Formalistic Types of Government Basing on Pitkin Reference - Essay Example

Formalistic types of government basing on Pitkin reference affiliation Introduction In her work on the concepts of representation, Hanna Pitkin surveys the debate which been raging on the meaning of representation and discusses how several theories and concepts diverge or coalesce. According to Hanna, representation means making the present. Pitkin’s definition on representational highlights the paradox in the meaning of representation- the dual requirements of the object or the person being represented simultaneously is present and not present. Pitkin focuses on the reason individuals can give to defining representation in suggesting someone is being represented and not on what makes a person feel represented. Pitkin’s summarizes views on formalistic representation- entailing those based on the accountability and authorization concepts. Consequently, the normative framework developed to evaluate the nature of representation of the United States political system draws aspects of each of the major theory. Throughout the discussion, the survey mentioned of the representation literature by Pitkin has been used in framing the discussion on how concepts are being realized. This is in reference to the representation of a common person in the politics system of the United States. Formalistic views of representation Authorization view or representation focuses on the formal arrangement existing between the represented and the representative. Under this view, the form of representation “occurs when an individual has been authorized to act in other peoples place”, and the representative, “acts with authority binding in other peoples name”1. The authorization focuses on the arrangements of primary concern through which the representative is granted the authority. The representative can be thought of a conduit through which the actions of the represented can be heard. In this view, citizens contract essentially by authorizing, to their representative, all actions, and judgments as though they are their own. For this reason, the concept of authorization view is kept for actions accrue to be the represented. There are three concepts, which are relevant to the concepts of authorization view. First, only rational actors can grant authority. For example, since a child is not able to rationalize, his or her parent would not be considered a representative, but rather a trustee who looks after the child’s interests. “The represented must also be (conceived as) capable of independent action and judgment, not merely being taken care of”2. Secondly, once the representative has been authorized to act the individual is, for this reason, free to act. However, he or she is only able to work within the limits granted by authorization. When an individual decides to act outside the bounds of his or her authorization, he or she is no longer considered a representative. The third concept is key to authorization view is the idea of a multitude of men being made “one person”. In this case, authorities are given to the representative by many authors and since the responsibility for actions are bestowed to the represented. Hence, the fact that each person is represented becomes the legitimate owner of all the actions of the representative. Example, in United States system of politics, the individual elected always represents a huge number of the population. However, when the elected individual tries to focus more on the interest of the few people in the society who are vocal, it becomes unclear whether the representative is representing the interest of the few or the entire population. As we contemplate the view of authorization in the context of United States, it is evident this type of view has no sufficient guidance. This is true when it comes to representing individuals with divergent interest in the society. In addition, the view on authorization highlights an important dimension of representation- the act of authorizing a representative to act on behalf of other people- it does not clearly offers a definition, which is complete with representation since the individual can decide to act with his or her interests3. However, since the view focuses mainly on arrangements that are formal between the represented and representative, it tends to lack normative guidance for how any representative should be acting and whose interest he should be representing. This shortcoming becomes deleterious when it comes to the application of this representational view of the political system. For example, this view on authorization suggests equal representation on stable dictatorship and representative democracies. In both governments, authority is granted from the people. For this reason, the view of authorization is seen to be incomplete because of the exclusion of the political consensus concept is crucial to the notion of government representation4. Essentially, the authorization theorists see a formalistic view of representative government as the only possible solution to the conflicts resulting from politics, which ultimately arise in a country having diverse constituent. Whereas the inclusion of political consensus in the representational definition precludes individuals from achieving institutions free from conflicts, its inclusions preserve a vital underpinning of the concept of government of representative. For this reason, it is expected that the representative will provide structures to help in solving a conflict but not eliminating it. In the United States political system, where representative democracy is applied, elections are viewed as the action of authorization at the center of the theory of authorization. In this case, an elected body is only a true representative if only granted to decide deliberately for other people. When voters elect representatives, it is hard to ascertain their wishes by the nature of the elected candidates. In addition, the voters do not outline actions, which are specific for their representative to act through the electoral process of voting. In a complex political system, such as the United States, it is awkward to be expecting the average voter to accept the full responsibility for the consequences because of the policy decisions that are intricate. It is unclear on whether or not the United States elections constitute a real grant of authority if governments are only formed through true representation, “we have to say that the representative must pursue his constituents’ interest, in a manner at least potentially responsive to their wishes…”5 Application of the authorization view to the political system of the United States offers suggestions that citizens can give authority without necessarily participating in a democratic election. The democratic election of the United States is a bit complex compared to the direct democracy practiced by several other countries. Their electoral process acts as a deliberate mechanism where public opinion polls counts more than the direct polls casted in every state. The popularity of the candidate is important in this case. Consent or authority can be given the citizens participation in a deliberate, and not necessarily formal, activities of institutions. A good example of a non-institutional and a deliberate mechanism in the political system of United States is the polling of public opinion. For long, Public opinion polls have been used as a mechanism to measure the consensus in politics where elections may seem to be failing. If the opinion poll of the public achieves this end, it therefore suggests, the representatives can use polls as a proxy for the interests of the people who they are representing. Hence heightening and strengthening the link between the people. To the representative, the public opinion matters a lot and he or she should be paying attention to the opinion polls keenly. The poll dictates what the society thinks and their views on the representative. Through opinion polling, the representative gets to know the society’s mind amid the next election. In such a case where the public opinion is against the representative, the individual works hard to change the view of the society to his or her advantage. In addition, public opinion also acts to convince the public in selecting a certain representative during elections and acting towards a certain direction. The concept of authorization should be included in the definition of representation. Particularly in the context of the United States, the system is not direct compared to other countries, but a representative democracy. As a result, the process of giving authority to any representative to act on the behalf of the citizens is important to the process of representation. In conclusion, while the view on authorization gives fundamental component of what it means for individuals to be represented, its failure to incorporate ideas from the citizens in determining what they are wishing, and protecting their interests and being responsible to the represented make it a theory of representation that is incomplete6. On the other hand, formalistic view of accountability is centered on the accountability concept. In this case, a representative is an individual who is held responsible for his or her actions. In the United States, all the representatives elected to various offices are monitored and accountable for all the things that they do. In case an individual violates a given code of conduct while in office a vote of no confidence is passed since he or she is not accountable to the roles he or she was elected to do while in office. The vital concepts in the accountability view are the notions of government responsiveness and consents. In accountability view, the notion of consent is considered to be retrospective and not prospective, a consensual granting of authority with the view of authorization. Another important difference between the accountability views from authorization view is the idea that the representative governments must be responsive to their citizens. In all, elections are the main formal mechanisms through which citizens use to hold their representatives to account for their actions. In addition, several other mechanisms can achieve this in the end including the opinion polls of the public and the media, as well as other non-electoral forms used in participation such as protest7. As a result of standing alone, the view of accountability is not sufficient to complete an assessment of the nature of representational politics in the United States. Pitkin points out the primary deficiencies in the accountability view. This theory fails to address how the representatives are required to be acting between elections and whose interests they are supposed to be representing. Secondly, those representatives acting contrary to what they are supposed to be acting cannot be held accountable between elections. This deficiency limits the accountability theorist’s ability to measuring how a government of representation is. In addition, polls are also used in the United States in accountability view. In this situation, the polling is done to determine whether the representative is carrying out his or her duties in accordance to the law and in such a way that public funds and utilities are mot mismanaged. In case the public is dissatisfied with the representatives’ work, the opinion polls will not favor the individual and will be under pressure to quit his or her duties. On the other hand, when an individual is accountable for his or her actions and the public is contented with the duties then the opinion polls will be in favor of the individual. The opinion polls are used as a tool in the United States to make the leaders be accountable for their actions. While the view of accountability may not be comprehensive, the arguments of Pitkin that the government of representation cannot be held accountable may be overstated. Evidence states the United States Congress is responsive to the political mechanism, which is informal such as the macro-public opinion. As a result, the views on accountability and dimensions are necessary, that is government responsiveness and evaluation, to the definition of representation. The two mechanism for giving consent and evaluation are the public opinions and the motives for re-elections. The two help in guiding the representatives actions in the United States. In accountability view, the leaders are held accountable of what they are doing. The public participates in shaping the leaders through gathering the society for protest. The public uses protest as a tool of voicing their plea to the leaders to be accountable. Conclusion In the above discussion, the accountability and authorization views are presented essentially as conflicting views. This does not mean the two are necessarily disharmonious. The political representation should be considered a dynamic process in which the relationship existing between the representative and the represented oscillates between moments of accountability and moments of authorization. This means, the represented are continually holding accountable and at the same time authorizing. For this reason, the benchmark for evaluating the political representation must incorporate the concepts from the evaluation and concepts. In addition, it must also allow the consent incorporated to be granted, and the representatives are evaluated using both informal and formal systems. References Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Read More