THE POLITICAL REPRESENTATION
“INSIDE POLITICAL THEORY: EDMUND BURKE”
BY : Omar Colmenares Trujillo.
When we talk about political representation Burke is
the great reference, because perhaps the depth of his thinking in the light of
reason and justice led him in addition to his economic difficulties to the
English parliament in 1766.
His trips to Paris and the knowledge of several French
encyclopedists further contributed to his conservative ideas, Burke pretended
to always be recognized as the most moderate of the liberals.
Among his great works we can mention A Vindication of
Natural Society: A View of the Miseries and Evils Arising to Mankind (1756), A
Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful
(1757), Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790).
But in particular "REFLECTIONS ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION"
Where he rejects revolutionary practices because I always consider that the
legal principles of that revolution were too abstract and inconsiderate with
individuality and in this order established his "epistemology of
politics" as a model of empiricism politician.
However, political theory is sometimes very severe in
its judgments against Burke's political thought, and this is explained by the
defense of the tradition branded as reactionary, but I can say in my opinion
that he was a true liberal, progressive, loved freedom and seconded many ideas
of the liberal thought of the time, in
Matter of religion and economy, and I really like a
particular phrase that distinguished it is "orderly freedom", that is
to say, no confusion of freedom with debauchery.
Now, as far as the economy is concerned, it seems to
me that he supported precisely that economic freedom and private property by
obtaining the appreciation and recognition of Adam Smith as well as the famous
Lord Acton.
I want us to get into the subject, first to argue that
representing means to present again, to present something or someone who is not
present from this perspective. Political science develops the theory of
representation in three opposite directions, depending on whether A) is
associated with idea of mandate or delegation B) with the idea of representativeness
that is, of similarity or similarity, C) with the idea of responsibility;
Now I want us to go into each one of these in particular.
Representativeness tells us that someone is representative
of saying that this personifies some essential characteristics of the group,
class or profession from which it comes or belongs and finally we understand
that the representative government is a responsible government that is where I
am going to place to make a political analysis that I have called The crisis of
political representation.
And from which I will take Burke as a great exponent
of this matter, curiously conservative, monarchical, and aristocratic.
The Historical development of the political theory of
representativeness should observe the distance of this modern representation
from the French to the medieval revolution, that contraposition to the
imperative mandate that repudiates the constitution of 1791 where the great
difference between the people and the people is also exposed. nation because if it is the people who are declared
sovereign, who have the voice, they cannot speak except through their
representatives said Sieyes in 1789.
But something different is to speak of the representation
of the nation and not of the people, because it will no longer designate only
the relationship between the deputy and those who have delegated to it, but to
the nation as such, so Bordeau also stated when I affirm the representation as
it was understood in 1789 does not call into question more than a single will.
The nation represented, that is why in the British parliament they are called
deputies, because when they ceased to be so, they ceased to be presidents.
But as I admired Burke in his famous 1779 speech to
his constituents in Bristol.
But it was necessary the glorious English revolution,
the declaration of independence of the United States of America and the French
revolution so that the representation began to be connected to the government and
despite the growth of the representative bodies, it will never have to govern
the only thing that he is required is sufficient independence to work in favor
of the state, because precisely and occupied in the body like the parliament
this became the representative of the nation and although it implies a legal
fiction that ultimately represents an obstacle to the general will.
Consequently, parliaments (congress, chamber of
deputies) must move under balance and moderation, because if they go to the
extreme of defending the interests of the governed they would then represent a
nuisance for the government, and 7 if they go to the side of defending
Government interests would no longer fulfill their representative function of
the people or nation.
Now I want to stop at the virtual representation
theorized by Burke, which is ultimately the representation without choice and
for this we must pay attention to the concept of existential or sociological
representation where the fundamental thing is not the method of selection but
the identity and the coincidence of interests.
But the concern lies in the need for the governed to
feel represented, to feel that they have a little power in front of the state
and this is due to the need for choice, because perhaps their representatives
would be forced to their denominates and not to the nation , so it is clear
that political representation is protected by an electoral safeguard.
In Friedrich's words, the representation rests on a
Think So, that is, under the term of the ideas, a person represents another, so
this representation is not in itself an idea but also a duty, which necessarily
requires that the election acquires a meaning and an intention to represent in
any electoral system or method and as this leads us to the virtual
representation from which elective representation emerges because we all know
that elections are one thing and representation is another.
The virtual representation said Burke in a letter to
Sir Hercules Langrishe - it is one in which there is a communion of interests
and a sympathy of feelings and desires, among those who act in the name of any
meaning of the people, and the people in the name of those who act, despite the
fact that the fiduciaries have not been chosen in fact for him. This
representation is in many cases, I think, even better than the effective one.
It has a large part of its advantages and eliminates many of its disadvantages.
However, this type of virtual representation cannot have a long and secure
existence if it does not have the effective representation as a substrate. The
deputy must have a certain relationship with the electorate ”BURKE, The Works
P, 557, speech of May 8, 1780 in the commons on the frequency of elections.
Then it is clear that political representation is the
theory of responsible representation, here the mere requirement of similarity
is not necessary, but that of ensuring the obligation to respond, and it is
only through the elections that one can ultimately determine so be it.
What we have Today more than an Imperative mandate,
(Burke and Mill) is an empty and meaningless formula of political
representation, where the people place their trust in a representative they
don't know.
Only the elections can guarantee the people that this
political representation is truly responsible with their electorate
So today we have more than a representative mandate,
more than an “imperative mandate”, and that is that political leaders do not
ascend to represent the interests of their community (electors), but instead to
satisfy the lowest wishes of contractors owners of the regional public
administrations, who financed him, who contributed financially to gain the
position, which Burke would say in the face of such a demon in political
representation.
So this approach, seen from political theory, should
lead us to observe political responsibility as an imminent feature of political
representation; more than the figure of a trustor and a trustee, the latter who
must guarantee and fulfill the mandate for which he was elected.
To talk about representativity we will stop again to
the political approaches of Edmund Burke, and that is that we feel represented
by who belongs to our extraction matrix because we presume that that person
personifies us.
Then the conflict stems from whether to find the
person who substitutes us personifying us (etymologically to put on the mask)
and of course that the representation has been born m historically within the
synonym of belonging.
Thus stated, it is clear that it is plausible that a
person feels better represented when the representative is an alter ego,
someone “like him” someone who acts like the actuarial because he is
(existential or professional) but that said, another difficulty arises and it
is that of a parliament or representative body that is an almost mirror of the
similarities of extraction but that is nevertheless deaf to the demands of
society that precisely reflects, as it happens in Colombia, hence the supremacy
of political responsibility lies (Respond responsibly) about simple similarity.
The idea of responsibility has God faces a) personal
responsibility towards someone, that is, the obligation of the representative
to respond to the owner of the relationship; b) the functional or technical
responsibility to reach an adequate level in terms of capacity and efficiency.
The first as we can see is a dependent responsibility and the second therefore
independent, that the representative in the first term acts as another and that
in the second case a responsible responsibility is intended, their behavior is
trusted.
In political terms, it can be inferred that the term
responsible government has two different expectations: that a government is
receptive, or sensitive (responsive) and must respond for what it does b) a
government behaves responsibly acting efficiently and competently
However, a responsible government can also be a highly
irresponsible government. The more receptive a government becomes, the less it
is in a position to be responsible.
Within this study of representativeness and more in
the case of the political theory of Edmund Burke, noted English thinker, it is
hardly obvious that we refer to the representative system of the United
Kingdom, which is based on a uninominal electoral method that attributes a
limited margin of election to the voter, but that favors a bipartisan system.
