g work tins Ii mIs does not mean that those deal with. A good deal of existing usage is, among other things, too statu
n not litly ted lhrs is sk I now take and inflexibk, dryly taxonon ic, too exclusively built around I ii
legitirr a at d somewhat two thmensiona in that the chara
rep e tee tate ii to b ixeu or unprobier rat c in this chi o
in o osi i e r od el rhorate and defend ad it i
rei ese t 0 aim Ira n rk introduced n passing it Ch plc
prim r 1 tI rough wI eh to nalyze political representat
packing th notion of thr representative clan we can begin to a oh
key limits of existing approaches, viewing representation in a theoretiealI
more rounded and empirically rich way by taking on board, for example,
its constitutive, boundary-crossing, dynamic, and ubiquitous character.
Picking up the key remainder points from Chapter 1 in particular, the
discussion here and in Chapter 3 focuses on how the representatixe claim
framework (a) helps to illuminate how the definition of representation
derives iltrin tely from events notably elams and not ftxed s
tional o esci e, md how the ways in which representation is do n
to and onclitions what it is (or becomes); (h) reinforces the in o i e
the fact m truetedness f representation(s) ( ) bri ag s t
symboli and cultural aspects of representation to bear on ti c t
politi al rpr sentation; (d) fosters the fruitful relilterpretati
dard typologies of representational roles as resources for claims, (
bows
the sheer sariabiity of the phenomenon of representation; (ft expresses
how by its nature representation is less contained, for example, within
the nation-state, than is conmionly assumed; and (g) stresses the erfor
inative, staged side of representation as well as its more conventionally
institutional side.
 siupp1?ie tin reprcst i1atnv rIain Alapping the representative c/ann
F u1 tins Impa to show that these moses are both genuine advances on about the subjects proffered to them by others claims Each ot tlic
hn r hr s, inn lit implicatise in the sense that each advance elements making up a representative claim in principle is explored ii
nnp in n Is, an here is ii sohei id cons F in thi chapter, and t w varied links between hese elenien r iscusse
S p prt It is rucial 5 otc and as I h pe to demonstrate entirely ight
t. sq i se itatiss. slams (and therefore political representatn, x
in thi abstrac. form, can cover a wide di ersity of ass ing
a niliar binary I stinctions, in principle I overs formal nd inlori
RIiFNI \LIVF Cl M
electoral and non-electoral, and democratic and undemocratic claims
(amongst others I consider in detail in Chapter 3 key lines of sariatioii
I no ill hO us k uk at what exactly is going on when representative

of representative claims). To get a sense of this definitions wide applica
iains an iiiade What s in this claim? It begins with the familiar idea
bility, it is helpful to consider briefly some basic examples of representatis
t at in is miii ition n individual or a collective stands thr, speaks for,
an ci ims fitting this schema:
i art tlisi, i word )ect st n an olj c
1 is , I it silo ) I IF 1 Ii MP nake offers hiniselforhersdf subject) a 1 i n dim
F ii v nk ns ituc w n rests (thje o) to that constituen y (a id u.
i ci oak c ti sentl Ca 0 is he rcfc rent is ti i tual, flesh and blood people of the -o is uener
hi g it vhich is ci called ferent ( e pohticiar i sakes object invol s a selective portrayal of constituencs inter sts.
iii nell Is sub,ect ss iii stands h,r n object, thc object i his idea of 2. lhe Liberal Party (maker) offers itself (subject) as standing for tis
his unstitus net gon 1, hard-working folk fin example rather than
-
interests of the family (object) to the electorate (audience),
t[ic 15 hire 0, wlsicl li uP the other things the onstjtuency is, or might
3 Marx (maker) offered the working class (subject) as the symbol of revo
\il his nerds, -ii I Ii is, an audience which receives the claims
lutionary hope (object) to the would-he members of that elms (audience
u is Fr cr s mu es tF Ilierefo crc ire different
a n ive ker object r hi cnt
4 A itiglobahzation demonstrators (makers set up themselve and t u
ft kng velU iits subjects) as repiesentatives of the oppressed id in
ci e i cc
in or icj is sn d out ide lized (c I ject o Western governments (audience)
icc 1 s I less, we hays a variety of claims. Whether they involve dc oral poh
I- spi c IH his to so the ci mci s f the rcpi escntati c claim appear or not, they incorporate a symbolic dimension; being elected does not taks
,O Or i a linear miatif n. I lowever, it is better understood as a circular
away the need to make symbolic claims, it merely establishes a particular
rclution, Cii example, audiences aie not simply passive recipients of frame within which tlie claims are made (a frame that often has a serious
lairns es iliax inaL counterclaims about themselves as subjects, or impact on tile plausibility of the claim, as we see in Chapter 6 in part icu
lar) Note too that claims can be cast as long term (as in the Ma
example), or short term (for instance, the Liberal Party mmgh l e iiurs
I a pragmatis and temporary electoral strategy in its family-b i d ci i i
They can incorporate a wide variety of ii dividual and c fleet e as
\ 1 orwi ccr( h
and i volve a great diversity of types of claims and aud ci c addres
stars Is iii rthar that is Fr to a r frr WI and is ( Ifs red
I hese examples help to demonstrate how that s andy flows troni a
to JO ( I ,,IC (I 4
suitably abstract starting point, and also as a by--product to show how
 : iif)?csitlkflhle c attn Mappi rig the represen tat i vt cia i to
a rush o ,iarniaiivs iudgmem about Igitimatc or democratic
escntat i in :an help to op n our eves to that variety. UNL)FRLYING P[IRSPIClIVES: REPRiShxTA I IrON
rpres ntat is Lnm a ann to represent or to know what AS PRFSENCE ANI) AS F\ENl
ci sJt lafto tt of Hit or something It is a iaim; it may or
0 i n( Li h r iuhn how we might s the extent to wr wh Representat n may well have o ore meaning male something ,
I o an ip in I II partic in some Sen tat is literally absent (e.g., as Hanna Pitkin an
t Ow ild c iple, r s ontra 1 a e F at it is the rendering of s I cHin pow t
n r tost e al understa iding polithal repiesentati ii
ntr m n lb say ti t r presentation means this, ointing i spec ii
1 y ) t 5 esileS stinct e t I y or prac 1 r t the most interesting or importan p mt to n a
of if s L lireeled i thence, wh i i ght represent i o It is less about pinning down meaning more abort i
rot H n d p ox watt r dispersed or self aware or how meanings are generated and contested; or, again, how sonte lung
ior itt he in .1 d, t might onk consist of me. In other
1
p absent is rendered as present. How is the impression of prescnLe ten
lilms iog bw mdlv \\htlgenstuinian thinking, a family of structed, defended, and contested? What determines the success 01 faiiurc
hat ommId easorihh be taken as contriouting content to the general of the effort to construct such an impression? in short, the how ather than
H ii e i. a mLtcrent. Putting it schiematiciy, I could
tiist the what questions are the ones that are pressing, net Least at a rime hen
traditional modes of political representation are facing serious challcnce
La n r I s. sO i p rson and new or merging. Further, it is common N slide from ii i
woup m 1 representation i cans this to representation is en bodied in ti
tint i uth n rid i tF one to ti ink that rep esentat em h s a
loeatee p w ice ii the w irld most often in tern e I if e
craNe ii
It is i t the fact, not the nalloyed presene ii presenta
Pu udmne 1 i in time tIne 1 mns ought to be asserted, hut rallier representation as a set ot practi iF
am P tHat hit p thin limits e.g n >rsentaent nature could events and in particular of claims, claims to be representan. e. Buor
Hi ! sdi 10 imase pit lerent su fleshing out further the idea of the representative claim, I explore s nue
5 ict cling e ut whit tog, in I dlustiatittg the representativt claim and its
t deeper roots of time claim based approach the underlying cent mast

.mymI term tic ome 1 this book. As part of the foundation of this between presence and event perspectives.
P. mm iH h at his ye that wi exp etc what assumptions lie The presence approach centers upon providing a suitable detinitmom mit

?
it mime whir h form tI i ehlectual and e iltura] this term in ( rder to pm down its Advocair
meaning. $ of, or iii se
rmml wsibmlit os 5 of cci ii as a fac i etmally otherwise w Irk within, the presence ipproacf offer st ip dative dcl i s
odw coon I atively n elicit of rep esentatto i A stipulative definition is One th it is o
m( ii 1 ,ckftori denot tion with d stinetive analytical or empirical ad intages I
thu )lOi tdei a iwhih presence perspective, we riced at accurate and agreed share I ii
i as on) It i uncle lyi ig 1 w of meaning hould ideally he settled prior to in ocatior of the m.
I as pr our mepreseni claim mak w dec yes analysis e I v tried social and political invocatior
ler1saa ems a ejiresentatien as mini.
 A/lapping the representatnc claim
h. is I asnilias pulatse e huition idut ed I y Is ocates at the type of thinking about political representation: binary thinking Wntings
as ass I rq lien s wt X sE s for on pout cal repre ntation at replete with binary dist r ctio j nial
11 n c t dir v us i fort 1, s 11 au thoriied versus democratic ally uthorizc e
n lick dul I ni if a 1 ture ersus degate, leg tin ate versus illegitimate, and liber 1 vcrsus lye
Land n for, en. Hip I(5 it his or I constitu ncy is Ihese can be useful enough as analytical tools, short of strong ontc logical
thus a rcprcsentatsac and tiw social fau involved is representation. claims, but even at that level the consequences of their deployment can be
lit. pat seine per spet.twe holds that representation can he singularly unfortunate. Consider, for instance, one common equation: legitimate
rid susan I iguoisk ogniied a present in the world, hilly present to us representation requires formal authorization by others see Figure 1,1)
i oc t, c un in its hateve ific p I al contr rsies The c nmon hinar distincti ins set out r Figure ) a mid an of of
a I I 11 Of e c lit Is a c insider t o i c me haps by a process of natural d s i a ii
ci at I t r, ci tn r a) ffect ye y ole i. ut a xistenc types and D 11 y voul ed
e pri of u Ln $ des, si dde and tee; out beca at if cont tuafly we cannot look for them, we nay not hem
n si Lit at is ass I se nc, tst itesi iii electoral processes (c a (or, if we do, we may downgrade unduly their relevance). Ibis effect, iii
s urrcs ut pent e Philisps I where reformers of political turn, stands to reduce the richness of political representation. I hope to
sflj5jisiTi can taha the rendering preScilt of by ar X sufficiently show, for instance, that inf&mal processes of other-authorized represen
air in thi is orung ali i it s strue ii nip poser sing institutions; tation (to use this language for the moment) are common, and I real
1) nse pici silk. a Yc 2000 6 7). democritic significance Such distinctions can also idcline in pa ant
s hea ii is mt
1 ways in vhich hers. are degrees of other authorization , degrees c f
Ii pie was ed 1 and i sho ) ely t , etc n Figure 2 1, for example, there arc elements or shadows ) iii
ii ide r lyr nse at tern 2 and 2 in 1; 3 in 4 and 4 in 1. 1 do not condemn binary reaso sing in
Ihus idir stipulal Sc dehnitn is is not a straightforward business, of
.
general; much less than that, I want to point out that in cases such as this
cans I eiiutatssc meanings in a dicnonarv, for example, cannot easily one, it can stymie the productiveness of alternative modes, such as rela
cs I,, axe f sr , ,aative nit snings within and a russ cultures and tional reasoning.
nue t the I in suns regarding the presence approach the limited ground fer
lit. S C P IO St i f Y nec, and usefulness of the stipulated definition is always in angc of
ol a o n t at u al ed by revelation Where effective revelation occurs, the resulting des tu a
0 ter
as c pt i a it evil t oes no i pern ens. It lion can render the seemingly given as optional. The underlying p bilk
a I. 1ur ems s s s wla i a un-u stance of the general stipulation ty of full presence is a precondition for presence in the key political sense
is a aample, that ars deeted leg slator is the representative of his or her that representation Xin some way renders Ypresent (despite Ys absencet.
astitueiwv is the I asus and limit ot political representation rides into Recognizing that relation as profoundly unstable is significant.
air tolit stidics i lie back h the seen i p naturaliiatton of the more
Our r, a ansi the of s h con 1, Formal 2. Into nat
rat bicif
3 Self authodzed A 3
nih 50 fO litit. opi veh I it in
I ai )H for et S I 4. Other authorized C 0
Ihe pren sppruaali, irs debasing representation, importantly defines
lcs it is riot \s ale I, till exanipic, it encourages and enables a specilic
it. Figure 2,1 Representation and binary distinctions
 Mapping the representative clu un
in enta ineand tot the wn. ng thing to do, availability of notions such as trusteeship or stewardshi can be i oked
ii I ci no stior ut fir t too I untiy, t) the Ian ants idvantage hese resourc. $ are culturally r i cci
ii I lt r pertoir r clan i iaking performances (some of th in c
nice r hi wn , an tha a w vhat Mu. covici (1 )88) ailed social representations
s 1 Ic d Ic me ini t the que ncr sou, There are many points of contrast between the two approaches. Wheic
lb guI s. tng piesen approaches, the author or speaker is positioning the presence approach stipulates meaning, the event approach deters it (or
lout ,o herself as an idjudicator ot occut rence when it is representation, better: deflects it back into the claim-making context). Where the presence
I hen not Ihis might ul one sensi ol what Bauman (1992) wrote approach posits full presence, the event approach is haunted In neser
a 1 cued t inteip roe he analy t he luite-preser -c(s) s never quite clear where or hov invoc t 1 ot
I II Ic r h e a r presci tat o might gain some purchase Where for th Pr U
II pi 1 a gt nccal roach p oack Sc i te X stands ft r some I for the event approa th there i in
epic ioi t one te bu in ci self ai pointed that some X, by virtue of some alleged capacity or attribute, can sp ak for
ci t cit scha and svb t Is not legitimate representation. Such Y to Y, and a wider audience. The presence approach tends to posit a given
slii anne, clifiers su.:citantially from efforts to specify the conditions subject, where the event approach posits an invoked or summoned sub
aidet win Ii repiesentative claims might be accepted as democratically jectivity. The presence approach tends to lead to a view of representation
ounat e 1 hap c as practiced within a ettled set f institutional domains (elective tes in
i th ap I to r h pies i is t a particul r), while he event approach is m e open h H un tth of
s ci t c v ion its what may be regarded as domains or spaces where repiesentath cc. s
x it 1 i i ii nst I o nt, a racti e, This di cussion of the underlying contrast between presence a x vent
a inc Iki ic mug s ipheated mvocati i and enact nent. perspectives has been brief, and the contrast has been quite tightly drawn
hi picscnt moo is the product ot a performance, both in the sense of a I take the discussion no further here; my primary interest lies in tile
Uteaticat perhti mance, and more technically in the sense of being perfor politics of tile claim, rather than the conception of the event underpinning
-an is g Jci ed h scay that Butler (1990) claims that gender is it. However, the character of, and the basis for, this underlying distinction
i loin y pi 0 Meai s irnpb d in mv ition; it volves will continue to inform the analysis throughout the hook
Ic cx I tin er tird
Is
WI presi pm te sy del eprese t ion as making
Csc t 0)1 cong tha is absent, the event approach, for example, looks at TI-Ill ELEMEN IS OF TI-IL REPRESENTA1 IVF CLAIM
Lii mc that gite the unpresmrn a making present. A political figure who
attempts is impression or an thserver who points to such an impres
th Because representation is more an event, or a series of events, than a
ion is a ci So, a It u sentutiv horn is a laim to represent bounded and clear presence, the world of political representation is a
hat irIs 1cm torn r torn thing. world of claim-malung rather than the operation of formal inst t i ons
1 1 1 h rtuol In be u e, the e a e more things in the political world than claii IS t e
ae &inands, for example. And not all claints are representativ u is
5 ph, cam tule to S[ I n gr / by
rest nm i, nvseh i periornii g lie wIt I delegate, iustec, or gent though nany wifi I even if not explicitly Convent onal accou ts of
Whti the presence approach see as representative roles, the event ap political representation often assume that if someone is duly elected to
groach additn>nalis sees as iesources Oar representative claims; the cultural office, then that person is not only a representative, hut that they are
 t4appzr the epresentative rlann
ft La Va us rse h is I t e, ii hlight d the act interests. In this senK, representation is is mud constitutive is relic tive
at in ertain dcctoiai and partY systems, and indeed in certain national, of facts about interests and capacities.
6 And it is through the process ot
uiturI and politic i1 contests sorie socntal groups are overrepresented claim-making that the work of constituting is pursued.
Ic al 1 lau m ,a the r
, rr en d (Cu 1 er Seen i this ight, n w uld he representative n cludir g an e ected e,
1 Iii n ; ig ). us lyz - c n fully act v rese itatioii o he fully representative, acts n .y be

ii nI gi cc. n I pes, of LOt i espondutce between s oters and elected facts, but claims are contestable and contested; there as no churn to be
repr. sentatne H in ano Karps i9 7. Binghani Powell 2004). But there representative of a certain group that does not leave space h)r its contesta
c pci stent iobii, niti slid, f out tIns P elect d ther fore h or lion o rejection by the would be audience or constituency, ii by (ther
1 e e t t I t e political act lFi oint s far ithar nough fron observati ii o
toni politics Candidates ompet over the definition of c nstatucncv
In tlwt in IccIcd w. ,Or is representatise is stiaightforward and interests, and electoral victories of over 70 percent of the popular vote
rca.unaNe ciiou;is, I ot to lide this forr iai, achieved status with their are rare in established democracies. But still the power of elections as
i p re it U p( on hcy n producing c resentation often overshadows this point. Ii haptcr 1,
nge i ci ted
Li
1 10 1 I x 1 iui it s I 1 IdCLU S tflat bun WI dl can oc clauncu V iii
cLUid
0(1. cpu. it itivcness so U ugly built ii to the notion of being regard to representation on the basis of due election.
iccoJ and not without sonic reason that consideration of how other The representative claim, then, consists at the most general level of five
Lou. it R be raprLseIttatis
c li rowthd out thus (I argue) reducing Key, interconnecting dimensions maker, subject, object, referent, nid
I yn ut ( ep C C C it t audience Path as crucial, or so I argue, to a robust, detailed, and Bun i
u a H dpi ic ( us hic gr variety of lating account of the world of representative politics. It is unusual to
coin, a id rgtnu.ati Os take pail, electoral actors through elective bring together all of these dimensions in accounts of representation; this
pro
CLw., 10(1 other nturs through thei processes Representation is a set encapsulates an effort to bring together certain themes in the history of
in 1 Ia i in ft i i er tl i a f t est lishe by ii itutio tal the idea that have for a long time been held separate (as noted in he
S t i. i tntrodnctk nl I nnw briefly draw cut their kt y attdhutes and ounc 1
ii short Lii cc rcplcscntdtiun as a lad arising
1 from (in particular) due
C tioll Is to dopt consentional rather than an accurate description.
o ft Lu i r vel Ho. sly 1 IHE MAKI RS OF REPRESENTATIONS
.n tog i s C
a lot ii ies many if
h, ,sill cut ncr in a iili ,ther ii cm iplev ways, and will divide as We saw in Chapter 1 how Pitkins analysis influentially sidelined the
i as uiuw Wouki-lic lepresentatives, of whatever type, must makers of representations (or, representative claims), at least with respect
of
& wit piLk ii ch se. pi pose id tab hate disti tive u d limited to their political importance. In other works, the same problem emerges
n r H s mm a differe it angle Representation is often seen especially in the w k
i r i S f latti V
usil tens epr ilL i ear I cultural and aesti etic theorists, as triangular in conception -- sub cct,
ii no I enconipas. ig se of
,instltuen(s intere,ts s remote, at best Would-he representatives have to object, and referent. But representation does not just happen as the result
naPe ilahns, about themselvs and their would-be constituencies, and use a process or by the functioning of familiar (e.g., electoral) institutions;
is i dci ti y t is claimed as the key part of someone making it happen tF rough he
up w our a be in i articular
a ui .1 r iepk yr tent r ex loitation of a wide variety of formal and n or ii
1 ci lit sl ikir hr th se
 M ppin tin iepresentcitivt c1ittn Mapping the representative claim
tutia ii din tot au utions) biects ignifier nd seek to pu across his capacities to deliver, spe ific aptitudes tot th at us
her ri riber u do a lualif atiois for Ii status, possession of ideas 1 at a dist i vely
P ii. ci ii gI Itl .41 appiopria e o th status, and/or personal haracteristics sup r tat
cix fly m if ci bout ,claims at status .scnptlon. )r to foreshadow a later section, he may set t put
act Ic dl aeria/s iIic scrises at suhpict and object (and which across his varied descriptive and substantive claims. 1 he claim is intended
ieraic ano tacos upon tic ssould -he audiences>. to produce effects. If it is successful to a sufficient degree, it piompts
thL inakc at repre.-ntatls e slaino (and the dephtions or portrayals of certain constituents to recognize the status-claim, and to recognize the
1 ii
h c
5 d oths i ho au b i i d ip in thos clam s are not neces selective depiction of themselves the object within it.
10
iii s it at ( or ivy P t cadet i the 1 hay uggested ontra Pitkin, that represcr tation in politic ast
e h rd di w ay r c . he cprescnted play a ole in rho istu g
1s1 p e I pitt Bri pie as d epi rcpres i ativ s, ar d cpresentativcs choose their mstituc
the
the u. I umm two (0 onethinc ise, simu. og sense of portraying them or framing th in in particular, cot stable
ist>c ics las at c ficait at this anipaign), hut the claim was not ways. If I allege that you, a potential constituent of mine, possess he1
PcI autu dl i bar ne ow in the act oat vote a large part of the audieme did characteristic X, arid if I can get you to accept this characterization, I can
ci cue its ia in at th tiart at thc perrormance) Makers of representa then present myself as a subject possessing capacity or attribute Y that
,c lit I a t s 0> b mete )le Of Ui cepted c aims; enables ne to represent you by virtue of a certain resonance I tween
ci) lie of nt abou thert and Y ii other w xds, would-be political representa ives in th ess
of portrayal or representation of constituencies make claims abc e Ii
at a niaki it ix ix nagi lhey an lot selves as subjects and their constituents as objects, and indeed ahi i
tnt Ic lattits st at the it (or it thet do they are highly uithkelv
.
links between the two; they argue or imply that this subject that iou ICc
iL scene keptcseuitattse claims that are compelling, or which resonate and hear is the best representative of the constituency so understood.
2
intnp rePs ant audieuists will he made from icadymades, existing Political figures (and their scriptwriters and spin doctors and party sup
I. ,t a a s that v ould hr udience jt a given time
,. , porters, etc.) are in this sense creative actors, They may l4eU he agents, a.
I tic U iii I cot a i itativ 1dm representatives axe conventionally understood, but e ually Of if tilt
t I t t contextual portantly they are actors makers of claims,
3
am fiSt I c a. v (incited, in We an dlve further into these linkages by drawing on the w at
let to> Ic a tm ng nra I List iteta catures olitical culture Louis Mann, who wrote that to represent signihe to preseii meselt
5 I explore this point further
eras a thtshsild at ,,otential atceptahiiity. as representing something, and every representation, every sign or repie
anidi nit the cult uiui aspects of representation below. sentation process, includes a dual dimension a reflexive dimension,
presenting oneself; a transitive dimension, representing something and
a dual effect the subject effect, and the object effect (2001 256
Elsewh re. \4arin notes that repri sentations at ont e signity - d I iw
that they signify (2001, 204). Here, Mann helps us to make v U ix
reinforcing points first, there is no representation without a cli i hat I
What is t ii pi ca nt laini di 01 ib On one r vel, it is a ham or you or it represents maps, paintings, politicians, and terrotists ate

a a fiat its art lichait if a subject. It, for example, a Communist Party presented as subjects representing something or someone (an object>,
-aide J,uriis Ia .1,1110 for the hiterrsts of working dass people, he may implicitly or explicitly; subject and object are the effects of an act of
 Japcirf! tin ripresentatiie claim Mapping the representative cia im -I q
> pro o take id the c ailce of AD ci r i rakers off r a )nstrucllon of constituenc to an au I It
ii I ii y 4 rat i imp tant focu n the potentially a mplex c )ni cetmoils 1
11 1 1 te ence. 1 ctv i and icc and constituency, ar d betwce 1 di 1cm
is ii not IUM mg si eative ach. t d r es and onstituencie cii be both at nded am 1
0 1 1115 used a ikmg 1 ep e 11 aflons. ? second, M a Suggests A claim ii might claim to represent members I a minor it inn
a act am t oh ci ae ictinca and clarmhed m the process of represem group, or for a group with a particular disability, for example. In mill a
cinom liv ntakmg rehresentttmse cicinis, the maker constructs a particular case, that group is his or her intended constituency, the group that a maker
1CW I luinseil or aiioilci as a suheet Ic g, the spin doctor
constructs a claims to speak fon it is the object of the claim, an interpretation of a
es t ci didate as a tamily mar i And by presenting the
pan referent. He or she will, by claiming, both portray and offer some coneep
1 ci na als Irm Is a mew of if ject An tion of thc roups intcrcst All claims to speak for ii o speak ii iii
tic tip ch cLcq eset laim i cak abc u car also he und rstood, hov cr md n I
lari i
sa 0110 Likcv is ye acid to include actual a Islituencre I hest
that con ncv mobt those who cognize a gi en claim as betng made about and foi t i on
who see their interests as being implicated in the claim. By contrast, tin
intended audience is the group that is spoken to. The actual audience ot a
claim is that group of persons who receive (hear, hear about, read, Clii the
ni \iJ ANt) Cc1N1SI l[LFN(.\ claim and respond to it in some way (or, who are Hi a position to elm we to
respond to it). The intended audience may be cot rmlilous will th
alit it niant nicker ingular us
intendcd institucncy or it may include the intended c nstitu
lift ise 1 1011
ther mtiie is and influentials It may also he Just one egn
is j ii c 1 flies
intended onstituenc ,or combine such a segment with somni m
cs i l,talts Ic mel i ak is at d
ho I intemk d oratueney. Which of these alternatives s in olved n
a cci in iii build r itatise rd iships. Re1 I. flalion is

case depends on context, purposes, and resources of laimants.
cc iaini raaim
. aid it is pirposelul. makers cit claims arc trying to
,
The makeup of the intended and actual audiences will most often difter
mevc ca cptamiia and oilier effects through the conceptions of subject to some degree. Claimants will have varied, and never complete, control
ird hiecl that thea consti uct.
their puoses can he many and varied. over how their claims are communicated, who receives or is receptivi to
I hi i extend t i a cffcu to r detmne who on what counts as political, them, or indeed how they are interpreted. Figure 2.2 links and separates ,ill
i4, I 5l.ttuih of these oi ceptions of constituency and mudience a id Figure is
cocci nalysis
four potential onfiguratiens of audience constituency Links i i I a
IL 1 c towl
1 he disn I in n a id verlaps that these figures represent a ci
in am t I in r
omph x lure of onsutuency and audience (larit and
e eng p them s little i I point i c aim tha
matter, F en e the varied distinctions, But on this topic political a i I lex
a not Sit P to I di s a i uIied (i iatrctral local, ethnic, religious, by must also be embraced, hence I have not tried to ininimite oeilaps
hngi hiLt, class or oihcrt audience, and more to the point, to attempt to between audience and constituency and between different types of each
C fl potential udietx es arid constituencies notions of
themselves as
of them.
tad nics 01 onstltdeiicVs
 elaini Iviapping the representative ckiim
1pmy d epresentat:Vr
A triaL
In pra U there will oftcn he a tight connection twcen intend ci
actual tudic a es and con tituencies, Both arc in part co stitutid
U hc d taut o dat n making and claim reeL ptlon P claim ot ii
at clan a inlet ded nstituency a ad to an intended audienc ty play I
Jut then it
m shaping conscious en c of being part of that consti uency ot at ci t
the t terests as being
tnspltated us a claim Mat
in its targeted members. By the same token, a claimant might appeal to
iCcttp fC)Ot, onteSt, UT more people than the group he or she intends to evoke as his or her
ignoit the daim Recipient constituency. If, for example, Lech Walesa in the final months of commu
drtser nist Poland acted as the representative of workers in Gdansk and elsewhere
whose it
(his would b constitu i cy), all the people of Poland, and perhaps h rs
sot r b yond Pol nd were hs intended audience; gaining apprc al ftr 1 i
at tat ri m ii s a g aud ence an he seen as a crucial mgred ent it i I
t deft a a ad 11k wing hat to tand for md peak for his II
hum c
r,0flst1tuii
It
lhe painter Paul Kiec took the view that painting did not immic or
copy, or even in the lirst instance interpret, its referent. What it did first
5 By analogy, representatne
and foremost, was make visible the referent.
claimants, elected or otherwise, construct verbal and visual images fot
and about constituencies and their countries (among other thin s
Constituents are hard working, good honest folk, 1amily or
patriots, and concerned oi worried or angry ( onstitum k
communities, have to 1 e im4glned, in Benedict Ar dersons n
iersoL 190 rhe eouivalent of Kiecs painting is requ red in I
make it imaginable, to make it visible, normally b lb to the ss 1d-b
members of that constituency and to a wider potential audience.
Politics is, in the words of Latour (2003, 158), a work of composition
Of course people and groups exist prior to evocation or constitution in
politics. There is always a rejrent. But the real political work lies in the
active constitution of onstituencies the making of rep reset t u
Pierre B iurdi u argues a strong version of this line in op pea i
group c cafes th i tan who speaks in its place to p it t tla I w y

think in te i as of delegation whereas in reality it is more or t s
true to say that it is the spokesperson that creates the group. It is use
//
the representative exists, because he represents (symbolic action), that the
group that is represented and symbolised exists and that in return it gives
existence to its representative as the representative of a group (Bourdicu
1991, 204). Likewise, Fenno (2003, 1) emphasized how there can he Or
Ii 2 3 1 oUt Cl tirtflS ot 1 i C coast lea hnks
 Mapping the representative dunn
w is of slicing up and classifying member perceptions [of As Schwartz (1988, 127) writes, Political representation can he conceived
os it k h ip ii ssays 1ecogiu1ng a dirk side to political
-
as an ongoing founding, as the constitution of community.
5 01 a. f S 1 cU V I SOf f mb Park 1 and s lective, the onstruetion of eo istituency th )ect
11 1 1 1 yr it I q ii r uJ in tely idji donated by (some part of) the rem vrng audience F
1k
s th hen thai to s for ( pres othe Vhethr ci 4, I discuss selected modes of reception of representative cia r ,a rid
n could h tituclus members, the imagined and constructed, see Chapter 6, 1 focus on appropriate constituencies for the assessment of
as thes ,Hc seen oi port raved whether intended constituencies claims. As we have seen, the actual audience for a claim might be larger.
a c oU t it OCT t n ar nher matk r The distinction between smaller, or coterminous with the makers intended or target audience.
on d a rid is taut imil isons owever k prim niniste PM) for example, may want to end a vssage
at r u a t oi ft estive par r embers that she really does stand for th ir deepest i tie
s d shi uton ills I gank susi \s we later, hut the message n ay he heard (whether or not this was intend by
ii.onIr then ,s ruin Ii t at an tsr said about the cirLumstances under PM) by a range of nonparty citizens who may make their own judgments
ch P U c tepi esntrd ran assess the acceptid tli of the claims. The constructed object for example, you, my listeners, are the true

ii i inn. r m.ght ud i s I s tot H on its head the orthodox believers in our project, and I know you will work hard alongside me until
aid I ib tnt pr ilv ions is on prin se hay ransfoimcd this system or, above all, like me you u patrk
dti nd I k toy yr u will fght with me for stronger defense f our na 0 1
pi liv t tom .00 In is at and n ft one among many that could have been offered to this rehtren th
0 Lion. tue n n it inn. nar enact or reseal what the wouldhe repron the flesh-and-blood people addressed. Constituencies and audiences
ss ants of it, mat conform to the representatives images or intended or otherwise, may accept or resist particular claims, not least
no on r s on iti n d it a possibility that, as we have seen, by accepting or resisting depictions of constituents iii the object
inn nU id lerri e cc ts). At ast, on constructed by th claim maker, How resistance is displayed may v
1 1 r F cv i tive an enormously. In a totalitarian system, resistance may be bidder
1k e, u zs s Us cect of
t , demoLratle system with Lolerabic levels of frcedom of speed
,TdL ti tin poutne ot it stesentation itself Representation fills in the
.
the form of open dissent or derision.
j,t. iiLCS of 1
1
h .ossihilitv reserved for representatives, hut it also tills in Makers of representative claims attempt to evoke an audience who will
sI it mis elresc ted .Stjtj 1995. 134, j44
. receive the claim, and (hopefully, from the makers point ofview) receive it in
to eiti tIn. 1 1 al gies onto tploy 1 1 a certain, desired way. Makers of representative claims suggest to the polel
ii s p a i or tial audnnee: (t ou are or you are part of, this audience, (b) ynt sh ii
ml pi Inst n.h vu If Us. 1) con accept this view this construction this representation of ti rise onst t.
-
rron redness U I n constr LtiOII, or o assert essentialist notions c>f iden ents; and (c) you should accept me as the one best placed to speak and act tot
ii
., on more enera]1 to hide the aesthetic moment in representation in them (or you, where someone is part of both the intended audience and
1 on tin onnitut U n itur of constItuency (1 take up the issue of intended constituency). The aim of the claim-maker in such cases can be said
c Ia 1 he c set f cot ency con i inc has - to be t avoid dan aging levels of disputatious reading hick v ontes
C iii ri r r n. ion of thin claims by the would he constituency and audience t in
to it in racy lot
the ne t of found Potential or inter ded audiences might, for example, refuse to it udic

aim 1, suPsejt cut acti ii true that founding creates.
is rtlir thr Ii fled, or rendered as an audience, which after all is normally understood as
being by definition a silent and passive entity

2
 Mupf inc ti-it riprcst ntative Llarm Mapping the representative claim
but as orditig readhiib back hs audience and ronstituencv members is Exploring the effects of representative claims might also include the
ttiuli he elau-niakrs If s true that 1 litic ails are not like many need to examine the possibility that they include a series of interlinkcd
oiitcmporalv aitiss who CfC te works that arc deliberately set up to silencing effects. Claims can, by their nature, silence the constituencies oi
Tilestation. Political makers of represen audiences that they may in part constitute by evoking; reinforce, or bring
stol c g ems nt aul ess
tat ions I i I to for r lix the to of tlremselv a about, or clai i the necessity of the absence of the reprcsented from r
a ii r thele no thaI
1 is prc io political r i a propriate the voice of the tepreser ted by th
ste Hit its, 0 iS pr wess iv long into heir g a represented vtl a oic and )
ri tie cap is the hands of elite rninoiitie witf privule c c
i 0 ill, di ) ya y to o echnologies and nustitutions of claim maku ig 21
U c ii nIt urn I I I igaist 1k r These possibilitit s all too ften actualities look Lt e potenti
-
a i tell na wh and what I r n hit sams VI iat side of the roe sses of representative claim making But in princip
p iS,uta Is nia s rist bed Ihc death of the authorhl readers representative claim is neither good nor had. Representative claims can
5,-use ) oine authors ni tI it they actively recreate the story
through activate and empower recipients or observers, esen if that is not the
is ad tip a ought Sci that Were is no representative claim without its intention of the makers. Recipients are on the map by being invokcd
Huaip Ohs i In a ounteiLlaiin or a denial of claim from part of its in representative claims, even if an initial effect of a claim is a silencing
u,ii,--iuas dicuce ruenihers no, are agents ant actors. [his is a point one. One needs an identity as a prior condition of being silenced by a claim
us ci unit r to r i I celk u abo tb undue unidireion to represent one Once established, or summoned into view throu 1k
ount
art al epresc So, for cx r i le a claimmaking, that very identity can be a resource for dissent (cI. Rai c
iii 1k wir 1999). This ur empower those on the receiving end of chair
0 example t read back the nature of the claim
irte a di Finally we can see from these comments that audienc s of eitl k
need not be p issivc 1 he word audience often implies passivity th-
1 a cotisli r t dig ii tative clar t _a I on audien c watch and listen, not to contribute jr take part.
las ts it uid seck unto uk it 1w rev ing its coded cha acter. prominent uses of the term in discussions of political representation di v
1i. ci dcci audience Ol representative claim may or may not he upon primarily passive conceptions. Manin, in his account of audiencs
OiIsai,,uS of itself as an audience prim to the making of claims. We have democracy, for example, argues that in contemporary media -driven
-en how represent love claims are tnariably, H one degree or another, politics the electorate appears, above all, as an audience which responds
onstilutiss c laiins, thex construct in some measure the groups that they to the terms that have been presented on the political stage (Manin i99,
c urpor o idi c-n (a udic ni e along with the groups that they purport to
,
223). Others, writing in the later context of the rise of online and interac -
peak I bout cot c hum i of course, 1k not tive technologies, argue that the new media can mean that in politics
iii nvs-iI t ey prel ii to be dd iii ig rigid division between produ er and audience evaporates, opportu r t
p 1 or sIcr ready t th re fo self representation become more realisti Citizens are iu 1
f a dine ontent with the 1 of just being passive spectators (Colem (
on not i ick paul i spond 210).
I thr iii betbre I aim- make Nv y Rehfeld s n eption of audience in his account of po neal rein
11101 d Incus ics ii nay respond
ii(t.s, so to s laums tion (discussed ii Chapter 1) is different. His audience has a specilu
.I5 ISIOC I till 5; 101 sci )us s ierahle ones to play, namely accepting someone as a proper representative by virtue of
 Mappziig tin leprcScfltaixiC LlU.ifll
lion i ul 1 I ii tallow I which az oats to a more
havm
iii mu 01 1 at lien prest ation. 3
& Ii s s B lyis
I Ia ilow ole heLl aries ud ratl i 1 an
xI IVI ci I dot ii & dgmtnt. he dciii eiatn legiti nacy at ret resen Variations and resources
tan e 1au is in Ciipter 6. 1 add to the conceptual armory the notions ot
in a;,orooriatu ounliawnev appropriate in the sense that its assessments
1 d mat r ic lgitnn ov that (d mid matter most to democrats. But, in
10 to lies v md ii claIm i n her his cha t conti m $ the w& rk of the previous on iuildmg am
a I vi LSC S hm fly dc m e its of the rmpresentati e claim t xplo a ii
,, C It u 0 at,) iiip fl t (0 1st

aspects of i s manifestation in political life What $ in of c a
ti I I lien es, ouisti ies. in t rst phit Vs a part I hat, representative cHime How, and to what e tent, is it i creatu e of its
also tl e. d ms a the mportan t distinct ion between intended context? The claim comes in many, and in some cases surprising, sar
and actua and tonstituent jes, Overall, my argument with iants, and exploring these takes us to places that the study at political
aspet i to ado rites that representatim e clauns may prompt, intention representation normally does not reach. The performative aspect at the
Is a (I 151st V I inodt. I aelivit md passlv y in audiences, claim is central to its character and its efIcts, viewing politics as Lagu
aI tlut ii con g th m d the dq,ree of for per orniances i iot unusual (see, e.g (habal and )aloz 2 6 1 1
I S e d I mx matte argo tF at the insigl t needs to he taken further and br ugha t I it
xa shet won uditi c r proximat or of the analysis of political representation. Aesthetic and cultural m eels
at 11 B is an nnpact on 0 apacmt to iespond and whether it is (or of representation are also crucial. Central themes in thinking about hoss
neaiimies) milled or a t will allat its capacity to cocreate or to dispute the an artist and her work of art can represent. for example, help us to move
umitemit of the obtcct put betore it h the representative claimants.
23 beyond the intriguing but ultimately unsatisfactory appearance of the
makers uf representations in the work of Hanna Pitkin (discussed iii
Chapter 1), and qu tions of the cultural availability of resou are
c ntral 0 understanding what claims are made, and wh t imp Ii y
in ay have I turn lust to exploring key lines I variation of the
p s n
this r, I In p nie as ci it em0atio u iderpmn ig the tative clam
Jum haed perspect se and imp &ked the tive core notions that make up
the reprcsentativt claim, I inose on now, in Chapter 3, to explicate further
ttwsc tmvm dunemision but this time in the context of addressing the
,
KEY LINES OF VARIATION OF
ii nil am I tIme sentativ aim, ml wrtorn e chara tr of
em 1K ifld nd m LPRES1sNIATJVF C AIMS
I ,
Highlighting rept sentalion as claim making and claim reemptiol I ml to
show us just how much representation is going on, politically. (lair is arc
made, ottered, disputed, and accepted often and in greatly varied ways.

