Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

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

  • DANIELE CARAMANI (a1)
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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Daniele Caramani, Professor of Comparative Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich (daniele.caramani@uzh.ch).
Footnotes
Hide All
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.
Footnotes
References
Hide All
AlbertazziDaniele and McDonnell Duncan eds. 2008. Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
AlmondGabriel A., and Powell Bingham G.Jr. 1966. Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.
AndersonBenedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
AndewegRudy 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.
APSA. 1950. “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” American Political Science Review 44 (3): 303−6.
BardiLuciano, 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.
BardiLuciano, 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.
BauböckReiner. 2005. “Expansive Citizenship: Voting beyond Territory and Membership.” PS: Political Science and Politics 38 (4): 683−87.
BendixReinhard. 1964. Nation-Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing Social Order. New York: Wiley.
BetzHans-Georg. 1994. Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe. New York: St. Martin's Press.
BickertonChristopher, 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.
BirchAnthony H. 1964. Representative and Responsible Government: An Essay on the British Constitution. London: Allen and Unwin.
CanovanMargaret. 1999. Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy. Political Studies 47 (1): 216.
CaramaniDaniele. 2004. The Nationalization of Politics: The Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
CentenoMiguel Ángel. 1993. “The New Leviathan: The Dynamics and Limits of Technocracy.” Theory and Society 22 (3): 307−35.
CentenoMiguel Ángel. 1994. Democracy within Reason: Technocratic Revolution in Mexico. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
CentenoMiguel Ángel, and Silva Patricio, eds. 1998. The Politics of Expertise in Latin America. New York: Macmillan.
ConnorWalker. 1994. Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
ConversePhilip E., and Pierce Roy. 1986. Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
CrouchColin. 2011. The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
CulpepperPepper D. 2014. “The Political Economy of Unmediated Democracy: Italian Austerity under Mario Monti.” West European Politics 37 (6): 1264−81.
DahlRobert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
DahlRobert A. 1985. Controlling Nuclear Weapons: Democracy versus Guardianship. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
DargentEduardo. 2015. Technocracy and Democracy in Latin America: The Experts Running Government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
DeutschKarl W. 1966. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. New York: Free Press.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
EsserFrank. 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.
FischerFrank. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
FischerFrank. 2009. Democracy and Expertise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GellnerErnest. 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
GolderMatt, and Stramski Jacek. 2010. “Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 90106.
HawkinsKirk A. 2010. Venezuela's Chavismo and Populism in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
HibbingJohn R., and Theiss-Morse Elizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
HicksJohn D. 1931. The Populist Revolt: A History of the Crusade for Farm Relief. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
HobsbawnEric. 1983. Inventing Traditions. In The Invention of Tradition, eds. Hobsbawm Eric and Ranger Terence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1−14.
HoogheLiesbet, and Marks Gary. 2003. “Unraveling the Central State, But How? Types of Multi-Level Governance.” American Political Science Review 97 (2): 233−43.
HorowitzDonald L. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
JagersJan, and Walgrave Stefaan. 2007. “Populism as Political Communication Style.” European Journal of Political Research 46 (3): 319−45.
KantorowiczErnst H. 1957. The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
KatzRichard 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.
KatzRichard S., and Mair Peter. 1995. “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party.” Party Politics 1 (1): 528.
KenneallyIvan. 2009. “Technocracy and Populism.” The New Atlantis 24: 4660.
KitscheltHerbert. 1995. The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kohler-KochBeate, and Rittberger Berthold. 2006. “The ‘Governance Turn’ in EU Studies.” Journal of Common Market Studies 44 (annual review): 2749.
KrämerBenjamin. 2014. “Media Populism: A Conceptual Clarification and Some Theses on Its Effects.” Communication Theory 24 (1): 4260.
KriesiHanspeter. 2014. “The Populist Challenge.” West European Politics 37 (2): 361−78.
KriesiHanspeter, Grande Edgar, Dolezal Martin, Helbling Marc, Höglinger Dominic, Hutter Swen, and Wüest Bruno. 2012. Political Conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
LevitskySteven, and Loxton James. 2013. “Populism and Competitive Authoritarianism in the Andes.” Democratization 20 (1): 107−36.
LevitskySteven, 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.
LijphartArend. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press.
LijphartArend. 2012. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, second edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
McDonnellDuncan, and Valbruzzi Marco. 2014. “Defining and Classifying Technocrat-Led and Technocratic Governments.” European Journal of Political Research 53 (4): 654−71.
MairPeter. 2002. Populist Democracy vs. Party Democracy. In Democracies and the Populist Challenge, eds. Mény Yves and Surel Yves. London: Palgrave, 81–98.
MairPeter. 2009. Representative versus Responsible Government. Cologne: MplfG Working Paper 09/8.
MajoneGiandomenico. 1994. “The rise of the Regulatory State in Europe.” West European Politics 17 (3): 77101.
ManinBernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MannMichael. 1993. The Sources of Social Power (two volumes). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MansbridgeJane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’.” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628‒57.
MansbridgeJane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515‒28.
MansbridgeJane. 2011. “Clarifying the Concept of Representation.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 621‒30.
MazzoleniGianpietro, Stewart Julianne, and Horsfield Bruce, eds. 2003. The Media and Neo-Populism: A Contemporary Comparative Analysis. Westport, CT: Praeger.
MényYves, and Surel Yves, eds. 2002. Democracies and the Populist Challenge. London: Palgrave.
MeynaudJean. 1969. Technocracy. New York: The Free Press.
MichelsRobert. 1999 (1911). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
MorganEdmund S. 1988. Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America. New York: Norton.
MuddeCas. 2004. “The Populist Zeitgeist.” Government and Opposition 39 (4): 541−63.
MuddeCas. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MuddeCas, and Kaltwasser Cristóbal R., eds. 2012. Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or Corrective for Democracy? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
O'DonnellGuillermo A. 1994. “Delegative Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 5 (1): 5569.
OstrogorskiMoisei Y. 1902. Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (two volumes). London: Macmillan.
PasquinoGianfranco, and Valbruzzi Marco. 2012. “Non-Partisan Government Italian-Style: Decision-Making and Accountability.” Journal of Modern Italian Studies 17 (5): 612−29.
PhillipsAnne. 1998. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PierceRoy. 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.
PitkinHanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: The University of California Press.
PowellBingham G. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
RehfeldAndrew. 2009. “Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy.” American Political Science Review 103 (2): 214‒30.
RehfeldAndrew. 2011. “The Concepts of Representation.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 631‒41.
RikerWilliam H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
RokkanStein. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
RosanvallonPierre. 2011. Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
RosenblumNancy L. 2008. On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
SartoriGiovanni. 1968. Representation Systems. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 13. New York: Macmillan 465–74.
SartoriGiovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
SawardMichael. 2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ScharpfFritz W. 1999. Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SchattschneiderElmer E. 1942. Party Government: American Government in Action. New York: Rhinehart and company.
SchmidtVivien. 2011. “Can Technocratic Government Be Democratic?Telos 23.
SchumpeterJosef A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
SmithAnthony. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell.
StolleDietlind, and Micheletti Michele. 2013. Political Consumerism: Global Responsibility in Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
TorreCarlos de la. 2013. “Technocratic Populism in Ecuador.” Journal of Democracy 24 (3): 3346.
UrbinatiNadia. 1998. “Democracy and Populism.” Constellations 5 (1): 110‒24.
UrbinatiNadia. 2006. Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
UrbinatiNadia. 2014. The Populist Phenomenon. Paper presented at the Political Theory Workshop, University of Chicago.
WeylandKurt. 2001. “Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics.” Comparative Politics 34 (1): 122.
WilliamsConor. 2010. “Technocracy and Populism.” Dissent 22. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/technocracy-and-populism
WilliamsMelissa S. 1998. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
WilliamsonVanessa, Skocpol Theda, and Coggin John. 2011. “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.” Perspectives on Politics 9 (1): 2543.
VoltmerKatrin. 2012. The Media in Transitional Democracies. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
YoungIris M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 46
Total number of PDF views: 837 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 2930 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 24th February 2017 - 19th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.