On the other hand, in systems such as that of France,
it is based on a system that leaves a wide margin for the elector, and favors
multipartism, this to say that the electoral system of the United Kingdom
sacrifices the representativeness of parliament to the demand of a responsible
government, while the French sacrifice the efficiency of a government to the
representativeness of the parliament.
In countries with uninominal constituencies, they vote
to create a stable and responsible government, and only in a subordinate way a
representative parliament. In countries with a proportional system, they vote
to create a representative parliament and only a subordinate government. Thus,
since proportional elections tend to produce free majorities (not imposed
majorities) in parliament, they would result not only changeable governments,
but also with little empowered responsibility.
In this order of ideas and as established by political
science it could be said that in the majority systems the representation is
less faithful, but reaches higher, to the government; while in proportional
systems the representation is more faithful, but it has a shorter projection,
it only reaches the assembly. Thus, the representation becomes representative,
leaving aside the connotation of responsibility.
In the majority systems the seats do not correspond to
the votes, but the imperfection of the representativeness is compensated by
everything that is gained in clarity and immediacy of responsibility:
throughout the legislature the responsibility is of the governing party. On the
contrary, in the proportional systems so many votes correspond to so many seats
in the parliament, but this division of the assembly attenuates the
responsibility of the government.
But how can we reconcile an efficient government with
a representative representation? Constitutional engineering would mean, as
Bordeau argued, (traité de science politique) choosing between independent
responsibility and dependent responsibility to a greater extent than between
governed and governing democracy.
Thus we could argue that a representative system
cannot exist without periodic elections capable of holding the rulers
accountable to the ruled, but then receptivity prevails, that is, a dependent
responsibility.
A political system is described as representative at
the moment when honest electoral practices ensure a reasonable degree of
response of the rulers to the governed. This does not imply the universality of
suffrage, but it states that no representative system can be based solely on
virtual representation.
But just as some political science scholars raise
three questions, the first one is who is represented? And it is that as happens
in Colombia the more numerous the electorate becomes, the more we lose sight of
who is represented; It leads us well to the individual who votes and his
representative intention and that his electoral behavior wants to convey. It
can be maintained that the act of voting expresses: a) what the voter has to
say (or thinks); or b) what the voter is (existentially); or C) what the voter
wants. In the first representation we could say that the representation
represents opinions, in the second the representation means an appearance of
social class or trade; and in the voluntarist interpretation an individual can
be represented even if it is silent.
And as a second question, what does it represent? Here
it seems convenient to refer to the so-called territorial constituencies within
the representative system, the localities, as in our country with the House of
Representatives, although it is still a matter of research within the social
sciences, the truth is that it is indisputable that the representation
territorial does not satisfy and becomes a real problem of functional representation.
But within this area, in the face of the party process
there are two phases, one that is the relationship between voters and parties
and the other one is the relationship between representatives and parties, and
here there is a fairly studied phenomenon and it is the co-optation of the
apparatus party, which is what really constitutes the effective election,
because the voters choose the party, but the elect are elected by the party, as
happens in the democratic center, but autocratic inside, where the citizens say
colloquially "He who says Uribe ”and it is to that chosen by the party or
Uribe that the electorate fixes its support as a political party.
Then, as Duverger said at the time, the modern
representative is entrusted with a double mandate from one of his constituents
and another from the party, but ultimately the mandate of the party is the one
that prevails over the electoral mandate.
We can affirm then that the representation with time
has lost immediacy, and that it cannot be understood simply as a mere
relationship between voters and representative, but rather, voters, parties and
representative and in political praxis it is the parties that ended up
replacing the electorate, but of all research in this area, the problem remains
that of political responsibility.
In my opinion the English representative system is in
practice the most democratic, despite being within a constitutional monarchy,
that is why Edmund Burke is constituted as one of those who contributed to his
parliamentary establishment, and that is how the scholars affirm the English
people love to be governed, and the order of priorities could be A) Coherence,
B) To give account to the parliament C) Receptivity towards public opinion and
its demands.