beyond the confines of electoral politics (crucially important though that
 Var atrons and US0L
s). lo tr to Of) 1 tin
Par iculan general
1 which repies nhlli S U
iirrpht-raplicrt niUr i The degrees of generality of political representations could crudely cnougl
mal -multidriectional hxp r ad be divided into two r t, at th most general level, we have ciamis that
m rtiVc clrir a through ti cse V iriatio i concern the basic constitu ive character of a political system. One might,
i aid thI Uxture of politral ieprc.c itatic ingu g for example, set out a claim like the following:
or a or k aid r psyc okrgical and in os tural The US founding fathers (makers) deployed the elected othees and
assembly (subject) to stand for the nation (ohect) in the eyes of its peopd
and other observers (intended constituency and wider audience).
One could call this a framing claim, one that delimits and defines the
Singular -muftiple contours of the basic system and constitutionalizes or encodes it. I shall
say more shortly about coding in the context of the cultural moment in
isidetahir Scopc for vaflation ot a semingly single claim. In representation. Clearly, in modern democracies, the coding of representa
ie the M P make ) otleis himself or herself (sublect) as the tive claims into electoral systems is deep and powerful. And the option,
onlmdin at of constituencs mterests (object) to an audience the naker

open above all to heads of state or government (depending on the nature
iid bron:e the party, or the constituency organization, or a wmg of the of the political system), of positioning oneself as above the partisan fray
arU fhc sifyet rould erkonipass the politician by enveloping him in and speaking for the nation is profound (see the discussion in Chapter 4 I.
a a lag r nation 01 the parts, for example. Constituency interests could Within this frame, we might locate strategic representative claims.
a rcc rnaiort or significant minority interests, tuncti nal group These may be claims that take advantage of the constitutional frame or
or a a oationa I r nteresb wr a combination of these). The code of the system. Thus, for example, a claim might look like the following:
ira r c ul e I tie polO roan hinisr If, the partY itself, the constituefles, The US Republican Party (maker) offers itself (subject) as standing for
.0 L Lt Pir fl the interests of family (object) to the electorate (intended audience)
a) rE 00cC r p suggests tire oriars, f0i is Of course, claiirs that are strategic will often enough be presented as
coincs across to different audienc 1) ffer it general; dressing partisan laims in nonpartisan clothing is understand
I (aim ilitferently from the tier ably common, an everyday political strategy. Further, representative
matching, appealing to in a Icc 11 claims of different levels of generality need not be (and very often are
fomenting of a onfus 1 at not) about or within electoral politics. Consider again the following
1 P repi r scan d to wh rciv example:
1 audiences w
p it h I Marx (inak ) offered the working class (subject) as the symbol
hrir represer I nt audi revolutionary ilat cal future (object) to the would-he members
iugh the i I se a c class (intendcd audi rice)
hat or c a it If that is a I air it a high level of generality, ther t enahk
I P v stC specific larms that n this case socialist politicians a all u
ibt ad r 5 more strotega purposes for example, Marxs theory created h
(C mc I. guably through which th politician could see a certain constit icncy as sta Ii
t ) som i tic for a consist it set class interests
 an itioris arid resour
cxainpl 1nterniil xterna[
lo
s dilm 1 vo var r f i nentative dani ire ( i) wi crc I i ik r i
hje ie ii I th same person nd (b) whr th ak
it it ti cc a c i 1 same pe son Examples of the firs i ia i
I r j e Fxamples of the se ond va cot r d
rrpre em Is hey enresent ard also it represents W t r ,ar
f st ar it utshc 1 onc cannot present oneself $
v I out r iakn g rep esentatior $ n the sen e of 1annir y
iethi i (be n Ij nd, one cannot make repr sinta C
ut pr itmi, nescI as someone who car make then the du
1 ,L tlcy Note, i tI is cont xt that some representative clarni a i
p1 lair entirely mental or nframndividuaL For exarnpk, I (maker) cai i
a ywif subje 1) is r presenung the interests oi my stuaents t
in self (iudi ice ihis claim can occur entirely in my iead Ic ii
it d onsequci t on the representative claim may be evident sociall
lami it i wh fly internal 1 his is an example of a highly self i i
1 i representative Ia r i Rodney Barker, in the related context of leg t i
wri es of ii imp rtance of this sort of legitimation of ruler b rim
fir rule s (2001 45): Ihe public though they may be a i udi ic
n r been the pm cipal audience in the theatr of endogenot s 1 y t ii
I in 2001, 4 A morcor less endogenous representative lamii
nit nt largely Jifferent components, for easaple
I (maker) claim hat Bono (subject) symbolizes th m eed o
lvii ridde i o i ties object) to Western politicians (intended audi r c
i r iii and Politic displays all shades of representativ claims, Private i m
) () l5titt v dual r presentative claims are ones we as observers have litti
1n ith but wI i h nay piove to be politically sigmfi ant Public t pen i
v y in dentd, be more availabl to contcstation on the one hand and more If
g e atlished transforming on the other
[ eSC
[0 What f claims where the maker and the subject are iot s
a yoris person o collectivity) rheme is a sense in which each us is ken
I It I represei t others mu everyday life, A Palestinian in the United State mx i
is bingCu willingly or not, knowingly or not be regarded as a rep is it v
a w toaialyic Palestin ans by othe s. Other originated claims are very much r
i air swillhc epresentative laim framework Many such claims can hay re ol I
significa ice Consider, for example, the case of the late Dris h i
 Va iations and rcs m
p1 nainent Mt r()nan writer exiled for main years in Prance.
Despite has been a tendency in a good deal of representation theoiv to date to taki
hr uhis disasowals i flU uher of Mooccans saw or claimed him as a the status and character of the represented largely for granted, which call
i xi Uvth t P ii p0 in met wa the vali g re nit in seeing representation as only running from the b tiom up, I iii
1. M h rep csent d ti he rpresentat1vc (unidireetionalit io is i s
H ii m n 1 (
angles, I have stressed that representatives also constitute the represented
in a number of ways. Pitkin, for example, as we saw in Chapter 1. did
rc ogniac how systi mx of representation cai he nnplicated in xc co i
ution the epr sented but tended to sub unit. thc 1 nj, orta ( S
n pa t (ii mtam 1U h A a P msc distinction between foimal and phenomenon into the dangers of totalitarian politics, and espcciafli the
hilormal Ieprestntation ii the existing literatuie see, eg., Castiglione fascist theory of representation, rather than see its critical role in lot nu
a ox i nd to sta lard cou torual of politics from the highly democratic to the patently und Hoer it.,
n al i tall ii S I lere ix y pu pose s slightly different. Figure 3.1 ets mt in a ripi I
a is a t
0 1 rIrL oral cDiesntatit a
mannei font different directions for representative claims. (a) government
1 nix distinc non is okai as tar as it goes it is a distinction that ha proven agencies ((A) making claims for or about other government agencies, tb
e net in d at ( lAnk g at it pr neal preu ntatio i p verninent agencies making claims for or about societal ictots 5).
d c I I di tirctim soc etal a t is naking lairns for or aho it government ap 1 m I
it g a P m
dc ii shactes at ia hei tim black and white, we are dealing here (d soitta1 actors making claims for ot about other socittal actors.
ix Ph a continuum of hunis rather than a cleat binary distinction.
Representative claims can and do run in varied directions. Political
o np tile nvei iria view pie tativ dam x made in elec space is a complex and shifting arena for a multiplicity of representatise
1 St tJ r lit I 1 urns. 1 will not pursue the point further here the n aterial in n t h e
. it Ic t ( C
i S Ui1( H Lii ( lapte d but soni Hon lectnral (w uid.1x) representatives rest of the book, and especially the cases discussed in Chaplei s 4 an 1 5
ui haxe Ini mat that is. widely recognized institutional roles status as well extends and illustrates it.
i to A .t ii tat the m, axapte,
dectve office The overall point behind elaborating these key lines o variation ir to
a 1 a t at or i formally underline the sheer variety of representative claims, actual an I p tei t I
S. I ti ku A in nile i spec by tin staft, the degree of fotniality in its iole Fhms is a core part of what I mean by emphasizing the dynirnisi of
Le idu to increase The british Medical Associations (BMA) role in the representation seen through the framework of the representative claim.
I ital K iigk i as pilaf i A A br m cI ar exaniple. Srnilarly, elected Political representation has, for a long time, been seen prilnart ia
i r t. i cii C s to xample
ti sat gate eprest tativ dism issed y Jane Mans idg (see ( hapter I),
s 10k. etceted in tots Aim to represent groups that are not part of their
Illil lttti I cs stitu i tes \danshndge 2003)
S
Ii nidirettionaiity-inultid irectionality
I rs edt ction
c iita c I nix r run Cha te I sup ,estec that here I igure I Directions of representative claims
xx ha tepi 11
 Variations and res murces
B I, it a P i d lie wev k I vi 1 mu m, for exunple, could he I peak fo th ins it ct
P at s P itt ris iS flCCL to he cogui d as P ing on dimen A corresponding level 2 claim could he my party speaks ft r an important
t an import mt hne at variation, national constituency in this country And a linked level 3 claim could b 5
ielc pje I ion can apture the impaci at each of these variations. under the constitution the people of this country get representation
p to v to er s 01 t key I nient il rough election tt the national legislature Ihe Iev 3
p 1 t I ) (4 ia mdi c i f s lii ty of the level lann at d Ii ve mar
i, I Inst it a ixis ust I me du clam c) on resent is a condition of possibility for the level 1 claim, I he igure niheds
a eLl as on who in represent some The second, vertical axis hypotheses about how other lines of variation covary with the nested
cei a natid ci 11105 ci minis at a surtave level tievel 1) are often under claims. I have included the formal--informal and the implicitexplicit
(4 moi e h p I ma ossiP In r, Jet r cial (level lines of va lation laims tei d to be more informal at 1 v 1 1, and tend
Ii I t P flit I t b pr g saive more formal at deeper levels. And iai rn te i I
pm mm e ii ms cmvi root vels mo explicit at le el 1, and more implicit at deeper level:
What significance does this theorization have? First, it suggests differ
ences in power and strategy that are likely to accompany different sorts of
replesentative claims, Surface claims that are able to rest upon deeper
,, :1 ,Lt I i istitutic nal and constitutional structures have a head sta ii w
familiarity md per emved legitimacy. An elected politician for x mph
generally has these deeper layers to support his or her claims, while a
protest group spokesperson may not (except in a more diffuse sense ol
enacting constitutiona l freedom of speech rights, perhaps). This is why the
ds it less Is it) b
ci cted p liii iar need not make his or her claims explicit nut - P
nat
j x <Ji tune the structure of the system does a good deal of the work for maui e
her, hut for the protest group spokesperson the same tends not to he true
1 In terms of strategy, two possibilities are particularly interesting. First.
elective actors can shift their strategies to claim to speak at deeper levels
I (2 and 3) if they wish to be seen as more unifying, or less partismn mm
state based and less party-based figures. Second, nonelective Ian man
can try to contest elective claims, say on certain policy issues, at different
levels: contesting a particular political figures claims, or contesting theii
institutionally derived right to make those claims with authority. Take the
classic case of Antigone, for example, who contested the king ( on
claims by contestinn founding features of what we would nov 11 ft
uk & ends it x ads to I) political system and its legitimizing political culture.
Further, I noted in Chapter 2 that there is an underlying contrast
more Ioniial unpikit
between presence and event approaches to representation, with the repre
sentative claim perspective being my preferred instance of ft went
ap roac m. lb are, he point was made that behind any edifi e s py
 rintiou rzd rcsourtes Variations and resources
d in[ ii tout ii ache present I pres making arid t r sequent ae eptance or rejection by audur ces or pa I
cv an t. 1 )r t at d ence pro In rq r sr tation ihat is is we have r the
II 5 H ia I sled nance t rep sentati e laims ii volves the conveying of mu sag
stun fleets Se o a s and I c claiir ai (I i n on vho can represent), the woukl- w const r
Indeed, die hnt variatior i idered ht idilect a they arc su II that I speak Ix i them), and the wider aud nec when t it
iWO ut c1esdntation that stresses its dynamic and changeable, diftrs from the constituency (I am such and they are such that I speak br
than its institutinii.ii1 located or lixed, character them). Where members of the intended constituency are also part of the
IsuC th ielainsiiip and examples no further here; suffice to say claims audience, the message would be you are such that I speak fhr vow
id[stet s I
1 s ssc will Lok at a number of ases, including that In order to be representative claims, these claims need to be made, acted
I pat tie tnt the r mud sugges ossihie ml, and packaged, This arguably, is the c we reason why, in the y
n ft vat the live i wright Arthu Mu ers words (2001, 7) Political leaders verywhe
i e to u de stand t ma tu govern they must lean how a
A heatni I p iforniance us broadly speaking, a rehea set or s i
sentati d it is sense that 1 seek to e rincel to pi t
RhSF1\
5 I IVF CL. MS performance. I he successful performance of representative claims lies at
the core of political success; Fenno, in his classic account of 1-louse
itic il figures ant then sd iptss hers and spin doctors and party sup members in their districts, makes the point well: Politicians, like actors,
outlet arc creative actors Fhes may well he agents, as representa speak to and act before audiences from whom they must draw both
ons ention iii undc rstood but titiall or inure importantly they support and kgitimacy. Without support and legitimacy, there is s
snal taints temsel iboitt I Part of political relationship (F nno 2003, 54).
ict( s th iger core ipal I hese p 1 it are far from being mere external observation o
political process A nong elected politicians the necessity of pci for ni
in is It se p ye si p huica widely rt p sed, long-serving postwar Anstralian Prune Mini
p airs i. tong is mmg, i n by at and the Robert Mcnzies believed that the core task of political leadership was hat
ito inaiicc coma i or adds up t t a claim that someone is or can be of the political artists (quoted in Uhr (1995, 94)). One of his successors,
replcsc otitis e. lo au tmportant extent, representation is not something Paul Keating, believed that political leadership involves a public perfor
sit inst 10 Os per.tu itiants, hut is soniething largely generated by the mance, talking about being Out there on stage, doing the Placido
us skit th p i forn nug of claims t he representative We could even go Domingo (quoted in Uhr (2002, 280)). Keating used a film director as
,t) I (5 igit I site St 004, 4.47 ru he arg that we his public speaking coach. Former US president Ronald Reagan, th g
It rat pws elatit OIIC IS lot )USt
sometim seenungly unaware of the extent of his blurring of il t
it n r e tived reality and movie fantasy, reportedly asked How can the preside i a
an actor i Bill Clinton followed up with If an actor cams bet to
sing i I atuve L vols s protectie elected piesident, a p eudent can be an actor (quoted in van Zoonen (5 0
ilseci an k tiied intact istft s of the subject of the claim. 74)). Former Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern had been taking lessons
sces are vital to this process, as we have seen. Representative claims from the director of the Gaiety School of Acting in Dublin to help him on
es acknowledge them in some way, and are able to
ulv stork if aiidien
5 the political stage. As Prying Goffman (1959, 76) wrote, All the world is
or otherwise engage with tI em. Processes of claim-
ft cct, acielt not, of course, a stage, hut the crucial ways in which it isnt are not easy to
 riurians and rcSOu!ccs variations
1 and resources
-5I it is Richard ienimo (OO3, );J the noted scholar of the US 1. Awareness on the part of the audience that a performance is taking place,
s r an (nhm dow not t ilk about pobtijans, hut politicians and that performing by definition involves some pretence, can translatL
now wI tfnnn p ahou tnt> acceptance o this fact According to Osipovich 200( 6,). mcvi
Ii onc to >1w 1 a ble fcature ii performanc include a pretense i. n th p of
i ah ufo r ci hat ti e interaction between performer and L ci i so
iat t I uisn ect t a itt 1 ow ther liar it actually i and an iwarcness or th
of
ulc dt ngof r on tin I the p0 leadcrs A ial observer that I retense is ccurring. Indeed, this may pen up spas:
dCSt01
1 in elore is 1 itiLians choo to 1w pertormers, or must they.
t for observers to appreciate a good performancel and to assimilate a
unauo1UalX gixen their role and position. be pertormers? is there an good performance into political allegiance. Ultimately, a defining feature
ii1vmiabie pi rim malice imension to representation or is it optional? of a good performance may be that is does not look like a performance at
iv sit wt iusers to estiom ire that a) it is inevitable that all8 On the other hand, we can be genuinely moved by a good, evocative
o poan i ii toi manic I (Id the king of an ne rformance wI Ic still being aware that it is a performar Relatedly
p >1 tiOt ni an c is t gree 0 t 1 e tI eatric 1 in trot of the suspension of disbelief mi ht ai ly v
IL us i n belie e in. political peumoirnaliri. n.al C u C
nu 1t tic en Ii ( in ediated U Ut WL suspend that inclination in ourslvcs beli
ii it s cue tahh un in its o to it d ride it fo hat reason ak ne as opposec to the othe eas tic to ci
Rn nt hr ar a1 a i t ris 111cr for example, with the content of the messaghi.
I tic cisc ntcd, n a ni oem deinacrac am too diverse in their out 2. Political performance is so ubiquitous that we can no longer pcrcelsc
oL and i itelests to iw aptured, so to speak, in one representative claim what is not a performance. Certainly, this is something that has
en ric ot iai irs, and thei interests or preferences will shift concerned playwright Arthur Miller (2001, 4), who wrote that
instantl wit loi h reason am in, others, there is (there mnst he>
ma \i r R i hetu pa when one urrounded by such a roiling mass of Co iw o suit
eon thi ntativc d ti e
01 trived performances it gets harder and harder for a k of pe jile
i, A I r OO on i nh r
tc o ate calmly any more,. I find mysell speeulatinp wliethc
ii 1 1 1 ar tisti rele i less ddily diet tt crafted, acted emotions and canncd dea i i
o ii rrsc iat ia the rc r se i a iii tly pressi p ma brains no only to nuistakc fantasy for wha s eat
iv 00 1 itei in (ivui uncerlamnt d instability of the but also to absorb this process into our personal sensory nwm hanism.
I nie rcprmCJlttd rcpresentatises otter images or portraits, none
neli ssiii he ircurate in an profound or full sense of the word, but Even if we must be cautious of invocations of the real like MillerR
d whiLk may ix aLiepted in part by target audiences as appropriate. the whole thrust of my approach to representation is linked to a coin
us o k1 h o nsti t nenC es addressed may accept, or indeed embrace, the structivists skepticism about the ready accessibility of the real we
nst it ma thi ii hi in amer hrectioi a i take his point about ubiquity and its potential impact II we are no
I mv lie (dv hi I the t i p r 1 ngcr capable of seeing a performance as a performance, the is t can
v c a erb longer he condemned or dismissed or indeed applauded
-. s
ept thu ficu is wI v I v Sophisticated political performances may carry an am I an h ft i
cc b leadu r esentati ins, and to so when politi al figures successfully imitat theniselve ( Ii icr 20(1
i us r i w utten iii t beliesn in th let s res icw the possibilities 19), or, slightly differently, when they seem to believe every word of their
own performance (as Miller (2001, 39) wonders of Ronald Reagan>.
 Variations a resovrc
ti1iin nd rgeting of political pi riormances can he more or informal, and descriptive and substantive representation have been Ow
LI cci I in hI ha upl 0 wi 0 1, 3 ) examples The is i thinf illegitimate about i akn g such dist icu
0 ot at a 0 01 is st stt y it and sin hero as heu 1st e tools, and most theorists who ek )lot I in
0 0. iew. ,unl habits of the onmiunit in which well aware that they do not map neatly onto the complex political world of
H , tc is s I ,iatc I i nOah s. je all t fliiicns concern that a representation. One concern with role-based binary distinctions is that,
r II a a a d e a (, cv d wit S for ixamp th capa it be a driegate or a t u te is I di
n i k t n at I P 0 lie quc t is ki I th is considerable extent r pon, or presupposes, the more w k tral paic I
ni ,ls to anted i the audience (199(1 1959], 206).
0
c appr o ci ii knowability of the interests of the represented. But constituencws can he,
ii P i iioi i ho us cci a pall ii ii e debate about
in and are, read, inevitably, in variou ways. At the beau h the act I
I I I. s I ) flulVC repr wu ti ig I lc d u cti ig o a onstituency a this r th as in
I .ii dc C I 11 Ii ,iati m ol i oh lepCi I eodifcd or this or that, as baa ing this or that set of interests. Any strong sense of the
0 Ic IllrOft t(c
1kltcd 11) (Ullci (2000, 509l) unmediated givenness of the character of the represented needs to be
treate I as probl mall Ti s line of atgiimcnt is a further lusti ion
inc wiys i whi i a i e cx i clspective undexpii s presence p 1speci sos
I IH I I c IL pi) I. e dl 1 is hi, boo Aeceptan e o he
the analysis of representation (see the discussion in Chapter 4i.
tI I H ItisI aspcc I ns ( fucs ild1I
1
c oi the place of creativity at the
My point is that if we take representation as a series of contested
hit ii i au i a fise i tie 1 erto man is
th
laims t stand speal or a t for an ther, then the terms fiat n Li
ii a i u I h r a i, es
these bina y di tinct ins c InC nto quite a different sort of ft en or take
0. c I d iii ,tilis idc jititlus and tealtics that are experi
on a different character. In addition to treating the terms in these
al s 0. >ouo and whIch often his c tangible political eftects. I have
distinctions as denoting types of representation, we can Iruittul1 regard
Iii e crl o k 01 0 hi r v abili of
them as ri aries for plesentatuon (or more pie isely in th niak i
p p1 nt In ha us c lot i. I ed
representative dainm).10
I Or 101110 tilUHl1 01 oi Sc the piecise character and impact of
Representative roles are not exclusive, or clearly contrasting, is is So
ii nc man in t .. null can be udged (by wod- he consti
c
often argued or implied. Ihe would-be representatives can play Iifter t
roles at the same tine, or switch between role or blend uppose
different ones in one action or claim. Consider, for example, the respon
sive representative. Responsiveness has been the key fact of represeuita
a It It 1 ft IL Cl lion analyzed by political science empirical studies in the p otwar r
But what does responsuviness ii can, what are the different ways i mu >
be acted out? Elan and Karps, critically assessing empirical studies that
Sc1 1 101 i a tIe) itcH lo I inaly ed in terms of roles take (in their view) responsiveness as a single and relatively unproblematic
S 1 a r y dimension of political repieser tation in practice, note that responsive c
,ti s to t on lI i so hi 1 e Lii X 1 w stU Iy 0 repicsefl maybe policy, strvice allocation, or symbolic responsiveness (197 241 -
11111 tilc IIIIIdeO ra p0mg hack to Burke indeed) has involved setting A representative may deploy some or all of these forms at 011cc, Oi offer
ii to g au h ok s I b try sib ion that un one under the guise I another md so on. In other words th e n 1
i, (I Ic ii, it ib
f I S )tO fbi dis can sometimes inor he regarded as resouo es for w aid
agnificantly
In hct,vcen ill Illc.llti or independence) toiTnal and
nd trusiec representatives to call upon and to manipulate.
 /arrations and resoulces
lo ftectivc dims w (f) spoken or presented foreground factw th I iia
r Ins cat ph t of up a good rt I he character of ft c claiir itself (the invocatior I on
foi us n ,.nnid s ihohe ouns s the iv uld-bc esenti ye (or lie does lot exclude invoking the other). Therefore, for example, One
(a in (salt Sc mctunes symbolic repreentatwn is taken as the could claim to represent women by virtue of descriptive similarity heing a

podn subshntnsc. but it is not the perlbrmancc of symbolism is woman), substantive capability and orientation (knowing womens inter
rue I Silt ey in repri 1mg s 1 tance. A other inics, sts and being moti ated to at upon them), claiming to be manda ed by
I lit tl osi oh women a I i rtain ai achy, or claiming to be a trust c I r tl
g ft so ar i Ite ests I om a ssibly regardless of what many wc men may ft ink
c ( en ni in s ki y ponei n c m vi rig a r se ol as constituting thu interests.
itrs Jep1cri dtinn on.sider too the roles of the princip and Therefore, resources for claims are vital, culturally and politically. But
1 he hat f resentIng oneself n an agent acting out the role of course, in any gIven context there will be limits to the scope of resources
a n csi s i ci its in> i the s e of a g for a nher, ivailable md fur her their availability will vary greatly hetweci 1i1fer-
II I as ft Id res ently p0 tioned o W might say ft at successful sr pote tia 1 su
.
I LI tfl doid cessrul q semauv clam s wnl lepend in large mersure on 4 at
lit c 1 1 rrl ni iftc wouk s rr Lathes in call a ray of rssources may be culturally (is well as personally and econonir
an C rn bnisg rcnlesentatce idifli, In idea ot trustec is the same. it
caily> available, (b) the strategic plausibility of the claim, and (ci the
s,icIn ul ihesi roles as roles (hat even more ngnihcantlv
s ci creative capacity of the claimant.
siC, ills issci ii
is a ci a 1 i cc It
in HI e ol tI type i one 5[ PC ITI( SI Rid {FSENIATIONS ELFCTOIid
1 10(0 1 V(J Si h, oi
nm :n uaciic, the WflU1 he representatives shift among, and some AFSTFILIIC, AND CULtURAL
o s aidnitLie, such roles un strategh way, They nay ciajin to he
1 ftc id ide ised esentat es in on hr cath, F xed typologies The unpacking of the idea of the representative claim has so far ins olved
oO let i I un es 1 is i p rtant
detailed exploration f the five key elements contained in represe tativ
st sin e i, nil ay lid claims blended with a justification for viewing epresentation a ni d
a reals s res s a ill repres tative ns namic process of lainsmalung, operating along many lines of aniatlo
aaa ii ths i in captures the shifting strategies of representation as and deploying a range of resources, rather than as a set of established facts
n process o triing to males such claims stick. A.nalyaing representation I now shift the perspective to highlight how representation has strong
ss nis o t psi roles be an I F is been useful, hut it can also aesthetic and cultural dimensions, which are all too often excluded from
ni Is tar na ott in ii ig key political sciencehased analysis, in part because the aesthetic nd th
I ii ()
tat

cultural are discussed primarily in other academic disciplmes (primar

pies ties r r nrc kcd soon f vat kind poso art history and cultural studies, respectively). In short, conventional vies s
.nl, nionetat V it rnbolts, and so on. Constitutional and institutional of political representation are concerned primarily with the ways in which
ne ,onrees are vital recall the concluding discussion of the representative

electoral mechanisms do or do not induce responsive behavior in elected

rn (in of sari i i on ahov. kssour t s Ira r presenlatisc claims may
5 representatives, whether accountability works prospectively or retrospec
ins ha und is if ciii I r Of
vcly, and what is th appropriate role for tile representative to l Ia (see
 I ir: iorn ai d renlur&is
Variations and resources
c vorski St ks,siid Maiun luth. Such approaches all too often
parties or other groups) make representations of their constituencies, then
ii e oth meal ohund sen es it a i extraor dinarily rich word and c untries and themselves Crucially, I would arguc these ie wes t
e in L I c t Li ai c lu I Lions are an unavoidable part of Pitkins preferred dehnition of repruci
ii r ;ci au e dam a, i wi. have se II, kit i onst mtlv in and between
tation as a substantive acting for.
if I ri ii. N it a n g is I g va t f ac r unds Politic I q resentatior is necessarily cultural in the ens sat Eki a
0fl $ that are i. c.t irai in mute scnse include the claims that compe
L cultural limits to the types of subjectobject links that can plausibly be
Ii ndid te laSe ii thi. cci rsi of 1 eciior campaign th claim thu n ade in a giver co Next 14 has been shown that, in e ctoral po th
Eli s ak i. i F I ia i It e in o he ic I b ie res iii g
, .
Swedish candidates will want to stress their likeness to oidinary people.
I, ttt i ci. nat tu icy the the ekctn n, But business and labor organi
za whereas Nigerian candidates, for example, will want to emphasize the,
ii I a i n 1 n it iv u p Ii B r su h u. A distincti n ((h xii trid Dak i 2006).
,nv daLi im 01 hoE (eldof, ehi. in 0 n an claimed) also to represent As I noted earlier, representative claims need to he built out ot ready
Ii. a Phtic ii life in Is dry i s flst cot slat ol my lad compelin, mad s ver if they are rcinterpreted and re presented in ne v sy
i is r a d ye si mi se tat e at a, ii. ed sin co lies ed in ready made tropes like I am one of you you can trust me isith aoui
lee u-i it xis t b so e, but in many othet s too. I pick up this theme
futures because Im straight and honest; and hes an expert
it ii I oi I and h
unde star da whats going to work for you and what isnt, tap mu cxi tim
iSis Is ii ini.Ht petusable ucnlicrii mouw nt in politic 11 represe ntation understandings of what might make for a successful (i.e., accepted
us t ie nh I i ne ci Os gsv ii un inbgu us tra isparent. rpresenr liv claizr ii a g yen mntext In Sri ait Hall
-
m ciii liv r in mc ins in i s pr set alt cc sin
ternis ultur
I as ccc s representation is about shared meanings by sharing codes C
,it ilv o IC rca ii e Iii ot h has to mould, shapi, and
. odes fix
in one sense create the relationship between concepts and signs [subject and object in my
I a I e CC S a ti
S
rat terms ritey stabihs meaning within different language and tilt re
-
.1 N until Li ev& is the -epresented A 1 am consider in the schema set
-
(Hall 1997, 21). If the aesthetic moment in political representation is
ii it ( lia er ii a iar Em i h we n gnher at , sill ci
1 objec and u iavoida le r presentation cannot function without claims, p t a al
p 1 rL 1 t o c st ueey iistress
d,t
,,
of self anu other, and the performance of the samethen it is the cultutal
v, ii. ii an ian i t. patentla evident, singirl ir and obvious to most people,
moment that sets the limits or parameters for the aesthetic possibiItie
p i. it ii n )ft t se n e and act in What resources ire culturally available for representative claim imakmng
ii LI it Lbs aignif.c P r tI e oflcc i in I the same as the thing or
Cultural codes carry meanings in characteristic, more-or-less local ways
N t si. 1 sit iii It ,ith aiieur a w utanmafeil These are codes that the would be political representatives a.n x d
a t ii Li. t i ii cli ,er to I cup ith di ng itself ii an a Rembrandt Culture provides the materials from which individuals anti groups eon
& it porirall asas to Rembran It himself Competing sigmir
cati ns are, struct strategies of action (Swidler 1986, 280), One way of lookin ai tin
hi v a o ii ci a I S[ ii a )u II c it st is to see potential audien es as sharing meanings that make thcm v irto isl,
I t on lilt coca t1 s o b r ad n note than I uft; it is an active,
rca
receptive or resistant to certain styles of representing, or to certain types ot
e e .s li Li I it bE p in :i i if We tents
, .
reprLsentaiiv ci urn
inakns h tc rrcsemah & c hunts- ilieli business is aesthet because it is
1 ic Even electoral laws and institutions can rightly he seen as part of this
pol (teal n ts sept. seuh Lion
J is not i n crc Cci th t nat is, so repre cultural ftamng Ele toral laws dictating the frequency of electi mis th
ii to s it a p r t tEa in er ai cia ioi a) $ I and thus so te-counting procedures, the number of iepresentatmves per constituen
p Ito d in st I ap en. Pci pie construct them, put them thrward, cy, and so on are settled codes within countries (and states, regions and
n I ti n ak tl iii Pc Ii 1 u r, p p 1 tieal localities and within a variety of public and semipublic. organizatio is
 t rwtions nd resou u
ly Ic od in ar ing md ace pt them, md t ccogniie LI e Ic , r i
dl to I c M ext i nh laim at advanced 1 h degree itor
vole vu i I ible o h i t perform these ask is cru ta the aj I
I hat us a vi. V i (hapter 6 As hail put it, ir ternn tnt at
anaiol u t u o t cii ontext lhc iead r audien i. $ a
as ii w im al i n politician] in the produ rn i f i
Lveiy s g iii givet as en ded with meaning ias to I n earn
od i e jr cd r i I d by the rcceiver (199 1)
kga e c a 1W icr t up )r Ii contenta n that the ac v i
is of ( ulwr I tult c lepresentations is at mci idicabi in t
let p i itt i eprcsentatio , including om vcntm na m. r

II titu i s i e i a unery LI leetora r pies ntation r t
I 10 r a itu ii rpr set tint ns
1 F ( R PRtSLN1A1ION IDE-Ni
A\IL) PAR UI LITY
I Si Ihes b iv lions u d di ettly ni to the ways in which iepre i t
i und is o d throug processes of claimmaking leads us to foeu furtl
tit ie i sf1 i o . subjects, th malung of identities id the t 1
of c-ic i I lb c c sse. 1 have commented ir passing ii eac I 1 1
p
aspcLs auuvt, now cxmcnd diose observations. Zharacwmi ing ii nit
p al and eon ttuency ire largely what the aesthetic and cultural sp i
op Itir political representation hod down to
Identity
utah e
Ii tited In polities portrayals of constituencies or the nation oi w ters ir e
are just that. portrayals (Spivak 1988, 276). 1 here is no selfpresent
ha subject who. e essential haracter and desires and interests are tiansp
) ltica beyond representation, vident enough to be read off their a p a a
icr or tIc us hchavu Polio ians often tlatm to he able to read off constmtt C
eto , 0 and natus nal ii tcrcst have a ur ique insight into voter mc LI wi it
Si i ne d 3u th ac that they can only do so after first de in
at m i crp ctati ft uc containing selective repiesentati In
 IrzatLt)ns and resourres Vi.riations and resources
ii iii Ik tet I spiv hei di and C nging essay p rspective and that we arrange what can be seen in a sp wific way s a
S 198 in ue i thet ally landscape a not determine ft m what pe s ective i is seer
di 0 1 n call Ihe repriser tation always ontains an element that is essenti to ts
r piodi uit md s i din procts tationality and that it can never be reduced t aspects of he wit 1 Cf
II set dai ii o peak ir uSer us dected representatives do, of and to what is true or talse fAnlcersmit 1996 39).
ur. n to make representations that render those others visible and This partiality raises significant questions about the status of truc
lalak lii lt \k oft 1991 9) puts the point well: representations and, indeed, the placmm of truth in political argument

