Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-j4fss Total loading time: 0.519 Render date: 2022-10-02T04:27:26.646Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

DANIELE CARAMANI*
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
*
Daniele Caramani, Professor of Comparative Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich (daniele.caramani@uzh.ch).

Abstract

The article compares analytically populism and technocracy as alternative forms of political representation to party government. It argues that populist and technocratic principles of representation challenge fundamental features of party democracy. The two alternative forms of representation are addressed theoretically from the perspective of political representation. First, the article identifies the commonalities between the two forms of representation: both populism and technocracy are based on a unitary, nonpluralist, unmediated, and unaccountable vision of society's general interest. Second, it highlights their differences. Technocracy stresses responsibility and requires voters to entrust authority to experts who identify the general interest from rational speculation. Populism stresses responsiveness and requires voters to delegate authority to leaders who equate the general interest with a putative will of the people. While the populist form of representation has received considerable attention, the technocratic one has been neglected. The article presents a more complete picture of the analytical relationship between them.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

Research has been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (National Centre for Competence in Research “Democracy in the 21st Century”). For comments on early versions of the article I am particularly grateful to Carlo Invernizzi Accetti, Christopher Bickerton, Ingrid van Biezen, Francis Cheneval, Astrid Séville, Jonathan White, and Lea Ypi. The article has also profited very substantially from the suggestions of the anonymous reviewers and the editors of the journal.

