The Concept of Representation - Essay Example

? The Concept of Representation A representative democracy has its grounds on the principle that a large group of people elect a group of people to represent their interest. On the other hand, in direct democracy members of the population vote on the policy initiatives directly. The US has both aspects of a representative and direct democracy. The president and the members of the House are voted in by the electorate to represent their views on various issues. However, in other issues, for example, change of the constitution members of the public directly vote to express their views. This paper seeks to explore the concept of representation from a multifaceted approach. On election, the elected member’s behavior in the house is determined by various factors. The concept of representation is based on the fact that the member of the House wants to be re-elected. Therefore, the member’s vote on a bill is based on the interest of their constituents. In contrast, organizational concept the members of the constituents are unaware of their leader’s vote. Therefore, the vote of their political leaders is not influenced by the need to please them. The attitudinal concept is based on the assumption that there are many conflicting pressures on the member of Congress such that these pressures cancel each other out. This means that the member votes on based on their own will and beliefs. According to Melancton Smith, the members of Congress should resemble those they represent in the House. The member ought to posses the same characteristics of the people they resemble. These members ought to be a reflection of the people they represent so as to understand as well as comprehend the needs and desires of their people. Smith argues that, for one to understand and sympathize with all the distress of the people, they must have knowledge about the circumstances surrounding the people. According to Smith, this knowledge cannot be attained through education. The member has to be in the same circumstances as the people they represent. Because of this, Smith believes that those in the middling class are more competent to represent the people than those in the superior class. This is because persons in the middling class not only comprehend the commercial and political situation of the country but also have knowledge of the circumstance of the people (Smith, 1788). According to Smith, for the government to impose taxes on the people they not only require to understand the financial system but also knowledge on the ability and the circumstances of the people. This means that the government has to analyze how the tax burden will bear upon the different class of people. This means the members of Congress should have knowledge about the people they represent in terms of class and the circumstances surrounding each class (Smith, 1788). According to Smith, to determine whether the number of members of Congress proposed by a constitution is sufficient, it is necessary to scrutinize the qualifications which the members ought to posses so as to address the needs of the people. Smith argues that the number of representatives should be large enough to admit members from both the middling and superior class. In every society, there are classes based on wealth, education, talent and birth. In societies where the government so constituted, the House will be composed of members from the superior class. This is because men of the superior class are likely to be elected by the members of the society. Smith also believes that, men of the superior class are likely to succeed during elections because of their influence. According to Smith, the men in the superior class easily form associations to address their interest. On the other hand, the poor and those in the middling class form associations with difficulties. The voters of the poor and middle class will be divided with a majority in favor of those in the superior class. In this case, the government will be composed of individuals from the superior class. According to Smith, this will be an oppressive government that is bound to fulfill the interest of the rich. This is because those in the superior class do not understand the interests of the poor and those in the middling class. Furthermore, Smith argues that the men of the superior class being in the habit of excess spending, they are likely to misuse public funds (Smith, 1788). In contrast, those in the middling class will ensure that they apply public funds with caution as they understand the circumstances surrounding the increase of a tax burden. Although Smith is skeptical about the men in the superior class, he does not advocate for their elimination in Congress. This is because they will be discontented, factious and frequently disturbing the government. This is because they will feel that their interests are not addressed by the government. According to Smith, the solution is to frame the Constitution in a way that the members of the superior class, as well as those in the middling class, are absorbed into the government. Furthermore, Smith believes that a representative body composed of members from both classes is the best security to liberty. This is because when the interests of both the middling and superior class are addressed, the public interests are addressed. In every society, men of the superior class demand respect. They tend to have power and control in the society. If the men from the superior class make up a majority in Congress, they are likely to exercise their powers and control on the few men from the middling class. Therefore, it is imperative that the number of people elected from the superior class does not outdo that from the middling class. Furthermore, Smith believes that it is necessary to include the men of the middling class so that they can control the powers and selfish interests of those in the superior class. Smith believes that there is a significant danger of collaboration and corruption if the number of the members of Congress is so small. Local as well as foreign corruption is likely it occur if the Constitution provides for a small government. In a small government, the members are likely to collaborate so as to address their selfish interest. Smith thus argues that the interest of the people cannot be addressed by a small number of honorable people in the House. In addition, he believes that they will not be able to oppose the greed and selfish interests of the corrupt majority. According to Smith, the Constitution does not sufficiently address the issue concerning the number of legislature. Therefore, it is upon the members of the House to fix the Constitution so as to protect the liberty of the people. Smith believes that the government functions upon the spirit of the people while the liberty of the people depends on the government. Where the two parties do not conform, one or the other prevails. Thus, the duty of the people is to create a government that is pleasant to the liberty of the people. An oppressive government will operate in a selfish way to deprive the people power, as well as freedom (Smith, 1788). The future position of the government cannot be predicted. It is thus necessary to ensure that the elected members represent the needs of