Representations, selective depictions, draw on a referent, a materialh
1 i akin sl1 as I ai iii e ikmg
iy
unisting gi up or entity and they partake of ultura codes iii
t itim icr
i i aning nd ruti withi i specific social contexts In thea r spe i u
t I I i in
in of i cor par ii political representation. Alongside this I ow yen r
I in an I I a upami e or
tve reprcantative claims (e.g. about voters interests) can be less
Ia iii wiul I Ins ii I represent m in annot c under
us I medeul on n a t ot dise yen wherein I discover their true efficacious, recognized, and accepted than the currently prevailing ones.
iheit o ipl relak m disoVerv.
Ii es tint Creating and using alternative representative dainis is, again, perhaps the
core ingredient of political activity in general terms. To ask too much of
,1L it ii c lead s t qu s rim aiu si gtestions that groups these claims using a strong criterion of truth is in an important sei to
Ire! s ha ngk pub ii auth it msundc stand politics, to demand of it something it p cise1y c i
n t iith deliver (Whether nonpolitical contexts like scientific pr )cesscs C
I in Wa our n scm s ic thco o closer to satisfying stiong truth criteria is another story) As Labor i s,
intl rep ulation i 1uuitir orward i r oluteh posed to tie if faithful representation is the political holy grail, then politics will
n ii 155. mated, ha e.unple, s 115 Carl Schmitt, who thought that always he disappointing, based on unrealistic assumptions about immedi
LW I pr esentatioii u on eser an expressive realization of the unity ofan acy and authenticity, as if a sort of double-click communication can
at tt. oinn unitr B rnett 2004 17) Claims to authentic or true bypass representatives necessarily interpretative work, We expect too
mi 1,111 main lint us. A I ii may I ompelling, much of political reptesentation if we expect it to provide a fo s of
1 in sti on i ii awar r es fidelity, cxactitudc or truth that is totally impossible (latour 2003
in I o
ity h vet a to
a ant us iclosc
nfore Ne play of
The ubiquity of representation
It is worth noting briefly one general consequence of the many threads of
Pat lv analysis offered in this chapter as part of mapping the represer tetive
claim: he ac ptance that there is no placa beyond rcpres i a C
: lit (Prendergast 2000, x) 8 his does not mean that there s not ing
r ib anti in I 25). I me al y one v sios Rather it means that people and things do not get invested with i a ng
i rmr plait i S others in S mmii I ndcr iS referent visible, of dealing without representation. We, as makers and receivers of representations,
a ti. the pu blem of idijnitv (u hen I 966). In this respect, they are are simultaneously inside and outside of representation. As Derrida (1982,
re isanils se oct is a pmposing that we see the world from a certain 316) has written, man is now not only someone who has represents-
 iraitz aiiil r ource Variations and r ources
i i 1 CL 11 51 also us co s lmtionm 1 wha sorts of clams ttnd to be and can elk. lv
eOn rs on MC iid w en ai mien ted thi ughout made in different contexts In essence, we can argue that there is i field
oi um to tiI stroUwe of i epresentation. structured by representa the representable at a given time, in a given context; and that this ti.ld
th iepres4.ntcd subject is aku a representing subject. Political expands and contracts under varied pressures. Consider, fOr xainph
151st 1, ICs( Ci 5 10 C 11101 Britain s ssid- 009, wilt a long running scandal ab I in ers
I I I lit It perliamen all gedly misusing (or abusing) the expenses sys I
cie )sts tlic hell me / son mgs repres stahl 11 use of onmmon.s, It seems cleai that this episode undcrcuts e suit
I op1e, groups, ideas might be said to be unrepresentable on varied for MPs to make effective representative claims on behalf of their onstm
u md Ii ma1 he impossible to make the essential charactei of the thing tuencies, albeit perhaps temporarily.
sti pre hi
h ci. 1 Iii It)) A mph epres itation
I C ii I U
esCi 01 ig t Itt atil our y, w 1 rem s trots C () N C I. U SI ON
ri 0 iiig (e0 se ted lb suglit ol e1skIlce (Raicieie 2007, itO) Such
ubeehorm to rcprecitat In Cst ufl time difficultV if not the impossibiit This chapter and Chapter 2 have ranged widely in order to attempt
Ii ii, 0 14 phi. utatioi lr o1m kit ft thcatior of son ongial But as mapping of the representative claim. The key to that auma ysis ha een
us ke , n ( ay in ooki at lit, define and to explaii thc dynamic and the constitutive c
I ir iso us ic 1)0 n[ epi 1)11
political representation, as conceived from the vantage point of mt rep
On u s Or ii. los a md thi P ou liapter imikes clear, it can always sentative claim. As a part of this, it has offered substantial argumeums,
N end that a givi. is Ieprcsentation is inaccurate; the key point is that that about the character of, and the links between, variations af the represen
L is notch at intci csting lii itselt, smcs repri. sentatmons cannot be tative claim, roles and resources, the performative dimension, smsd tli
LW i tat nt t mscm 1w wr undci complexity of the representative claim, Thus, the chapter ha, resp nde
si , ai flu I 1 etat of an key points in the remainder of issues identified in t se rev v of
I ent
, id al mys iiw ives or adjust nent of reality prominent existing works in Chapter 1. Further, Chapter 2 and timi
kan. ore 200, 116) 1 N. representation is always fictional, but involves chapter have set out a framework within which later chapters can locate
(14 OC ree of reseinhance nevertheless. In short, I would endorse
and analyze electoral and noruelectoral representative claims, some pres
iii rgt t ii hu noti the not prese s able, s) ing current concerns such as the representation of women and of nonh
IL It I (1 0 1 II I IL 0 man nature, and the links between democracy and represcntat II
4. 1(110 I1O 0 1 di. 1. 01 1 n us nuaki g and cceiving
iV ts easy, It is 1
iita000s sUscestu
1 ust that they are, within a given
liural context, not imp )sslbie: ingenious adjustments can render the
iC liSle ORS ilk.
4. 1 54. t. I 01 C I It It of
4. .,e 0(1 101 , at nit tica es. do SI s qui c
unneC.,sart \\ hat is ((lOch more significant is to ask: what things are
imorc arid less readily repiesentable now, and in this place? We have seen,
he d sssio Ii. alt ii re entat s ab , how cual ntext i
1 1) 0 Of SI. I I IU
 h elected and ths unelect d
I b )rdcr to the shaping of issues and affected constmtuencie. mm
pread disaffection from parties and electoral politics, and the risc of oem
claims to represent, for example nonhuman nature and future human
generations, are among a range of broad trends suggesting that the tim. m
i e for a casse s t ent of nonelective representative claims
It is t nc tI t p uralists and to some degree deliberative n ci
ft eorists have long paid attention to the roles of interest groups and sod m.
movements, old and new. For the most part, they have been analyzed in
h 1cr, and explored the diaracter, dynamics, and variations of the terms of their positioning by the elected government as an institution
cci Vt , hi up t dies one ww poh 1, ac with the lotion f representation reserved for the latter real B tI
I C I I it .1. 1 ssion xtent the claims and statuses of unelected political figuies have I
,aw da na y ci .1 h ma iffer in n elective staple of political analysi
mm fnm chapter brings the riected- unelected distinction into sharper Regarding representation as something that is claimed rather than
mc. ci. xamining characteristic strengths and limits of electoral and non specifically located something with an uncertain democratic status and

torah uesei tise ft ins. it ill lix at the histinc e nat s and acceptability regardless of its type or institutional origin opens ip ne.
-
Ic I IC I C I f e r a V ims I ncs of inquiry beyond seeing the unelected as lobbyists or ad oc lIe
i of iple nor tivt In. i e a is ewhat pressure groups, or indeed locating them under a range of other i ad in
i distinctmn bc tm ci elertotal arid non-electoral claims to aid the such as champions, stewards, advocates, figureheads, or spokespersons
niak ns. Oh course, a number of unelected actors or claimants who would Each of these terms assumes a rather fixed and hirnited role for them
P Jr b. ecu a. melee I on lational stage my call some elective groups by positioning them and predefining their roles in rd lion Ix
is a so I is te h iv to ample conventional elective institutions. Like the delegate and trust
CI Ic iv iay iii to cse t I ye s atus may cussed in Chapter 3, such terms can too readily come to he r pa dccl
,nWrts ti. pcnsmlc t cted hures, rather than being static conceptions of roles rather than as resources that an he claimed aim
.1. cied theruselses But keeping sharp,
a analytical distinction between deployed for certain (potentially representative) purposes just as elected
0 iv mm i nillu ek t. d po iticians and a wide range oh others who actors can and do. To talk of representative claims involves creatiiely
are not
los w i ci airi pa las r iiade aincd questioning the very constitution of these roles through claims n kin
II a b 11 ill ft ef) I I )1 1 i IS and opening our eyes to representation as dynamic across soeietm s, ii
mcii. id IN itch nstit se ems just a presence within or in orientation to states.
mssdcr an exaim.ple of a representative daim, Amid the Make Poverty More specifically, many observers would prefer to reserse the term
1I torY arnpaign in 004 the I. 12 singer and political activist Bono said representation to describe electoral representation on the bask of tin
pres s mm in v hay vol all Ih y formal or governmental decisional roles of elective figures 1 ii
I I th glad absence of the same for the unelected, According to this view, Fm ci
I mci s, III) ist in tafums d den rack people ho arc simply are the representatives, and the unelected, though often politically
m cC el.ctd from intel. st group leaders and activists to spiritual figures important in varied ways, are something different. Statal representative
otien harm to be political representativ es The decline of class-based claims are built around the notion of decision-making and rernosal Ironi
i logic id ix 0 mis, ft esser oft! ignif ice thor office, downplaying other representative functions; societal or es a
varmously built tround de iding, symbolizing, cxemp ifying, v 1 i
 The eleitd and the unelecied
) nag, a epong. ansi reject ng On this view, states ot governments The idea of nonelective representation is not new. Despite the tOt that
it)) dsud iue, ex unssli hey authoritatively allocate values not in Burkes notion of virtual representation rests upon a Vision of a highly
e tin thet utoni ipolize t e authotity to do so. hut rather that their unified national polity with a single and discernible set of interests, placing
a -i t inn is the one ii It mattets (the decisive one). In response,
it outside the more diverse forms of nonelective claim today, his argument
an i iLietatn te ot ess die decision point at d that comn t interest and co imon sentiment underlie genuinely
an i a devolv n makia resentativ I r ay still hay currency. And is lot I earlier
& ii 0 ii Pc stiw Pitkin Is d tiniti r epresentatis 1 96 ) a. a a 1 t
a in, I 1 loes n) in pnnciple re rnn lectio i as II. I
at his (31 U 11 hers di cu which do notably the uthoriiatier aid a c
). .sk 0 liii ave rob IN ige s ar I ability d t 1 1 ). Pitkin d tes not pursue this pa n hut a p ,
mo prntt .aon& 1 sO hon an the b suhstantav ac ng for others a different from th ancans of achuv t
a. a to sit i s Its sesormil set d rulets an a polsarch, and in certain contexts electoral means may he inferior ones.
atpmrat L aders, in tO tsrms of l)ahl ( 985); think tanks and
iiups and [mcs ss ho phu ke rules in urafting legislation and
a (.0 a ns; t ad .rted ators lii assorted modes of network governance
e Majone 1995) Decisional authority is El ECTIVE REPRESENTATION:
a .mo an niuti
its
& ito ii uaai Is r a9ti1tuit1e and n erlaps between pr ic
POSSiBILITIES ANI) LIMITS
o tilt a. at) s s leetas e an ective acts a
lb think le y about tile potential for unelectcd figures to be 0
ense legitimate dci tocratic representatives, it as i ecessar to lo k
the M a
dc ted actor Electoral claims carry, quite rightly, a dee1 nd
S it iii C at)
vii) a in and at make ii among palm al audiences across the globe deriving horn Ii (
p
S a tmvs e pasth tirriale au i t v
strength I popular control that free and fair electioa s can deli
i t .ca o I: im I rust at does not ri h I this possibil t by
our dee1 cult iral attunentent to equating democracy with el

a set tuas caL tess of the conventional representatiom democracy. fhe tbrrnality, regularity, publicity, and transparency of ins
0 nit..Ita t
r
Jtis sO act approaches that predetermine who or what is to count as
and fair elections remain a profound source of strength for representative
(i1 etttattvC isis crttisine of 0 ctoial tepresentatian does not add up to a
claims for the duly elected, These factors boil down to a profound, and
toi. ut Octoial rspresetttalioui. The goal is to interrogate key factors
today often underestimated or sidelined, entrenchment of political equal
ity in broadly democratic political systems.
hslurd :ics lisa and not s e live claims, in order to build frirther an
It is worth dwelling on these positive aspects of universal suff a
0 1 p iepresenta 1 whn.h both se and noneic t ye
systems of lcction to local councils, provincial and state legisl u
,l, 1 m alil i.lt is van is n not s .pes ar g
tativ Ion nationa is gasl tturcs and in the European Union a supranatior a p
a to nine
nets at bok s ture. mo atac oting in the context of universal suffrage and i
tans I U us ble e 1 1 p ilutical rights and freedoms aernains an exti Ir
prtale nditic i
tes uric defer lustoraca hisv ment, which is now enjoyed witl varied c s
<&OI a
6 tiiough I c a Kr
(,lt fidelity and tabrhty -in more than half of the independent coun a
if cleats raia i nacy to
this cliaptei
the world.
ss 3 s at Octait tsscgtion an
 ted I he ectul and the unelected
a cc I Lapter thi c t Pr ictices, and istitutioi that consistent enactment of polil al equality and the othc.i r re principhn
vsods is clii sem&uit an rucial to ssess1ng democratic legitimacy which accompany it.
rl rspc t o beth ehctisc and nurielectise representative claims. Against this background, what sorts of representative claims can elected
pnnc inc of p lrti ii equaht can be, and is, enacted or fleshed out political figures make? There will be considerable differences between
u a i aa s ariet ut was s arid iiistitu ions and in differing contexts. 3 repertoires of claim-making in presidential and parliamentary systems
cnnahv, inal otint, in unnersai suffrage elections is a particularly for example. Clearly, presidents elected from nationwide constituencies
J ca intwe nomirn ft. and demoLralicaily important mode ofenactrnent, have a stronger platform for making expansive representative claims than
quit son can a vital measure of cqu silty of treatment and equality of parliamentarians elected from local constituencies. And those repertoires
ppur t s ig rghts synibolire ar s il citizenship status regardless will differ according to which electoral system is in place foi the legisli
>1 so )fllls talus, an I in t terms they provid eqi al t r In proportional representation systems, for example ci t d meni
c ii the shapin
1 is Uhis form sa ii ig be s of legislatures can plausibly make claims to repress it a t 1 thc
11 thi is thiarian b i s of h le tor v thin the constituen y and national governments I at i ergc
the i levels d I a the front p opo tional cle lions can make plausible clam s to p sc the
of nt s its sajo my c c ector w t s respect to the spread of opinion o i
e. mc au t ((ntmc of coalitiol goveri nients which appear to iv signift I
are n is, ihi rt i fly t smaller parties ti at hold a balance of power in he oali n tht
tyl of lcnce of is i t ft e lispute this point, hut the fact remains that a workable coal tio in a
ov )vernincnt les of author a it r d proportional system will be able plausibly to claim a direct link ver half
uma I a countability of ths voters preferences). In single member plurality (SMP) ystems, on
is ic protbu rid 55 ml him I equal citizenship in the msti the other hand (sometimes called first past the post systems), it can
uvi of it! eotin rights has its Itnuts as an expression of overall be relatively rare for an elected member to have garnered more than
- ss aethet ot substance or of opportunity in any given society.
50 perceni of votes in his or her constituency. It can also be the case that
I qual 5utci d nra guarantee equal influence through the use of the vote, in SMP systems there are strong incumbency effects whereby sitting
P a tnet ot leclittical and aher reasons. Equal votes certainly do not members are rarely defeated; this can mean that most of the electoral
puaranlcc t sat larger and deeper socioeconomic inequalities in society will action takes place in a relatively small number of marginal constituencies
addrcsseL tfetisei bs elected pe utica] leaders. In these and related in the United Kingdom, to cite a prime example (Beethans 1999, 175). lii
ts liti rc sc mitt limits to what an be claimed about the quality such cases, the representative claims that they can make may be more
u etler ivs the hunts ot iepr s M whdi the entrenchu ent of rsstrmcted or, we could say the resources that political figuics cin drass
-
lu in produce i i itext. hut again, th er is ipon n the making of such claims will he more limited fv in more
SiVc type i make the of fi straigh forward grounds concerning the structuring of electo 1 stitu
y or son 4
is ci ics we can question the strength of representative latin ti ii on
lap w u $ shoic the Iac of election. Ehe strength of claims may he lessen ri fi x - e
s iwr ly site fact ti at rite o voting in noncompulsory systems arc k a d
ts o ful ublic to the ambiguous status of nonenfranchized inter sts su f t
fairnrs s titution 1 t t nrnt I r onciti ens children, and young people.
and fair e fore perics ly a onal 1 nother part of claiming representation concern, the 1 0 tuiirtres
us to claim t ttatives on ths hi t i that elected members have to make representations of their en s itiments,
 I k d nd ihe nile
subs V nst ie 9 I ui 2000 1 lay 1tt1 argonaut Li 5
ta par vh ch ci di with ca oar why, and rncchanisnr I h
ea C id l is aflv p s atation of c 1udcd or margi ialaicd g
a ii r e f tia ash o d epcn md xtend t ii
x us a y xu r ig I c dia I at the cprcscnta ivt liar at
nil i sta it or Fe r v ry structure have open the j os ability
I j by r r sent It v 1 am h t an all on dafkrang foLio t
n ad a v t d fit c t out of ice ption and a at n b st ft
a xaxils ul en c c dli a ng nodes of oferatu n aamay r na
SI u an a ap an t ci way are distaa ci from electoral c
(IL Regardi 55 )f I c sti ngths that reprsentatave iaam, an gaa I
t tiiS a , th C e limits o their claims n I these 1 nuts cc T
I) flits ally ig iafa nI I kctive representation does not ext at s I
rq it ci am r 1 a c genenc fiatures 01 elections it it p1 a
a tF prcii rah atioa o co deanocratK paanc pie wi a e
eku wl dgcd dcgiee C vhieh they ficalat tc den crac ye
Ti LIV Ia t as p c :ely understood, Consider th follov an
I 51.
1 on a aa I aaougl votang, w e moose xii e t
csc ta
a (I throug th a we ontrabute to choosm 1 the coanposltao
c (I ts ii the
legaslatu aid the poltical coma of the government d so
ii tic
evan pie tF lam t of SMI electoral systems Be t he ar am m r
whil temj 0 ary governanents are choser, they are par I I c p
Ia
n n tate vhaeh is not chosen (or at least cannot be, a ow a
c asia c of
ngie Ii our fate, md not our choice, to have gover unta tam i
1 aJ hatar
ma we fi opposed, to sonic degree at least it our
rtol
gov rain e it W can choose paitnula politicians, but v
itsint
hot se t have p )hticaans who wall not pa ticpate wathia ti e
ida o
rr isis amid o astraints of the electoral game 1
t u iatdy
2 ldentzJucatioaa. E en where descriptive or r iarroa repre. e a tao
uld Ii legislatuaes as r ot ft ong tr ac of most countries vo a ag md
u staic do pre v de a wa of saying these people are in offi beca
spec hosen by s and bear s formal relationshap to us o m
a e. fly Li u on t ft a ci ctd figures to tailor the a representative a r
fiatu is of he ultur I a d anstite tional availahahty f electac am s o
1. 0 UnjuSt
TI e lain ts of adea tafacation start there however Regardles i
Viii n i0t8 ulture o electoral systean, few would dispute the cL an ma I
 again, o( nues cular frontispiec ni ipe r 1 romas Hobbe I viathan the people sonta I
their oi stitur nts, all j. t within the rule ody $ eli as the i n passing domes of pail
ul it daiins tI a y make ments and legislat n s, ymbolizing the on ness (or unity) ot the nation
.
it other possil Ic bases of a br example the I p ol Building in Washington DC. This onensss is
et air I rangr ol ow niteri sts H i positive. It provides a i a xswer to a basic political question who
hanga then ow fluted politicians wil al a , resolves issues when they a ontcsted?
c g cc, rr preentiTlg w in distuictive ways Thi pi cc $ lv a But the extent to which there is a mismatch between the s, mbol, on
tm tur.il iii essity rather than piihtital manipulation or the one hand which suggests the permanence of the unity, the
a a suh Related to this, elected politirtans have a captive oneness and the institutional reality, on the other wheic citizen,

m c v 1mosI all ji i7ens are fornirfily structured into electoral
and residents will feel different degrees of attachment, for different
hi lessens the aniormt ol work that elected politicians have reasons is important, and goes mostly unrernarked. Such symbols

o t iriake eons inenig claims, since the structure of the LonteXt may capture realities, hut they may also (must also the symbolism ot

d. au clread that there must he specific, definable constituency oneness is necessarily fictional at some level) gloss over realities such as
ott ru mat refluire formal represenmalion. In other words, interests necessary misrepresentation, shifting interests that are not spoken br,
insi op i oi ii Its. al residew here will from the start condition potential the selectivity of portrayals of constituent interests, and so on.
oiaeptiorrs ot constituency interest. linked to this point is the more Note too that the representation of two moderate abstractions of the
noun vet observation that oflen elecitd politicians struggle even if people by the government is nested within the representation of

u wncv Hek nut an iniornied view of their constituents consid two higher level abstractions representation of the nation by the

iv ii i l)sliberatve theorists otten express concern about how state. When they are (deliberately or by structural necessity) not acemi
v mi Ut mie leliberation is soting based on pre-dehberative rately or fully representing peoples views, political leaders always have
i e I t silue In latiti are formed in relative isolation from the the option of going up a level and claiming to speak for the larger
ccl s rsectIs u sit others, and may he understood as lgnm nations interests (see the discussion of the variations of the represen
ni tnn Ling prethreaccs, which, for txanp
e
1 fit tative claim in Chapter 3). With one level of representation nested inside
lisiount the lut mu a Schumpeter i 6 0 t in another, the two are easily sometimes deliberately, confused. Charles di
skni iOOt) Young t)OO). I towns I vu I ( Gaulle expressed his porn graphically with his comment that in
bstcnrton mar contribut gly hew I politics, it is nate sary either to betray ones country or the electorate
ales total outcomes ye I e r I prefer to betray the dc torate
ninnpmilative ifluti s ) I v Iip
4. Control and accounwbzlay I ess abstractly in most contempo
Ic poirias (Got 0
democratic sys ems parties choose candidates prior to voter cI
strongly ab n ti it
Key choic it therefore made before c tizens get to sole, whid r
guises, I I toal enhance mEt iparty accountability to the detriment of popular a a
lilic i il ys,
ability with tht partial caveat that parties might, in some i i
i urd and o itixts hoose andidates in anticipation of voter prefer
r re oat i nit
Eurtl e though if e elected are accountable to the electorate
i at of thi I H at i It scriou lii ts o his accountabthty As Manshridge points
though I I niur
electorate a ua Of portunity and capac ty to hold elected othi
 1 Iw cit i ted and the unelectid The elected and the unelected
1 hL u ins and ik ics is 1 red; pic nssory has k of calling on unelected actors to make supportive nonelectave repr inatise
Ft m ilh w taki i lv alt t ye laims s n the Obar a administrations en ouragen of yo nat
ad imp y,r ci fo xaarpl (enerafly speaking a maju hange I Li
its a party d oiogy a i have an impact on the structure of opp r u y I
nonelcetive groups and actors to adapt and make strong epresentati e clanus
ta cnts ether, n short thc stat has a distinctive capacity to
I am not suggesting, along Burkean lines, that nonelective representation is
s at smt-i s aid Lonstittiencies), hut it also has a distinctive
more democratic, or that in some way it completes democracy.h1 I am
dF its; ra might i ithu sas Iestmv) tc misreplesent us. It, and its
suggesting that despite its undoubted strengths elective representation on
at s tec i rig mu t e to ci 1 iidie the I nmer and play
tains s tural weak resses that sonic fo ins of noneketive rep a I ition
is a 1 Fl litic elf fore isrel i sen us
iay b al ii to xplo t, by ffermg different sorts of ep esent t a in
I I lystur id
whic ay esonat veil with specific audience.
a) C utu con ual c pre $ ly as a
,
Noneketive re rescntativc claims can enact prmc pies that a figuuc
eel a dabic t at th a kkings I he s cry eketoral processes
heavily with regard to elections: choice in terms of more fine-graCed,
brooch is iab they err able to ft present in the first place)
multiple, issue--specific choices, including between elections; retroactive
Ribtical lead is are ass are, to some degree, that claims based on election
consent on the reception and consideration of unconventional representa
o unhis ii at Thee Utci their positions hs ronstructrng, and of course
tive claims; identification in terms of nonparty and partial citizet identu
Coin Cam 1 epa a ins ( irals iepicfl
ties; iv r g voice he affected by opening up nev ii es a is
u in ti is ku bje. s n n y
r ?resentat o i a F ic can be more sensitive to Intensity of prek ci
a isv pi a 11 lv se
particu ar lived exp riences, often beyond territorially defined tests
ble a ihaps foi x it, ant that i ub
and more varied aid perhaps sometimes more effective means I contii I
a,iiitiLs dent then h k s at being elected, which is likely to he their key
and accountability via governance networks and deliberative devices.
inn e a Politirril leaders regularly portray themselves as standing for the
A variety of nonelected actors claim to be representatives, and sometimes
silO a, eve ind beyond narr w and partial interests (think of the
those ciaims have a resonance with their intended constituencies and
biC uty e the Ste id Stiil iii set images of US presidents
audiences because hey can sometimes do things that elective I mants
I ca ) F iteet heir Is al r nhu es to this
canno do ( r cannot do so readily) Why do we sometimes Ifs en lie
p i i uis iciers
claim f Oft 1, it is because key principles that we understand a ig eor
to dcc ions can in varied ways be realized by unelected actors
---

s may
not be true of all such principles (and their realization even in electoral
contexts, as we have seen, can be patchy) or indeed all such actors, but it can
Orili- 1.1 C [IV! REPRESEN rATION? be true of a range of them. For example, a range of unelected representative
clainianta
i i dii s qut her tink topenup
Do riot have to pretend to represent me whole persons i s c
a I c I e t ainsbyelected
wants; they can explicitly be partial (so can elected actors, uj hi,
I inn I igur invn they 1. tiler significantly
otter have less scope to do so),
a cli is hetw an thc twc gioups) a turns of the resources they can
he h-,ed upon. So Cit two sets of claims are in fact overlapping sets. Among 2. Can stand for a continuous, evolving sense of us, tree from the tempta
ilr lnteiestiilg uiiine ions iS the recent example of elected administrations tions of the election-time snapshot.
 he cit c arid the uirekc
N II IVF {lPL N 41l
t a t s Pt t tral unclected rep rcscr tativi. 1 rt
iti till 1i ill to o strict I h ot lain ttatthetypcsasd x Cs rv
t interest Ol lit c ent ds ii I c f d r see atically legitimate ici H $ flt 1
S with a yreatt r I i di a ens r ouse tat v elaims that ate, an d can he n i
dcc ed scm Ii 0 us may or may not, for examil I c a
i make tin it iim v to make
en I h r ud c sees or by their weuld be muslim n
cpu si tsatr e i larms architec
I I p r his section, I present a range of type a
of out poiitlc.al ssstemrs do rn. They have
I cpr fiat v claims by the unelected. Each of these lam
nvokc amid mitirioc tand iii an audience for
that so eon r presents the interests of a specified group. I CII [I
their mlariH
what buoy he basis for justification of the claim the X an ic]
at opeu a ne patu ra it prs ntatien that are alternative to
represent[sj these peoples interests because of X. The list is mdicatix e
C iii l)tti his I to Ic are got d rcasoris to One to Jl: those who rather than definitive, and in this Chapter of the book I present each tipi
di ride for iii should he a ountahie to all But d there are more, and of claim without making explicit evaluative comments. My goal Is to take a
,taar tipes. ot representatives beyond elected ones why not, for exam- step toward understanding the variety and range of representative claims,
pit. ihuk ot oihtr potential patterns that cc uld operate alongside, or and the types of justification they often invoke.
iii? hits. lire tot :\ 11? Consider, for example. One to Many; One tO The claims listed vary in a number of ways. For example, sonic are claims
sonic. ni Sonic to orne; even Lath to Lad In other words, we can about the self I represent.... Others are claims about others She
think of ditti tent sorts ol representatives speking for dilterent pails of represents. or It represents.. Some are explicit, others in plied.
.
a of otu saried interests, in a more iluid way than the (nonetheless in short, they exemplify a number of the positions and characteristics which
eruriri) (iHe to dli metaphor can tapture. were set out in the discussion of the variations of representative claims in
nasa xpressed hi tenis in this list in their trongest iorrn, but they are Chapter 3. For the moment, I simply present the different types of claim-basis,
n.j as tcnc1erties tht r are considerable areas of overlap between The claims are grouped as follows:
ntative lainis hi the elected and by the unelected, as we have seen. 1. deeper roots representative claims,
ii inn. spn. rite etected ri presentataves, en a particular level, but in a
2. expertise and special credentials claims, and
mo ate St sin wi anilot choose no he represented by elected 3. wider interests and new voices claims.
p1. rita isis, oil a r tore erit ral 1ev 1 St it i inciple) compul
it it ii it iially d i not have In r lose unelected
out ievt ii. orb a lean v y ted to have
I unit ii, ni, (hoi s w k f irnelected 1
P
OCTS REPRESENTATlV CL S
lairs s itt ii ii is a the ion rather
n. of .pccmfic rej r Deep group morality and ties of traditu n
o intledive rq r e of
represnm ClOt I epres i a lye c ainis may be based on core aspects o a roup S I i
it act iii nt rein oreir a notion that the grout F a to u d
 I c tltt and the unejected The elected and the unelected
I a 0 1 i iv
d ii di ide I
ut on, eL LIOTCI vn issttude. Many iehgious ipresentat1ve daims take Hypothetical consent
mm ai (uatd i in ( ouiicd, which claims to lepresent the deeper A representative claim might be based on what people hypoiheti silly would
a I t it ii a S sL it S C pot fl I
ye ee t in, ft example, a state of nature, t r at original o o 1.
S (tiarduan ( ounLil is enshrined in tue post-1919 Iranian
claimant might assert that he represents the underlying interests of a group
anile o r as s 00 is i uies one being the vetting of nominated on th ground liv t the groups members would hay agreed to a cci di
I ti a e u o al 0 it s. b.c c re o i w f their i iterests in ideal decision circumstances. C in nig t a. I
.
ad daaii s baus imis be that constituted earthly authority is bound to Jo n
Rawis A Theory ofJustice (1972), for example, as offering a basis upon which
a pa nat nd on pta ise I n Si as d ep r ct des sfi orality som a political figure could claim that our deeper, note rational clv W ild 11
t a t t pa h bh o x sa o pe d) q it se at o i s gn p t( a certain, specifiable distribution of primary goods uci as
i ads na v on Shall at Iramat Muslinis, I low the claim is received by rights and duties. The claimant might argue that even if most constituents
ha i na Is ut or leai a wci fly afte ti pe liii I t mull had nver elkcted upon the nature of a just society in a manner n op s
ow it Ici pi id tta ek ho it ills of 00) Another a Ray is hought experiment, he or she could nevertheless represent con
S tnipL. a had at dii es r lii m and t siditian differenly, may be the
stituents interests at that level. Similarly, it is no error that the idect at
lii in a tie it id ha Iil Ta sk w aw d ii Ic f if d mo racy does n figure at all in that famed riposte o Sw s
I ho an I ci urn repr itt it itet sts ft 1 be ns is based c it m y
State and Utopia by Robert Nozick (1974). b have democracy, you need a
Ia ig ttachtions, owing nothing to election and much to a very special
legitimate dispute about the nature and scope of the structure and activities
is n up ii OL 0 a it a p p ic ar rd ,iou ) olE tb con. thu ed political authority. Within Nozick lib tier ii ftc
id vstt 0 work, there is no space for such dispute; the tasks of the state are set and
Mon inhs, of ourse inakt icpiesentatie claims based on tradition. incontestable. His is a vision of a polity derived (within the terms of the
a i r i. S it I flJ SC C I ns o arguir ent offered I r i) from a historical theory of its tine
a olitical powet within the Motocean onstitutionaI monarchy c ci
dtouIatu. evolution. ln general, then, someone might claim to speak flir others on
m he b iplv si iuuholn oruieet ions between rituals of royalty and th basis of the deeper interests of all on the basis of hypothetic ii a wisei a
t i ,I pi i a f I r a ( n I S i lb g
*d. A coth rent soft ol example would he the I-louse of Chiefs in
10 tsu na r shn wUch as I eu iani suggests cc nsist of traditional
ii i It ci vi hi n 1 C u b u e th t capacity, Permanent interests
i ci nu I 01 iOU i alec dun M nuh rs of the House of Chiefs would claim to
A claim based on the permanent interests of the state and of the people may
ix o it it i at Is I a hal an bar by ira ol the mp rtance of be put in particular by senior members of the pennanent civil service st
ti al it i x ui o cit er ii cii at I s nt al eli beii g. I he bureaucracy. 1 he status of senior civil servants varies a great deal from one
ac )[astfltativt clam hei is 1 asci around the ernheddedness of any politi country to the next. In the United Kingdom, for example, there is a strong
a a in i t Ii n al ir diii tat tru ur of ad rship and traditional culture of a neutral civil service that makes no repres ita m
lit) is \ll tin t ra n iS ny pol y, i mocraeies somewhere, claims, precisely because that would be acting politicaIly In the Unitcd
and thaw somawhervs will die i have non- or pre-democratic political States, by contrast, the civil service is overtly more political, being headed up
a ii S cli ii h di it s hi o c a dat cc istitU by poi tic 0 figures appointed ultimately and formally by the pres de
tiC nail -
even in systems that have bureaucratic traditions of neutrality, there is a
public service ethos that, at times, can lead to implicit or other representative
 he elected and the undected
anior hureauratj. Often, such claims WLII he to representative government. One might consider, for example, the musician
aim king ixi
prnu et a thv see it. the enduring or persistent intercsb of the state against
and activists Bob Geldof and Bono and their advocacy of third world debt
r r rr u y p es th or it. on deg u or lief ann i relief and poverty alleviation Such figures i ay n on ihu
all ics nil I we icr, ice 0 re resen nonnatior al interests on the basis of omi on F r i iar I t
ith thc po al ml n ,
link dc1 gatioli to istus, and ultimately to the legislature.
ii lines of
potentially also to represent the better interests of those in their home
Countries (or the West) whose actions are linked to the plight of mani ir
the o ith i wa that are not immediately ohviou. t the pco o i
[his ategory hu adens surrogacy beyond the positioning ol irrog ites I
L \Pl I 1s \sl SE 1 CEAL CRLl)FN11ALS
Mansbridge (2003) as extra-constituency claims made by elected representa
hi PRli I VI lVk (:1 AIMS tives) Oflc might cite, for example, Martin Luther King the uneiect 1 hr.
simile esp ed nd venerat d American civil nghts cader o ii 6
Rubinstein notes a range of transnational actors who act as agents fostering
Jaun nen be based on the possession of authoritative knowledge arising surrogate accountability outside electoral contexts (Rubenstein 2007
I U c 11 11 a si fla .11 icS it a
car s p SSt pt 1st pc C y cii onri nta
lenec), wh h losO m distinotive insight into potentially neglected or The word from the street
o iderp ned inter st ofthe group One might cite here members of a group
t. ( i i I. ed tcs cr cia in ma hr )ased m massive and tangible denionstraik I u
t .
suppc t, cspciall in contexts of ieasomiahle freedom of cxi rcssn U
a ic tilic this s ivl clan 0 to a t on he in crests of cit zens. Such
.
Jnns ccupv a difficult area between political and expertise roles (Hud example, two nullion people marching in a London demonstration against
i 1 1, 3 Cl ii s stan nih will I pe i1 in it o the c isten cc of Britain going to war against Iraq (without a second UN resolution) is i has
e ( ci d ( ci ) 1 6) to rpresc talive damis for those leading or addressing sudi cur t
a ci iv m n
bdi reUhn[zeu cxpu ts, Jot du political (.idllflS
tions o be representative of a significant swathe of public opinion ibecrhai i
ode I a OLl such as the I ( 5 will be representative claims, of course. 2003). In such a case, one could claim that she represents those opposed to
i eke jar ill tI in c ctl ci r optk i of the I aq w because she was a popular key speaker at a hug rail) i tI
iii cst nit di ied cc Ii ot ii poss sic r and issue \nother example might be a claim to be lepresentativi I i g up

bencise ot spcit1c forms of Si cialist expertise.
virtue of a large petition calling ft)r specified political action (Parkinsim
2004 I represent these people because they have explicitly supported rn,

view on this is Ut. [he notion of the word from the str et Pt
idea that the interests that are claimed to be represented it wig Ito
V1 R I \ LRLS IS IA I) NLW \ OICFS specific grassroots techniques or events.
Rk PP ESI N I AlIVF CLAIMS
Mirrormg
ip ro-niutatrve churn mae be based on the fact that an important perspectiw
Iii in I t I I ii n sic
, k cs silly due structural mi r )iLI claimi is based on descriptive similarity bet ccii I el nai
lb tb ins lu c igu noi A nyc it on1 d I u tout. i y he or he claims c speak or stand r, (
ut us is
 Ih I and he nut 1 he dertcd and the uncle t I
I ) 1[ ig cIa memo spent i ii ly rmed and still form the basm f cot apetmg d i i
he I ill t ht and ci tins xtlmticai repr sentation. Mu I depends as we I
r leg or La ho n U ucn icr a ortraycd, and as pall of ti at,
H nC ? poll laiski (I a cons t ted hr ugh rq mase itative claims
ii might a itorpm the p01 ki ig
ro a, aiii iegiti ii mm the raod I isis ol its selet 0 and
tmi L atmv art unit at its decriptise representation. Selection Extraterritorial rules and laws
can mit as ia TC moo Rae loin selection has a long history in the study
i dane t. at ant on uncut acromint suggests that elections are by their An extratcrratorial body or entity, for example an international court or aim
a d moc alma than random selection Manin 1997). in a quite agency of the UN, may establish laws or formal procedures with respect to
I t n a s. nun at m reprt s ntat hr iaini mas arise along the which its agents can make representative claims that hear on internal
to. )l sut \4 in
.mte ha /apatista y in matters w hmn a state (e.g. human rights regim icr) In such case isis
lit \lam r iii his not spa Ic can h idv ed regardless of the location of the v ouldbe (is it
k i a oRes i witS r s x aditio ially understood pomitmeal no maichmnes
ite xa upie the ase of the UN mandate amid its p
organ It us in Kosov r recent years em the rrpresen at I
being at r behalf the people of I) if ii by I. N and
since
Stakeholdim q
araa tans Jain migh debased on the nr lion that one stands tor or
alcs lot a group ill It lidS S inatetial at other stake in a process or a Se1frepresentation
tisnma and threIore has a right to have its interests included in the
ass. adure that c rpotatc stakeholdrs in deliberative and It is implicit in the role of political citizenship in an open society tht bs
Iacni Id itHO S an lit t rnial, as was the aise at the Johannesburg option remains open for one to speak for, or represent, ones own Lntei
a i nvm nd I level i s in 2002. in F annes ests, Political citizenship in democracy would be a hollow eatega r x
i t I pot I as 1 labor uoup if it did rot encompass the idea that in a range ol ways and n a r t
our ci w xc mnattcxs citizen ould rightly attempt to represent th mselve U
as d t iii d F r lions one oftem L cars that my voice is not being heard or represer a
Ia oHtld w em rn it s o d r a allen pt to n ake good the perceived shortfall The ii tion () nd
item oneiluc dmcai visit a new ton t un y lied olic live action is o re evocative dveioi ment of n
aoolmm mnmial and t I Interests S LI se discussed in d tail in (see Mieheietti 2003).
Ii psi Rhums to rejira cut or speak for h irnan comnsunitieo.of-fate It is worth reminding ourselves that of course elected actors> tOO rdfl amid
ros national baundar es mac he another example. These examples, often enough do make representative claims which parallel the ry pes on
o C u a,, ins am a m ,tdical deconstrut tion of our received ideas of what a this list. Candidates for and occupants of high elective office may atmemnpm
Oiitit1 On is. and ran very quickly probe the limitations of our to evoke deeper traditions of a countrys religious or ethnic makeup
tills Cli 101 1 otabtd,irits )t tpfesentatloli and enfranchisement tGoodin (or factors such as the supposed British tradition of fair play j, mac
991 lit or lit ii s I bI can he lived, non Ii mtorial, address iar e rallies and modi the nature of their representatmv a iii
 II It d I ti on Iv te The elected and the unclected
Ihe econ I key den cut, and the on th t I lo us upon tom t mci tin
o duu s. or mat Lam to speak for t se interusi of mime generations
o n si uun aomai II a H oman Lonstituel ts. There arc, as noted, der of this chapter, is to look at certain patterns of reception ot claims iii
a r t1 Vt p n we lai i a th oi mi rar political world This qu stior i clearly iink o t i
a is i
d on hi ye yr so n it cO clai is n id nticl to, he qi cstio s of what might make c eirn dcii otto all
Ito to i H ui agat t t ii This, and some unelet ted actors
are well placed legitimate. What are some of the crucial filters through which obset sers
t I ftct re nOt ye urn wh re ti )SC hunt kick in In of claims, including importantly those implicated in claims and subje i to
P 1 ii i, it I r a <a it g Sst Cl 1 S t icr s, iter1 i t p esentat ye claims
1
oa ti ouLh dl thss types of ia, in one way or another.
the Dai With respect to claim reception, close attention to the inipaLt of claims
pr sitio tug nonimees the isserted parti ular character of Tibet as
over time and in their context is crucial, One advantage in deploying the
It it ii i Ii p p p 0 Ic 1 hi ly
c on b sed p c ich t representath n is that it travel w H
a
is al sx.tinl P at Is as Ott. tIn I huit sc <cc upatiot
ol I e1 i s 1958). di lent g politica cul ures. As Chahal and Dabs (2006) an Sc after
St tite ot he nienib us of a large crowd at a political rally
051 m oi its
(1998) have shown, the nature of representative claims varies widely
[1 ci ss is s v th I os aro a oss iffer it political cultures (consider the ontr ist [ciwer t w at i
o I) Ito. ito dii in ci ens S I tn in o. opt oti 01 me an 0 1 present politically in Nigeria nil i Swede i ac ci
en o ttgc of sttw prrttuent 1 ditisl questions. lhe orator at the rally Chahal and Dabs t. The notion of the representative claim does not arm
ii I p en Ny v iii, pIi tly i other wise nvoke a with it any strongly discernible vestiges of westoirn-centric bias kept sen
u at is a d gre to ive louis perate in and across all cultures, dcmoc rati t c on i
as r in Lu- p. en 01 tsen Ic or sh will often a portrayal of a ciatic, liberal and non liberal.
ii d o u of P siotta or salues ion this issue). 1-Ic or
oup tb ti
lhey do not involve prior stipulations as to just what tYpes of reboot
r ii tv o I it s trn. cy ships tnt as re rese station in diftbrent contexts Nt r de es th io is
the representativ claim carry inbuilt assumptions as to how P nOt
tives must act, or just what sort of relationship they must hear lossaid
1
cm t politmr vp sen
stmtueiits and a id.ie ices, All it assuts iniLially C th
0
tation is a dynanuc relationship that rests on divers 1)011 ri s I n
iii dl s I P110k 01 NktLL(.ll\h making and claim-reception.
I LI 0 NTsF1VF \1IS Cultural context clearly will have a strong impact ott boss clii Os and
Ja nsan s, or received Indeed there will be many and varied i
051 c ten Os mua a as to cisc aepiesentatise Lidi Its OS there are ssays representatise claims may be positively or negativcls recetsed, mitciudang
tine n ii cm 1iz lion must be done with care. The types of such factors as the physical attributes of the claimant, accent, and timimie,
x npk f Never hOe s we in apture a good deal about thc way ii w ich r
s iv it i t
5 t dent 0 oss tt at d ii an S a 0. isol I, ci c ave dat Os.
,
s ntalt e claims a e received by attending to two broad i mdc (to 0. V
5\ Hat s,tO 0 5 iS oh cit hos rids Linus may he received? There are
two lion, one centered upon authorization, and the other on authcntmciis
Recipie its o cloms will often look to see if a elaintant i pea to
-
11 Iii en sat ii t ike cpr s ntative
-
I- i I I
Ii s I sacy 1 i t is in mc way a ithonzed to make (these) claims, aslung, or XOl i
,
ii H ss cr1 o its
t alt eg
<sue I defer o of H ot representation and democracy
iii analysis something about their institutional positioning that lends them a sense ol
nt
being authorized? They may also look to discern authenticity ths
It 0 P 1.1
laini i t w i th y presen themselves to be d the ni 1
 ii elected a,iil the unilecd
iitd ii Ic rlu nnr, Irue or is t ie lainiant channeling somebody Muller, and Strom 2000, 257). On a standard interpretation we might
nter sts, 1 s iii brieth discuss authorization in terms of specify five positions in an ideahtypical line delegation: ,a) from voters
of
ii, rid id lii s o epe e. t legi lators, (b) vithi i legislatures, (c) from legislator cx i t yes
he ii I, 41 V 11 vi lilt c e nIne , nd (c) I on cxc utives to bar auea i s (/ d e
ii i
o to is ,ind ms u n ont peet is wide i read e vie
,
homas en 2003), An inelected representative laiman might inticit t
I it would be epresci tat ives aught to be diii) authorized, Independence a positive reception by asserting his or her position within such a chain of
a d1ls )t g I uintiie 5 at chosen attachments and positions, and formal democratic delegation, most often within the larger structures ut
iw I s i se
Ni hat Id I ires tive ght be ublic imager mt and administratio n, or tI c ivil vice i d pi b
C a mc t tat cy b emlautononious but aevertheles a p is
liii oh pliw us ii cot ctioi 1
ghti he I henri of r itional r otbe establis ted bureaucracy. This mode of claim presto
as wilhn tertan ibrriaI and oitorni structures, which connect tion leans on the deep acceptance across a range of political systems arid
Lfl I 1 lIst it itloivi n we that may holster a sense that thex are cultures of the elective principles underpinning the idea of the chain of
ii h d i s M ih us ode1 d 5 itt ghliyh in pt r 1 d legati i. It dep nds also, in specific cases, en the per ived i reveil
I a I II Ill ( I S ) trail t ti i ii lekgatron as an ef eetiv se ic oun at i
1 c
d is s di I ut des di ter d q ion. lint a ye Ii kage
IN VII lI c;ifl Ieiflttth e a positive retptiori ot the claim.
I the claim embedded in a larger democrati syste ?
F kstem once irgued that it did riot matter if pressure grout s yea
s will he concerned with the dangers
mtemally democratic themselves so long as they were operating within a
NI ,tl 5 Iit Ills (It, eprsd1thatJve clam
broadly democratic system and context (Eckstein 1960). Similarly, for em
sf disconiiected, loose cannon, md unaccountable claims. Connection to
mat st uctures nay rn t lerate and
ample, a defense of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom has beet
non I iven iat[y 1 tonal nstit
mounted in th basis that it remains subordinated to the elected I m
I rv c A v i ii ai ii er[reted
mel e ci are r net ted n (ommons n terms of the passage of legislation The alternative s are
si I mip h 0 ent hit
potential positive reception for claims like those of some members of the
oil am: tear is ass is lilt ciectis c instil uti ins and personnel can lead to a sense
House of Lords arises, curiously, through the reflected glow of electoral
lautburization that can lead to a imire positive reception. With connection
processes. The acceptability of this version of connectedness as an influence
titer n kc i c stio i that Inn rec r ut nts e in and do ask.
,
on the reception of claims may depend on the acceptability of demot acy
diffuse i. well a. an nistitutiomspecifie quality of an overall syst i
i)OS the claimant occupy a position in the line
of democratic delegation?
Is a representative claim made by an actor who is locked into
10 1 lOt SCI hat at it S 101 leleg ito ii a tigh or dense network of organizational or other lili tres?
It n i u i se i tried
nla1 ohIo. d is 1 incip ) cm Iion y desi i ate
1 ices onnectedness h re is more informal, invoked as an emc gent I r petty
igeitts to make sJt decisions in their name and place (Bergman, informal alliances among a range of people and organizations. One might,
 1 he 1 lee ted and th o wi ted
,r c CJ114 IC, iiiiik 1 teflflS of the thit kites Of the cobweb of LonflCiiO11S of money or backing to others then they may carry an air of utarni d
h eIlos 11 ninlm es (toe) an (lsei 99, 2 l)ene n ss, wind ca a add redibility to their rcpresentative claims Of dowse at
n I j ut to tin (iF dii 00 I a a positive reception of claims manner of individuals and groups might be perceived as untainted n sub
ii n e Ca si ii ci ii it it cc a )u II fi ar 1 ca s they v ay It h case of a number of unelected repiesentative claim nt, ti
y a
s iu ii u sti 1111 Ii Cc
in ways ha are a lal )0US to dector ii present themselves as andlor be perceived as untainted because they do 1101
0 10 II X 11 I 01 ? ) i s
i rtici[. ate i wcin ne at or state institutions and pioceduies It i t ci
SVh ii h on d In non k indpendenec and acouiitahihty are a sense of independent untaintedness in itself we are interested in here, but
ii a hi r lit ui t
1 n 0 cv o h ti ii di ow meth di r h rr pr eitatve laims hatmay nvokeinte est wli 1, o t
e
lii a) iv ad. no so liv ovisihi Stalut ry ohjcetives, proc.c of nay ear[ier discussion, are marginalized or excluded under the present
11 0. UI ii its ui vi i Ifi ly a d q n p1 Ic a 1 S ru or o op r tion of ci ctoral politics i 1 4 U tail
cc i cx p
lii i( 1115 r Ion [or lug )V 1 iterest po api even loten agency rivalry mode of reception can be explored through key questions.
t. i I lu uue I Ii a ei a. C i SI 0 0 U Iii I w id only need to
-it. iC11C \hrn 1 e Uskol v orks piogeI y iv one controls an
i u Ic ic In ayeiucs
1 0 e under en ro1
is
is ti e laitu nounted independently o ft ru 1
ai /ot Ui U I OK au 1 ii Iwoit histories can have wide social acceptance election processes?
ii mu in ie tr dv un n ne we ks toi cx ni Ic wi re dc
1iU aC flOt ILv C sJ1 prononc nt, ol as broad as the representative claims 1 (a I ci nit as right hat parliamcntary dena craey nyc lv d h
toot own Ic dcii onehinles make Appre pristeness may be a factor here embodiment of a certain principled unprin cipledn ess I Ankeri mit
n .u deep iii a g veii ociet he cc tam netw srks opclate how far are 2002 98 9), then clected members must be prepand C iig tia
t. i
thy s p tiC of the e tied and c istinetive political history or tradition of that compromise, and to that extent be unprincipled; and if this very pie
ii ui ts lvi he r e I 14 it Ill d t C cate it I V lie i a gi en set If pared aess mus be held as a principle, then perhaps tlirv. is I v s ic
a t inc i Ipos cv sigiuficant numbers of people in the relevant popu for positive reception of representative claims that are based on a sense iii
ii n i la 01 at I is ef r g a ii so I c nader itlon in indepnden e )oes Jisinterestedness, in the older sense 1 h v ri
o I en up Oc ics I agi hi 20 Xi, 111(1 Ii is written , the legitim acy of (where it iloes not naean uninterested but rather unbia sed detach
Ii i t p is iF ii I r n is g u i ot sin ply a
,
nient) sonietinae requile independence of electoral pressur El t a
er .11 0 ii ci in cii
ii opt se ala ive icr but of hew effe live they are as plessures, it is sometimes argued, press those subject to them to look to
ii lv o h C ii pl of n di n e at Ii f oc1 i te st
e C CL
short term and parochial interests, Increased widesprcad dikilu lv v
elective institutions and elected officials across many countries pate ntialls
deepens such perceptions. i)isinterestedness may require apparmi >n
asserted distance from these pressu res. From anothe r angle, being in
mliii Pt Nl)i,N( F elected representative forces one to address rhetorically at (east

a
wide array of oncerns more or less all at the sonic time. I hi. re iF
so IC i Hi p en it yh ed in no r ( n rae ice hi two modes bundling of issues may seem to do disserv ice to strongl y felt individ ual
i, p > r .iv e e a p d it. b ye nodes CC flU fiS a ad iv nce Li grounds to argue that
i. ndected i i e i
In or Ii ii vqir I a id Opposite category to those of connection. tives can stand tor or speak for or champion such concerns effietivelv,
111 Ii iF I pe cc VC a di let i Ic
UI bet l I n to other We could add claims to represent intensities and singularitis at e u.
en on in their iiViCt1Ofl , and t
nothmg troubling in terms
wing that get diluted in the structures of formal representation.
 liic eitcted iuid the unelected The elected nnd the unelected 1 09
perceivcd in term )f major social movements that sc k to forcc S1 st tin
ci fin tate a ratus?
to liv UI to is w s Id aIs, Supporter of a iii ni r of i new
d t u t apr sesac iovc e lai net s hen iccept that dcliberatioi wit sir c I h
Jo I state at ti is to strue S Enperativ s hat forums i beco n scierotic if t is not subject t ) pi saure it. wa
at si it on oliss svctu LU v iii the interests of its citiztns. Dtek througi outsides activism and dissent (Young 2001.
iii11 h I) argues that we an step back and ask whether democracy does
d reciusre nunS ug heads. would argue that a logically complete
10 1 itt1 \ 1st 5 nase ii. a c OniC )tualLsatiofl of intersubjectiv e communi
CON C LU SI () N
into publi r is ter of ontest of dis rses
1 tic s ii f1s
s ih ch tic s ye c mpared a number of a ccts of c
i
151 C ii tO rega ii OS of
nonci v reprcsei tative claims, set out an indicative set ty es o
et on cit h ostc i tie degs r an )t sarrow es and
nonelective representative claim; and discussed briefly two stylized
o-i rpr ssion, indtpmdence tarn potentialls extend to an array of actors
modes of reception of such claims. These discussions have drawn on
visn usa 1 make cepresentativc clainis; for example, under conditions where
notions of the cultural availability of resources for claims, the strategic
s se ci ate is mopolise s the conventional forms of political communication
plausibility of claims, the creative capacity of claimants, and the impor
ci regulat forms of 15th cap aon, it be c rues possible for
lance of perform,i ces when it comes to what may work and wi at iv not
sic otl rut sum ershi legit nated by
in cia in- ii akir g
U C S L I a)OUS)Vet
In he light us analysis, we might also ask if tiC (lie
a Ia t i a be str g thi far o suggest
rethink of the sta is of elections and voting with ogard. to Ic crati
h t ecta shed Un s icia sometimes display analogous monopolies, and
representation. Perhaps the primary democratic contribution of elections
that positice reteptions of claims may play off that tact.
lies in their contribution to the extent and quality of public deliberation,
Snirlarly, copl can do it for themselves (Bang and Dyrberg 2000),
over and above their role as the core medium of democracy or a key
airuu udi vidit ii ed c ollecU ye aclioi e in new and innovative ways
guarantor of genuine representation. Constituenci are es no Ion ci only
itsid mont of ti aoral i s (Mi 1 ti 2001 for
ingular, ci ritorial fixed, and possessed of transpalcr t inter sts athe
i as r d d iv ocra ic
cons it scm y is fi ud, functional and cultural, permanci t o r
iet it is a u art ration c nes
within or across borders, evoked as well as given. If w rccogni this fact
ight t ike rep tativc us for c elf and tiers
we may recognize also the inevitability, even the democratic necessity, of a

bus i flu IcSS than oie component of an adequate conception of
wide array of other, nonelective representative claims in complex contena
colitical citizenship. Do hc people c}aimc ci Sc) be represented not have

porary democratic politics. Elections could be seen as one in a chain of
or an ade eaSe coicc in democratic opportunity terms in
factors that provide us with a context in which representative claims ate
c I ira 5 I
hues what v do kno y ditferer ases, do certain
made aid receivcd, Elections may he a basis on which officials an speak
iii a a ii of ig I p k for
Ior tier -, But I c structural and other onstraints on ci i w
ii at i go i i dq enu as
limit fu rt to speak, or as well to speak for inte ests wh SC so
nod CCI I cliii $ rut cd iv s aris g I run
configuration, and sewness might squeezi them out of (present) ectoral
ccnJfa its attending urty based and tcrritory4sased state structures of
consideration. Here, authenticity arises as an underlying basis for non
lepresentatiOn. I )isscntirig activism can he conceived, and often enough
elective representative claims that may be potentially attractive to claim
 )U)( tcs and intervent 01
(111110 diii 1 C he
W r( yR 010 hese
s opu ii 10 a kin 10, with
iurh1ui/ iioo st ibm n leaders I IC y e 0 itury is a time of serious and v
whk in ih 4 ir train n ri for a greater t ci ig Ii I t resentalion, The representative cl i f
il in nedni a i i an ihenti& i v i d of non dec in pie a k searching questions of existing styles ol mnaly s t
s iitatnin m ui1 r \ Ii ii that more sys same tin c e can take advantage of the fresh angle it offers t I I
fltCilt 100 10 iii lh1pt I ssu the democratic existmn 1 ativc accounts. In this chapter, 1 aim to do a lilt e I
0 api au. U dl is uainis 15 [101 s 1 iLli a 4UaStiOfl of authuri deploying tools and perspectives set out in the previous Lhapters 10
.nra ta ni o rheni ailS and independenLe, hut rather explore some crucial debates on representation today.
on odsiup har iie Oclund Prose and other reception modes the tdct Three key debates form the focus of this chapter: (a> the representatiol
eptJIUo. 01 omirmahu1i P dauns over tim b appropriate consti of nature, future generations, and nonhuman species; (b) the substantu e
c1l 111501 a him liOm000s. representation of women; and (c) political parties and representation.
These debates matter; each is or is rapidly becoming a point of tension

and some controversy, not least, for example, due to the continuing
underrepresentation of women in our democratic systems, the apparent
decline of political parties, and the strength of new representative claims
that the green movement has put onto the political and intellectual
agenda. My goal is to work critically but largely with the grain of certain
existing arguments in these areas in an attempt to add something ness
rather than taking anything substantial away. The key question is what carl
be added by the broadening and shifting of perspective that the represen
tative claim framework brings? Can the promise of greater illuminatior
from depic yil g this framework made in the books Introduction 1
R1 N P
3 1iI( ALl HEORY AND TIlL ( HAl
10 REPRESENTAl ION
have mph ted i (hapter especially, the fact that o II i
and u tural s iscs of epresentatlon so often kpt apart by a i
 1 )eba ic in ii it wrvr ntwn
1)cb ztes and nter entioi
in lot ire hn ugl t ii gether withu the in tie i ot the represen-
course in practice the proxies might come up with other ones. I hew Ciii,
41 i. ,ii i n nil r I r p lit al he ris I we d its d istitu arc ii the ni s rcatio xl, o preferred representatio s.
ii aiio h etunil niod i o represeiitation, which might inject the lh a m 11
,
political and not just theoretical creations; they involve particu
ml i sts I futui no aliens ,u d n mhuni in nat ire into the heaai of lar Ian us
.
ab ut wh t am imals and future human generations intuit s nit r
mis n iv pi ill ( ii ai cul u of sum (1 9( u ice itra e iem
). they ought to he construed. And they may play a role 111 making a imes
iii 9t CO piilitnal thtorv reprcsentatlons of nature constructions of potential political constituency visible, of defining it through repr scm tot on
0 ii ,i am o Cc I e i. 1 0 55 na t it al iii Ci CS ckers cys essay Dehheiatuve demo racy, reprcsentat om an d m
o in t on o r toi 1 kim h so of iher phenom ena ale aesthetic
,
(2000) is an account of the limits of conventional represe ntative macbin
r ii is u ilL a it ii it a I we ir me t. i r H Ci tn ry ii h fr e I prcssmn ecological problems am d d mind e v
i h miom 1ctr-d ntituens i solves rreatmons of the same sort). What
offers depictions of entities that ought to he represented politically bun are
ifl hi sit meaton till u al out ht v n ito e in p ilitically h repre ented t not given tlic 11mm of current thinking and institu t on nt it m rm
a uk h I) ha mm, I lit tek, I ckr sley, m id O( din exanuned .
Lions and other species form communities of fate, whiih have th 1
hen an opIustir auth green mm iques of conventional representative deni
potential to be harmed by political decisions and indust iai pr Cl its
r iii II 0 11 is V a n s g q rm n ss 0 rio IS iflr hc re ers o me concerns and interests om durferently-smtuatecm crr em o
eomcrsio s iii ever sri ilest theists cuirernngWh)dOeS the
adopting the standpoint of differently-situated human and non-human
rio it g 1. y Lu id n t n w cv 0 do 1 W liC I
iros iiiq luations 1w how we look at
t r ( 000, 8 -9) Therefore they are interests ha oug1 t
polit al represe ntation and its represented within our political structures: future genera
-,
sat ntmal. I th ii tie an ac on t m 1 hr w the repr ser tatve laim
tions and other
rspec pecies cannot represent themselves, so they must he represent d
tive im mu h In us 0 old cm th b dy of work. s m
other way. lhe mamn challenges to representatives being able to mniagmnr
I )ol,soi iii okcm a spcek s as having interests, which might adcquatel these interests, she argues are epistenmological and nionvat us 1 7 hr
o q ,citc we a u 7 t mc ii this )[ o dim xl ts irvval cpastemological challenge is how to know, to recognize, those interests
vii 1k cii hi g 1990, 1 37). 1 nt ii qucstio i o wi ich an nuils arc to be
An institutional mechanism that can help us to meet this challenge i
o it o io r I b n v ii 1 a i tv the in tIn mandatorj vtin of the environment neporting 200), 2 . a
hi i,ii by of mnm ral eicoiilemabilitv, which his proposed special parlia
mechanism might recognize a new and distinct set of interests, to
ii -no S i pr set tat v 10 in oh mm ii of ml he pr xic should

might ay) make thenu visible. So, what we arc offered h i s i a
deb.tc and decide to polat cal 01 poSims. finally , he olk s us a reprcstnta though not the same, as with Dobson. There is this set of interest-hearing
iion of bit cc genera tions, people who will exist and who will want both a
entities (referent) with a (difficult to discern hut present nonethel ss sit
0 ii ii miii it my mit ii d ie ox ib ity il iti ymrg hem of interests (object), which politicians and bumeaucrats (the intended
o im r 7 19 ti 37 I m si )rt hire rim rq rcsenI Lions of anothe r
,
audience) ought to recognize.
(I i. 0 5 0 1 C Cf ii 1 [ 11. 1 II 0 Li em cii. iNC now turn to some brief comments on discursive a ud deecntraim n, im
cc hi say ehoor, a sail h iw to man sOLute eonstituencies The theorist
challenges as exemplified in works by Goodin and Dryzek. Ihese authors
14 1 p i- IN 0 p w pa ha mci tar nit nit lit liv s r rr ing bicrar
offt different types of argument to that of Inckersley bu ir ilin i i
and t1omashn roncimtioims assumptions (subject) as defining and
arise nonetheless.
,ta idmg I r the ii cds of minim us and of future generations (object) with
Goodin too seeks a way to put natures interests ontc ti pint a
mc to tnt oaf am i its med I tur p epic ( cue emit ft cc nsumptuon
agenda of decision-makers. He builds a comiception of demncoraLy ii
w loon, ii p ilit cal aui ice e Laud enee). fbi. assumptions about flourish- which the internalization of the interests of others plays a centm ml p ut
ma t em I r lot tm i u ge o I avon I Ic bu o Interes s, whatevem themr source and whoevem or whative I an tim mc
 )ebo cc and interve, twin,
In this spirit, I now offer brief comments on these innovative (into of green
toufi he is presantad. it thcir hearers cannot represent their own inter
s, ih n a notion 01 interest cue ipsulated by others who can, becomes thinking with respect to the subjects of claims (especially the institution
e[ h. ,i C Si It at n ral be ha olj tiv I zat m of iew forms f claim) the bject of lainis sp lily lit
Ill 1 i uc is crc e gh lv nst t liv md r terest invoking ehara let) he inak of ii iii
I I ,
>rcstnted us! as ans others ((996, 837). So, (some) values the audiences of claims.
t )ltIlc illS re
f 1
, ii. 1. it e ,ir giscn regardless of human recognition. Two, and probably three, of these green arguments highlight tin nced to
iy 1 1 1 1 s U instil it onal i ti wbjut I representative claims ft r to ii id u
C p
0 iflco SI ii d c inn .flc a on thc idea ncr ions Dol on explicitly, and Goodir imi icitly see Ire sed
cv iou it
oldie ii tilt ehanislil, I)ivI.k seeks to deepen and extend radically the parliament as the locus for the subjects who are to represent nature.
lii .1 5( 5 pol a1 inn im ion cek g, I cxi nple Fckersley ses the value of a new form of public body, which we mId
I di I b c n ila a. 000a urohably s e s a ariai t of the nondepartmental pu[ Ii bod I I
s no! on1y a sOUfct of interests, which are affected. In the form of the environmental defenders office. My argument is that we
ito, l eves nature u an afelit too, it s not passive. inert, and plastic can take their points but broaden them. We are accustomed, in the \est at
c iii V 1, oil iv in v I ii ni f ( lOOn east, c ccci ig pontical representation as necessaril tin tion i th ugi
WI us or iv iii, ca. uc d icc atu in boll p ci ty c irganiza ti ins I i part this is aiguab it to e cc
hess ,ass. ihf I)osiek the key tot taphoi here irrvolves listening we representation as a phenomenon that exists or operates because it is
t oe lsta-i to s giials stud! ating from the natural world with the same
formalized and located through being embedded within specific institu
a n Ii 06 i or nizatioiis The representative clam approach rer idc tim
1 1 Ic I C. l n ii uf
(2 NOOn, 49) t prescntat n o ighi t be seen as a social dynamic an e cot eh iii
is it! i q iu .(iil Cat at ii erpi atu
I cc uks a aou i muses on lo i he political institutional corollary of all an institutionalized fact (a presence> there is nothing wrong with seeing

is (. a I ii II stat a v ki w is s cur train d by anti it as the latter just as long as doing so does not prevent us from seeing liii
vt a s 1 15 r r tFr on a i o i many, dynamic representative possibiliti M y dif c
I ii h 0
c sea, a td t fror
cc iIat o whin tile sta,e are o differer
1 ,
1 pes f peogle .od bodies can, and do, present tenisdees r g pie
7
t
r stat.. per Uio cl in this respect. Accordingli, Dryzek adopts the sented) as subjects for representative claims. In looking to the represents
at n ii i he e igi p ci nit hoc pro not lion of natures nterests, we do well to resist the impulse t e
s 11 airt I 1 r human institutionalization as n ore important than the attic latmo I in
d Ia (a 01 cc Irc
niri ilmants ot the !iologicai surroundings that sustain theni (2000a,
fhere can be value in a broader articulation including in the eontesta

inc miss tioir hetscen listening to nature and living in close lion involved that goes well beyond the institutionalization of a parlicu
t e ig I s Ii lost lar ye non a cia in, The concept is rich enough to point us to lai an
r .i wI
rio Ut I h to c v to tact oh rtic ar a i eel, of th (cos Sten p actices w II b yond traditional parliamentary represci ath a
Old ilieteto e n a a uch bettei position than distant managers or politi I indicated in Chapter 4 in particular. Animals can be engaged with,
ic i v lit ii OO( ih looked for, traced, understood, and appreciated in new ways by hiunans
2 tI it U w g d r highly opening ui ther is lves to new ways of reading and wnt ng e c
afresh e.g., llmnchliffe ci al. 2005). Hut to do this is to tap into new ideas ofwhat it
nIlt diet a. Whdi I s rut ti show is that by looking at these ideas
thotih die lens of the representative claim we can reinterpret aspects of means to represent, and to make representations, in the senses of both
n w 11 ci ti cc ii n an na call valuable v hat it can nvolve and who -an do it,
iii g t. i t th n in on mc hil ac oat r mg hen
 )d ate id fat rventu in
in. ii w tu he 1 t of lums he ol eeL of a reprcsentatl e claim makers. The referents materiality (along with its cultural trai sing)
ot Lsnrsc, diLle rent from the reierenL Whde I do not suggest that conditions the range of what can he said about it, and makers and subjects
is i siinn umni trued above oLlapse the two I do suggest fabricate subject and object within that range. But that leaves plenis ot
I in i hi ni tI e I inct or scot for np ing presen aflon o en strut t cr ii ft
s t Ic n iii oh; ar on a ou $
u il : h r cCts and LS arc ortratals or depiLtions of a referent Ihere is a second key point to make with respect to the obiects of
iher than omcthusv that captures the essence of a referent. Using representation in this case, and it is closely linked to the first The
in that t al ivan c a pol ally hausib , thes repr entatv cia in approach holds that identity in repr eno in i
ii r a i , atu C, uth t ci r it e hai authci tie, and that it s r ssa fly pa a
I mt ii I r pe Ii an P cIa r sing t I he nsti ucnts arc, seic five) gain, this is a point of emphasis rather than one of con edit
L\ niuph pcace hsvmg peoplo They may well be; but potentially they lion or direct criticism of the green arguments discussed here. Using, hr
ii lss be ich r o rc btsides Representation runs in (at least) two example. Eckersiet s terms, I am suggesting that the imagination or
ii h Liv ak at ti ne Ic ituen y enla oed hinkii , of her subjects, the lected representati s, he
hi it is it ast Sn It p1 ci s by uu beyond Lfl r sic in nown g by liscover what is already c e Li
n repiL eniaiis es \atnrc flier en are constituted through the interests of future generations), to actively evoking one or more potential
JIai too is that launs convey, and those claims are inevitably partial and versions of what may be there to be represented again, a Irocess of
oil lain reading in interests, rath r than reading off
a fi oi peal) h Ve sa c seen how powerful the temptation is fo al is e
I ci sIr I ek h st up it s in ilka id cc therative political th rists are hardly the exception to seek to break the ound
ton v ()[slI (orndiit analysis suggests that there are objective interests aries of representation, to find directness, engagement, contact, and am
nalule thai sul ts ire in erineiple capable of grasping tout court, even thenticity, as I have suggested Dryzek does. However, because we cannot
w ily en n res crc con p etely or escape representatio ns in cultural and aesthetic senses t is a p sitive hin
ts u ci , a in it h
1 Irjri gi i yohiL
iw that radical yolitical efficae d a Ia
Inc c a id e 1 rest e. arise in I )ivzekh at gumeni He explicifly require such an escape. Representation is a rich concept, and it can icadils
nrnne tine listening to natures signals) aspect of democracy from encompass the mutual constituting and indeterminacy present in all
nit at asp ,tt) I and sakes u clear that unlike the relations between one who represents and one who is represented and
II Ic a s in e ti i doe net indeed it sin uld do so, a cording to the arguments I have offer d hi upt
ye It e mc st.ed the tern lid s of p tics actc (2000a, out the hook
hut the n sediatnon that produces contestable ohects of representa Turning to the makers of claims, the representative claim perspective
en is ,ni gue. UIICV( idahie prompts us to revisit what the green theorists, for example, are doing. This
ss I su kv the tin rue I th een argumer ts, is not a point about the content of their arguments but rathe hei
Is s u t .s ntp s r nocitinning as w iters. rhey do not offer their depiction c
o ns, iv re .he repi entatt e is a recep or or reflect on claims explicitly (implicitly, probably and reasonably). But that is what
f same primary oI,jcci or person r gi oup. Real things, people, animals, they are. like Rawis in A Theory of Justice (1972), they oiler claints that
ci sp it cx i I h re ci no e nubi, limited sets of ways in which become politically or deliberatively available through their offerings ihey
b or
ist e In ik of he provid claims that can be picked up, disputed deve oped, mol in
t r vail nr xl 1 Ian Inty res es by d by deplo ed, By for r stance yoking the idea of the app eiato (lo e s)
 )ebeitcs and intervcntiotis Debates and interventions 119
ic l) tI t oil ,oliiit. I il such rcciativ a d others, to ay that thc etficacy of making nature vu ble throu in
Ii r etaph ica epr sntation can he teased out and cit d by t
Ii I. vi Li cut ntrast v ti another others We could sa ti at urrrask ig n F
H lilt I it ic or a claim i iatively ai d hat fac hiatt. envin nmental destruction i, all he mor asy wh ci
ituali. re mp ant But his ub)Lction misses the key point. natives can be evoked or created or deployed in argument (it is fortunate,
\ hat these wrir r do
c
make visible the object, nature, Visibility is e.g., that by the time the former premier of the Australian state of
mseiltial to folItiai at ilnitcraIia or deliberative availability of value Tasmania described the franidin River, the proposed damming of which
tl uisp Sm Iai i rovoke c thers, or get worked on by
.

provoked a major environmental dispute in the early I 980s, as a brown,

sell isitiv ical v t is i nun 1 1 ech-ri Ida litch e c was a stro ig environmental in nient t ic
10 I alter ia iv images uid portrayals of it. wild iv r aid s i i
Pt uI it i c ni erie ilal ty 3 w Id err s. ore g icraily). We might ite the imaginative c v
unu. His d tv i to look the well ig of hi e generations) metaphor as a contributor to processes of reflective democracy ( odin
a .aa 1 c r tmed and d.pluved tOat is of value. For example, Dryzeks 2005), where citizens and politicians are invited or induced to reflect upon
a gunitia aivtut lutt ii.iiig to ndture is something of an ice-breaking argu the interests and needs of human and nonhuman others by dXOSU1C to
a i a it offr a a a and uinpdiling nietaphoi that is now deliberatively, provocative depictions and accounts. In my limited way here, I have
ti uly latile oointed out how gre r political theorists thmselves off potent i ta
,inc v I oft ors with cii pditical resonance These wr teas pity 1 as 1
II s c i I nytcr 1 U vokers nd nderers o what was not sufficiently visible Only ii d
rut bout au vadtc meai speak i o v iere olitical theory conceived as divor ed from its lassical as a
ii uv aan listcc rcpletc w tn intert its that are comparable to our site for legitimation of political orders (Simons 1995) would this he
is ii and a sd of tort s demanding our attention and deserving our perceived as a problem.
spc i. In sI nit, what ye have gained from these writers are metaphors, Finally, a further element that the representative claim approaLh
ta t i aaI iii polit ii prescriptian. These are prompts us to add to these accounts is the role of the audience in chums
i fbi ii nts, ticahly n pelling uid I he point can be made briefly. Where representative claini do not e Is
i i I ide? to evoke or suggest or address an audience there is an implied dc
itt, an fl ii ig w ent ublish d as kudien e w 11 judge claims; what conditk ns would hc ai PP U
it ai L y, dim in tact ighlv it sticated I in of political audiences o judge this set of claims? The audience remains imo taut
a ttiiliCiit, e home for which ultimately tin a well-functioning democ despite its apparent absence from these arguments. Questions of constit
cigl it to he the cut and thi nsf of daily political life, in the parlia uency and audience judgment, so crucial to the question of what the
tarv p0 tic or rep >enti1 tori to he sure, but well be 1 ond there to the present analysis of representation may mean for our ideas of democracy,
i don mal ai formal tical sp where repre will be considered in Chapter 6
lit (1 ud I i. wet s 1 i sun I suggest that, when viewed through the lens ii the re
,

t ye clami these authors are doing more than they say, and in sm s
di n i om s. iki ng c naki piesen is of n tire d fferent as well as additional things. Once we can see that, obseive or
a cruda ilvel, this erlaps with a the more the better view is a
audiences to their clainis can build on what they have conceived and made
positni thing for saiiou,s reasons. We might adaiit J. S. Mills argument deliberatively available. New conceptions of interests of nature (objects)
vial we an nis know the rightness of one argument by testing it against can be refined and contested and deployed with these new arguments in
 1) alC a 0 in tirut atiot I )ebiites and interventions I I
play, i won iarrowl he fenun t terature ard the broader lit ralure ot present 31
v OfllC h nc ii 3 c thui a aetie 31 resoure is I as
ia fleular s i c tin The )l jeet in a repre ntitiv thai n s I v
interpr at r i I the ref rer t and ncv I collapsible nt( he refer
Mon importantly, acceptance of the intersuhiectis ity of concej Is at
S hS N 0 Is RES1.N [ I ON 1)1 WOMEN womens issues) interests, or perspectives (themselves concepts that are iii
tension) is a starting point, not a conclusion. Most observers agree that, in
ii is enr to sas that studis of oh debates about the representaOon of my terms, the object(s) of representative claims is more significant poiiU
a an 5n S ave t wo gi-t intO sharp tous some of th most enduring ques cally than the referent. Gendered conceptions of womens interests has
oil poSIt eprest nt wh doe where, h and when? long beet c lily and politically dominant There is a I nonal dci i I
x . tid piese repres he topc cli et i a t H itions e) rse- ike ally other rep es ntative
I S I ies iitd way a pet i r YrOu[ But fictional entitie can of c u h v
let y C I Iit thc
0 olitiesI 1 fe ke I at tict pecifie portrayals of sici and v 1
oh soon help wwnt ig ahou with dean r nterests arc evoked and) ii yoked, at u iii crted mu a
stootti e at lalion omen, no c si b pom ng theoreti cal debate as part ot constitutive representative claims
di iurptntuins tat moaned development ot waya to respond to the If a wouldhe representative claims to be acting in the interests ot
ibitvc uestt,ins; he tiamessork has been a key guide in openmg up women, this may prompt a range of events. First, it may prompt publiciti
pr entatiw pi ( es to incorporate a broader range of actors, con especially if the claim invokes a new form of substance for example if it
I cus ,u uts mes than traditional theories of political repre is unorthodox or a counterclaim such a that women interests are sed
a ( ci 108) unpie, preset as claim It
by intr dv -ing legal quotas for women in a range o k oceup t
r e crit ners I. ntiaiisin
i V
r aay als p cmpt publicity if the claim comes from a new so
1 1 VCS
1 Ii
example, froir a inak (would-be) representative previously kn w 3
san I ads sent won i ccurnng
ntifen na.t aaage. IFa claim is not likely to rmike ..v. if it is
1, is us ithin, e legislati dies Uk ief section by a peisoi or a group with some existing public profile represer 00cc
to show a a mcclii wis a h that framework is proving to be claims, to be considered and to have potential influence on shaping social
and political debates, need the oxygen of publicity (many, perhaps most,
lie omln iO that follow. 1 los us lirst on the issue of defining and
representative claims may be stillborn as a result).
wfltin sian en interests the suestion of the object (and the Second, a representative claim that crosses some minimal publicut,
r ) s I rep ation secondly te issues vbo, when, hurdle wifi prompt attention on the purposes, tile formal and r
is t tOil 3 CUS cruc 1 i ludes tI position the expertise arid the ideology of the claiman Why do Ii y
this, V ty i ow r d wh is the ontext and the tntentio t lying bet i
ire ss, the ivi. Ia I gs im r laint? A ti cv heholdc i, or independent or authorized, thr s r
itt a. rsspm repns n ot w r the cons i
Ihird, a Ia in will piompt attention on the eviden e for the p t ulai
dinicastu I rcprcsclit tOon constituencies a e constituted depiction of women (the fictional character, the inioked identits ot the
tluiaait lepresemation. and relations between the represented and the represented), and in turn will often prompt counterevidence from other
1 csentat ice
o arc mutuallr constitulive, From this point of view, any sources and perhaps alternative claimants, newly spurred into action. in
-
0 ct ice ,OHcs already largely rejected in
dot st worn Ps interests other words, there will he efforts to substantiate the particular insoc itt iii
 cbaft c I uherw r ions I)ebaies ond intener twus
he rep esented as h log this oi that, and as therefore requiring this or repertoires of culturally available representations are politically sigmh
i, Ii r 1 5 5 srI or p iii V ati m cant; it is true, and deliberate, that analyzing representation through the
Li 10 1 cli r ii illysi t1 repr s r tative claim approach delays normative assessment I egin
I
H s lifn epi sentati i ut it d es highlight in i vay that Ic $ dym air a s
i soi <tis I spss 10 at that are fits IF urali y 31 institt ionall, re Inch e approache do no the political imo t di t
,
5. Os OtisUt itilig WOiPsil iflterSts IC) 3C present in political debate. assertion of fresh representative claims can have. in general terms, lherc is
I here an tht Sc benetris, but that is tar from being the end of the story. The a close, symbiotic relationship between what is doable and what is think
0 1 cli I that do I ininane ofgendered reprcsentations of women able, politically. The making of new claims asserts, clarifies, and rendem
as I hew ic ih s ul y in ticall vailabi 1 about i ture, I in f
cultu ally ava l ble new ways of thinkin
C I C I S 2 ii lenera mc is bout wornr and their interest and pcrs[ectiv
ifl I it 3tiii I w 1 is slid unki bout In dillon o lie v rtus of the clear separation of object end refe
substant iv H pi esciit3non t womeiLi More and ew articulations or and the plurality of representations or objects that a process of claim
apr notations of the interests of women are, over time, likely to render making constitutes, the representative claim approach also usefully
palIli ali as ut ml onc plions ot women that enhance womens political prompts us not to separate, for example, the substantive and the symbolic
oil md s ii i sir onte m bj but 1 repr r tatioi 0 won en Substantive representatiom doe t cx
1 v 310 Eu sy s bulls is t argued in Chapter 1 Pitkin (1961 we. ii m v
C 3 1
plul s sak fbi iSIs ho ofj ssiv itestato i misguided ii ntrastmng standing for (symbolizing) and ctinl
,ot am pro ipt. [h.s point e iinHo with thm. value of a politics of (substantive representation) in such black and white terms in The Cons ept
pr. seno tot women Phillips 19
a), since presence is closely allied to
9 of Representation. lb represent is to offer substantive portrayals or ohiects
011111 t ( 1 iki is O nstl iii tom of alternative depictions of women and that are symbols. The makers of these significations such as wonen Cs
in i at nlm iey umi it th ) CSQU f WOl iso intellectual equals of men hope that they take lif that y be
r c u ma tall , I esonant, and thus have real effects,
hi thi light consider alternative ways of readiog the qt sto vi
1 eking this point one s ap forth i, for both h5 representation of nature the substantive representation of women? The familiar way is to read it as
iiil futmir 5 ,eneraiioni, and the representation of women, we can say that a question about what policies or laws will promote womens interests. An
dicic 1 ire mseen different historical regimes of representation. Regimes of alternative way, in line with my argument so far, is to read it as a question
r p ho sst ritur vaik eper s of I eprescn[ about the portrayal (representation in Stuart llall s sense c the t i
I) I P i v a t t Ic of lustorical (199 of w sIn m as possessing this or that substance (see S iui es
liii va i a e, at lau tha mci ci he hist ry
of 110 Asst lId lIe SOis s en as Ins ft. something to be acted upon (Mills
1982,, arid ,onm tlmiig that is tit instrumental value to human.s rather than Representing who, where, and how?
iii.trnsis sil1 ilk work of writs rs such as those discussed above helps
1 it> thif ir. it icti psrv will Ining mnd 50 3 I tur now hI the second major set of issues regarding th ubsta i a
s ly n c deck reprcsnt Li women and the representative claim th d sely
lbs icn, n ii h ii ave a of rist, d tlunkcrs, issu of who can epresent, and where and how (the issue of tl aid
Ii. iii onw it se rapresentabit as rational and intellectual equals to the representative claim approach). Feminist writers may well advocate a
nun. &gairist this kinkgiound, we tan argue that shifting and expanding politics of presence, but on Phillips account (1995) it is about presence in
 1 chairs and interventions
ces f ci ii
ham in di re n a oih&a actors and si es of the represe Itation of claim having an impact on debates or on policy. Audien
judge their claims
so me. in lepreseihaiji e Jam persetiv 0 certainl) not alone in might see as compromising a persons elective role, and
and untaintedness
b i w ill s e h 1 hi b l v But it his been in hat light (recall the notions of independence
,
ndep u d it
iepL ed ii it cent et ii i expand h scope of ant lyis in ten is of regarding th reception of claiiris), Actors who ar seer to b
for their
F a a a a, i I r p ing wi men. Inc repress ntative of elective procedures may sometimes garner greater impact
and sps cific
it tan v if a i s F m im m tant it 10 cc P at representati Mi clainis they may he seen as untainted by the compromises
might be t Ps
i. aeti bough a disti ict tonn of ae lion or eve ii betoic t I d n e throui ens u ibranc s of Is rn al electiv processes. Critical actors
status as actois
ii it I n s i p se n s A id ti ii ii ft rn, has
e understood as critical claimants it is not so much their

i p his dc cs lot i i
in inp t ssher rn iightly oneive of i being don and by
ui ,
as the impact of their acts of claiming that natters. I
(or to be offering
that they spend their time claiming to he representative
representative claims
) 1 i i v is F ps e t i I ii J wir hi is compelling representations). As we saw in Chapter 2,
tly.
.i oump tons about r& pri sentation is by bringing ii it consideration rep
can he impi cit ir other actio is as well as made explici
ntative claim lens
s ai ii Ii vi t is not kcted, a, e ass in sonic detail in the As an adjunct to rethinking the subject, the represe
reptescntatlon of women as invulving niuitipl
,
si i (Ii t i I [he iii it s ii t c rssc it the lairs roiii remiorcc the need to sCC
titutiot al
J antis etc I art nit irttdcein ibh ill sgitii late iii d rn c a ft tern s by sites local, iatic ial, and intcrnational; institutional and nonins
what can count as a
5 i r u 5 0 1 ii St ti at 5) s n I utoi iatb and elective and m onelective, Stipulative restrictions on
1 1 5
easily the a e
al i egitin lIe in d 1110 ran terms h 1 irtuc of heir source. lo focus legitimate site of political representation set aside too
h claims to self
s !usts is Iegis1ttutts n hen unsidenng Icprest nt-ttion is as we have modes of democracy, for example those that work throug
al citizenship, and thc
i s ) iv is P s t r p s n it s g v ri ir iii ov r that of representation implicit in an expanded idea of politic
ations ope ati i
political repo c itt uon and thus to irni use a sti 1 ulative a id undue vital agenda setting role played by actors and orguiiz
e bodies. lhe work
s o f i s F t lit Ci is it l sIam s, crucially and in principle, lies outside (though not necessartly against) formal electiv
explicitly deploys tI
1 y r sic d z nih r F an 1 win in ii cy wcr made a point of Ceis et aL (2008) and Stoffel (2008), for exampk,
rapreseritaron
representative dtum fran ework to show how the substantive
-
dat n ptrfetis omin tible w iii s yifl[ hi it, in a giver c nite t, who ices ics of unelected
1 5 iii as wi. si 1 i P nistya weliaaitlorizatinthey of women ought to be analyzed by looking at the dynam
and at nh il c )
irs okvill F mpact on how a churn is reseived (and indeed on state actors as well as women and men m parliaments;
cc isis it in a range of public and nonpublic locations.
plausibly repaid
it a 1 i i It a I vs cur n it Ii n u wt it may oce u Further, we saw in the previous section how we might
that lIfer ii em it
angs ol posniorn ll a society [a itical actors may be men as well as academic argu nents as also being political arge merits
P or, resources for such claims. This may
ii ii a d r I u is st s r a re merits om intellectuals as well as tive representative claims
e explicitly Ii
to s s e e St ttf 1 tv), II loin it )t enti al astor i in sonic amount to an argument that researchers ought to embrac
parall 1 to th
cspt ft Siicccssoi 1st tIm si of rite rihe ii mas in debat S over political tasks they ar engaged in. Here, we can see a close
the section on green

ii I t v c IS 1 a d ii e I ii F as d a p o cli has discussion )f the politics of political theory in
expli itly ii r
U it ed Intl cm ins seine it in Pitt slit estion ((ehs ci a]. 200b), Hected political theory. Feminist writers might embrace more
or prompting then
and tin P tc d as, ms mas pm u ss, or be able to e ill on, a range of formist or transformative political agenda informing
of women make the
5 51 k i c i a iv i ii is t I ae o s iay I e able to work. Indeed many writers on the representation
tion of v omen at d P
distinc. ion hetweer h substantive representa
C
Lad on positional resources (such as the o cupatioii of Is rinal office), but ay 2008).
its 1 e m n, s n s at lit it 5 dud Its in the chances of a representative feminist substantive representation of women (MacK
 eba ti and intert cotton Debates and , nterven twos
ivtt all, t ic lens of th representative claim has demonstrated potential existing, extensive literature on parties and representation. in order It
to ilimninate crith al debates around the representation of women. its demonstrate the fruitfulness of the representative claim perspective.

t
.1c1i to the ohjectrefertnt distinction, and to the character of the A core assertion, much cited and repeated in studies of political parties,
in o ltKai representation, helps to clarify the simultaneous mcvi is that democracy is unthinkable save for political parties (Schattschnci
thu ty ty and saInt itersubjeurve i ptions of w ens der 1942). Many recent analyses of political parties cite Schatlsncid
uiiet t s pet t ive oaehs ra o ness to t bj c sweeping rsessm nt in order to ask whether it is still t re, or (Ic I
and iins I des ix 3 ngs a o t que y the gre to which it was ever trot Ihi notivalion ii c
a I xl tcl good deal I I at wo k is th concrrn or the belief that j. rtics ha
decline n r o t V stern dentoer sews from the mid tv e iticth ct Ii.
Ih n or in pol entatio ti in partic ular I at they are no lange- able to provide r p e.sentatio I
k io islatise iot i uch of the ire on the rr i enta their core fun tions (van Biezen 2003; Mair 2006).
it tO I i c would h ive most theoretical and empirical studies of How one approaches this issue depends very much on how representa
k\V the soostantive rrprescntaticn of womeni focus almost exclusively tion is understood. Looking at representation through the lens ot
ott n,itionai partiaruent (( .dis et al, 2008, 103). Ihe representative claim the representative claim shows us that the past, present, and potential
ft ainework offers a means to anallze and to reflect upon the representa future of representation by parties may not be so much a story of rise
lion of is men that helps to hioaden out the retbrence of that work. and decline and an uncertain future, but rather a challenge to understand a
t\ it bin th it ii wisork, it p ip ints -i number ot key topics and themes distinctive set of diffrrent modes of representation. Political parties do not t
It ut at xl in mor itional ap s such as the rol s much represent or fail to represent. Rather, it is a question of shift
p aye ci rcp I vane un maker using perspective to apply the dynamics of representation with res
dp r ciis es s 0 parties, who represents, what do they represent, and how do lie I
it se o i is e ests and The representative ci urns historically have taken a variety of form
mliii adet I erninisn vomen mode o representative clams-making is intrinsically nore de io
intl ,v cnce ,t i 2001 slysis do u ggest than anothe I-low parties attempt to negotiate thect forms in ci I
pat t ul III whit 1 th im based app a 1 can help in casting a
. circumstance how they vary the content and presentation of t c
irr sf1 litht n fainiliat iSSus ni the representation of women, not least representative claims in and across different contexts, helps us ultimate1
ditlisult questions of commonality and pluralitr in the interests and to clarify the challenges parties face today and into the future. It can also,
pet I tet live, 01 is on ten. crucially, help us to see what sorts of party representative claims are likely
to be more resonant, or ultimately successful, in certain contexts, along
with how parties can tailor their own images and their portrayals ot
constituents to their advantage.
Party repres ntative claims have taken many forms i ninny co iti
Here, I offe a stylized analysis of just three important ideal typical
in I I iwl Ii or soy
of representative claim- making. the popular, the stata4 nd the qi
c-i s ialy I da
use thes thue ileal-types as a reasonable horteut o ci bI
noth tary i of c lear a ci I uitul
hypotheses to be made and ant happy to concede that in pm
ilt cii in ectivis th ned p 01 rtopicby laigug
models have overlapping features. [he key point is to see them as mod
at pi ist t 1 o thutt a ut rpretatlon o me key threads ii the
claiming representation prior to their being party types. They are intended
 Dt butc and in tcrirfl lions Debates and interventions
in I lexit HO I. w to flesh out these ideal we of prcscr tve a
ii tO S main s 1 1 .i iov on to examine ti e oflipetiti II ?S I ese
I pul ii to at nung r esent s is ci uteri/i. by don claimants that parties face today, before concluding remarks about par ies
a,ulr parties Jainiing to speak as delegates of certain politicized social representation, and their possible futures.
oterest in an d toral context on the basis of a relatively fixed ideology.
ii lei ii in u as t Iinteri tc of prew ii and inmediat postwar
st ni an iii m in iii e s ala
Ideal type 1 popular clair is
a 01 io ai d tk ning t
spea hush fi lq tooted tie ha posi s in e e toral aid This iode ol laim is popular in the sense that part es posits ii thems es
othar ainpet1ns tontCxts on the basis of flexible ideologies and policy as rooted firmly in social cleavages, which may be presented as preexisting
s. Ibis late modern mode cli tracteristic of the period since around but are in key ways constituted through party representative claims
a to tin it seni I iy and atun s itch -all md kanel party Think for example, of the class cleavages that gave rise to lab w or s a)
dem ratic attics claiming to speak or the working is s. -
I Si ( ii St I Li se t diet iseivis, a e presensed a s responuir g i ci urns s
or ii lOll ii t legal pTOkCs f dot g to ak as s r pathizc that a t largely outside their control the deeper class, ethnic or reg nat

01 iOta and issi e-hasrd position, in electoral and a variety of other structures of their societies. Parties as makers and subjects position them
mediated ontests n the basis of pragmatic and tlexible policy programs, selves as vehicles for these societal interests, a positioning that is plausible
amid il m or aba -e with ther types of niovinents and groups to the extent that those interests are portrayed effectively as real nut
met U iii his mdi ad he nerg enduing. Parties position, or are positioned, as ager ts of those ir s
at I a ii d a I c nter d (van I iezen 2003 172) and to that extent they arc social actors
2006, 4a)!
ph at initial points of explanation are in order. lirst, these ideah Parties positioning as social actors was bolstered up to around the mid-
I-n at raprcst ntative daiiims are conceptually exclusive though empirh
-
twentieth century in various Western democracies by mass memberships.
ohs omie drg e o erlipping. for example popular claims also make high degrees of partisan support, and a rootedness in social and cults rat
ii us f get oat nut hey the pe life in r example European labor and social democratic patti uw ia
ii or at ci it is a key had strong link, with powerful trade unions at local an r 0 01
inib n bel the t of of ypes. and, idling I iese ideal levels, and played a strong cultural role even in individuals socia mod
pe n thin LtItdJfl broa I historical periods does not confine them to family lives (especially in the consociational systems such as the Nether
dias pci iods. Popolar, stats), and rellexive claims can, in principle, be lands see Lijphart 1968). The perception that these underlying interests

uu1e t am timi in different parties in one country or indeed by one trumped other interests meant that consistent party ideologies could he
lily ie t i-i t tint In ), P will h van d forged aid iaintained and along with ideologies, policy f r gram I
ii a r kit ai r its c fcc tar platforms.
ioo mtu the1 i ,hilt ng di I tnt n sot ripresentative Tin dominance of electoral democracy over other pots itia 1 u i r
aim, md the reourets ssmth which those modes are associated. Which standings of democracy (reflected in the relevant period by Schumpeters
mode of Jaini- making is most appropriate to or most likely to succeed in influential analysis (1976)) and the assumption that parties are the pri
oven nit st s soothe iattei, and one I address below. mary political agents of distinctive social interests, gives a sense of parties
as rightful rcprsentati es, or even the only type of entity tha 1 gitir I
 )cba i and interve itzo n
I ii
Ideal type 2 tatal dairns
P it I
LI ( I )[ a n I efi c md 0 reiiiforcc a ci
th s t. r a. a c ti e a r tcd n and rivcd 1 0 i tii I
a. F(i ig it sp U tlcy mphasi eti ii oUni ii I
tal ai 1 e b of er d or piesented as bott 1 1 UI di is
m r ill I r rot mesh with thea i iorc t ip v 1a 1
IS aft r cc i i i en phasis (through plactice di F I
I 5 (a I c to e ) Ia c hi ictions such as h staftir g 1 0 1
i it 1 1 b) I ri tices f represer ti ig di state I I o
at d d Ia n f iational interest and aspirati ins
h ri a c arding ft tatal anode of cpresentati e claim nakang a s
i Ii tic i n ik departure from mi ch andysi c o It a
Id resc i Ii) a id i iatters Uiat doe. i it e r 1
S rg Vie (f r rids c ye r sc ral decades, Bartolim ar d Mai ( 001 3
a r e What we witness is a hilt ii the bala i
i dspud un Ii i Ire UI I CC mbined represent itivc and proc dur I
it uth vcrc haract usIa the mass party m the so-called goldcr
1 11 ill niorc cxclus vely p ocedural function 1 hc core oncern I r

paine may F e los ig their capacity as agents of presen Ii
I au thu thece 2003 182 even while pioceduial (or umstitutiona r F
tal roles ai meintamned or enhanced
w epr sItaL1ve daiaIl approach prongts a fees
1 w
ibilty statal rod is m diffei nt mode of claiming representation u I h
1 l rejrc ci allcngc t) a d fault mode of proper representation (01 ide a
Vt key d stinct lOUS ror the ana]ysis of Chapter 4 Or c opt aoi c
1 It h i i arty o a tie ) who forn a governmet i to clami e ii c
S I t iteicst. pet p1 It may ilso and potentially at the same time move op
tV ivhei and c aim to speak as the late, for the nation. State arid latle 1 i n
FiSh mbs me entities hr their symbolic and uftural pov t It 1
tie 5)tJal rep esentati e laim ii iy be no less for all that, It may I e It a
h s ngth mpl that na lies an no longer rooted Jeeply in,, a der i r
I uctO a d sisle Itisan riport from, relatively settle I so
00 B t ft a d les ot i an that they are 10 longer repr scntmg I
senta iv cliii 15 1 lat tile tend to make, c r which are bes em a ll d a
m c i i tar es i s mpl different from the se that ai char ct
 ) Li L aid a tcrientioa
1 )ebat
5 and
iitfricnt mc dc at claiming. In their claims thei presentation ot thern interventjo,,.
Varied COflteXt
5
is.s iid the portiaals I constituents and nation that they offer they How successfuj 13 1
on many it may have
J\ slinpI) lane ritos ed up a leveL factors, not least been as a strategy
Nevertheless this its appropriatefles will depejjd
C alas a his mode, at. tat actors (Mair OO6, 4), more a vehicle mode corresponds to its tla
in Western couf 1 s in to a range of assess and Place
C tan. ti th in sit v [heir ideolo
1 more tlexibl nil the period 111 nts
l980 to the froir afow
tion c th u i t icr thc )de. Thet s pres i t day tht. late 101 Is
ceks upport This is the cra or
ip it ad of the catct all
Ian pea S no v Ris y which raditloflal par y wl
is largd sta c r i base d latei fur .
I art vltv w tl- the statc hr tha i Supporte, art
nd ndtd in funded i d idcn y
itt C c ray i ass V t p ra supporter groans so ne ill a
cases other major fix
11 a. r y to a grsm i the hg1 t ft t. paltics than
Stuta claims will
Its H it press iCit a making sr i highly stratcg and a e fucllitated
slorica) period by varied
kc1 i ed a tact, In hin lot example, party strategists asking them
4 Ihe rapid developa broad trends
elevfu and 11 evident in th 15
cives: wit iniage at these pe iple, who dont normally vote for us, can now the Web, of media
elaimmang to facilitates technologies hrst
Hs titter io theia .an we otfet a future picture of themselves, under our diverse audiences. Varied and targeted
the and
3avernnlent, which Hair compel them towards supporting us? Deploying
clahty of boundaries between The decline of class boundaries staged
indjvidualit classe,s and concomitant and of
We i,iija--hased approat Is here s heiptul in separating the object from the
and for them fosters a need for trends toward
ierc ut s I in remindi s of the role ofth ubjes tin defining the unusual SUpporters parties to reach out to
.
h .
5 fore,
b which Voters potential new,
ca aakc them are more
a. i tuition s uns makc aration an I use 3 v harder edutcd than
iO
accounts, to convince and, ever
shut satin ortun Irore ical according to
p ties in about thc
ilsi rn I i s a particnia,; so they heed POlitical process generally
.xplc cv rmore varied to bt. and
og s r Imaginatjy tempted to Support a
p av in aptc i
lut it is not simply persistent, and lrty it
pit hit pit l( many sentat i of sell a ise of detailed ways,
ha, icr just to parties making
1 th s a up ii ng (Coffi a 1091) stay fu the statal claims having
opT ortunt for parfies same place Statal claims Lu work
I iii ) C uteri ,uc no c captive cons ucncies oh for example,

careoy as well as arose in a context
what they could once ehaUenges They may need of
an is of parts men hers or reliable class or ethnicitybased available have take for to stage
granted but the staging
p .irtisiin s c tel a Vniuld be constituencies and audiences need. to be sometimes brought
fold It may be, new generafl()
118 of techniques
.suoetl, rather than taken for granted; messages need to he packaged and i the worn
5 of Supporters to
the
aigtcd with care. nd repre entative claims need to be quite explicit;
COflclusion that parties are Schmitter (2001), that these shifts their
not necessarily not what they Once were, lead to
I a kgrourd alt me and habit nil circumstance will not make the claims mean that they but that doe
.
sentatiye 8
clai are less than 5
are different they Oflce were,
ii a pa t need to put i. ir stall and n clear that th seek Thcj, rcpre
chanf ed po1itjj tailored more or
ngc of I nstituen s cannot ly on t 0115
cofldill less well or

Pp bathy t the
t ne lini i. air I I poht t care
c I weds
if tic 3en y mu t r ra e Ideal ty, 3
refleyjy claims
a ix our igc at they ey will, c resent Accordn to the
I h. cal Ispe i of represen dairn making t iat is third, refk
parties resenting mode representative clai ns
a t c uihined
on,. iii I ike thc others, it can and has been attempted in of societal themselves as are made
interests Those embedded in, and by
interests are spealdng for, a
neither
1
piuralir
perceived as, nor
presef1ld
 I)cbat s and i zterventions
nCIiit ot I irtit p thniselves as a type of 11 k fling cu tnt era of the dominance of statal claims, such as the lie ible ipproaclu
tii in isa t mi e s a ne es ai I fl I spet ific value driven goals with to ideology under leaders including Clinton, Blair, Chirac ot Ohansa,
ma. moss nuts and sItups and sped ik interest groups, and base their point toward its potential development. Would parties that claim to he
e menta me lanis on the sema of authentic conneetedness that this (at representative in this way still he parties? I would argue that they worfid h
s. Liii intention hc hind th claims is to represent varied and and would appeal to Sartoris baseline definition of a fiti cmii that is
iiirnnn ci hIlts to the a lit and in the slate. performed by political parties but not systematically by other organiza
olni H tue re Ilexis e aiode Is delihetated over with statistically repre tions the offering of candidates in democratic elections (cited in harm
senialii en ps ii d tin Ioal and natioaai issue based gioups that parties lini and Mair 2001, 330). The basis on which those candidates are put up
el s atli Hit t is jib, In Ic parties present themselves as the nature of the representative claims made by and for th m can
tpt cult cii a di i I niocrat s

Geri i aL ics e sort usly from one mode of representation to anothe ip in the
Ii d U tilts to a compk re a r p ese tative claim framew nk stresses precisely represe stat r dy
ne re oft mu salue d b ill ian I ains-makin rathe than a set of undisput C Ia t
ion ai than v a o e
ii 1 ii
raking stock
ir heir C I ( St ctC
C r C lot lOts and c s ih hr e d al-types are recognizable as generalizations I a ays
lIt 01 On e comniumty ) e of parties perated and the contexts in which they o ci uted n ii ferent
liii I it st it tllems 1w to influence by exist rig and I storical eras in Europe, North America, and Australasia in articuhir
ii I t k Lit hack th r I v having strongly decentialized But they are net primarily periodizations; rather, they are modes ot
iii i an at nun am tic ing a g tod t al of autonomy to local figures to representative claim-making, with attendant assumptions about the
uIltieie ,nair agcntia. Rtpiesentati claims are made expiicitl (be place, roles, and potential of parties. Parties, Ibm example, may claim ttt
Misc RO potential ettnstirinncv or audience can he taken for granted), but be representative in implicit or explicit ways; in staged or takeis-hii
is is J ii rid claims are based on i ecific issues and procedural styles. granted ways; in top-down or bottom-up ways; in electoral contexts
et ma he an emprasis on means what works, for instance rather
-- extra-electoral contexts; in ways pertaining to the nation-state onis, 01 itt
i nan mid On is tn captive audience, onlv a shifting one, variously that plus cross-national interests as well. These ways may Look like roles,
e ci ,)srttatinit, but as we saw in Chapter 3, they are better understood as rennm Cs tor
tilt Impel in national t i ai elections. lint they do sm
clam- making.
ii t iii ways ii a recogniac the leg is acy of (lear y. the environment in which parties clams n hr s niatist,
ii 0 iii HOilti i kinds, and of r t n mdc sfiuenc s the types of claims that art, made, and th i ii ke v 0
t Sarticipa deinocr h me latively sue essful (win h is not to say that parties thu is lv a not
iai y 1 dec aPing on a sometimes manipulate the environment to suit them I y
w wh y xar spit that environinent is just how many, arid how many senor ,) s I
in ho I c ely run parties have v hen it co sses to making representative ci i ii d
varied constituencies and audiences. Many observer ha t ri 1 ted
ing itself t ye re reset ta v ins that th environment today and, projecting forward in likely
iahLy it I as ii though some me id i the med ur term future is more competitive than c cr I ii
 Deb ii at d ntirvcn000
V K rdl{e ieprese itativc dnio acy arc hi ikable? And vhat I n s t
() aid if any a propi at then
) tant k C
1 s to
wh )N( USION
k t
I 1 Ii Ipter I cub ) e reset tation as a dy lamie and lifter i ia
a i pro es of daur i ia
o g
1 xtraordinary in i $ ariation 1 )O 1 aid
s a lly d product ye p we has been intended to cast a new light oi r i
I itnree debates am insftutio i Revisiting debates arou id the repr s ntat r
a rssuh nature and snuic gene ations women and th roles of p htieal a i
hen I , enable u see vhat ai be added by examii in key aturcs I t
political wo id ti ough ft e lens of the representative dan 1 i thi e
It 110 1 ter, key analytiea tools uuined in Chapters 2 and i in aruc iai
1 y .
eo Ieept. of sub ct obje t, and referent, not least as refracted h o
c mode crucial ot on of h onstitutive claim have been put to work
ii i
alkd the too .n h va ied w Nldwide examples discussed in ha 1 ter 4 v
I to al extended u sotions I I ow claims are received, debate I an I
I i ioe a tasted lr hai e 6 he locus will shift to th ritical question i vi
cai k can nak epresentative claims democratically legitimate.
efl xiv
C tnec
able a
I Lfl0 Jy 5
r i e Iuiis by
ii ydefin
be. A
an heiec
te efaing
ali aflon)
Is hmatr
giibly na ties
v imarily in
i I t rd
i y clonge
k krdof
 Zepies itatun egitimacy aid Luno in y
ci te I i r )e r irati representation is vital the al i
p0 at [olitle B t tie practice of democratic ie rrsenttic
appraised b ia iy as lacking in both democr icy and a cou tiat I ty
or s der II sh fa Hanna Pitkins views c F political r scnti
at sh publil die lassiebook nthesubyaet(4lseusscd sii
i ( ia t 1), 1 1 z on ptofRcpresentatzon. he sumi ianzc e
iew of t o ice t stating tha representing r tans acting i i t ii
he cur se te 1 i i a manner responsive t theii (19( 09
F nc ugh hat 1 ctcd representatives are authorir d by voters, ) a
inset ed at Ic c ti er or mdc at like them they should act in he inte
-
t V ny ii it epresen c at d be is onsive to thim A good deal of empir aJ v
1 t qrce a t iuc over t ie is fort ar carried out especially in the Umted t t
o ti the F in I ieused on esponsiveness - t what exten w r
C tva euresenra iv esponsive to the wishes or anen en isuturniS i. e
1 pol tiCa Bu Ii k n he self lOW troubled by in exan,ined a u i Ii
iii p Ii ci mel Rep -esentation and I em e i
CS 411 ane P tkir 2004 she not<is that the relationship of e
, e
I ti od r a va a opi neve aised in my arlier stuly x us
av at ii k F at r a ionsl ip for granted as unpioblerr a ii
ci
1 iss e axior 1 i t t und mode n conditions in ly represent tic n a
id Utir demin r y possible I ha assumption is i ot exactly false b t
y d vha it fou idly in leadii g 2004, 336) She notes the veiy duff ret I. I t e
isSa a h d . f th rnn r y i representatson and w rries a out r
v F am. it, the mpaet of the private power of big mo icy and political si
I iUd en dnninishi ig he xtent to which our present forms re a
t paratiofls gov nn ent a ii fly erve denioeracyi Her belief now is that epre e
T) adtotn tation has supplanted democracy instead of serving it he e n s
ideas o ives iet not as agen s of the people but simply instead o thu
i Ihest 339 1 hi upshot of ill this is that The arrangements we cal] I r
tive dci ioeracy have become a substitute for popular self go r s i
i e x unpie, not its ir a tment ( 004, 340) Or in the words of wntir ar 1
i Ii m rdmarv Arundi ati Roy (2009 too much representation, too liii dciii e
,
ta ti pdi i al I hstorieally the bringing together of representation and d i
a e reserta nvolved a highly signiheant and novel compromise Until ti e r i
hi! A henos Amen -an revolutions, democracy largely still neant son ethur g bka
a fl tionafly
i democra y as practiced in the face to -Face polities of the ncie i A
Ity statt And representation was something that monarel s ai d ri toe
 c z atwr 1 gitu ay r Ic no r
8 ) tils I bi uity we i i vorld )f representation ar d 1
ndii e i olati I W d ef n ultple iepert) res I re s t
c idys ekia a Ian e)i( i
Ill dHfl 1 3W t I I n thes I oadcr i i his i o I r i
ta h 1cr xia it. legiti nacy of i rest. ititiv d ii
aI v 1 irvelve St W w mg I pr sentative demo ra y i I tat
dl 11 S tal 10 r (f. rest itat on m it videly Sece nd y v
tea 1yv we gI ddress the issue of dci loerati kgit in
dl o Ii 11 to t a I ia w need to eor igure qu s
iii by h itior of epresentation and I ii 3
(I (I i
1 S
yu h
i ii c a vy
RIIREJN1k I )N
( (I net. t i I c hti $ of replesent$ta( fl fOil. 3 ii i
t hse c Ito V a ac u a icdtoassignn gflic fun tior fre[r e tali
(its vouk a e ia I I ctivc p0 itions in legislatures ar d r s
F ci Ui l it eoi s nI t v democracy Howeve the argument r
laptcs
I ge i th r r en atu a a prw tardy a dy 1 arnie qualit )f i t
t e key e id yen! a s oci t s taking in i raa ge of u Ii .
a
a ors a 4 org na atioa s R presentation in tie state s or oa
highly d verse and boundaryc ossmg topography of repr sentatie 1
tace instances i o c settled representafton in the state a i t
oeictaI representati n Because political reprsentation as I s
Ci 1101 une vu quality of [radices and mstitutions era ompasso h i so
1 fiL a d praet ces C I e nventaonal representative governi i ii 3 ii,
demoerati tern s, go ernnlents responsible to elected pa ha ricilt ba
Ii ar Ufl) geogr iphical ititueneaes we can say that representative den o
)nlybc chosen (normatively) or selected as a focus (analytically I C
a held deft led by wide societal democratic representatloa
15
W thin this pe sp active how might we account for c mu a ft. r
y pi
V I 11
aa d dast r eta n s among the practices of representatio& I hinlun
e al red of broa ai d ested domains 31 dainimakang and claim rec pta. I
an ( sit a wide and encompassing domain of polfta a1 rcpr s t i
or tam g a nariowe domain of societal democi 4 U
 Rpr sea rat ion. I grtirnacy, and democracy
Rpresentotwn, kgitrmacy, and democracy
mrs ii ii in is turn ti) a narrower still domain of statebased represen accountability. Wc saw therr. that there were limit
C dcii hi hi) onul hr cc is the location of () within (b), and s both genetic and

contingent to th extent to which elected actors
v isi ittt iii igruieadogaiiing

(or electiv Is tuti) S
more bre adly) can deliver on these principles.
liOlLLt I nileisi mdinydcnzo rcitic representation.
Of
A key example of such overlaps and continuities betw
een the narrower
statal and the broader societal domains oncer is
i & v I ar I a ii i I b tw i r p esenta ion in elections It Ic i c at c
erms the state is often equated with the use of elect
oc sad n pi ccntst ion in th wider soclet5 fedtors that come into ions and the SOLlCt ii
domain with their near absence. lhe distinction reinf
tmu toicc v c si p L mlii rii representation to the narrower, statal ate orces the idea that
de nocrat c representation is a practice located (and
r I i ,I i t o Ii I y Ii nat ant ion as a locatable )nly vi h 1
y state structures. But note the continuities Repr
pa upert I asIc shier thin othe ocre r tal insti tutio ns and prac tices
esen tativ e democracy in the
, hut state follows a logic of election, but so do many insti
hL di ussu a I apti r I especia lly has ShoW n it can also operate tutions in civil society.
The latter might b differently elective at i diflerent level,
I t. v i 1 o r s t e p a 1 i e f ii tate w ii but ne ti s o s
local school, hospital hoard, trade union executive,
In tic inib inStil strom of civil society , hut we would soon see the the hoard of a business
cooperative or university committee or club can
itnins to this cult unde rmin e tin rule itselt, I his renrmds us of inc be more or less settled
practices. Representation n ivil society tends generally
t i ( 1 C C i c s 11 t r s e id s yl s if reall72 i Mi 0 to be m ire i. n chic I
uneven and sporadic but we can still say that it follow
tenocritic principl s such as choice and consent, and control and s a logic of exit (in I
perhaps voice) even where that logic is not pursued
consistently or system
atically hiough lections as such (Hirschman 1970)
Election is one node I
a logic of exit. Others may include no longer atten
ding meetings, or no
longer funding an organization or movement, or
changing consumption
So 1 ion Si habits. Certainly the democratic potential ofiin civil
society is a peren iial
o rSiti ii theme in democratic theory. Consider Paul Hirsts associa tive democracy
model, where the exit principle is put to work in a prop
osal for a major
disaggregittiein of the stare alung radically pluralist lines,
a design app utIdLe
where major forms of governance no longer have a
single auth nitativ
centre (Hirst 1997, 34). The point here
5. i is that not only is representation in
each domain centered upon claim-mak
I I ing and claim-reception, hut the
1 rno& IS institutions and practices may not differ as widely as it com
is moni dii. ugh
DEMOCRAT 1C LEOI FIMACY AND
REPRFSENTATIVE CLAiMS
The qualities of democratic representation should lead us
to resist designat
ing state inistituti n as its sole or primary site or cont
ainer. More m rt n
are tile broader conditions that may define democra
tic representation
Iii si is it The latter functions as the product of a complex and
&
changeable ecology
 ne( sC?ai?1, Ii gitm1aLy and democracy
Representation,Iigitirnay, and democracy
14
pit %Ci I ii V Pu eS ii I je d p ii ks tht1y sited will be i key ii br is rigarding them
ntis e I I his die sot us an apsin to dimhiish the as having deinoctatim lepniinam
p e h mliv especially If the 1ective principle oper
r of tli leetue ma dneiy of statal representative government; ates sufficiently freely and Iairiv in
these structures, flie challenge of build
uw s m. te J it lvml %OC ely ontains the state and that civil
point
ing an account of democratic legiti
macv out of the event perspective is so
v vi e I res r mall in unevenly dicrseIy liappens
much greater. The events (the clan os
and their contestation) concernici rend
1 c p nts I a I us dinttly to tritical questions ol democratic kgiti er re resentations a more mimei
otis, sporadic, and rnultisited. Iven
i aty St ii e won d aue tha th Ia iuat o 1 g t r iacy i n ppropri
presences take on a nn I c t up
characteristic because they are first of
ate in if m c nih x t ml i 1. t i ii r p t i list h c rip n4 all events. The chall enge of c ti i k
big de stoer tie legitimacy ii this context -
cannot be met with simple rul
pt ,ik f m nh lit o c a piahuity 1 gitimai to some suggests eat precison Bu to a considerable degr or
here n a tin cuss quaii ity of on X factor which an actor does or does
ee it can be met.
.
Representative claims may prompt
no pi i ss [lowi vi I I I old t the vim that it is reasonable to use the or denote nondemocratic cases 01
representation, or cases of representation
o i at t i co ishit i t w rh Weherian 2 uses it is the perception of
: hearing a degree of democraiiu
legitimacy. The essence of the approach
I a a u y act ording to a standard that is posited as to the question of dcm ociat ic
,
1 legitimacy which I defend is this, provision
ally acceptab le claim .
e un lent o the ,onteXt in whim P the quctio i a 1st . V thi s t its cratic kgitzmacy across society are k dci,
those jdr which there i vui
it ntty mu be more went t. t p tf I gt r all) vhch sufficient accepts ice of claims by appropria ca
te constituencies under r
opei -c i d pro : s a I e I as k ti i a y Wh 1 ii t sttinp aside able conditions o[judg nent
it no y n i iii term 1 1 d irs the n aion th it legibmaey here This formulation contains a nun her
hi t to provision ii to ins ot legiti nation over time a point on which
of nuances and potentially eon
troversial features, which I now atte
it t irihi alow lhat p mit, in turn, enables mc to clari the mpt to clarity and defend.. I discuss
first who does the judging of the dem
liii 1 in a net in ii n iui witn political letnnacy geiietab I am
ocratic legitimacy of repre sentansa
claims the composition and character
of the appropriate cons

ii set cmvi isal standaids lot political legitimacy, hut rather Second, I address what it may mean for tituency.
i ii P twit icy a, tcme tame h aj r r ate o ist m e its, an I there to be evidence of sufi c c i
acceptance by that constituency of a repre
i amdiei men ime e liii i d P
sentative claim or claims Ti I
-
I mncm r thc iSSUC )f provistonality
e ,tii mgi ii lii lithi cdii b an pnoach pohtidilrpreaflta , and fourth on the conditions -r
which these judgments occur
ii m cccii n:s numbem diflerent and unpredictable places and spaces,
in 1 lii a vu ide i angi of u alec ted as well as elected actors, and in prmciple
a i w ui t ii i ipli ditfe e it silts of institutional stmures (or none). ihe
m i i i r ibm rim hitv of meptesent illon seen as an ecology of claims would The appropriate constituency
in u mdci mm t limit s to clarify how thnw cratiilly 1etii tate repit In Chapter 2, 1 elaborated the distinctio
tnt ition nil It mc ii s we sawi ha e 2, he lab i 1 a e c sp fl e is ns between intended md ac ii ml
-
constituencies and audiences of repre
i vana it I oade te ft t it i ci r s flti tin a a v r t a sentative claims (summarii. d
Figure 2 2). Definng and locating
the appropriate constituency with
op on I ii ii ult t o a pm peG vi t wfieh e P s a sealed instiflitinflal respect to those discussions s cruc
I m ore precisely we shot Id say that on the first view representation is an ial. But prior to that more specilic
discussion, note the more general
cci mit pilur to its Iwni ai i istitutional fact; on the second view, the order of
ssue involved in who is the ultimate
; judge, on my view, of the democratic
ty is t vii ed I wi lake the view that represenlllflOfi is pri anly an legitimacy of representative claims:
o tom the constituency and not the theorist or
s t itu nal p sci cc, then we will nominally have setiled and familiar
other observer. Is not the political
theorist, armed with specialist tools for
normative analysis, in
I par 2 i if s r itt at to nint to their Vt my stttlediw s ii d f i shanty
-
position to the ordinary citizen in the ii supe ia r
making of such ass s tie t s
 Re n esematio i legitimacy arid lemocraLy
get it rig it. In additior the idea of representative claim mak ng id
I itti I cnough nasi cats heat political theorists saying that we need
,
I Ic cia 1 dustingunh the legitimate from the illegitimate representative, claim-reception is intended It help us to understand the politics o
uld tu c ct lie w it is I th vo w epre ent lion acro va ied cultures and contexts Wh m ty be ikel u
/ I .1 us uw V I p 1K di es, ud e I p Itk1 nakc cia r s, e i saterial out of whid Iainvs may be onstruc I, is
eorists wI osi ol> this s But whoever it denotes, this weness begs a they will he targeted, how they may be seen or heard> and what opportu
I t or io IC adv ate of rose i e appro ches nities recipients may have to respond will differ greatly across cultures and
Or u a con r or t (Cl hal and Dab 2006) The dom nanee of aead in 1 1
Ii n v 1 St CC S Ci C
0. np0.d to sas ifli sob] nrthris of assessment placed upon the theorizing by scholars based in the industrialized countries of the North
on o sh uI I rs Fliere : us a serious level of presumption involved provides all the more reason for a certain cultural humility in specifymg
r s h it it f v I too host I wh t co i its as a claim with der socrat c fort siud w t s
ploed to n ii i seL re u d pendeiit judgments of legiti suacy, There art
not, Representative elan s malung and claim reception Ire deeply ciii ii
ally inflected practices; there can be no single or stable set of gauges (it
h oher dith ulins ni issunpnoi1s that there is one set ofciiteria that we>
Ii i in
filter to be u ed as measures of democratic legitimacy
iii SC it 110 Ia ik iii th us to ak us old inc icr sc he c lifleal Incorist and otner obseNers rema H ii 5 is r
dgni isis ilxut dci uoer tie legitimary of representative claims using however: elaborating the character of the representative claim, paying
se I siif I mt 1 C cvi s p sun tive y in versal criteria Thi detailed attention to the conditions under which claims are madc,
i ci I V Ut p sa 1 1 r e cc i ed r d asse is. I; and playing a role as particularly v IF r I is s I
r horn it I is Okdl and varied and cc mpiex) secon&order role> citizens who alongside others will often be targets of representative claims
lOt pVIiiuc the jiidgmeiit that the appropriate people do make about
or perceptive members of audiences of claims. These roles add up to a
C 1> n is
> u tI o Ii t h nabled particul r sor f sta idpoint that the theorist or other informed ii teq. t
s> sdgmn ft. ( ii ilu burdens it judgment ar d th extraordinarily
er may adopt In the lace of the very considerable burdens of judgmn iii
ditin Ut epoten lolognal issues involved in forging independent criteria of involved, that standpoint is far from omniscient. Building on the work of a
o r in ii aol wr Cliv t
t w
1 sumber of feminist writers who have employed versions 4 sti,id i cit
1
,
In iii in on m ie> id dir es d y: is ip to ou to theory,> the position I have begun to outline here is the idea of t ci ii
dgc horn a denmocr iiii standpoint, it is your job to adjudicate on the standpoint. Of course, in all democratic systems there are myriad social
no itle iVd utma if To. mutative il urns partirularly those which and economic inequalities, and there are privileged and marginalized
ii a n, aflega 10 1 standpo ntis t could be argued that the academic obsc rver p1
k i t ci a ii st n
look especial]) at the citizen standpoint with respect to least favoied
d>out air eharacti r ,sr ss isiws in the process I here may he varied means
issi s nig the di liii critic legitimacy of representative claims, hut this,
citizens (this of course is a representative claim,> something similar to
John Rawlss epresentative persons>> (1972, 56)). Clearly> oliti a p r
ii a
I Ii C is shim usly on gh, is ii u omtar t de moeratc irtuc in trusting differentials a e deeply implicated in the distribution of e ipac ties I iii
the p pic to tdge claims made about tiwni and (hr them, All too often, resources for claim-making and claim-reception and for responding to
ie opi S hu npete claims, This is an i sue that I will not fully elaborate here, though 1 ill
ii atm hr r I ho in nu I ru is
I I an cia w Iui in c mi let in ad nt ing a key comment furtf em when considering the conditions undi r which am is
made and received below,
an pon ci As I )ahl has commented, democracy can he seen as a gamble
Having established that it is the assessments of citizens as would be
t i i i the c th go sic ill lit ci ht (1 989 Son etirnes, perhaps, this
>
gh I n f r tI cy e mstituents f Iii is that are primary when it omes to judgin dci is
Ii 5 Ct ! I C lot it
 hep c otili( t, 1eil1ztnala, and dctnocrart Reprelentatwn, legitzn1ar) and dcii Lraci 4t
ill ay t. r Lw 1v tly ii ni rt at in s ill ssu ft Tit actual e nstttuene is smnallei than the intended or at it
iq ott i vta e me ih ap opt te t nsti uer y. I (cisc y su h a east it may be that the representative claim facts an uphill
wLosL plaflee or reeetIon or (1 Sputmg ot daims should couiit? struggle to be accepted in a way that may lend it democratic legitimacy.
W av i 1 ipt 2 tat her tie itet led rid to I co stite ncits it nay be ti it I e laimant targeted h s or her lat i tOt no o
0 w( tq at. in el ii. Ic. te ed om tue cy th gn up Pt sitive judgments depend in part on a claimant being able to reach his
I tin itt oh tens to peak for and who in the process the claimant ilso or her intended constituency. There may be many reasons why a claim
oil if ut us itt ii onst tact y th gr ip hos in rnh s may not re h i. mt nded co istituency including v tried sou c
a / ci ii sL t n in tea d th La i son way, capacity we knesses of a claimant. Perhaps Bono claim d d in rt Ii
who idgo that the iaiin i indeed for and about theni, [he appropriate many people in his intended constituency. Perhaps, even, he did not
st uai y the ito K i ttu the at Ii I u aslit enc Tb in end d want h $ claim t reach them for fear of disputatious readin ba
is a iig ed
it t h P1 C nst men y (sO Cl apter 3). a claim does not reach the intended onsmu ncv a
aiise or may not regard themselves as being accurately
it inenthcrs nets
chances of being judged as democratically legitimate recede, since the
oh to or hot by he P no mO ph isibl democratic 11
lP intended cot stituency remains a part of the community in ikin p
ii vi s ry ci e si en h i ap op mate conat tLmenc.y.
am snoul I have a c.hance to respond and to assess the claim. The 3. The intended and the actual constituencie s are more or less coterrni
i tail onli cc ty shot Id b regorded as part of thc appropriate eonstit nous. In such a ase the claim at least manages to i cgotiate I I
a a I a t 1 ci to I erct hurdle being 1 card and acknowledged by all those who in to I
a n to stipulate tI e range oh people who regard their interests as that their interests are implicated in the claim. A well-targeted claim
tmpunitcd 10 1 tIa in. I )emoerats get erailv hold that aftecied interests may prompt agreement amongst its recipients that th right gr up I
n a c yr il I c C C V it tI ct() 1, peopie were spoken for and about the actual constituency reeogtu a

lot c.0i t,atiomi, or tan test c.lai.
.
itself as the intended constituency. Perhaps Bonos public profile and
I Ia tag defined the apgropriate onstitueney, we need to look an a little standing were such that his claims reached all those he claimed to spe 1k
1 Ic 0 1 \ C i,. t I t G txt Jf for 1
though tha s not likely), and were targctcd i 11 a way u
iak. I atween tlcc di Itt cat component palts ol the appropriate con in the appropriate constituency being well defined and well bounded in
senev. or eaample. oust icr the [allowing possibilities
it
a way that his claim supposed.
9
I a itt It at is at, ted vii n I t is s nail r ti an ti e None of these three illustrative circumstances would in thet iseIvc
attn ii c miistituenc. rich i ease may at least suggest that the claimant amount to a positive or negative judgment of a claim with respect to
iv dlii lii eat n fl co[ tan re eived tI e ci in, or were democratic legitimacy This chapter discusses various factors that n ake
a c it i Ii ni y or tli amp tee or B ing able (or such judgments, the relation of intended to actual constituencies is e
pa eas1ng tile nsources) to reach a wide group may be one crucial of them.
ii di it t ccc a hit intl msi ively jud eel epr sent tive claim. I refer to the appr priate constituency because that is he constit em y
t n cl ie u iii e it as o[l o tr i (see whose udgment of the democratic legitimacy of claims should ulti nat y
I perhaps 105 deans were heard and identified with by count. However, constituencies are not the sole members of the effective
I titiot it o ii t r Ir a I ut with sense f grievance or
i group who e a sessnients do sometimes count In broadly dent ra
I ii It t It ii ii e V el
ni_, contexts, audiences o oilier citizens, including, for example, mcml cia
the observing media, who are not part of the targeted or intended constil
 Rm esenta m, legrnmac , id d rnocr it
my d as Mb r ui dv see ruse s as it of ic cia is of tha audlea cc a Ia ge part of the appropriate co rstitucncy will not Ic a a
a ual onsi it nanci, may also have a voice and an impact on the assess position to make any judgments of democratic legitimacy of the claim
of rapr wniatls 1mm A elaimA intended n actual audience may concerned, in such a case, interpreters or observers are highly unlikely to
a to the ni in s ed silt cy lye I rMcts I e ab e o glean any real democratic legitimacy in the las
as h ire ii icr racti 11 no t or all inc nbars Yara also members of! en anmn tha $1
mA rJatainsliim b 1w en oristituens and audience in representative or all of the intended constituency is aware of the claim and us principle in
a aim n akin and alami reception. No grand generalizations are feasible a position to be able to offer assessments of it then we can say that the

ss d med lo k at sp cifo sm with all tf Ar m nces hut there laim has at last met one crucial precondition for its se cccss cl peel ipx
a ii i 1 u e di n gitmn a y. I e co us ithen y being part I he audienc 3 i Fe
I di ii it ri ii an ay i ha he em con tuen 1 crc; ml hat r substantially the case, ther the percentage of t e audi ice
I ann m iv base been ddressing western television media as his intended that is made up of the constituency of a claim is of less importance, though
anslmcirc, in his claim iboal son dess people in Africa. But if that intended as we have seen not insignificant.
Ian Id dis sin of cia it y p oke i it Th sa poin cal a ssucs of the openness of the info-mail 1 c vt
a ii si i n v a au e i wmuei c ci is a c niaAe and assessed as pain of iii ( it iti
)I
fa. A elf i iii as ac id a ii thei tore th appr priate) constitu judgment. lhe actualization of actual constituents, along with the ii
ama f the ciii ii I his is an nxarn pie ot my general point that audiences ception of claims by intended constituents, depends on many factors
is riiake an ffect a con ributi m to the democrati assessment of linked to the functioning of a tolerably open society For example are
II ar a s h dci Ii r seen t on I t t there 1A ural sourc of information on public or politi al deba M Fe
ot ass p I ii pp ml rist ney rhi ugh society n question and how readily available are they t diffe by
i Tirratl Is speaking lie views of audience members who are not part ofa positioned citizens and others? What is the reach and quality of public
aim s approprIate soii5tO swum aie secondary, the impact of their playing deliberation on the relevant issues? Judgments of democratic legit imaav
ale aeti isp lent i cP is I in v w y den ) ratic fly of claims are a discussed, subjective matters; self-position ing A ci us
A A ) 50 1 be (( 1 with espeet 0 laAns made for and about them is what u t a. t a.
aiI A I . is isa gnizir, hat ii in rests ay be stake in a gi en presumptive positioning made by external analysis on the basis of sonic
sir brat ih a ire indeed part ot an appropriate constituency. We might
independent technique of reading interests into a context. Not only do
a quite rca onahi lax oke the a itegory of the appropriate audience, members of appropriate constituencie s judge, they also judge whether
Ii In wr at 1 it ud s gI erms f tE ey are part of the appropriate constituency that does the judging e
o Ii v a rho t ig s a on condita ns of judgment are in major part conditions that ck or d at
leash, paipla Sc a wiousness or knoss ledge of being invoked as a conse facilitate intersubjective consideration of claimants and their claims, and
duansa of a represcatatixe claim is important. The ke issue there is the therefore a process of reasonably informed self-positioning.
nt cInch in n us is I a e ins a ropri co linen are alas
a s as p r t na a onsti a
VP ma tints id ( mud ual ( mci irs. ai d that and! are
I, rig is independent groups. bhosc ar / are by detimtion part of the claims Acceptance acts
a to ml audienas ithis i rust be because they are conscious of receiving the A further key question is what reliable evidence is there that such claims
a Ii at as ml Id in die Bu rembars wre accepted, ejected or ignored and to what degree i aeh se ii
in it it a Ia ice A if I ire lo bac me art appropriate onstituc cy?
 I LpresentLuion, legitimac), and dcrr cruet
locus ot: ma! a ceptan e or reje lion) ot actual claims by appropri assessment of those circumstances does not amount to a task that car in
u e h u n i e I g at Ia ode of pit i p produc s c me as pposed to highly piovis onal p
ci n neep t s eb i authori au 1 0! authcntcity (as discussed in ments of the democratic acceptability of a range of representatise claims.
(Ii iptet 4 1 his means that I put to one side issues of hypothetical There is no reasonable democratic ground upon which the tlieonst can
at La w n Pt i gi i r res tat ci n i or i ot attn tute nor prov i n ii assessments to constituents m ft a a of
itt by an i at I s a lid ,hti wa in tter. clus on. ahot tin openness or adequacy of he context in wine i cit icr
n netmies acceptance, Vt thai or otherwist is overliy signaled. At other judgments occur. This makes the role (31 the democratic theorist an
tin s 4 pan Imp t c ttext ace piat e ii v b take i as acit sik ice essentially imit pr ye 1 ie.
It a 1 ci s ci I p t e ut at ( h du
UtsluflN oI pt war In Bahrach and Baratz (1970) made clear). And closely
cIatc 4 tu that poit p th non thiection criterion can he crucial (Runciman
it Time, provisionality, and interpretation
I. ci r I ti ma k i a , o dly
n a! n I ta utaii ed crcdibl degree er tune amongst a So we need to allow Lime for the ingredients that enable assessmcn to
easonal ic nuintw 01 oiisiuuents, titan there is a strong case for obser become manifest, and br observers to detect or to ascertain if they have
ci 1
mi th tO it ci in as ov on Ic writ 1 phi- hai i en d This will involve, importantly, denying an inn e? at tipu i
01 dl at sst pti h 11 (1 cii t n ju addiessed to, tive assumptie n of illegitimacy of representative claims (eg, al )r I cit
hut irc audib1a and are Ostaned to an aspect complicated by the fact nonelective claims). It follows that notions of provisional acccptabthtt
nia iepi sent ttivt ion edil base ilencing fleet (as v a saw in ( hapter2,
need to play a par in the assessment of claims. That fact comes i cia
I I I C ) I y t 1 1 1 t qUiilflg strongly nto i lay the more we argue that it is from th standp cit
siP flea, sshilc seeming to pit e y in a voice). Arguably, this point of appropriate constituencies that assessments or adjudications are to
501 ports the unportance of the eslent to which the actual audience of a be made ii
I i 4 the co ined ents pertinent to the assessment of ep esentati c i
ci a c P a, a 1 c o partipai s and obsrvets a surface over time, nd this you occur (if at all) over different time spans
tas. anti tan elect on with reasonable turnout in the case of elective depending on claim and context, A key issue here is how much time the
tn Ho In sat Ic it i ny bet will H pee fly i broadly observer needs to take unto account in a given case in interpretir g as e s
I w t as (o ig ca y. ses vhe e dcc ioi or ting do rncnts of democratic legitimacy How long is long enough to know f a gi en
tgure bdt iii a fCidiitCIv marginal, private, corrupt, informal, or partial claim has earned a degree of democratic legitimacy? There can be no single
aiai oar [h ups i tat b Icr her c srnpheated by the I ci that an invoked answer. The best broad answer is long enough for most if no all ha
I c iv gc c a iii Li n di dnn e that is member of th appropnate constituency to have registered ohjc mi to
iJdiesco iw the clamt may reject it, or express serious skepticism, the it in a context that enables those objections to be raised at no significant cost
theorist cieds to accept delays, and some ineradicable element of contin to the actors concerned. In this context, representative claims are subject to
in ci t I t Ia c is ir laims v ill tend
, ong ing proce ses of legitimation and delegitimation T ie notion
0 P 1 ot -off Re1 reset ativ dat i-makers may in epeatang their visionality of assessments arises from both this fact and the issues surround
liii lit, adjust and reline theni as well, tailoring them and targeting them ing the epistemnological burdens of judgment more generally.
on n I civ it a t c ci h les Ike. vei I urther, it is equally clear that the observer will need t In i i ii
ai in ut av k to o y In vi and ass ssinl the receipt of the fruits of detailed interpretive work to find o i if tin
eicunist incas under which citizen judgments of claims take place. But acceptance of claims (or a reasonable process of nonobjection) obtains
 \p1eLn a Qt,itl?naty, a i r tot racy Representation, k,itzrnacy and democracy
v if a i ourse) i r does lot mean that we cannot meaningfully study n. e
ng i ar tative lan i it a td ieross relativel closed societies Indeed the dUb vii c
II 1 i taking ase s e its f the legitimacy of claims in elatively losnd s t
tnt a feet ti i al, can mid t a! ie nore important for observe o pay lose ate i
tIlt 130th Ii (H it. t. 1 repiesen I ns signs ot darn s hat are suppressed due to government i itolerance
Oit v lilt it ihei a ittal democ tg1tinay. Son ct rues downs, corruption, fear, or gross maldistribution of resources and o. I
i bans s iCR oPen than Lornnlonll readied the tasks of political
trinities for claim-making and claimreception. In this context, difficulty
heorv aqoi e trimlersion in the contex.1 of material political worlds and may rightly encourage urgent and vigilant attention.
die ion through which p irricipants inlertIret those worlds.
P The conditions of an open society that facilitate observers efforts to
glean assessments of representative claims are numerous. Taken together,
they can he understood as a spectrum of institutions, practices, and
iieumsiai udgnient opportuniti s lime higher a system can plausibly be placed on the sp
turn -- wa ii at open and away from a closed society tI o
itch haa den )bserv s nay uc onfidcu f seat.hing iiiforni, all cit Pr
it I iii i 1 onU
1 assessments A us dii baseline for specifing key featur s of
ab r n at ociety a th char cterist es of a polyarchy as outhned by Dali S
o a Its app i idition 1 v t id 221): dc ted offi rals, free and fair elections, rnclusiv suffrage igl
ni detaile I ii the oper and dernoci U an I run for office, freedom of expression, alternative information, ane ss
a r lit we r t briefly indicate ket ft. itures of such a set of atonal autonomy, Starting with the concept of the open society rather
ott red prund ly on the idea of the open society. I focus than democracy (out of which the features of polyarchy are built), one
a Ito open ser tetS rather than democracy despite the tight and over
might change the order in this list to emphasize informational and
etppirz fKtures that ed bet veen thL two because it is a concept that
associational pluralism and freedom. But the more politicalinstitutional
pisio mits of rib uii, claim and response, whereas dernoc elements in this list remain vital. As Dahi himself acknowledges. there is
os o s ni iu c onipar it ely pee the institutional arrangements. An a gap in fact multiple potential gaps between polyarchy and a fuller


op i is a ociet he treedo port and 3 nt cite achievement f the democratic ideal (one of the reasons behind the
I iii ssais i nut va 1 it ing of polyarchy was indeed to bring these gaps into focus) -
p s a defy e 3 1 md highlighted such factors as democracy in eonomic enterpr st a
)it 10 S [art of face-to face deliberative forums (DahI 1985, 1989) i
it t1ct ,hts a 01K 1 t w I would build further on Dahis account of polyarchy by arguim U
it in, and ,
1
definm m luding 1 1 tn tess degrees of decisional power may lie acceptably with other actors (s
to i i nise ci mini in i in varied c ts across society lists, regulators, and interest groups) in a suitably decentralized, dt n
tic [ Lkground conditu i s matter to the assessment of claims primar centrated, and pluralist system. Regarding free and fair elections, we
s to cause we old he coiisntuencws may have little opportunity to receive might look to elections for varied positions throughout society. We may
itid t iespend to claims if a number iii basic conditions of an open want to extend alternative infbrmation to involve a wide variety of such
mcict 2 net obtain. Without such conditions a great many representa sources at different levels of a polity. Legitimate roles for direct democratic
itt lair Jik iv ti be stunted u sul Iborn (which is not to say they
ire procedures and perhaps decisional roles for focused deliberative forums
tout ye been su 1 iii the prest of such conditio is, of may also play a role. And we might insist on measures that minimize t
 Rjav nt, tion, Icg0ima i; and decree ace Representation, legitimacy, and democracy I i7
ver Ic fl , gvci array of business a iS wc lfare services. It is in cour try tha i w
a Ii rat t pa tnt establish S mdu tna zed dci iocraey with higl md stable 1ev Is
it 10 5 fl I 55 opeii lEn III rig, ret ptlon, a d sonal and organnational, freedoms Suppose, in X, that a nev intere,
group is announced, called Fighting Poverty in X (FPX), One woman
a opt n crets is onc I hat is juite radicail and persistently open to pronounces herself the leader of this group and claims to epresent all
o, pr es, ai abost 11 prop sals, dtbates, c >ntcstation people suffering from living in poverty in X (she claims that ao main
IS rilr by ii. it r ii a ted r d s ream pout cal rUes, other welfare groups, perforn th 1 a
a p is a a soci I hing ik eq ately at present). After some days. we h at tl at I 5 X
Ii ih. u r vInt, I asses nt of resent r ye called a gathering of people and groups suffering unemploymen w livii
Jot. so hca se part! ipants ii and ohserver ot clainoriaking have below the official poverty line to protest in a prominent town square. [he
an. oppottunities to understand whether or not a claim is supported day arrives, the leader is present, but hardly anyone else has turned up.
an p ropri It canstit net, tho igh agara all such ssesments remain Some time after that, town council welfare officials are quoted to the efteet
av I I laiiv se ty ma cia ep 1(11, that many people suffering from relative poverty who are serv e u ers
55 1 I d VIS I I cscntli,i tnc caims of FPX, Days later, a k,a1 ,ly as t11 h
55 iSle or scto nplv i silahi hscrve will oft r door, announcing another day of action against poverty: from II X Bitt
and a inure dith nIt to rain or to interpret information about claim again, little results from this.
o!ppr. 55100 or anntcstatroii, tEn xamplc (Scott 1990) lhis does not How might one assess the legitimacy of this representative claim? birst,
lOcal P it ICH r makhp n relat x Is closed contexts is in some sense we would need to recognize that all claims are quite particular But we
ito thy cgi in o r rm S y
1
p I mak ng know tha the assessment of claims is a task for appropriate constituent
a n e , ha s p ecan ru above all So tI first question might be, does this claim uggest he
nit ha i ay hr no tot s. existence of a specifiable constituency to which it refers, and whie s mig
[here max, ol ourse, he exLep ions to this assertion. [here is strong therefore be able to attest in some way to the claims acceptability? Alter
s idcnr e, hr axaniple, th t Anng San Snu Kvi won the Burmese elections natively, does it trigger into existence a new constituency by successfully
59 and tha a srgmt ant n r uSer of those opposing the military articulating interests in a new way? If neither of these is the case, we might
ida p ii ua/W ma icc icr egar he as ther suspect there are no secure grounds for the claim In the case of FPX wee
5 K 5 e Ii in th 55 seen say that there is an intended constituency those living under the i over

ghth rid n nd t omi e of Kyi and he phgh line in X. Is the intended constituency becoming actualized? What propo
if her nirutri i international media have made some sorts of informa tion of the intended constituency is part of any emergent actual constatu
i on at east inure aailah e. Myriad other cases, such as those of the late ency? As we have seen, awareness of the claim is a critical initial step in
is ha o \ iwa s ho in i is took to he a spokesperson for the Ogoni observers being in a position to assess democratic legitimacy. If the claim
opl Nip ii I m wi ny a r r eiitative has spread, how has it been received? Did the woul55be co i tituci
It ii t ppe i less lear members turn up Uhis may well be an example of represe tat
11cr lion q rest we r is, no be by such figures o claim that does not even get off the ground because would-be con ituen
other, on ten behalf,i is a distinctly case driven business, and do not hear, or hear of, the claim. It may have failed because the poor in X
epresents political theory iii a strongly contextual mode. have already in large numbers accepted the claims of, for example, a
.1 at r e oIler s urther, a iS quite different and hypothetical example by political party to speak for their interests (or they may have rejected all
as ( sir a My X, r ek c owi neil i typ al claims for exterr al representation of their interests or views ),18
 ep scr atio lcgitiinac or d icr o o
s rom h socicty u ii F people is absolutel right. In an und nut. at
ai ctual deiro it. i tcx v it i for example, imitc.d ml r nat (
c1s r sonic. s ft edoir pe pie noy i ot have sufficient r sourccs t ti e I
,
ivide riake ass ssinents of representative claimants and heir airr
Ii iii if preen I v ttent in to ti c onditions in which judfm nt ar
iii si neran
t dnce
fit Ii C
s tigge Judging clauns a reflection
C ra It p t)
J Li de n inds of ii iii ci t indpoint, provisionality, mIt rp t I
opemer dcdnes n ay frustrate political s i ntists ind poh ical I
s ibhdegre but t iat is no bad thing it r the judgments of appropr alt o s t
0 icr a i t ii dependent ti eorctical judgment, that matter te di if Ot. t
1anc soi F reore e itative claim might immediately he at. laimc I I y ii
iaJ losdsoity action n the art o large numbers of the intended u stituci c
c id iiyone cFum maker () t i ay not be opposed by a portion of tli ipur
cctor ha onstitu icy when repeatedLy, publicly expiesscd, in which ca c
liii Dci at best charitably apply a notion of provisional acceptability i i
hrtdegiecof and Ihompson 1999 the claim can be respected by cbs ye s I
-
be tetdascuss i rcc ives validati in by the relevant proto-constituency at soi e a
ii. 0 IldS able future date and rejected if it does not.
C I er i or, ce
1 to seed t kf us
iere is some eoostitue
1 1
i I grc whict t a laa ii In te nis f some examples noted in ( hapter I th cs B i
dyi ucand )alai Lama or did Martin 1 uther Kinfs? L)id intended c s i u
i Ii repres be onie actual constituents To what extent did members of pi op i
t r laims d iot constituencies have opportunities to respond, actively or taciti
o or c in extent that they did have such opportunities, how have th
i t cadilybe) responded? Wha reliable evidence is there that such claims wer at. ej
r r haslittlct rejected or ignored, and to what degree in each cast.?
a be nore opt. if in a given case thcre is a plausible argument that a claimant
i is pt liii i measure of democ rtu legitimacy, the work f the nbcerve ni ito i
cm is not necessarily ovcr. I he claimants legitimacy remains p o i i
is and lor duly eeted figures the provisionality lasts to th m cx
uriber of bairing abuses of offi e and other mtermedistc n echa us n th
i i iii ratleat apply) in all cases where there is considerable evidence that 1 m i
a op i m Ct w th accept mnce h an appropriate constmtucr y, an y ft
 Rjrcrnta. inti lLi I flfliU), iind dL?noCriLtj Representation, Iegitirnuy, and democracy 161
nible icr the sialmant to proceed to speak, stand, or act for that racy and representative democracy. There is, of course, a difference
oslO ULO ( long as F n Un umstance obtains (even as its precise between an election and a referendum, and between a face-to-face citiieiis
ip. it ions of id he
iv dy o ciety arc s assemi ly a I a parliar i nt, But u some cruel I ways, the t ndarv
old Fervi mh r rjet t hetwe r I Cs SU( sed wo models of democra -y breaks I i is
I have sugge ted, p e c itation can be seen as videsprea I in. s I
clam mak i g and cia m receiving within and tsd fern p 1 cal
structur s then represetitatlon happens in a great variety of sp te and
scales in any society (and between different societies). Local pressure
Oil thi F1N( 1;lMOCRA( groups claim to represent needs of long-established residents, councilors
claim to represent childrens interests in local schools, leading members of
0 0 I loll of tIlc pic r, 1 aep ha P from dem )craHc legitimacy minority groups claim to represent the groups distinct interests, the local
iic wh [tin K loss as av i night h v ecological society clair ss to represei t the interests of the wildlife n the
of cy local park II MP f t nit district launs to represent the cr ski sis
lii
it that a
floe i cuiist r writs ii, in. niuci of the I uropean Parhaiuent \iF 1 s
Is ind cm ke e to ten se t rlai dci rnstitue icy interests, and you as e d nt
0 (111(1 cracv a osed to a r e claim ti I e your own c presentative with regard t some issues r both
ir etc6 ,fllc [mi
direct and indirect fornis of politics we face myriad representative claims,
is re ft prcscmltat.mon happening, it is Inure changeable and Consider the main modern form of direct democracy the referen
-
dco inn
,
5 ear. in more sites anti en difiirent scales and over different dum. In any referendum campaign in any of the countries that use the
K 5
s tItan wvciiiional eounts of representative democracy would
institution reasonably often (Switzerland above all, but also several slates
s, t Rh 10005 1 onsentumi ess can F av serious imp I
in the United States plus Australia, New Zealand, and Italy), there will be
II (1 i tandi met I is F at u he lobby groups and leadmg individuals who represent one or othe sd- of
ti Id ens he dehaL, d furti Cr who represent the issue to voters to I : d
>01 ii iai ci ror r r images of tl c voters themselves. Particular options or policies will ye
their hanipions, advo ates or representatives. Often enough inn y ol
these will be established elected figures and political parties.
20 I his is
Km n ig c lirct re tsentativc distinction, representative politics, and because it is democratic politics it is also a
p1k enttien as th hrst best option version of representative democracy.
Representation as a sVSteflilC phenomenon, More abstractly, consider an attempt to design a system that is a pure
nsl hut mc nil/I i g coin cx represt marion, and direct democracy (this formulation begs many questions, but I put them
entatlol aside for ease of exposition). All issues in this system are to be decided by
popular vote In considering such a vision, one quickly realizes tha h re
ill be a ned for a ange of nidirect institutions in order to mall the I ct
ngt ved democracy f inction and persist. Institutions will be required, among other
things, for the orgamzatlo i and registering of votes, the implenie station of
s0t I c nost lamiiijia, o all the time honom ed distinctions made by the outcomes of voting, locating points of consistency between two or
o tits is on d niocracs, and v politicians, is that between direct democ more clashing outcomes of votes, and so on. These institutions would, by
 ? presentation legiurnaty and deniocrai
1a4 ik a nm s insc uctu But zie ca see a ituatio i where it
.
us that thi is not a fact to be lamented but rather a starting p01111 mi
toes ines itable hat parties/factions would develop in order to advo understanding and refIning democracy. As noted in Chapter 3, the fact of
on a se ci of mor o less roitsistent ideological positions across different ubiquity of representation is less important than the cultural availability
I I s Ic a B us e mat rathe
)fc sin modes I clain r saking and tlaimrecei List a s 1 c t r i
I it c 1 B ( ) a a, lif sit to aM t of o hers.
tIe OC kept from iavHig considerable power in a system based
ts it oii lv a one can imagine on direct democratic ideals.
ii bii 1 11w 1 rgin F dO 515 w dire ienie acy v gui kiy realize
Reprscntation as a systemic phenomeno s
a s r ii o i c r ng a
s d I I Rot No (1 ) ba tog t o a s11 e witi out really Representation has ofter been analyzed as a one to-one relationshi
tying, direct democrats run into the need for indirect institutions by simply (either straightihrwardly or by analogy) between the representative and
11 flnwin thcr own lorc. Nui cks slate otanarehy required a minimal state the represented. This fact is highly visible in some of the key pieces of
un s 11 i sy n of re ct oc re lies stat langu ge us d in a ich analyses Most notably, perhaps the xarnin t o
it ii s us i ar t I dir de r ray i epics ntati )n in t tins of a principai agent framework sets repa sen
s In bk t ougi tto be nade to persist, for it to persist, it needs a permanent tation as concerning one person (a principal, or constituent having a
tiamcwork of induect instil nOons to support it, relationship with another (an agent, or representative). Discussions of
pihi t of th itguii nit is hat we hould not s repr sentative
e political representation in terms of delegate and trustee n odd hen
I Jr a c p 1 i Ihe I sttzi non model represe stat oa in similarly one-to-one ways (quite ap t r I
ush iig slat other reaso as we ought to he skeptical about these notions see C apter
3), If this broad approach to representation is taken, then good and
bad representation can only really be measured or understood in a
p w a f he nih micro ense as a quality of a series of one-to-one relattonsht
1 s.
Retuitiy, dsough writers have begun to take a inure systennw di wo
1te but distinct puni
t is nor in idi recently in work by Plotke representation (Urbinati 2006; Mansbridge 2003). Indeed, Pitkin (967)
i 99 and t rhinatt dt)06 The conventional contrast between repre took such a view, though this was not the theme in her work that was
i tis ud di e i for n of lenin racy usually arried the implication most picked up and developed by others Building on the point abor t tin
i I 1 11 u B ii ii d siocr tic ubiquity of representation in direct as well as indirect politics, we at set is
r nat P1 t. a rb i a ii his s not the representatiot is done (or at least, claimed) by wide array neal
case I i politic: of advocacy and judgment and participation requires national, and international groups and individuals, elected or chosen oi not
tI e gap between representat1vu and represented. ibis gap is absolutely elected and rejected. For example, you might accept that your rnterests as a
Ii to I sot i , it Ici s if ays whi bolt pre ited and Hindu in a district where ( hrisnans and Muslims are numerou are r we
$ smied by a - ii tar ple notable whom you did not dc or ly <ns
ci tifi atini iii in Pciiig ju Igmu ihur poi t is w 11 take repre Many other people, in accordance with various aspects of their identities
fl[diiOn is not second best -- but they still hold to the direct-represen may accept representation in similar ways. All of this representation a -
1 nBc di tint lion wi nh as we hase seen is questionable on various complex, mixed bag of election, acceptance, acclamation and proposition -
at 1 1 [a he ial nt hat I dci so adds up s niething. and arguably that something a the ii
0 no tiEr its p0 a, Ut I Ii a i in k reinm character and qual y of democratic representation in and acro s that ciety.
 Represe itation, 1 girimacy LnuI d i v racy
CI 0 ihi a 6&. H, i eed 11 ii articipan s Suet odies come close to ichievui qu e Ic
150 h quaSi I ici a enta to on as S emit, ud not ist ann dividtial but still politically important sense of repiesentation, oar me!) statistical
oash to add up tudgments of drinoeratft lettimac> of representative descriptive representation. Going further, the use of the citizens initiative
tOt :1 to (051 and retrendum might be said to enact an expressive form of represen
1 on, ci rtmaps self-representation (Budge 1996; Soy aid 1 8 Ill
a homer ts ot ti e one hand, and descriptively epre ci La ive 1n
ins tot sot liini. cO1fl kx reprcsentation he other may ir diffrent ways enact an ideal of delibe ative rc resent
flon. Politics representative politics is about claim-making. (Slainis


arev d representation can also be looked at with need not be verbal, but they do need to be expressed and most often the
ns des rs tin La is utk Son ig acr varied will be v bal. T mis perspective fits neatly with the evolvng ide hat t
Ky 0 ii ii yr fed rai a in t I ility I epresentatives today has les to d wi S
I ii y p s a a a is 5 tIn en arg bet ountal ihty, a i more to do with deliberative ac untal i y as
designdig n nislitut m ializmg democratic governance. At the time (Mansbridge 2003). This also applies in cases where descnptisc at
s inie tout there S tardy one obsious way to iristitutiona1iz core demo mirror representatives are concerned; as Anne Phi[lips (19951 tiotes, sin5
in iph [S wdn lot cx iple. I un pe pie hay argued representatives cannot claim always to speak for their f otent 1 ons
1 it ci id d ad olifl encic a her t c need to speak to them, literally.
iki ,cn 19 \vr i 2 1 mv m nild it 1 lie lcliberativ wave in democratic the ry, which inn donm ci ti
stitu mooS d and tOLtttLd She question matters especially if one held for nearly twenty years, stresses the importance of free, equal, and
tkm tin low las I Jo S iward 200J that such principles do not have open reason giving and debate in appropriate forums t Bohman and Rehg
s goner s iwo1 ig utsilt 5 peific plac N OK II echanisnms where 1997; Dryzek 2000a; Saward 2000; Fishkin and Lasleti 2003). The dilemno
a ii 10 II SI s Si a ipi qualit of representation who is in the forum, and who should be n as
b Li. u to d tal sp tin cour S often i een sidelined, since according to the deliberative model Ic jail
a a I Ia[ q at nerc aqualay equa opportunities o of talk now outweighs in democratic significance the numbers or even tin
siaiid (or utt equaiit
, 7 at renuirces that underpin ultizenship capacities, social characteristics of participants. Creative democratic institutiona
in at 1st r& edom equal rcspett, qua! atcess to deliberation, equal designs, looking, for example, to institutionalize varied importal t
S t S iii , o sal art N, f mean modes of epresentation, may both find a place fc the d hI rat
ii ( cc me e of a g I hid r nx dcl, and put the deliberative model in its place.
siti t es in mntt>u ton w I sane o all the at ye, 1 will not pursue. further examples and possibilities here, hut the point
Mi iiael Waloet (1983 wrote about the importance ot complex equal- clear enough: there can be, and arguably there should be, many more
a tot s methi 15 like these reasons By analogy, we could think in terms mechanisms for the enactment of democratic representation, precisels
it tnt i i ma ca id sF Id, r alize r because represei tattoo in politics can mean a series of distrnctiv hint.
g or it I 5, 0 1 OKVLI1
no i is of paso tim nocr begn he ativdy tretet d
,tgatn. onsiciu, tot exampie that elective representation to parliaments
Citizen representation and the open society?
atitutes a kind at authorized representation. A citizens jury (Smith 2009)
a d saltY mu liSt I s n 20) ), for xampl , are Lv o if my corn nents so far are right, then clearly the question ol wh ii he
is -t. a ip e achi ye prcsc itat ve I e fo rethinking. If reprcsent lion c nI ci
 p s nIoft ir I gitimacy and d , iocr w
q ie hot any i riot ssumptton or stipulation that thc tc
egitim t [rescntatives and to deny any pm r assumpt o
nly or th th u ci ted are automatically illegi mnunt rep csc it v
1 etc t i 1st u net t is a blunt mrstrument in th Ia o inc v ii it
lenin tar y n mances ( lesire and it t rests
lertit ml V tat do tI es p Wits It can for or ideas of repr s ml Ii I i
some ni s hir h t on y Ft nai )VL ii con duAon is that we must mak
A fy pmliai ot the p, with n nge agan Repr s ntative democracy as a political sy t ii
ant nght. and lunes a I citizen ci t. ed off ials make ollective decisions for constituents tot 1
tin tmtsL ot p0k ntial h tunselves as too r a v F cc. io is and parliaments and the forms at du u 1
cja( of culain positions m niediate or sO and accot itability they offer still matter, of course. The approac.
d t cc m imbug om asu np ion 01 its open Society is in Cliseusse I does tot offer a black-and-white alternative ft loi c ii
itt delibor vems opt a or tv I)chhi r nets provides some conceptions hut rather seeks to encompass and add to the a .
is I it hilt us ann S on is I assr s c nraus i janus and for ob politically important meanings and manifestations of representation an
i us to Las some onlidenc. mu those assessments (including the sheer largely (and in my view wrongly) sidelined in consentional politica
et that rtjs hauc o eimrred lIwe ate conei ned nith unrepresentative or science accounts. Thking this on hoard, we can say that representans e
m1uaJhii, or unduinrni CIIL represemitatixe claims, then arguably it democracy can rightly be interpreted as follows:
toU(0 he butter to press Pu an open socmct tug , freer speech and
1. Not the opposite of direct democracy but inc-orporating it. Neither direct Itev
miii me iron prm vi inn in which various claims might openly be debat
nor participation in politics is diminished in a regime of representation.
ohcr titan tUtU p c stipulate that oiis elective Jaims are legitimate.
2. Not a den ocra tic option, but a democratic necessity. All that is de to
I he miarrossilt st A exmstmnf conceptions ot p0 heal citizenship in con
rtiitioiiai appm oaehe\ to representatis e democracy is important here. As
cratic is representative in the broadest sense (not just electorah
ti Bag h 2000, 1 ci has written, together the right to run for office
Representative democracy is not a second best model of democrav
amid the iglit to vote for elected representatives are thought to more or less 3. Not only a set of institutions but also an open set of reIationship. un
m tpi oc Ui suhsianr e of political citizenship But these rights reflect quality of representation needs to be judged on a systemic, and not lust
Petwui iphb to autononis, and Political hhcrties arc not in the end about an individual, level; encompassing representation on a broader societal
Ii cc ti a means to the more tundament end of self-governance, as well as the narrower statal level.
ma a itt in (i ne gi 1 .tieal o ikome Bagehi 2000, 161). She 4. Not so much a given set 0/Institutions as a design challenge. A replete 1
I I m 1 mtas in )ei ar has been in It ) ihout more than tative dcii c cracy needs to be representative in different ways -.
ii miii iii ii iii, thu iiisight has not I cc I ended to citizen tive be sur, hut also descriptive, expressive, and so on, W t
00(1 1 1 ol in a) citi/ci sh
an ustiflah1y expic e t c shape and dynamics of complex represent iii
o d I iii om ass the mm an Lative or at
a less a pxea quali y oj state than a dynamim quality J uc I
U nfl ml r ii im ropi senta i i political
iliac asiu needs to be unshackled as an idea, to em conipa:
i cr mimo rsemr s tha tie, and
potential f iti c i self representation and particip hi u
to ci iu to stai I titan
it s of re r nt Lion in an open society.
h pi a duo sonta
a RLprcs at cc as leo a job title and torn e a diJfuse, aesthetic potential
epresntst se demo rac5 is a creative ongoing and constitutive
11 i III 00 i t nil res I ci s a thci Notes
ii an sin eed rn making rLpresentati e delm)eracy strange, It CHAPTER 1
less thing, more a complex aspiration and less a political
I It t Ml 1 u tiled ents 1 The i gestve iess as d pox er of these fram ng metaphors is unch ored
a in nil ii r I a]
C
no b Ii i em v rsior s of the pcto nil tableru vs h ac ii
I I
Rob d Bar its (198 90), defines the style of prest. Itation diet
,
hr I tOtes i d to t tutu o he1 i sintat xc dr i ocraev as a politu
painting, theatre, cinema, and literature. As Barthes (1985, 90!) writes ot
coin pt tancls lot challenge to hi nit rccogmle or d extend democracy the rectangular tableau in the arts, it is a pure projection, sharp-edged,
o do no i s u it re ncsen atus e ii inor is ass and in the irreversiNe which banishes into nothingness rylh
inco ruptihl ,
-o iiid it, ue i, th eli t Ufi iamed and onnr ites to t i on s
t r to of pt n u rat tit up mg cciii to , to ht, sLrythMlg it birrgs l,,Lu its Ii ld. ;igs and
or is r tt sUtutuatti I loving said that it has not been my task to provide enclosure are, in my view, Barthesian tableaux whose edges distinguish
tiltic.prOit ft r n prLseota1vr demmracv Plausible claims of under sharply the relevant and the irrelevant, the true and the false. In short, the
in I ir ii ii pi t in My enti has b en t mnetaphoricRl architecture of the task P tiun set for herself rim
c n i i iv no sagr tha eon and viii uncover the r ality of tep esenta i
uttol of lv ii ilati (ii II oh app )aCheS prist ne singu ashy, that theme is one best answer to the uestio wh,
icon p
representation?, and that that question is near-identical to the normative
itud mdeect apprian ties that do not qution orthodox views enough. But
on question what should representation be? The important question o
p a if at to been the hut ot itv iloals it may he the case that taking
wheti er there is in fact one best understanding of representata is s d
I tI
a bc >m might
stepped by the stapulative assumption that there is one.
s inna I tkit
, Pitkii ii rus. I
Lisa Lhsch ffers slignily different Brounds fur applaudin
1
In ot cone at th Ofusts it polutical reptesentatiii. activity, and then decrying Pitkins own premature foreclosure on heis
productive the insight could be, See http://www.univ-paris8.fi scpollisa
dusch pdf.
)theis hay disinis ed the activity of making ymbohc o estheti i
tatio is from the topic of political representation even mom fortliri Ml) S
for example, Pennock (1968,6, footnote 9) and Diggs (1968, 35).
4. See Simons (1995) for a suggestive account of political theory along thme lines.
John I awls A Theory ofJustice (1972) can be taken as an exemplar I i sty!
Anglo kuueriean liberal) political theory in which th theoris iii
himself from ideologies, and other particular political perspectives as a p c
requisite to working through to an assumed single best conception of (in
Rawls case) social justice. This has the effect of placing the theorist or the
-
then is plo in hin self pristinely ou side th part al and d )lo
 Notes
ii lit d d in if ii is H iiriiin I awls or gina
1 difficult it is to reaci clear conclus ons (Gunnell 2004). Ii nay he plaus
argu hi ny jut ion that we ought explor lit ely &
It atu is c s t inkn about representation (at least hon a Paiku ii
lit of tO o st nply egret raliz bil tivc) or ith the g tin of the Wattgenstein in mphasis ph ed a
0 C 51 ii tha w anJts. tm 1 concepts as located and used witnin specit sonventu
standiii aiid
inggs toilS that w iks such as tnat ot Rawis are fundamentally flawed by contexts I do not pursue such a claim here; my present point is to non
istruuf in us is (ashon, What I am suggesting is that there is a that speculation on what the Wittgensteinian Pitkin may have said ditfereath
h t is) H ei
4 esUmats d ignored link between some key literary about political representation is unlikely to be productive
meta s on th hand, the subst we F It may he the case Iii representatives base th is anticipatio a of lutes t
s n rks ii ti om prefcr r c in ta lays oinio i polls. If they do then arpual y con
(I r Fe to a d d lIe on that shapes astute pi Ic n es be ale i s ii
tot reli i such vi s But u F p usibil ties d not undermine tic fo cc of h pa it M ii
bins elf I Ins eon 01st as ii r t an as xve poht
* In makes y tntroduung anticipatory representation as a distinctive to i
n e late ssnrks, hen mngrades tie sigilificanee of the clearlvtheatrical device 7. This point, about the factual recognizability of an agreed example of repie
isa tri nna( s sitO in Taeoi ot rides oi the game that might lead to actual sentation, differs from though is easily conflated with the issue of whether a
a OCr H n h poil Ct al iplesnse u at leas overlapping consensus be givels case of representation fully or adequately renders present the interests
so n n to so stOic ircbcnsiv I istnncs sewhere, I have or character of the represented. As the work of Mansbiidge shows n a
ten e v tyt s thi I Ii tal ci ix S way tha e stains partly unacknowledged ever by her) r pta senta
act r r in ns ci s ye partial and ever-incomplete N ic a b
an Pi k tIes 1mg. genst II reps sentative of a given constituency at a giver tune, Nc rep esent ia
tot tOll I about Ia age and esophy th (except to a few or group is ever fully present in the process of representati in. It is ten Log
hits n ide no etfort o aneorpol ste Wittgcnsteinian ideas into to suggest otherwiseand there are plenty of accounts 01 representation that
the proces of ix isom lhus this h ok is primarily Austinian and take current institutional forms of it implicitiy as full or complete but this

a isteaian a it in icnr show if 1 were to wnte it over again now, it temptation is one always to be resisted.
lii .1 1 P 1 i a it t Oh it Pc I pi a ma r Witigensteinian ti. A similar point can be made about Rehfelds deployment of the idea a) vile -
i ly t h 1t
h dci the 200d thin of rise gnttion. TI ese rules speci1 who has the right a recognax
)
I sket a oper r presentative in a given context These let 1 dii
tiis ver etc it i ( al St 15 they at vail inevitably shift arid change a a part of the ao mal I
Ii nltC nadouc too 0 1 y vague s Ip in is i g out iii any political ontestation
II oh di tOt stoid has developed over centuries of use (2004, 9. A different, and influential, invocation of audience is Manms argument
ha than adtls that is as far as I got isith the concept when I studied it that contemporary democracy has become audience democracy. With the
Ia I 5,115 ,,t I h)04, a I Her comments tWo years after the rise of media polities as a form of theatre, and the decline of political parties.
0 ok 1 itle to 1 ci us to in I stand what the the electorate appears, above all, as an audience that responds to the t nn
o Oh i IH -
is
1 11 te ae site I o id ttentio it he that hay b en presented on the political stage (Mmii 199 223) 1
i i s bsequc stitch nght to e nphasize performance in representation nd a high igh
iii tot IVO to fl rq in I const utive dimes sion of such developments with his argument iF t
t n, Istik I on wh Wittgc sian I tO migl ave general eferences do not exist prior to the actions o olitieians t)/.
ovsis, t,unaialf s,nalvsls of Patkins and others efforts to tease out Wirt 225). However, he does not allow (as I argue we must) br audience
1 Sin siSI)ilinUIC 101 political theory demonstrates convincingly how answering back, and being to some degree self-constituting. It is notable
that in aho oiliins his analysis to audi mas in elective contexts, I shall representatives perceptions of their constituencies with some objectiie or
urn to tic c iccja ocihe udience in repi esentatlon in detail in Chapter 2. real or true version of those constituencies, The perceived constituemy n
a p nen i s th i of tre issio hint th y of th nly tic we know anything about (Fenin 2003 xix). [Ic p nec
c s di o e ore c or It ghly differe it perceptions geographical cek t > p t
11111) (Nil in moe in i a[Iv
011 1101 pIO(( o perso U [nOw nil harps ( 1917) notc that being respon Ye tO iii
tttitiii I cunun iaitv ttu representation can foster constituency raises the issue of responsiveness to what a conception ot
P ta ih o v I mean th nix that is internally consistent and externally present preferences, real interests, or some other? Elected representatives
onan. i is i itt rnai ic hip Ilys a co npkiteness that is not qualified (the example both of these works use) do not simply I ok at c Istiluex s
C ii 0 ii ida outin s topt nd a id c th t which tfcy mu, t peak oi a t fox We need to ci ider and as a
iii Ps lIt C n wt(1 thk i s nd w a just v Is t i is that they see or, perhaps nor he p i wh
tha they choose to set, or arc disposed to seeing.
7. In Mitchells formulation representation is always of something, or 5OfliC
one, by something or someone, to someone (1990, 12). On triangular
cot eption see also Slezak (2002), Prendergast (2000) cud Bar is (10
11 0, o c a a oi pc r on lative ii the oneept s journey o xi $ x 1
s ins ion uctu c and no I sp cE acts 0, Butkr s n tion of gender as a product of forn c,
as i i v a so
centers upon the way in which performatives organize the world rather than
oial n i.1I0 rio is ettcc xc nakes or represenlatise claims is explored by
simply representing what is, a formulation that Caller (2000, 511; associates
11)0
ta ii speiht words in particularly with Paul de Man, I take up the issue of the performance si
y ii dii of to Cc I r n o 111cc ref esentative burr later in this chapter
p hi iii c V di i de ma i Ia
9 Re sentafiv cIa nis can only he made ou of existing resou s.
1 ii Ii p, in hf n ft 1 u
makers tel on the iterability of the implicit and explicit sources at
the claims are composed of. In the eyes of some critics, this implies that radical
riija s poi1tat ut the task ot a slightly desperate semantic
political change is impossible, since there are only limited resource.s and
i*C, 30! a
discourses that can be called upon in claim-making. However this is r i
0, 1 at eseri is, stroig riti a p lin Clearly in English political culture, for exaniph th
ii pr or r p lix i ic t oil lar e array )f r dical (and indeed conservative, green, c c ) disco irs sib
( iso I its s g c itt, boon a1
hi artific va, in jbstiacti be used in the construction and presentation of claims. It seems churlish to
.1 tr in cr1 iflicXt md esers nis. sine, aa isord were to regulate itself
it worry about how limited this rich array is. New ideas are never entirely new
a a or. rpt indepemdentis of mv contextualised function. and in the limit
innovation is always relative, and will always be built in sonic way out of
revised or recombined existing or accessible resources, 1 his line I aigu i
s it w koM tanaro chrncs neatly with the notions of iterability and repetition that form key a
081 i ant omnt th di t u a its h nore
, , of Drrida s md Butlers renditions of the perlonnative (Butler 19 ; Dci a
3 bait the igure minmnediattly suggests, not least on the normative
subtlet 1998,1; for a focused discussion of the concepts, see Caller (2000).
ssUcs <it tending tom elCi toral repiesentative claims, 10. As Living Goffnuan wrote about the presentation of self: when an
1 ml o in e au in at I iteratto i arc picked up from discussions of the individual projects a definition of the situation and thereby makes an iinpl it
lot in wor )err 199 II ci ci 19 or plied elan to be a person of a particular kind, he automat e Ily ext
ix It w ti Ic I unto, for nmoi al demand upon the others, obliging them to value and trea u ii i
ltl1pl IC tO
trcssc ntaiiet wot 0 Wi actors creep it ns of manner that person of his kind have a right to expect (Gof man 1990
nnsljiiicc,eics llm,mc Style he explicitly sets out to avoid comparing
at [1959], 24).
 Ji tes
Ill r tang e net Ankersmit s comment ( 002a 115) Lbs it On
seal ep cxc s ation w are v ti out a conception of what political a
pi sn c is uk without it, political reality ha ii ithe Ia t. o
loss real i by VitF ( Ut core entation there is so represe ted
s ii t a sensible h ,,
19 .. he alya I ..he arts afasistau Sx t (1990).
sO evot it ne s. thtellsng is th k 20, Fve s h n are more literally pass v audiences suet i
a; huts cpresenLsUons. s 2004) suggests, ti c di Id i t ie may be attempts Li bnng nto being and (as a
I 1)1, s ithe as scJl as set a id it can make sense t same p to paciI a proxy audience I w example parents or us n
P t,, Ic a tus a a ii ma] em ales, is t least tin my tennis> fhr example 21. See Barthes (1977).
dasi h I .asolnu the strong and resolut leader and objects such as 22. On the dangers of silencing effects, consider the comments of Brand 1998,
item .aiav n unthed aiid ready to confren its enemies. 20) on electoral campaigning. More than simply attempting to speak to the
tu iII1Oara a at the astor spent distinct on in this context, see also voters, the language of the campaigning competitors claims to speak fof
Our> o I 391 U them. The most visible candidates, especially the incumbents, try to create
1 a,ipi n.t er,t al U ale OiICCii[S here, a conc eption of political leadership the impression they have already been chosen as the legitimate voice of the
Ic uP> h Lap ut Iiuin this dnalvsl 5 its core, political leadership people. The language that speaks for the silent voters is intended to ins due
5 sad tempuralls effective p olection and juxtaposition of
5. 11, them. In fact, it constantly ascribes them knowledge, will, and demands, No
ifs a sen ties; and oh o epresented) Effectiveness in doubt this type of discourse is simply supposed to speak out loud the pr
I COIl (5 In Ito dii with 91cr n ij limg and timely visior exute i expectations of those represented in reality, at the sanse
9 lJf tiVe Ill tive apacities Ia for s thes xpectations.
ii it nest not of the vi 23 S v (2004 for a useful discussior of in eractivity and th
n tions iu I en t be tote.
ge e U
u rV sb
cuss
(HAPTER 3
1. 1 inn an s ii sense on
nec Ques o a ibility also lie a th 1 When he party makes representative claims, it is in more t on e
I I a it of aesthetias onsider, lot exampl individuals acting on behalf of the party. 1 here is a dual claim in 1 e
1 . ,o. U t a politiet ansi S ike the part of those I speak I the party, and therefore I have the standing to tell you t he
a P a jiI9I 9) arid the mcdii tI rough which they are, or aie party speaks for you Thus, in many cases a party spokesperson who.
uticalir vi

ibl.
5 authority to speak for the party may be in dispute internally is asserting
,nsbohn anape hat afl be said to inakcr pout cdl issues visible in particular both their authority, and the partys policy or strategic position. though
an ,ilo rtinant here See, for exansj. Ic, Doyles account of the ultimately individuals make claims, the latter can be made on the part of a
et ease utaPois il pol;ta at loiatn change coiss sinmeotion (2007), collectivity (Weldon 2002).
1 1. stranJs Ca stitatis e ,Oi, ot claims and claimants is closely compatible 2. To stress the performative is not to downgrade material or institutona1
I P 55 ;itner
ti a publics whien exist ne argues, by virtue of being
ant UI
aspects of political representation (such as specific electoral systems; o I
.sddresnd tS a I r OO p have suggested, to cite just one important example, the institutional pots
a p 0011 1 a to sat in nnnt silt ations the specific constituency honing of a claimant can bear significantly on his or her capacity, and need,
est at bs fly 0 e I psesentat vi U mm and the process of to make explicit representative claims
InitIal i call its nun Lrom a slightly
n 3, On constituem ies that materialize as a result of performances as d ap
and the n sorts ice of creating an audience see van Zoone OO
 Notes
(1 amid 4 News, :nled Kingdom, September 6, 2007. onto the platform to speak; he has to put on a show. His aim is to charm, to
ti ks ns r Al ro
odd ice, Ih I ukpe lent Nov uber 19,

seduc to lull to bill and to c so. lbs musi a1 phrasi l is s re ii port
F an h s ideas his gestures more important F an Irs one 1 r
ta rg and llins, can si 0 as uuual to pohtwal everything. Ihe good orator may say absolutely nothing, hut lie sacs it
ista1,,r tcrtai is poit ical les elop ilients and nsth utions that are well. What matters to his audience is that he sounds good and looks good.
on ill-i a. S lfl Here ten ai aso ably inn reted as ci ating or I ogic r rational order or consistency, ge in the way t1 h ach vrnp
I v e m tabbh fleet v ire i i attained above all through i ripresslornsti ii iag&a r
kb in s ak I 1. iii. in crest Like the disabled or indigenous phors, hans acting, fancy turns of phrase and defiant remarks. Ihr. goad
S iwo 200 1) writes that 1mm the 1960s Australia and Canada
,
Latin-American political orator bears a much closer resemblance to a hull
I Or on ibhc turn d co mon y adv cacy rid i particu aghtes ti a ck a ger than to a lecturer w a p ofessor hr am cisc s
I w In vi N. v h F au I ene by ir stinct, emotic n and se it r s it ( a I
uni r d us he r Lies men Peak bodies air. repioentative bodies that 1991, 70-1).
twain e adv xaev, representation, r aordmatron, information, research and
10. (Zallero (1994, 229) argues along these lines in his account of positions and
a lewl pm it bets 1 1 iemb i or nisa ms ithus a given r les Simply put, positions are unique to each actor, wh re lcs
p a cu, at ivc sins th
t a e LuaIJiLdl,lcu iridependeiw of he dL
4 ,
culai ,
ci d in t parharnu tarv inquiries and at the committee stage of and significant consequence of this distinction between position and rok is
reicv it h polation Ii osieru nine from
the fact and style of government top that roles are not viewed as a consequence of ones position in a ioCidi
ci is engr vrrr iii rese titer as a osed a its risin mar bottom truct r is Rather, riles i rust be claimed before t[ ey are nacted is p itio
s I II 2 s s ov se tent ci, R lea on th ac ount, are cultural objects
cii e lip, hr. ad ant conic us a ml authenticity abound when 11. Ihis is not to say that descriptive representatives, such as Maori reprcsenu
repit ontatil n is staged in certain ways, or staged just too carefully perhaps
fives occupying reserved seats in the New Zealand national parliaissent,
Inn tin iwtv ii r eser d a I ici sen tive ansfc iris t re re anne t repr&sent substantively better because of their do, a lof I
it Is t i a ii ci n e a et s so co snectior ta their constituency. Recent writers have suggested s t ii
cv rod ilirru ii iss Ii F is it pie e stative I \nkers nit 002a, 34),
-
often the case see Mansbridge (1999), Williams (1998), and Phillips l99i

s A par at tht whole uarlerstjn ling of political performance is a performers But of course knowing what better is in this context is a difficult and
tar F & tar. hat dies is w not rut be fly onseous of or omplex issue Mansbridge and Williams draw on a sense I in suet i
1 1 11 h w is t is at pc 10 nance terms of relative exclusion from political power of rnargrnalized gToups
is dccc seed i play al trig with the idea tha sineesity and authenticity example, to help to make the normative case for institutionalizing new harms
outweigh in pertermatrac aspect. In thb light, it is probably not the case, as of descriptive representation. Dovi (2002) further refInes this line of argu
irs as taur tha 11 a bus wilL vast e a in fomi flee i is ment. My own approach to issues of democratically leg timatc n pre s at a s
1 1 r I a w ire r F s r deic s defer ed until the extended discussion in Chapter 6.
sac he hr. potentially devastating factor. She may be closer to the mark, 12. rhere is no neat or containable list of the strategic possibilities here, Lien
Iiawcscr, rn her earionent that what must be performed on the different working within a role-based rather than a resourced-hased perspectu e,
g,& in iass e v ty 1 ar O[ dat rca aut ntici y Rehfeld (2009), for example, shows that the aitegorics of truste ci
a n I) a
delegate can fruittully be unpacked.
Son irises what n tail )i d and targeted well not so much be the message of
-
13. raking fully on board the aesthetic element in representation, Iser (1982, 2 n
tirt LrcctArrirdrr as tN. style at the perlormanee. lii l9b8, the novelist Mario comments that The semblance lachieved by representatio n] is aesthetic
erg Ill rio ti at o arcs sit Pc u In s ac omit of insofar as something is represented that has no given ieality of its r. an, I
I i tics I go p a there ore only th condition for the production of a insagusa oF
 :\otes Notes
ept- sri ar niold 11 ii th opients d and i s 17. Barker 2001, 119) lies Bidir: Those who a most succ ,sful ui got r ing,
on tie . m,s hat angib becor a or s challenging govcrnmei t are those wi o create da or p hr
S I il it ty c the pohin z community in a way vhich siost dfectiv I s
ogi Ityth it the r wn egitimetros and identification In this procans the pr >5 to
tbos w to with gr ncr skill crab identities sot to tL. who us i ot
tine Lou m cultural [resentations can be I tub constitutional struc
mien
represent them.
Ocr s and ults, r 01151 let the Madisonian foundations of modern liberal 18. As Dan Lloyd has written Humans are representing animals, and sre hate
a uoracs Sor iaf iept sentations Muscovici 1988 at Madisons time in built a world crammed with representations of many kinds. Consider, tur
ir d ew if the cot bully at lf-rentere I ess of hurt a i example the number and vanety of pictorial represu tation: p i ninigs
ire I rail ipir th esse me r pho og aphs, m vii p pictures, line drawings caricatu cs diagra i , us.
e o sllsv as hart graphs, and map. kdd the vane y of 1 nguistir 1 q res hi 1
Rrj ion sir, ian tion c sigr s tales texts I all kinds, and especially spoken words a id sc tie r
s is Ion th eterabh dcl of sew p0 (thougf r I luniar fife, in sho t s largely a cycle of making and trite i reting rep ma
riaunrit i guabir tin sras a mc ral element is well, enabling voters to tions (cited in Slezak 2002).
I s ii, to an ri en s ir presenu live I am grateful to an anonymous 19. This way of looking at the world has raised dilemmas in mans acadenm
ier net for this point Mooern lrliiocrauc constitutional design, center fields. For example, the dilemmas it poses for the status of the ethnographtr
1 inp ol nal revr
a tatron Is ftc n now err to In the paradigm of researcher has prompted debates with wide currency for issues of repr sen
iii itt rtair I (and bic) I vithm cli h tation Flahcrty ci al. (2002). burther an smodit es v caup in
ii a20 or rcp cc. ta on u nilex and shifting sea s too. In i node itt
I c of wi t Mit lieU, verything is indefinitely reproducible an r pi c i a I as

i tsault of hut s tatici r ii a corn odity. ( at gones such as the thing tself, the c ihentic i the
OIr mgi. s an sc para e the processes of making isihie the constituency real which were formerly considered the object of representation (or as tin
nadi ig it i example, a politician merely speaking of my constitu presence achieved by formal purity) now become themselves representations,
nat contribute o ta visibility in the s use of bringing it to wider endlessly reduplicated and distributed (Mitchell 1990, 17).
i o -ds Lu snple, triP quirr further

ic t hi. I d tderst ssurr ahou self
HAPIFR
tnt I r tire k g ithful
pie I a I tin ii ipais i ts ia )). Suci mulation d) .. I scws,bhc.co ukJI/hi/magazine/4b29851 strn, ac cased on
1. hit
1 gust
apt i, sells it the e ctrdav brig iagL in which we speak about represen 31, 200!.
elton st rh that cii cc riot obviate the tact that to speak for others as elected 2. Examples involve actors operating routinely out of the public eye, such as the
tcprcsentaiVeS Jo, of surse is to make representations that render those regulatory role of the doctors body the British Medical Association, Othet,
arc just the opposite. In the United Kingdom recently, for example, a range >1
es B i law ci government decisions on food in state sehools have been drive the
ii v a t nyay celcurity chcf Janue cAiver, and the actress Joanna Luuiley virtuan r d
sri nis UI itt (sin 1 go policy terms to the UK government iegarding the settlement I hr tic is
o lri It ntit wI of sy wn and i sorneth ig S
,
soidsers i the Ut ited Kingdom
rit,iti1s cd up 1,1 i srIt as ant zy weight and length (Ankersrnit 2003, 3. lhe emphasis on enactment here is deliberate. As I have argued elsewhere
(Saward 2003), political principles gam their meaning and political signil i
cance in and through specific actions, processes, or institutions,
 Ii ii Ii in cli iso a. r ucy 11. n Bu lie vo I Vi al representation s tat ir vhiel Lher a -or
P iv ul 1) 89 as a or o u icr a and a sy npathy in feelings and desire beiwosi boa
I iinii d dihit moPs a enios r Advoc tp cipatory act n the na te of any escriptior of people and the people in chose oar
rw r ans1 omstmi s athxaa s of deliberative democia, often im they act, though the trustees are not actually chosen by them tsucli a
a. hcniv said the ideas and ii tith000s at the core uftheir models repiesentation I think to be ur many cases even better than the actual It
ca. e 1 tim r in us 5cc ias cel, thai those a the heart ot polyarchy. possesses most of its advantages, and is free from many ot its incons emend
a. not tins is as tot a Ii ice ft
. it a it 0 eeLs the rregular ties in the literal q resent t on wI
S ii c ( i lear r r of ut ia flairs or lie actmg of public intere Ii c en
0 1 Ok P hal tiofl cell, a a e a it obliquely from its first line of direction. The people i tay rr in
i I sha s I am e ue uas we as democratic decisional devices ma,
.
choice; but common interest and common sentiment are rarely mistaken.
nd on their etoheddcdiieas saithus a polvarchal political structure. Further, See Edmund Burke A Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe, 1792, accessed at wwv
ioh.ihv St ewe lii, no
. coon ra in the wodd in the early twenty-first ourcivihsation.comismartboardlshop/burkee/extracts/chap 18 htm on Sep
it a I )iyaI( itself
pofya adcal
reuse mocrati tember 4, 2007
lv set
a lbs 12. d ha ucd that the present cult o c lcbrity ai 1 I ov
a boo archiaeiurc ror unelectcu womo-be r pre a es
us 5cr electoir igs might rovide me claimants will access to potential cvi ences
a a -els sos OOi.. sta it does net provide a close equivalent to the formal constitutional status it
1w orns 5 a pie ties clisunction
kctmt between rep anentative being elected to a legislative seat.
cc Ca iueii 1 ssrlit I sepres station han is es idsnt n the current 13 Further examples that replicate Mansbridges positioning of surrogates are
not d by Saw (2001), who cites Australiar and British pa lii nenta i
1 v fo ke is oi p t of their ole to be su ogate rep s a at of
isti as sit, i
1
po iual a! a, mng neople, gays and lesbians, and minority ethnic cotmnumties I-
5 the Isapik mutual e agageinent hetwcei elector and andi also writes of voteless constituencies, such as children, in a similar vein.
seas ncttia e implied Bc relational approaches to representation 14. The works of Held (1995) and Dryzek (2000a) offer influential and contrast
as tii ow P proces o to ar P iro between the two will always leave hag approaches to cosmopolitan or transnational democratseation,
I e u o -l in
a is reaps and is me ext 15. For efiecuons thai are highly suggestive on this topic, see vol Rautenl 1
ii uen tes (005
1 ye 11 t ass all a sit itt irs s sentat to som
Ii tt v P1, so hti
- - 5 al ai d nonpolitical contexts, have a destiny to
51 wept scit I his i the case in I art because we have little choice the CHAPTER 5
r c itita scprcsen cci 55 shcfti ig. complex, and to some degree cannot 1. Metaphors (of nature in this case) are key mediating devices. We inhabit
Bc red i ugh. lion o m seser ii is boil mcvi a rites. y and dynamic world of competing and overlapping metaphors. Ar
oc w re it ii e ot ca 1 at green political theorists and others often addrc s er t ea y
I a i asic Wit at i a dabl d genera
ii Is rat os re ,iis tic ular iron of mIsrepresentation arising from eeonoimc metaphors, concerned with natures riehiwas ar d ins ely ig
peds.se nstiiutsonal eirsumsraiices forms that may be partly avoidable or producers and consumers;
iia\( ilaii in ditfes ciii degrees, detwndmg on the case, The importance of pyramidal metaphors with humans as the pinnacle of evolution.
fits sit fIt c a Pc to in a resent 1 pnma in this latter area
sex -typing metaphors such as mother nature, carried over i o ideas
for xair pie virgir nature,
 Notes
othe bypass eac other There arc varied reasons for ft i Ia , a t i a
or P ii. a Ii ii
,
not make this mutual disengagement reasonable. Elsewhere we have analyzed
no iii n ii a ic Ito al imp hh irvasling the tish crops) (Meisner
some of the key reasons, and made suggestions about what might hr do is
address tic prohkm van Bezen and Saward 2008)
an no ion s ii Pn I be icr aitc iiahve mcii ph ri, such as Nature as 7. Old style l)utch consociationalism is a classic example, where the social
it. N or ta h it ii> in ftc ny ) Natr rc a lisir g being ftaillar nay well have been to some degree a p oduct ath
a r
cal mi knsnu )m 14 d. Mm aphors are on 1% In t suggc tnc an of the distinctive form of elite accommodation political system. See Litphar
a iliifo ten, ink nra our mrtaphor will outrun attempts to characterize it or (1968) and van Schendelen (1984),
s p1 at is cc ii H s, e s gi on mbigu 8 1 e word ala tal is unfamiliar to contcm iporary Anglo Amen an ar Ii
ous g od ir ad, helpiul or dangerous, metaphor trom a political ecological OEL) defines it as Of or pertaining to a State (of the U.S. or other federa
p on oft w ft just or L thu smplc Meisrier, in his ti oughtiuil account of tio I as dish aguishcd fror a nationaL I offer it rather as eferrng I a a t
I a ii LI I nit r it ye warfu and
r s en in or
of or pertaining to the state in the Weberian sense of that set of organizations

iuu ivi t act cal his y it ust evoke posi ive feelings about
nature, and
nd o xhotativc
that together laini the monopoly of legitimate force in a giv n territory I Ii
s a ft I di o u ht r pa
term us ft here other than state simply because it makes this id al t pi i
w as ft In mrir ftiYk, In) 11 rrcogmles lion elusive such metaphors are likely grammatical equivalent ot the other two popular and reflexive.
o pros thor git h 5 Iftois, or esainpie ones which see nature as alive, as
i it 2 S in dscusson a Katz and Mair (1995)
a it in, a Ii pa ii at er ra as is, is ii
,
10, For varied perspectives on deliberative democracy and accounts ol the rise of
ft or im uk is c I ii mr aid won en, are twi to ics witu a fascinatingly
w ne key background this persp ctive in contemporary democratic theory see Fishkim and L ste
l I or o 1 1 to ii ic Ur
on (1003 and Sawan 1(2000). A key political example as the Big (onvcrsa or
I mm tom s nd mcd a us ii hind tins omi sir MacGreg r (00 ) am d lorgars
in the early 2000s under the Blair government in the United Kingdomn.
See the ai alysi competitors to political parties with e p ct c at s
or 1k i n n ii vs i a r ii a h a o i ft to
Lion in Mair (2006).
imnJ Ic, In man, it. i 1 mis aIx ut oncns hit rests and idenities made by
5
12 The selected eases in this hapter are a few among many ways of explorin [I
1 1 ft vu i r r a Ar mat i, cv mu k ov a a Wine Who Wart
world of representative claims. The range of concepts and orientati ur. tin,
o in W an, m hi p wus v, cnd avon i thrum mrg. w/)
make up the claim-based approach can be adapted and applied to a range of

I me ohmct aT, as I r part of a remesentativi claim can of course be many
9 ) ri t a the contexts in pamuple. Gonsider, for example the study of the rezeser Li
i my. d a s a I mu n d mm ii ii
behavior of elected legislators. Often, such studies link a legislators votes
in n I n a m airs mis, iii xa api or d we have n this chapter reviewed
,
ott. sp ira aid so or with the policy preferences of their constituents as a measu e of repres 110
P ri mc a ii ta or an lx a ,
tiveness, 1 he claim-based framework prompts different approaches to us
I urtire, that fi anmswo I orvi a ii highlight the fact that mepresentation
empirical work. Such approaches might include a form of thick description
n ci mc representation it a continuous pxoeess of claims and
o ng ror i earlier (Ceertz 1913) ma close mterpretiveworkon the nature o rhetari and a t a
in H. iii if t ml sr pm s at it r II
on the part of legislators their representative claims. It might require sonic
I ins a mc dir ens on inn ca i aid will he invoked in claims to

iii
soaper sion or bracketing of normative assumptions about what r akc ii,
r irs m is m 1 a ii c es ii fo ii i a wI h liar xample ca n
more and lea appropriate forms of representation (meluding assu nj om
s aPt tmmtsmcst isrnms ot whsrc wimineri ame now where they might be um
with respect to any decisive role of elective status for legitimate representa
r ma dir nmn m ilac werm before, Iurihem for example, legislative
oa) A kok atti e party bureaucratic and her machine y in ft a I
,
is or y is I i is is lii a n pa ii al pre er Lotive

tion of representative claims, and the modes of listening and VOIcC available
am in her to constituency and other audiences, would require examinati in hi iron
m e d n o ,m h o r r dcii as ambrprescnttior
th re vould be a riced to limit the field of issues, the numbem f I go to
o tIm baird, amid m3 he ink and des elopmcnt r I political parties, on the
tire
 tin iHK pe rod studied in order or foster the detailed interpretive mans instances scholarship has been replaced by pronouncements grounded
ten eflt i h a t, ac di t the ap roach demands, In this say, the in claims to various forms of episternic privilege which do not tit comfort abis
iI
her 1
ho into Ii e dy C of sentat 0 i witi t e typ in expression of democratic. sntimnen
I osy c ugh o sui pose tic desirability o havmg rica in ii
inciependen e terra agr in t whine i to judge the legitir lii of r i senta r
claims, But thr. clear difficulties involved in wrltmg about deniocracs with am
normative purpose from a broadly constructivist perspective cannot be avoided.
As Anne Phillips (2000, 249) writes, there is no easy way out: We can hardic
I 0 cs r or tIn uuluc ci in all lineal ill iricts, John stake the univc rsa[ity of our principles on the Id ir of what would ii ppen it
di in vi ci ,cod deal o abai do red hi ann I h case against foundationalism cam ot 1 t x err.
or in ry at I I he ega C act argur inc 1st I istrur i tin nature, for if ver he preference for I i in on
mc it nil with corix power democ politic the Uni ed tior is revealed as such ye need universal principles, we need a secure \arrt f
sn es on parti ular, this w not a new theme, of course consider the evolution of point trom outside), the case collapses on itself. We cannot appeal to the
airuaiist nhinkn, in tire unIencan acadein,, leading to the highly keptical and consequences as the basis for returning to foundationalist thinking; the only
nec on s by Onirdhlnini (19 1 and t)ahl I 191(5) But arguably political basis for this return would be the knowledge of sure foundations,
- do atte to ft ml) I ft dci acy, or lb 6. Ther a stror g use for arguing more generally that democracy oo a
a b i I oc atic deals 0 c rcted I rough West ii eyes see for example Paleys aeco
a they ci. or s by sati ( 3 22b- an h opoloy of emoc acy (2002)
Err nil rr s mc, cr be made ornraLice contril u on by nderitiing the 7. A citizen is normally defined as someone who possesses the formal status ci
rclivrt of legitimation as disturet from the ascribed quality of legitimacy national citizenship. Especially with the vast movements of peoples across the
(tOt, I rt urtlcir I ccc ask whether a regime is legitimate what that globe which is a defining feature of todays politics, we need to take on hoard
to in nedrI s the r tic legiti natedi A e there at lions which the perspectives of people who reside in nation state, temporarily
-r c ire ma M s ggestk i in otherwise, but who arc not formally citizens; and people who arc r it
ii lb Ia o d glint. to of a state an d teside outside it but whose interests arc bound up i cci r
ne t art. repre. tove is. repres ntativc claims made within (perhaps by) that state. Wc could,
I 0 is onc oint of c ritrast with the account of constituency offered by course, ignore the term citizen and speak only of those affected, for
Rehield RtOI I onng ris terms, 1 would advocate exploring the normative example. But I prefer to retain it and to qualify it; though citizenship is
or dcrpmnur of sot otogleal udgmenta of legitimacy rather than drawing exclusive as well as inclusive indeed, it is exclusive because it is inclusive
lear itrac cccii norn (or ilosophr in) and the its in lusivit-y still carries democratic force in terms of participa my rif I
I P 0 r stitucn y i and freedoms, a force that democratic theonsts put to one side at h r a
Ic tc ace I tin i all v insufficte it space fo 8. Suci a case could for example involve looking to the position ft disadv,
o i, nary an lynanuic rocesses ft constituency definition, Constituencies taged subgroups within intended or actual constituencies, given for example
01 vrt..d kind, are constituted (defined) through ongoing efibrts of the findings of Strolovitch (2006, 894--5): I find that while advocacy groups
cIa m-makem, dairri r eivers, and audiences. provide some representation for their disadvantaged members, they are
I (0. or I cx mr ts (2006 781) h 1, to ill Irate the aoint: The substantially less active v hen ii comes to issues affecting disadva iared ci 6
ira lit up1 the kn wledge I gnu c than ii y ire when it eoi In to issues affectm 1 more vant
sec ci a yti cx icr ft dgc is p acti suhgro i s empi an in the original)
c natal I on a wfrdg . Th denuc cc is as c timati and 9. In thei account of disco sive representation Dryzek and Niem yer ccc
redthlc ,rs runs otncrs in the political arena however
. the politics tend that Bonos clarni (2008, 481) makes most sense not in terms of
ninertrt wInd nnanv do speak is often a philosoplucal construction and .. in
 all Mar 2006 Pd o sty 31 the 01 en society arguably requires no e i s
Ii r y a t r nor t th penncs of parti ipation in societal debate d 1 ss
1 zed a t ir non to the ceeptability against mndependen t ndsrd.
0 tier t of that debat
licsc a e exa ipics op who an reasoiaabiy be unaerstc in
xt, we nirgh I nt laim d r ii e ns lv a cprcsentative status in a articula con vi ii
tual an henccs, to I ctise o her i aya sofa eel iii d it for them). In these and the iyil c in
es Mm al idiem i ice opi I deplo n ti is chap r I nit to one side cases whete a public I gu c r
a to the him a gem ii \ttentive b ire a rdr an cpicsentatmve, positioned by others (firer thy or I t k
in inmay onaist of mcdh 1 iating and a pe rIcing o sta idmg for some group or ideal but denying that s a i
raising larms inlet use audit e u ces or info thcnwlves Sn vample us the late Moroccan writer l)riss (bra h I a tin
which mr inakc them opmioi claims in my wi Ian c iot in the name of my brothers), whose early 1s
deliberative theta nir >1 dilhirc it ttpc v aced mote engaged and in French w re published around the time of the gathering pact
ashlic al modes ol as essmng whtica1 cIa ii I ad to embrace what we Moroccan i id pendence movement (see Harnson 2001).
.miht all tin m ,lessmiIess ci politital time and cot sequcndv the need fin notions 18. Of course, there may be many reasons for the failure ot representative claims.
ci rtrvuionahty in )udbmiig political claims 1 his u the case ss ifs Raw[s (1997) on They may not reach intended constituencies and audiences at all. Thes mat
irgutnents oflered iii pubifi from within reasonable Lomprehensive doctrines, be tactically poor claims, badly targeted, rushed, or overstated (see the
and eutinoln and I hompson ( i9tN) osi arguments in a deliberative democracy. examples discussed by Moss and OLoughlin 2008).
j in it upom lance of udgicent in representatise politics has rightly been 19. Parkinson (2004) discusses in some detail the multiple acts and claims
nprmasiicd entta by Urhinatm t2005), involved in a case of health policy in a UK city. It may of course be the case
I hate attempted mineihnig along these lines elsewhere (Saward 1998), that there is a kind of informal incumbency effect whereby claims and
though ii i not aim account geared to the notion of the reptesentative claim. claimants that achieve a level of acceptance are in a stronger position I
11 ( (earls tic id a of tile open society is most do ely associated with Popper compete against relatively new clamms that impinge on their issue or area of
ss ho slit v,eci its contrast with a closed society in which truths were concern.
imp sed and rtttc maui stilled. 20. Note Urhinatms comment (2000, 765> that it is not indirectness per se that
I iacwftere I have offered a ruIical appraisal of Datils account of core democratic distinguish representative democracy from direct democracy. Rather, what
rmctpfes amid the adequacy ot his conceptiOn of demoerain (Saward 2001). makes the former truly different is the character and broadness of its
iiimiber of coimiemporais critics would argue that Dahis approach amounts mediated politics
o .0 at count of alggregative tleunoeracv which is less defensible and desir 21. Some quite ingenious arguments run into difficulty by assuming the logical
Die h i tel [anal ye elernot racy (young 2u00 Gutmann and Ihompson or empirical separability of direct and representative democracy. Consider
(>0 1 lIe ci Ii egard his as a inst i eti in of i title iality as to render it the probleir expressive voting. Brennan and Harnhn (1999) ag
tie imngl as In bit l, so called ft b i ocracy requires the that representative forms of democracy are clearly superior to direct for ic
ist i it cal at if in tu ut tonal mac hinei in )cracy as much because rep ese Ita mves have an incentive to act virtuously and there or
lie I agrcgat a demo ise I . t c rists strongly of Ic policies hat arc loser to the public interest than direct voti ig
w e uu ly dov npldy debates a c if between produce. According tc this view, under direct democracy vot rs am ii
u 1 li r iee tory of th I a ly helpful choose u r elfin t outcomes, but they can choose who or what to ott for
alxaia i u of thi ptions of a ies It v as will be xpres mve based largely on particular e it mu i
iir tInt count asj nit catrictive, nd ir jud c s (1999 1 9). When electing representatives or he I
lelilanaims I 000; hand we a dete t and will vote for candidates of relative v tu r
 is ol it. wI ii th do hi. a no rn ,
is isi Ic ir Id ci it. iti p bLi (I99, 12a In th end, there n
vi irs I ii rn r w p se its or th t i gr iii led in the expres Bibliography
Wi 10 1 t I Iii 9)0, I) S liii e, I n oald aryta that Brennan and
1, a ihi pi pc1u is lu in usivinabi ii w th it a prescnsstive and direct
winy srcmi tislh i>slsiis typcsiu thw akt.vpai of hera gtiiicr Aluiff, L. (1991), 1 he problem of speaking for others, in ( ullural
systi nitic tendenet t eaprcss support k r (rutiquc I
h slat tlwi w i b iii 5 13,
ii didaP 5 WI ( Ji C )c I ,eivt.d as WV hf 111 C at W ia I s V V U Anderson, B. (19)1), Imagined Gommumties (Londo n: Verso).
I) IS, I 20), 1 to n 1w nIt. w ii I u, Hv say pi Id w instead ol eandi Andeweg, R. B. and Thomassen, J. (2003), Between electorate and execut
slatiC I, l lu: ua in cc all il ii d n it. u s r l e ru ) parhans n as a hnchpin paper presented at the Joint Sessions oft ie in
i c
ha itt ,l nil oil er ill en Cl w I Ii t p a pi au ite s a id dvocates of

Consortium for Political Resear ch, Edinbu rgh.
ill us t itt y is (I i a Ii in is C hI il an ig f Srcnna a Ankersna t R (1996), tesihetic lobtics (Stanford, C Stanfor s a
ni, II ru us IV ii lOt tI at tI e Ic i t which persons are sutuous is
.
Press).
Is si bit. by ati r 95) p it) or il s, ha informal in costs
-
00 a PoIiU at 9epresertatio u (Stanford (A: Stanford Univ as c
is 9 c te with a ip I to si ii. tin5 sirtue ii pt0iie ompaucd to t.andidates (2002b), Representational democracy, in Common Knowledge 8, 1, 24
-46
I ) vu H nba ii It ndcd assnrnptu un - (2003), Pygmalion: Rousseau and Diderot on the theatre uid on i
y a
-
s in cot on inxuson
, tlwoiue, von Rant uleki 2(1 5, 84 5 write tation, in Rethinking History 7, 3, 315339.
ut us C di br isl s g sir in it kustin, J. (1975) How To Do Things with Words (second edition), 1) Urns
at t lit. u 1 n
p 1 I d s,. o irs nit ,urstUid icprcss u taUs individuals and M. Shisa (cdi) (Oxford. Clarendon Press).
v 1 isV it osuttou s s d ios di lod xiii P. Iso pub is debate and Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. (1970), Power and Poverty (New York arid ondou
I a:
I uPs sit ci ,ui nut u a:ts is cu tar as po eni sly iii a a sp is ta Oxford Un verily Press)
ii r nil s tdm, lb sI ol pj ear ip n ub
vi i i up ci iSat the Bagchi, A.. (2000), Political citizenship in Britain and Germany, iii (,erma
ti
Pu di I cv i I r I in
I it a n hr Ii [ V p e at ely P utica 9, ,16 80.
Bang, 11. P. and Dyrberg, T. B. t2000) , Gove rnance , self-re presentation and
democratic imagination, m M Saward (ed.), Demosratic Innovatior:
(L
don: Routledge).
Barber B (1984 Strong Dernocracy (Berkeley, (A. University of Cvii
,
on iv
Press).
Barker R (2001), 1 egiiirnating Identiiies (Cambridge: Cambridge Unia
ni
Press).
Barneit, C (2004), Deconstructing radical democ racy articulation represenia -
lion and being with-others, in Political Geogra
phy 23, 3, 503 v28.
Barthes, R. (1974), SIZ (Oxford: Blackwefl) (translated by R. Miller).
- (1971), Image Music Iext (New York Hill and Wang) (translated
y
S Heath).
(1985), The Responsibility offorms (Berkeley and Los Angels, A 1 v
sity of California Press) (translated by R. Howard).
 ies Caller) P 1 94 1 ii )le playing to rok using or d sta di
r icy crsou c i cial Psy I ology Quarterly 53 3, 228 43
istinhc ii I i d W rren M ( 006) Rethmkirg demo ra ii.
gI th ret al si. ancouver Umversity of Britisk ( )lumb a
i1s ( Cli S K 1t_l I an I C ok M I 100IC Roth i_k i
ubst ntisc p cia. don in Representatior 1 2 99 110,
habal I )ik J P (2006 (olture I*oubles(lond n 11 rs
I c J (1) ) )mn intaly representation uid the I iob d
I r ii. a id V ha1 mar (eds,) Norios , Repres mat , I
ktieitnlr ss
Ii nan S (10 [Ic lonely cituen indir c repic cnta 1
ay rctw) in Polai al mnmunzcation 22, 2 19 214,
o U (omi s Sehulhng, M 1 (1989) Sacred Performnanc s (New York o
U iiv it I tess
( ye U ?331 \iai cd a theary eli twin nil fl S dj.
U 1 hi itbor audienc relationship in Social Semio ics 4
i h y ( ilkr, 2000 hilosophy and literature, the fortu.ncs of the e i
P tvsloda I i0 19
I hi R. (1985) 1 rfac Iconomu Demorocy((aiibride Po
o i (19 ) I) iocr icy a ii IU ritics (New Hay i, CT Yak Univer t
Derrida, J ( 282) Sending. on representation in Social Research, 49, 2 4
- (1990) For of law the nystical foundations of authority
Jew cv ew (t an lated by M Quaintance) 11, 920 l04
1998 1 in ed in. (Fvanston II Northwestern Univer ity s.
2104 . ,a.t of the ogue states. the deno
Atlanti Quar erly 103 32 -341.
do Digs, B J. 1968) Pm tieal representation, in J R Pennock arid W (1 r ru
ds. \To nos X Representation (New York: Atherton Press)
,
Dilworth, J ( 004 In ernal versus external representati In, in
, r e
Aestlwt is a ct rt alttcisri 62 1, 2336
005 double ontent theory of artis ii representation
thetics and Ar (..rtiic sri 63 3, 249260
Dobs A. 1996), 4eresentative dcmoi. racy and the n i o i C S
W M Fake y and Meadowiroft (eds), Do nocracy a ic tie e
uiiun Fdw d Fagar)
a ud bell rsley R 1. eds. (2006) Politi al Theory in 1 ii
(ialleng ( as il ridge. Cambridge University Press)
lb s, S. 200 , Preferable descnptive aepresentatives. vill )ust
black or bats m do it American Political Science Review 9(, 12

 Bibliography
I0 u L.i eta mi, I beta e 1) ocras y (New York: Harper and Goodin R. B. (1982), luscounting discounti ig in Journal of Pu! Ia Pci y ? I
31-7L
n p1 ic (in it 10 ( cci p ci and tIn represe ntation al (1996) Enfranchising the earth, and its alternatives is lolitrai iuni
II a in a Ba in i
, a e (. It e 6, I 9 1 St 44 5, 83a 8 9.
It 0. 1 5 is ii 1) in a ens B yes ti 0 ford: )xford
at
(2004), Representing diversity in British journal of Political 3cittt
a) 1(11 45 4 8
Is t,i vs I tires s hi eat eont tnt onahsnft in lvi, Saward
(2(105), Reflective Democracy (Oxfor d: Oictbr d Univer sity Press
H )5 iii Lit low alt t lni jo Ron leda
at d Sawa d I 2005) Dog whistles and kinocrati a s Ia s i I
0 000) prCst IlUtlOil, in Anwruan Political
)isiltrslvr a
Political Quarterly 76, 4, 471-476.
d 1 1 (rant R W a d Keohan R 0 (2)05) Accountability aid ibus s w
Li 20 10 1 B hi taivi demo an a, r s:r taunt and risk: towards
world politiss, in Anietican Political Science Review 99, 1, 4560.
Li a f tO if I H, in Si a ird ed j, D mtaretic frirtotaiiort
Been, I) P and Shapiro, 1. (1994), Pathologies of Rational Choict fl or (Ne
B t. ft
Haven, I. I and London: Yale Urnversity Press).
B I so
t dft an se p th en s and sin Ic at spi L for naturs
Guinier, ft. (1994) The 1)iranriy of the MaJority (New York: Fre Press).
it P 4 n t 4, 5
a ( raueli, 1. 12004 tiesertely seeking Wittgenstcrn, in Forof_cin Jo it
ti P ci ci in ft. Pot a P( in in A lien ud I H wi i)
f Political Theory 3, 1, 77--98.
t s I itt tO 1. $1 gs N
,
w or : a a s e I )
- (2006 [)isl scat H lietori . the ii omaly of ohtic ci ti e ry n t Jo
I lair 1 1 1.) ,hi putzls of representation: specifying t
of Politics 68, 4, 77- 782.
ciii its ii p as s a ii u I B
4 nive S ad a )u te ly 3 23- 54
(iutn ant, a id ic i son 1) (1999) Democratic disagreern in ii i ft
I a, a.f So Ian is. w s ) (999 neen ( ompetent e and 1>emt,cralic ,
ted.), Deliberative Polities (New York and Oxford: Oxthrd Univershy Press).
tahiti tut tI inivers ti Park 11: Ike Iknnsylvaiiia State Urnverftty Pres) - - (2(104 Why Deliberotive Democracy (Princets n NJ P tc t
cc 1 I It 100 lB ins Pt Ic (Ni a York 1 o igr idni
LI ( University Press).
(10
(ft is BItt sh isr as Ins our (as out$ in Parliarnttitar 4ffairs
liaR S. 1997) The work of representation in S Hall (ed), Reprs.s it a
is
(London. Sage and [he Open University).
ci i I ( JO ) et at. tg 1)s. .bi. an t )emocracj
Iii I
.
Flarrison N. (2001), Representativity (with referenc to Chraihti in PomgrpL
it it a 11
24 3, 30- 13
oi I nO t, If. ft (00 Ph q ci P deliterativ H inecracy, ii Held, F). (1995), Democracy and the Global Order (Cambridge: Polity Press
1 I I B ta so c I its at on is id i id N Y tic. R oIl dge) (1996) .Models of Democracy (third edition) (Cambridge. Polity Pr a
a 01 ci JO I) Re icy s mposi tin s isis in represent ition, in
ttIlHt B e its rip tory I bra gniphy 11 4 170 3
llinchliffe, S., Kearnes, M. B., Degen, M., and Whatmore, S. (2005), Urban wild
6
an a 41 1 9j0) I be B dcci 0) 1 bing (London. Ron ledge; things a osinopolitical ixperirnent, in Environment and Planr ii 1 o
and Space 23, 5, 643658.
it ( 197 ) be lot rptezahlor uJ Cultures (New Yorhi Ba B Books ) H rschman A. 0. (1970), Exit, Voice and Loyalty (Canibtidge Harvard sit
I K us1 u,aa A 1)0 1), Votsa comps tenec itt dirsu legisla tion Press)
o tin ft in a I lko at H K Soltan (cdi.), ( itizen (bunpe tente and Democ ratic Hint, P. (1997), From Statism to Pluralism (London: UC1 Press)
11.1 Ii IV ill CL ci \ ti P esyivi di eta e n er ty ass). Holden, B. 0974), The iIature of Demucrucy ,Londo
i: 1horna Nelso(.
1
0 ott P I 0) 1 9)
Is cc, lotion of Self in Ewryday Lift (London:
, Sit
Hudson A. (2001), NGOs transnational advocacy networks: from legitinhaey
to political responsibility? in Global Networks 1, 4, 311 352.
Iser, W. (1987), Representation: a performative act, in M. Krieger (edt, 10
Au is of R presenta ion (Nt w York C.olumhia University rev).
 Bibha,raphy
Mach len M (2003 Pot ti at Vi tue and Shoppi V (New Y ik Pa a
I y g a p y ga is o at pa ty
Miller, A, (2001>, On Politic, and the Art ojArtrn (Ness York: Vakingt.
e c ar m ot flu car el arty in 12 ny Politics 1, 1, 5--28.
Mills, Wi J (1962) Metaphorical s ision: changes in western attitudes to the ns
W I ra qu Pat tier I Ph vi phy se mt ed rot (Oxford: 3
tanner it An rats of the Aasoc anon r
f Ar rerrcen (zeogi apt at: 2,
1
Mitchell, Wi I. F. (1990), Representation, in F. I eutncchia and 1, McLaughlin.
it tO. skhat wc alk d pohi acs a litue in uoirrcinpoi airy I oliticril Un rs
:ni ta 1 ii 10 Ii an my Study (Chacapo H and L at
Chicago Press)
I r at re: pi tr2 o c ur olnrk r h w o make things public, in
ib dg MA a Montanaro, I (2008) [he democratic potential ofself-authorized representa
I I m in I Wi. ci. M rig I rg Pu c I
live pap r rescr ted at the American Political Science 4 so at on ft
adore hill P,ts urd en ti for m nil Media Bad rut
,
Moss, and OLoughlin, B. (2008), Convincing claims? Democracy and repr.e
Ph) 1 -ii iii ortierrratroa and Ii rflOt rali( I twain) (Yancouver: UBC
(-i.
t
er tat or r p 1 /11 Britain, in Political Studics 36, 3 05 72
y of Muscovicr, S. (1968), Notes towards a description of social representations, a m
ar \ 19 5 Iii 12 rii& iii tea mu wdaiwtr (13 akclev, I A (
n
T ncers
Furapcan Journal oJSo diii Psychology 18, 3, 195209,
Noari. , ft (1914 Ararihy, Stair, and Utopia (Oxford, Blackwdll),
Ibiorn, ) eri (Niw S rk Ba ci xaIr ).
I din in d ?iarI
t
Offc, C. (1990, Micro-aspeus of democratic theory: what makes for the delihct
a 5 ti(e I, Nauara! aIiu tcreamnial toes un the tra)ectcries ot lerninist izcaas? in A linde mitt (cd ), Dci roc ny V a
I t 1 tn 1 3, 29 3 ti c ani etc ice o
a a pa it t u I ni nj ra
(rrsis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
In I 00 ), ; di nih poE mel repiemntatiot rim the IJK: the state of tire
Osipovich 1) 2004 What Rousseau teaches us about live theatrical pcrio
i hr he r 1 j a I f P it a I I tnt it ma Ret shuns 6 1,
nat cc in or tat of A sthc ii -s and Art Cnitia i in 62 4, 53 36_.
(2006), What is a theatrical performance? in journal of Aesthetic, ,arah An
hi. V .mrccpaions tat urbmar aerit rcprcsantatlon: women, gender
4 3 3 C tisri 4 4 461 -410,
I An a is u a i Is it a
Pagden, A. (201)1), Peoples and I mpzras (London, Phoenix Press).
P 2rY 6 ft ha ft v d 2 he boll us rig u w ale m democra B an cw
Paley, J, 21)0), Tdward an anthropology of democracy, in Annual Rev nw J
it vi a
Ar hnopology 3 , 469- 4X
\ia , C C On ninpa dtnu at us ii. uratabrUt Ni an ajo ala ian
L A. j. Parkinson, 1. (2004), Hearing voices: negotiating representation lairns ira pubia
eluta Ps and democ maw gosetn rice in [mope, in 1 J I lesse and
n en ar Put ft delabera io She British Journal of Poluics and Intern stio rail 1 1 t o 6
a r 6 , n in u H I k ( nj vi a
37(0388.
1 i imt ii tn vi 1 1 1a04 Bath a I adete Nornos Vcriagsgeseilschaft and
Penraoc k, j. R (196$) Political representation: an overview, in 1. ft Pennok anti
-
I all C 52 lv w is
1 man (ed ,), Nomos X: Representation (New York, Athe 1 ram r
I. W (:h
19 1)1 ii I tin ph aif Ri pats nra inn Ca err air r t (Cambric ge.
Phillips, A. (1995), The Politics of Presence (Oxford: Oxtmird University Press).
rail rrd I nvrrsrt :evs
(2000) Fq mality, pluralisna, universality current concc is t a ax at
i sb l 1 5 n a r t rs 6 k. n w ame t pre ent
theon B in She British Journal pt Politics and international Relations 2, 2,

s an C S u titi ge t vs tin 2 he jots nat oPolrt as 61, 3 628--657.
r tSar nc n P,Ii - at Science Review 331 255
N) let! nit. V I si. a - in
Patkin 11 F. (1)6 ), ie Comept (Representatior (Berkeley and Lu Wig ft (
turk: Free Press). University of California Press).
5-) J i a a) )lsert j P ( 9 13) 1 )craanaeratrc (let errranec (Niw
cd ( 969) Ripresentation (New York. Alherton),
a n 01 ), 0 q it a n St ft A. A o 1. dv Si y P as
,
(192), Wnttgenstenn and Justice (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University
( ra mt 6 1 1 Ci tar
I V IC ar ra w bAtles? in The of California Press
hi an. V 0 let all s a tnt
-
-. 2004), Reprscntatnun and democracy: ii measy alliance, ira cam idnu vii
I I -- S.
tail ja ttr I
Political Studies 27, 3, 335342.
 Bibliography
2(oi t k pnso tattoo is dci ioua y, in Constiltafloris 4, 1 34. (2002), Rawls and deliberative democracy, in M. Passerm L) I, treve e I.
k )n6 IF c )pcu So, t and ii. 7 Lmics fifth edition, two volumes) Democracy as Public Deltheration (Manchester: Manchester Lniversin Press
I mine Rutledge (2003), Enacting democracy, in Political Studies 51, 1, 161 179,
incnd. rgast I 7i)9() I2i lrxangle ol Representation (New york: Columbia Sawer, M. (2001), Representing trees, acres, voters and non-voters: coneept 01
tui5rrS7i Pum) parliamentary representation in Australia, in M. Sawer and C. Zappala teds
)tmmi ski, 1 999 \lmuialnt eon eption of democrar: a defense, in Speaking Jdr the People (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press)
1iapi ml (1 tacker Cordon eds P 1 )itncraLy tRIue (CambRdge: and G. Zappala (eds.) (2001), Speaking for the People (Melbourne Mel
,mflr d, nrnts Pmss bourne University Press).
nd islaum, B.
, 199 Democraco tLL ountahulif, and Schaffer, F. (1998), Demmracv in Translation (Ithaca, Ni: (, ornell I, iiis crs9,
I, an) rtdge r .iinhri I sit-t Prro
1 i og oount (V N and I ondon U Schat ci calm, E E. (1942) o Ly (overoment (New York II il 7.1 -t inS
n Sc c idle M. P. C. I 984 the views ofArcnd Iij a I a
cunis i Ada 17. lua 19 1 1949
ehmit i, P C (200 Part vs are not whit they onm we c
d R Cunt s (eds I ohuical Parties and DemF cracy B ilti i
niveis Iii I n J thus I Iopk.i is University Press)
a Umvers Schi ider md Ingram H ( 993), Social constructioi o tarp t 5 )U I sm
in Ihr (lower 0 h ca 0 imphe ns for politics and policy, n American Political cit in 81,
34 1
It i 2 1 ) -
Ii i j of rr ambri dpi 1. unbridgv r mci -
1 umpeter, J. A. (1976), ( apuahsm, Socialism and Detnoera p 1 tth cdition
Sc
(London: Alien and Unwin).
90 I snards a general tiseor political npreseniation in The Schwartz, N. I.. (1988), The Blue Guitar (Chicago. IL and London, Universits t,1
/ow nai F fioltins 68 1 1 Chicago Press)
58)) Reptcsentation rethought, on trustees, delegates, and gyroscopes in
., Scott, J. (1990), Domination and the Arts of Resistance (New Haven, (.1: Nile
in tad in iolitimil epresentation arid demor racr, in American Political University Press),
tH,O P i me tii3, 2, tin 219, Seitz, B. (1995>, The Trace of.Poliucal Representation (New York: SUNY Press),
L I Phikirig stsible, in R Kudieika, Paul P1cc: The ,Vature of Simons, J. (1995), The exile of political theory: the lost homeland of legnirnat ion,
I oid a: I [aewa, S s alders in Political Studies 43, 4, 683697.
1- then, fife aIim dv i a in t Roy (ed,), I inc tog to Skinner Q. (2005), Hobbes on representation in European Journ s o P1 lotopo,
udon, I Lumsh H 13 2 55--3l7,
As counta ,il world in Jourria if SHzak 1 (2002), lhc tripartite model of representatt n k ntal
P,ycho ogy Ii, 3, 239210
ntation r o sri al f Smith C ( (00), Idward deliberative institutions u V v
Demo ra ic ir n ivatn r (1. idon Routledge)
0(b) Beyond he Ballot london The POWER lnqui y
(,tuhiJ n fib a 2009), Dc nocratu In iovations (Cambridge: Cambridge Un vms
id (& 1,) (Londot Ige Spivak C C 988), Can thy subaltern speak? in (2. Ndson and I ( rg
i p demot iii litiesi equalit chIn at d vlarxnm and the lot pretation of (iulture (London. Ma ii I
 Bibliography
he co bai t i a Wilha fly V 998) Voic 1 st cndMtmory(Princ o 1) 1 i cit
i lrcss
tthin Li Yug V 000 nclvior dl rnocrcuyR)xfoic C cidrdf
p ioiL 1 2001 \cnv st aliengcs o deliberative Pm it at. in itica
lenrits ser r 9 a, 67u nod
4011 ijcii aid 3 j2. an/o nu (2 04) 1 nnxrzg the Citizen (I.,anbaiu Rowrr a & -
4. 1. (20991, 1 8 s i aged?
a) hit nih on Lions urnal of
4 89) hO.
1) (199t Rpit tilt ito ) Critical
lot 4r1 1 lm hit api H i i cago Press).
a 9 i, S 198o I on
m K in. i ,
A n American
So i 11&;41t 1 ni a,
a! P Rn
Ii i19a ill 7 1988 5 [Ii C SCAt ailS 15
A 1 4 alit io A. (dutmarmn
at 1 )tt,io ,al,1 II? I, tSelfiilc Stale 1r ii et n ) i ainction [niversity
1999 It nian at tIc tO anti pit I a) sock Is, m 1 Sc Journal of Political
1)1
iealOcla,lai. I) 9)99. Natuc and pohtical thtor , w Contemporary Political
ciJT
1
H I 4; 151;
l1tl I
0
)
8
a) sat ia my aaitte, ))eieuzc, /apatismo and the critique of

e)0 ,clitatnin i Par iiomcntcirt A//airs 59, 1, 138 154.
I )99lIla Ilk torn 0) rcpreceiitatnin: Mt 1711S reshaping of Parlia
,

mO. Sliiclica lit. 1 92- 11)2.
in I.cail)iOtaiL
Polaica) icadeiship and rhetoric, in C Orcnnan and I. (S. Castles
Sn 110110 Realiapeal . aoihiidgc: tarnhidge Aniseisity Press).
-1 i at! N. 2)19th, Ht presentation as adsocaca a s uth of democratic deliber
,ia 11 01 tb! iOta) Thea; i 9, 758 -78o.
flIt
1 onininits and apiure tIm. possc a ju 1
Im ment in democratic
cOts I tat ,ci l.a C aHall ll0000a
a, 2, )04 21
)ltc). -0 Inc m nlatoi 1 )t 0111 rat> C Pci - mitt of Chicago
11 ,n 1 1 91 . .5 tish in) 0) Wa C I IICI, iN 9,
1 199.1 p1 1 0 of babe I xi
I, 0)
( P itil m and ( on z - i C
1) ) lIly and ho)
1 s iCon lot
lam cc ito pohc
i 64, 4,
accountability 12, 27, 31, 912, 165 Bergman, T. 105
aesthetic representation, see represem van Biezen, I. 127, 129, 131
tation, aesthetic Bingham Powell, G. 44
Africa 82, 148 bioregional paradigm 114
Ahem, B. 67 Bohman, J. 165
Alcoff, L 16, 78 Bono 61, 82, 99, 14850
Amnesty International 27 Botswana 96
Anderson, B. 51 Bourdieu, P. 512
Andeweg, R. B. 105 British Medical Association 62
animals, representation of see noithu Budge, I. 165
man ani.mals Burke, E. 10, 70, 85, 93
Ankersmit, F. R. 68, 79, 107 BurrnalMyanmar 156
anticipatory representation 201, 92
Antigone 65 Capitol Building, Washington,
associative democracy 143 DCC. 91
audience (in representative claim) 18, Cavell, 5. 11
25, 278, 36, 4856, 667, 76, Celis, K. 120, l24-
11213, 119 Chabal, P. 57, 75, 103, 147
Austin, J 11 China 156
Australia 67, 119, 161 Chralbi, D. 62
authenticity 1034, 117 citizen representative 1657
authorization 12, i034, 160 citizenship, political 101, 125, 1657,
185
Bachrach, P. 152 citizens initiative 165
Bagchi, A. 106, 166 citizens jury 1645
Bang, HR 108 citizen standpoint 147
Baratz, M. 152 civil service 97
Barker, R. 61 claim, representative see representative
Bamett, C. 78 claim
Barthes, .R. 40 Clinto.n, B. 67
Bart.olini, S. 131 codes, cultural see representation,
Bauman, Z. 16, 42 cultural
Be&er, H. S. 78 Cohen, J 78
Beetham, .D. 87, 99 Coleman, S. 55
 Index
iLl 8,114 hail $ 75, 77 123 I B a 27
hlarnsor N 1 ,jphari,
hinchhfc, S I I iskin, R 90 00 1
Fhirscf man, A
1 7% U hLrs1, 14 hlirst, P. 143 McKay, F. 127
1-Lkstem, 1{ i0 Hobbes, F. 10, 91 Madison, [. It)
elcctwc iepresentation )4, 65, 731, Ilolden, B. 31 Mair, p. 127. 129, 131 -2
82-1 3, >41, 152 e alsu non House of Chiefs 96 Maione, C. 84, 106
House ofCorn r 81 Make Poverty Flistory 8
House of Lord 10 ii akcr of iep rscntatlo ss
Howard, M 4( ,3 11 20
]ronn lIuc5-n,A. 2 ) lanm, B. 4, 100
ua it I, F o1itica 86 Manshridge, 1. 19- 24, 20 31, 44, o
uhu. >1 44, identity 77-8 89, 12, 99, 122, 163. 1
i ii Union 84
ipeaii independence ot claimants 1069, [25 March,J. C. 98, 106
INGOs 27 Mann, L. 4748
interest 44- 5, 4 )7-9, 1 3 14 Marx, K. 1
12930 (48 Menzies, R F
intc. p e atlo . 3 4 183 metaphor, m sc U thco y
lraniai Guardsu Council )6 118 20 181 -2
a I to iraq 2, 99 Mexico 1(X)
S 0,, 1 7, -Ni F1eschi, C. i Italy 161 Micheletti, M. 101, 108
lislikin, j 7. 90, 10(1, 1647 Miii, J. S. 11819
judgment, political 30, 145Si. Miller, A. 67, 69
nklin 14 >19 15460, 164 Mills,W.J 12
ci s,-[ ho mnlsrepresentatlon 91 0
monarchy 96
karp P 1). 44, 71 Montanaro L 160
(ci in> B Keatmg, P. 67 Morocco 6..., 96
Ghana 96 Keohane, R. 27 Muller, W. 105
ot1nian, 1,. 67 , 70, 132 King, M. L. 28, 99 Muscovici, S. 43
oodin, 14. 4. )i), 78, 90, KIee, p. 51. 174
Kos yr 101 nation-state and repreun a ion
Yyidicka, W. io
nature 11 2(
I womv lasleti, I, 16- Netherlands thc
I atour, B. 51, 79 networks 1056
(u>Inann, A 159 legitimacy, democratic 84, 14360 New Zealand 181
gvroscopic cprescntatiOn 212, 92 legitimacy, political 26, 61, 96 Nigeria 156
 S ti C ft fl5Jt11411 4, (C, Pniidergasl, (. 79 nested 91 resoulces br 70--c
tO iC eiCCt c rineipa1 agent model 20 5 1045, patterns ot 94 silencing effects 32, 53
I 015 C 415 scrita stagin a id settir ol I 7( stata 8 3 1
s ib siv ctngfo studyo 183 4
axu a SLfl UlOif, s 19, csoorcv sr (Cl St4L
tl bu. 33, 72 sec ain ioies, represn roles, icpresentatiV It, M 42 s,
-4 -I6 8 15- [kVi5101411tV of judgment 153--4, tative 703, 83, 1o3
at uant 1014
mtl - C9t)0 ubiquity of 7981, loS Roy, A. 74, 139
Ic 16 I 1/CWO I S. -
representational art 14 Rubenstein, 1. 2 99
presi. ita we ci s
C(.[ itoi San W va, K 151
11 1 8 authen icity an 1 /8-- 9 Sarftr .15-
I 4. . C- I tt ere, j. CC, 80
4
R,in basic form 368 Sawer, l. 22
random select ion 100, 1645 contestation of 534 Schatter, h 103
8 - l-it Rawls. 5-, 117, i47, 16970 as constitutive 445, 4953, 38 Shmitt, C. 78, 107
I_I 4aga 67 democratic legiti nay and 143 -60 Schmitter P. 133 36
dual ci cit 4/ 8 Schnatts wader F I ?1
re Wi elect yr 1 -9 Schum wtcr, J S 90 1,0 1 1W
11 4
1, 74, 4) 12-13 denser ts of 43 ( Schwartz, N .3., 53
7 41 4 S44 I 5- Rehfeld, A 258, 32, 55-6 factors in success of 73 Scott, J 150
Relig, W 165 illustrated 37--It, 111 37, 157 8 Seitz, B. 52
ai ti toht. ai. ai 5
I - R.iubi St 74 judgment of 154-60 self representation 101-2, 1614
lincs o variatio i 7 -66 Simons 1 119
a (4, TI 0 sal nf iriS 2 Smith, 1 164
cpu tion wtR. in piicitexptl I iiO apivan, 77--
f1cfl, I ,cC, r_ )fts naiIsc lain 68, 73- 92, ho, 132 ,
internal-external 61 2 Squares, J. 1203
CT CCt1V, S. ,CftICi 214 represen tat ion, cultural 75- 7 particular-general 59oO stakeholder representation 83, 100--I
001015- L so I 40, 44 88 r presentation, politiCal singular-multiple 58 standpoint theory 147
act oety 1 1 unidi ectional-muhidirectional Stokes, .74
Siret, J (6,101
nesed i--S Stroni K iQi
bnj, ,
4
disUn i ms 41 nonikctive 95- 110 Stoffd, S. 124
as constitutive 14, 17, 20, 289 deeper roots 958 suhiect in representatise claim., 36.
toOt WCI re selitattli,,, (I at-pn seil
5- debates over 111 37 expertise 98 468, 112---13
0 01 il is 1a and [Mi 5% 26 wider interests and new substantive representation 4, 85,
as est 16 v ices 9S 102 0 6
p iaht /8 0 urrogat rcpres a a
14111,1 C r On I exis g theor s perfor i ance at d 66-70 Suu Kyi Aung Sai ISO
5_ 14 ngaL1ve aSpects 52 reception of 1029, 147, 15- Swidler, A. 75
1