References

REFERENCES

Albertazzi, Daniele and McDonnell, Duncan eds. 2008. Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A., and Powell, Bingham G. Jr. 1966. Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Andeweg, Rudy B. 2011. Approaching Perfect Policy Congruence: Measurement, Development, and Relevance for Political Representation. In How Democracy Works: Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies, eds. Rosema, Martin, Denters, Bas, and Aarts, Kees. Amsterdam: Pallas Publications, 39−52.Google Scholar
APSA. 1950. “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” American Political Science Review 44 (3): 303−6.Google Scholar
Bardi, Luciano, Bartolini, Stefano, and Trechsel, Alexander H.. 2014a. “Responsive and Responsible? The Role of Parties in Twenty-First Century Politics.” West European Politics 37 (2): 235−52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardi, Luciano, Bartolini, Stefano, and Trechsel, Alexander H., eds. 2014b. “Party Adaptation and Change and the Crisis of Democracy: Essays in Honour of Peter Mair.” Party Politics 20 (2): 151−236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauböck, Reiner. 2005. “Expansive Citizenship: Voting beyond Territory and Membership.” PS: Political Science and Politics 38 (4): 683−87.Google Scholar
Bendix, Reinhard. 1964. Nation-Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social Order. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Betz, Hans-Georg. 1994. Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Christopher, and Accetti, Carlo Invernizzi. 2015. “Populism and Technocracy: Opposites or Complements?Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. Published online: DOI: 10.1080/13698230.2014.995504.Google Scholar
Birch, Anthony H. 1964. Representative and Responsible Government: An Essay on the British Constitution. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Canovan, Margaret. 1999. Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy. Political Studies 47 (1): 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramani, Daniele. 2004. The Nationalization of Politics: The Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centeno, Miguel Ángel. 1993. “The New Leviathan: The Dynamics and Limits of Technocracy.” Theory and Society 22 (3): 307−35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centeno, Miguel Ángel. 1994. Democracy within Reason: Technocratic Revolution in Mexico. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Centeno, Miguel Ángel, and Silva, Patricio, eds. 1998. The Politics of Expertise in Latin America. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Walker. 1994. Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E., and Pierce, Roy. 1986. Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouch, Colin. 2011. The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Culpepper, Pepper D. 2014. “The Political Economy of Unmediated Democracy: Italian Austerity under Mario Monti.” West European Politics 37 (6): 1264−81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1985. Controlling Nuclear Weapons: Democracy versus Guardianship. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Dargent, Eduardo. 2015. Technocracy and Democracy in Latin America: The Experts Running Government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, Karl W. 1966. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Esser, Frank. 2013. Mediatization as a Challenge: Media Logic versus Political Logic. In Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization, eds. Kriesi, Hanspeter et al. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 155−76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Frank. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fischer, Frank. 2009. Democracy and Expertise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Golder, Matt, and Stramski, Jacek. 2010. “Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 90106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Kirk A. 2010. Venezuela's Chavismo and Populism in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, John D. 1931. The Populist Revolt: A History of the Crusade for Farm Relief. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hobsbawn, Eric. 1983. Inventing Traditions. In The Invention of Tradition, eds. Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1−14.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2003. “Unraveling the Central State, But How? Types of Multi-Level Governance.” American Political Science Review 97 (2): 233−43.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Donald L. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jagers, Jan, and Walgrave, Stefaan. 2007. “Populism as Political Communication Style.” European Journal of Political Research 46 (3): 319−45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. 1957. The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Richard S. 2014. “No Man Can Serve Two Masters: Party Politicians, Party Members, Citizens and Principal-Agent Models of Democracy.” Party Politics 20 (2): 183−93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Richard S., and Mair, Peter. 1995. “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party.” Party Politics 1 (1): 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenneally, Ivan. 2009. “Technocracy and Populism.” The New Atlantis 24: 4660.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1995. The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kohler-Koch, Beate, and Rittberger, Berthold. 2006. “The ‘Governance Turn’ in EU Studies.” Journal of Common Market Studies 44 (annual review): 2749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krämer, Benjamin. 2014. “Media Populism: A Conceptual Clarification and Some Theses on Its Effects.” Communication Theory 24 (1): 4260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2014. “The Populist Challenge.” West European Politics 37 (2): 361−78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriesi, Hanspeter, Grande, Edgar, Dolezal, Martin, Helbling, Marc, Höglinger, Dominic, Hutter, Swen, and Wüest, Bruno. 2012. Political Conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Loxton, James. 2013. “Populism and Competitive Authoritarianism in the Andes.” Democratization 20 (1): 107−36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Roberts, Kenneth M.. 2011. Latin America's “Left Turn”: A Framework for Analysis. In The Resurgence of the Latin American Left, eds. Levitsky, Steven and Roberts, Kenneth M.. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1–28.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 2012. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, second edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McDonnell, Duncan, and Valbruzzi, Marco. 2014. “Defining and Classifying Technocrat-Led and Technocratic Governments.” European Journal of Political Research 53 (4): 654−71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Peter. 2002. Populist Democracy vs. Party Democracy. In Democracies and the Populist Challenge, eds. Mény, Yves and Surel, Yves. London: Palgrave, 81–98.Google Scholar
Mair, Peter. 2009. Representative versus Responsible Government. Cologne: MplfG Working Paper 09/8.Google Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico. 1994. “The rise of the Regulatory State in Europe.” West European Politics 17 (3): 77101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Michael. 1993. The Sources of Social Power (two volumes). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’.” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628‒57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515‒28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2011. “Clarifying the Concept of Representation.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 621‒30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzoleni, Gianpietro, Stewart, Julianne, and Horsfield, Bruce, eds. 2003. The Media and Neo-Populism: A Contemporary Comparative Analysis. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Mény, Yves, and Surel, Yves, eds. 2002. Democracies and the Populist Challenge. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meynaud, Jean. 1969. Technocracy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Michels, Robert. 1999 (1911). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Morgan, Edmund S. 1988. Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Mudde, Cas. 2004. “The Populist Zeitgeist.” Government and Opposition 39 (4): 541−63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudde, Cas. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudde, Cas, and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal R., eds. 2012. Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or Corrective for Democracy? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo A. 1994. “Delegative Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 5 (1): 5569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrogorski, Moisei Y. 1902. Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (two volumes). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pasquino, Gianfranco, and Valbruzzi, Marco. 2012. “Non-Partisan Government Italian-Style: Decision-Making and Accountability.” Journal of Modern Italian Studies 17 (5): 612−29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1998. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, Roy. 1999. Mass-Elite Issue Linkages and the Responsible Party Model of Representation. In Policy Representation in Western Democracies, eds. Miller, Warren E., Pierce, Roy, Thomassen, Jacques, Herrera, Richard, Holmberg, Sören, Esaiasson, Peter, and Wessels, Bernhard. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 932.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
Powell, Bingham G. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009. “Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy.” American Political Science Review 103 (2): 214‒30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2011. “The Concepts of Representation.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 631‒41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Rokkan, Stein. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2011. Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy L. 2008. On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1968. Representation Systems. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 13. New York: Macmillan 465–74.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1999. Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1942. Party Government: American Government in Action. New York: Rhinehart and company.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Vivien. 2011. “Can Technocratic Government Be Democratic?Telos 23.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Josef A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Smith, Anthony. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stolle, Dietlind, and Micheletti, Michele. 2013. Political Consumerism: Global Responsibility in Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torre, Carlos de la. 2013. “Technocratic Populism in Ecuador.” Journal of Democracy 24 (3): 3346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 1998. “Democracy and Populism.” Constellations 5 (1): 110‒24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2006. Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2014. The Populist Phenomenon. Paper presented at the Political Theory Workshop, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2001. “Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics.” Comparative Politics 34 (1): 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Conor. 2010. “Technocracy and Populism.” Dissent 22. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/technocracy-and-populism Google Scholar
Williams, Melissa S. 1998. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Vanessa, Skocpol, Theda, and Coggin, John. 2011. “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.” Perspectives on Politics 9 (1): 2543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voltmer, Katrin. 2012. The Media in Transitional Democracies. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Young, Iris M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
196
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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.

Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

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

Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

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

Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *