Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-qc88w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-03T20:55:22.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Varieties of public representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Philip Pettit
Edited by
Ian Shapiro ,
Susan C. Stokes ,
Elisabeth Jean Wood  and
Alexander S. Kirshner
Philip Pettit
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Ian Shapiro
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Susan C. Stokes
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Elisabeth Jean Wood
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Alexander S. Kirshner
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Get access

Summary

Background and basics

Systems of representative government, I shall assume, are designed to give control over government to the people. Far from being an alternative to democracy, as some have taken them (Manin 1997), they embody an institutional framework – or rather a family of frameworks – for realizing the democratic ideal of giving kratos to the demos, power to the people. The distinction between a participatory and a representative system is not one between democracy proper and some faint approximation but a distinction between rival proposals for the implementation of democracy.

My focus in this chapter is on representation in this democratic, popularly enabling sense. Thus the target of the chapter is narrower than it might have been. As Hobbes in particular argues, the idea of representation may be used, not just of representatives who are subject to the continuing or periodic control of the people, but also of a hereditary, absolute monarch. The defenders of parliament in the 1640s tried to give its members a monopoly right on the use of the word (Skinner 2005), but Hobbes argued against them that it was absurd that a monarch who “had the sovereignty” over his subjects “from a descent of 600 years” should not be “considered as their representative” (Hobbes 1994: 19.3). His own view, to the contrary, was that “the King himself did…ever represent the person of the people of England” (Hobbes 1990: 120).

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Political Representation , pp. 61 - 89
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abramson, J. 1994. We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 1999. Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, G. and Lomasky, L.. 1992. Democracy and Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, E. 1999. “Speech to the Electors of Bristol,” in Selected Works of Edmund Burke. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Canning, J. P. 1983. “Ideas of the State in Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century Commentators on the Roman Law.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 33: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canning, J. P. 1987. The Political Thought of Baldus de Ubaldis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, T. 1996. The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. 1957. “The Concept of Power.” Behavioral Science 2: 201–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1986. Law's Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1986a. “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory,” in Foundations of Social Choice Theory, ed. Elster, J. and Hilland, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 103–30.Google Scholar
Eschmann, T. 1946. “Studies on the Notion of Society in St Thomas Aquinas: St Thomas and the Decretal of Innocent IV Romana Ecclesia, Ceterum.” Medieval Studies 8: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, J. 2007. “The Citizens' Assembly Model,” in Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens' Assembly, ed. Perse, H. and Warren, M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 192–213.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J. S. 1997. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Foweraker, J. and Landman, T.. 2002. “Constitutional Design and Democratic Performance.” Democratization 9: 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. and Fagotto, E.. 2006. “The British Columbia Citizens' Assembly.” Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1969. Languages of Art. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. H. 1991. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. 1990. Behemoth or The Long Parliament, ed. Toennies, F.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. 1994. Leviathan, ed. Curley, E.. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Ketcham, R. (ed.). 2003. The Anti-Federalist Papers. New York: Signet Classic.
Knights, M. 2005. Representation and Misrepresentation in Later Stuart Britain: Partisanship and Political Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kornhauser, L. A. and Sager, L. G.. 1993. “The One and the Many: Adjudication in Collegial Courts.” California Law Review 81: 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larmore, C. 2003. “Public Reason,” in The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, ed. Freeman, S.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 368–93.Google Scholar
Linz, J. J. and Valenzuela, A. (eds.). 1994. The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
List, C. and Pettit, P.. 2002. “Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result.” Economics and Philosophy 18: 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. 1960. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lovett, F. 2007. “Power,” in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. Goodin, R. E., Pettit, P., and Pogge, T.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McLean, J. 2004. “Government to State: Globalization, Regulation, and Governments as Legal Persons.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 10: 173–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, B. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97: 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J. forthcoming, “A‘Selection Model’ of Political Representation,„ Journal of Political Philosophy.
Mill, J. S. 1964. Considerations on Representative Government. London: Everyman Books.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. 1994. The Nature of Rationality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. 2001. A Theory of Freedom: From the Psychology to the Politics of Agency. Cambridge: Polity Press; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. 2004. “Depoliticizing Democracy.” Ratio Juris 17: 52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, P. 2007. “Republican Liberty: Three Axioms, Four Theorems,” in Republicanism and Political Theory, ed. Laborde, C. and Manor, J.. Oxford: Blackwell, 102–30.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. and Schweikard, D.. 2006. “Joint Action and Group Agency.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36: 18–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, R. 2007. “Reconceptualising Democratic Representation,” BA honors thesis, Department of Philosophy, University of Sydney.
Phillips, A. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H. F. (ed.). 1969. Representation. New York: Atherton Press.
Pitkin, H. F. 1972. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rabkin, J. A. 1998. “The Secret Life of the Private Attorney General.” Law and Contemporary Problems 61: 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, A. 2005. The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation, Democratic Legitimacy, and Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, A. 2006. “Towards a General Theory of Political Representation.” Journal of Politics 68: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, H. 2002. Democratic Autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, J.-J. 1973. The Social Contract and Discourses. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Shugart, M. S. and Carey, J. M.. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Q. 2005. “Hobbes on Representation.” European Journal of Philosophy 13: 155–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, J., Kendall, E., and Coote, A.. 1994. Citizens' Juries. London: Institute of Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
Urbinati, N. 2000. “Representation as Advocacy: A Study of Democratic Deliberation.” Political Theory 28: 758–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waley, D. 1988. The Italian City-Republics, 3rd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Woolf, C. N. S. 1913. Bartolus of Sassoferrato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×