the people. Alexander Hamilton disagrees that the House of Representatives should be large enough to accommodate all classes of citizens. Hamilton claims that this proposition is impracticable and above all unnecessary. The discussion of the sufficiency of representatives with regards to number is a contentious issue. Hamilton notes that the idea of a representation that encompasses all classes of the citizens is highly visionary and non-achievable. He notes that if each of the different occupations was given a slot for representation, chaos would erupt in terms of governance. This means that each class would want to serve the needs of its own. When it comes to taxes, each represented class will want to lower the taxes that they incur. They will be more inclined into uplifting the group that they belong to. This renders such a proposition as preposterous, and practically unattainable. Hamilton, therefore, asserts the imperativeness of a few chosen ones representing the majority. This, he acclaims, will bring harmony in governance and resource allocation. In as much as representation of each class is unattainable, there should be some level of equality pertaining to class representation. James Madison believes that the representative should be chosen based on character and not on class or occupation of the citizens. He believes that the aim of a political constitution should be to acquire rulers that possess the most virtue, wisdom and the common good of the constituents (Madison, 1788). When the representation is based on class and occupation, there is elevation of a few and the ruining of many. Hence, there should be no preponderance when it comes to choosing of the electors of federal representatives. Therefore, the electors should encompass the great body of US people. This implies that every citizen with the recommended merit, the confidence and esteem of his country should not be barred from holding such a position. Madison notes that the ties that bind the representative to his electorate are of selfish nature when they depend on class or occupation. This will encourage the representative to carry out the interests of the faction he hails from. This has been demonstrated to cause degeneration of the government into tyranny. It leads to representatives making legal discriminations that are in favor of a particular class in the society and in favor of themselves. This will in turn serve to furnish the selfish needs of the representative and his class. Those that do not belong to this class will lose out by all means. Their plight will only be considered after the satisfaction of the “ruling class”. A case that depicts the demerits of the class and occupation representation is the British House of Commons (Madison, 1788). People are only eligible as representatives to this House if they possess a certain degree of wealth and rank. This has served to elevate only the few who can afford such wealth. Hence, those who cannot be able to “buy” their way to power are left out. The oppressed, further become oppressed in the representation. Eventually, few are elevated, and many are left on the ruins. In all, the many are sacrificed to the few. Edmund Burke in his speech believes that a representative should follow his/her judgment or conscience. The representative should not be restricted by the wishes of the voters. It is now commonplace for chosen representative to consider and incorporate the judgment of their electorate into theirs. Representatives are afraid to make any decisions that go against the will of their people. They fear that this might lead to their decline in popularity. To an extent, the will of the majority should be respected (Burke, 1774). The representative is chosen by their constituents so as to represent the constituents’ needs. Therefore, one may argue that the trustee conception is selfish and geared towards satisfying the needs of the representative. This is despite the fact that the representative should “represent” the majority, and not the self. With this regard, a representative is bound by the will of the majority. It is imperative that the representative harbors the will of the people and not of self. Burke believes that the representative’s judgment, opinion and conscience are only answerable to himself. This should not be the case. There are representatives who might be having selfish ideas and objectives that they want to achieve. The representative’s judgment may be twisted and wrong at times. By allowing a representative to make a judgment for the constituency, too much power is bestowed on the representative. Rogue leaders may use this to their advantage. They may make decisions that lead to their profitability. In this respect, they are biased in their thinking. The constituents or electorate is left to suffer as their pleas are not answered or respected (Burke, 1774). Burke argues that legislation and government are matters of judgment and reason, and not inclination (Burke, 1774). However, Burke forgets that the people chose their leader to represent and air their wishes. It is thus egocentric for one man to make decisions that he/she deciphers to be true. Despite all these, a representative is chosen for his sound mind and his decision making skills. This means that as long as an electorate has chosen a member to lead them, they believe in his decision making process. One may argue that it is only fair that you let the representative do the work that you chose him to: make a judgment on your behalf. It is not always possible for the representative to satisfy the will of each constituent. However, it is prudent that the representative considers the interests of the majority in terms of decision making. If the interests of the majority are contrary the real good of the community, then the representative has a right refute this, and in place, deliver his/her judgment. In conclusion, representation in the US government has several contentious issues. Smith qualifies that the representation should be large enough so as to accommodate the will and needs of every class. He notes that the representative should share same demographic characteristics with the constituents. This will enable the representative to do his job at a higher capacity and understanding. Hamilton believes that it is practically impossible to have each class represented. Were this achievable, it would cause chaos in governance, taxation and resource allocation. Madison believes that there should be no preponderance in terms of class, when it comes to the choosing of representatives. In another aspect, Burke affirms that representatives should be entitled to making their own decisions, despite the will of the majority. This often supports the egocentric wants of the representative and its benefit to the constituents is questionable. The representative should represent the will of the majority. Reference List Burke, E. (1774). Speech to the Electors of Bristol. 3 Nov. 1774. Works 1:446-448. Hamilton, A. ().Concerning the General Power of Taxation. For the Independent Journal (Federalist 35). Madison, J. (1788). The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation. New York Packet, February 19, 1788 (Federalist 57). Smith, M. (1788). New York Ratifying Convention. Speech, 23rd June 1788. Read More