1.9. Direct representation

Partner Leeds is very engaged in models of democracy and much of Stephen Coleman’s work is devoted to a rejection of the direct/indirect democracy model. The new term is called Direct Representation. The argument, stated in its simplest form, is that democracy works best when voters and representatives connect: exchanging views, accounting for themselves to each other, and, ideally, sharing a common world. Textbook histories of democracy tend to draw a sharp contrast between modern representative democracy and the direct, or participatory, democracy of the ancient world, while contemporary, academic, political theorists tend to equate representative democracy with formal mechanisms of representation – they are more interested in voting systems than in the way that citizens and representatives interact, or fail to interact. But modern representative democracy has always been shot through with ‘direct’ or participatory elements; the public has engaged, not just through voting, but at public meetings, in representatives’ surgeries, through the postbag, on the doorstep, or in the many forums offered by, first, the printed press, and, later, radio and TV. As the public becomes less deferential, and new means of two-way electronic communication evolve, citizens want more of this sort of direct exchange with their representatives. They want to be heard by politicians and have opportunities to converse with them. They want to be understood by them and to understand them. Much of the current dissatisfaction with our political system can be traced to its failure to supply this sort of understanding (see Coleman, 2006).

References:

Coleman, S. (forthcoming 2006). How The Other Half Votes. International Journal of Cultural Studies.

Next: Genre theory Previous: Dialectical process theory