Abstract
Right from its beginning, representative democracy was criticized for promoting inequality. Nonetheless, for many decades representative democracy has led to more equality – politically as well as socially. Meanwhile, in most Western societies this has dramatically changed. Trying to understand this change, the paper will first identify the immanent egalitarian tendencies in modern democratic representation. I will argue that not only universal franchise, but, paradoxically, also the distinction between society and the stage of political representation have had strong egalitarian effects. I will continue to demonstrate that the development from party to audience democracy together with the rise of non-electoral modes of participation transformed the performative and configurative functions of political representation. Instead of translating social conflicts into reasonably consistent political alternatives, parties try to identify strategically promising issues in order to create attractive media images. Together with the growing weight of issue-oriented, non-electoral participatory activities, this development threatens to undermine the political realm as a distinct sphere of equals.
Notes
1. Some authors would add to procedural equality substantial equality in the sense of diminishing existing social inequalities (Jörke Citation2010, p. 273).
2. See, for example, the arguments of the Antifederalists against the new U.S. Constitution at the end of the 18th century (Antifederalist Papers Citation1965).
3. For short overviews on empirical data for the development of income inequality in OECD countries see Alderson and Nielson (Citation2002) and Wehler (Citation2013, pp. 59–65).
5. For a short summary of the debate, see Thaa and Linden Citation2014. Bartels links the political and the economic aspect with what he calls a ‘debilitating feedback cycle’: ‘increasing economic inequality may produce increasing inequality in political responsiveness, which in turn produces public policies that are increasingly detrimental to the interest of the poor citizens which in turn produces even greater economic inequality, and so on’ (Bartels Citation2008, p. 286).
7. Following the famous definition of Hanna Pitkin, ‘representation, taken generally, means the making present in some sense of something which is nevertheless not present literally or in fact’ (Pitkin Citation1967, pp. 8, 9).
8. Inspired by the writings of Claude Lefort, Ernst Vollrath (Citation1992) systematically distinguishes between the representation of unity (‘Einheitsrepräsentation’) and the representation of difference (‘Differenzrepräsentation’). Whereas, the first type of representation, which is typical for totalitarian regimes, implies the claim to embody or incarnate society as a whole, the second type recognizes that political unity can no longer efface social division and that ‘democracy inaugurates the experience of an ungraspable, uncontrollable society … whose identity will constantly be open to question’ (Lefort Citation1986b, pp. 303–304).
10. Michael Saward clearly distinguishes between aesthetic and political representation by stating that political representatives are portraying or framing their constituencies ‘in particular, contestable ways’, (Saward Citation2006, p. 302). However, I doubt that he sufficiently differentiates between political representation in general and democratic representation based on general, free and equal elections in particular. The latter is not adequately characterized by constructing a continuity between the narrower statist and the broader societal domains, based on the argument, that institutions in civil society often follow a logic of election too, and if not, they follow at least a logic of exit in the sense of Hirschman (Citation1970), which simply means that everybody has the possibility to withdraw his or her support. By stating that election is ‘one mode of a logic of exit’ Saward (Citation2010, p. 143) clearly misses the difference between pluralism in the societal domain on one hand and the election of authorized representatives in a democratic state on the other.
13. The term ‘configuration’ is sporadically used by Lefort (Citation1986a, p. 20) and Disch (Citation2011, p. 100) in the sense of a political shaping of the society as a whole. I use it in a more restricted sense with regard to the structuring of the political field and its conflicting groups (see Thaa Citation2011, Citation2013).
14. On the constitutive role of the symbolic dimension for democracy see Lefort (Citation1986a). For an illuminating interpretation of this aspect see Weymans (Citation2012).
15. For the important function of programmatic alternatives for pluralist democracy see Fraenkel (Citation1964/2011).
16. Similarily, Flaig (Citation2013) argues for the ancient Greek polis that the emergence of an autonomous political sphere was closely intertwined with the implementation of majority decisions. The fact that every (male) citizen, irrespective of descent, status or wealth, counted as one is important to differentiate an own sphere of politics, separate from clan and family structures.
17. The making of a representative claim to a public is much older than democracy. It is an essential element of religious communities, feudal systems and also of authoritarian and totalitarian societies. The question is whether representative claims are democratically contested or not.
20. This was the crucial argument of Kurt Sontheimer’s defense of pluralism against the criticism of Claus Offe. See Sontheimer (Citation1973), Offe (Citation1969).
22. Urbinati and Warren (Citation2008) distinguish in a similar way between ‘non-electoral democratic representation’ and ‘self-authorized representation’. I hesitate to use the concept of representation in such a general way, not only because I am skeptical about overstretching the concept of representation, but also, because some of these groups would explicitly refuse to represent anything or anybody.
23. In Germany, the organizers of Internet-based participatory budgets, the so-called ‘Bürgerhaushalte’, consider it as success if around three per cent of the citizens participate (Lieb Citation2013).
Jörke, D., 2010. Die Versprechen der Demokratie und die Grenzen der Deliberation [The promises of democracy and the limits of deliberation]. ZPol, 20 (3–4), 269–290.10.5771/1430-6387-2010-3-4-269 Antifederalist Papers, 1965. M. Borden, ed. Ann Arbor: Michigan State University Press. Alderson, A.S. and Nielsen, F., 2002. Globalization and the great U-turn: income inequality trends in 16 OECD countries. American journal of sociology, 107 (5), 1244–1299.10.1086/341329 Wehler, H.-U., 2013. Die neue Umverteilung Soziale Ungleichheit in Deutschland [The new redistribution. Social inequality in Germany]. München: C.H. Beck. Bartels, L.M., 2008. Unequal democracy. The political economy of the new gilded age. New York: Princeton University Press. Rosanvallon, P., 2013. The society of equals. Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674726444 Thaa, W. and Linden, M., 2014. Issuefähigkeit – Ein neuer Disparitätsmodus? [ Issue potential - a new mode of disparity?]. In: M. Linden and W. Thaa, eds. Ungleichheit und politische Repräsentation [Inequality and political representation]. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 53–80. Bartels, L.M., 2008. Unequal democracy. The political economy of the new gilded age. New York: Princeton University Press. Young, I.M., 1997. Deferring group representation. In: I. Shapiro and W. Kymlicka, eds. Ethnicity and group rights. New York: New York University Press, 349–376. Urbinati, N., 2005. Continuity and rupture:the power of judgment in democratic representation. Constellations, 12 (2), 194–222.10.1111/cons.2005.12.issue-2 Urbinati, N., 2006a. Representative democracy. Principles and genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226842806.001.0001 Urbinati, N., 2006b. Political representation as a democratic process redescription. Yearbook of political thought and conceptual history, 10 (1), 18–40. Pitkin, H.F., 1967. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Vollrath, E., 1992. Identitätsrepräsentation und Differenzrepräsentation [Representation of identity and representation of difference]. Rechtsphilosophische Hefte, 1 (1), 65–78. Lefort, C., 1986b. The political forms of modern society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Young, I.M., 1997. Deferring group representation. In: I. Shapiro and W. Kymlicka, eds. Ethnicity and group rights. New York: New York University Press, 349–376. Young, I.M., 2000. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mansbridge, J., 1999. Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “Yes”. The journal of politics, 61 (3), 628–657.10.2307/2647821 Mansbridge, J., 2000. What does a representative do? Descriptive representation in communicative settings of distrust, uncrystallized interests, and historically denigrated status. In: W. Kymlicka and W. Norman, eds. Citizenship in diverse societies. Oxford University Press, 99–123. Dovi, S., 2002. Preferable descriptive representatives: will just any woman, Black, or Latino do? American political science review, 96 (4), 729–743. Saward, M., 2006. The representative claim. Contemporary political theory, 5 (3), 297–318.10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300234 Hirschman, A.O., 1970. Voice and loyalty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Saward, M., 2010. The representative claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199579389.001.0001 Saward, M., 2006. The representative claim. Contemporary political theory, 5 (3), 297–318.10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300234 Disch, L., 2011. Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American political science review, 105 (01), 100–114.10.1017/S0003055410000602 Disch, L., 2012. The impurity of representation and the vitality of democracy. Cultural studies, 26 (2–3), 207–222.10.1080/09502386.2011.636190 Bielefeld, U., 2011. Der Auftritt des Volkes auf der leer geräumten Bühne. Repräsentation, Darstellung und Demokratie [The appearance of the people on the cleared stage. Representation, presentation and democracy]. Mittelweg 36, 20 (3), 49–64. Weymans, W., 2006. Freiheit durch politische Repräsentation – Lefort, Gauchet und Rosanvallon über die Beziehung zwischen Staat und Gesellschaft. In: R. Heil and A. Hetzel, eds. Die unendliche Aufgabe [The endless task]. Bielefeld: Transcript, 185–209. Lefort, C., 1986a. La question de la démocratie [The question of democracy]. In: C. Lefort, ed. Essais sur le politique [Essays on the political]. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 17–30. Disch, L., 2011. Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American political science review, 105 (01), 100–114.10.1017/S0003055410000602 Thaa, W., 2011. Politisches Handeln. Demokratietheoretische Überlegungen im Anschluss an Hannah Arendt [Political action. Considerations in democratic theory, referring to Hannah Arendt]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.10.5771/9783845232270 Thaa, W., 2013. Weder Ethnos noch Betroffenheit: Repräsentationsbeziehungen konstituieren einen handlungsfähigen Demos [Neither ethnos nor being affected: Relations of representation constitute a demos capable of action]. In: H. Buchstein, ed. Die Versprechen der Demokratie. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 105–124.10.5771/9783845245966-105 Lefort, C., 1986a. La question de la démocratie [The question of democracy]. In: C. Lefort, ed. Essais sur le politique [Essays on the political]. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 17–30. Weymans, W., 2012. Defending democracy’s symbolic dimension: a lefortian critique of Arendt’s Marxist assumptions. Constellations, 19 (1), 63–80.10.1111/cons.2012.19.issue-1 Fraenkel, E., 1964/2011. Strukturdefekte der Demokratie und deren Überwindung [Structural flaws of democracy and their overcoming]. In: E. Fraenkel, ed. Deutschland und die westlichen Demokratien [Germany and the western democracies]. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 91–113. Flaig, E., 2013. Die Mehrheitsentscheidung. Entstehung und kulturelle Dynamik [The majority decision. Genesis and cultural dynamics]. Paderborn: Schöningh. Neckel, S., 2008. Flucht nach vorn [Flight forward. The culture of success in market society]. Suhrkamp: Die Erfolgskultur der Marktgesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M. Paugam, S., 2009. Die Herausforderung der organischen Solidarität durch die Prekarisierung von Arbeit und Beschäftigung [The challenge for organic solidarity caused by the precarisation of labour and occupation]. In: R. Castel et al., eds. Prekarität, Abstieg, Ausgrenzung. Die soziale Frage am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts [Precarity, decline, exclusion. The social question at the beginning of the 21st century]. Frankfurt: Campus, 175–196. Walter, F., 2011. Die starken Arme legen keine Räder mehr still [ Strong arms no longer close down anything]. In: J. Klatt and F. Walter, eds. Entbehrliche der Bürgergesellschaft. Sozial Benachteiligte und Engagement [Dispensables of civil society. Socially disadvantaged and engagement]. Bielefeld: Transcript. Thaa, W. and Linden, M., 2014. Issuefähigkeit – Ein neuer Disparitätsmodus? [ Issue potential - a new mode of disparity?]. In: M. Linden and W. Thaa, eds. Ungleichheit und politische Repräsentation [Inequality and political representation]. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 53–80. Thaa, W. and Linden, M., 2014. Issuefähigkeit – Ein neuer Disparitätsmodus? [ Issue potential - a new mode of disparity?]. In: M. Linden and W. Thaa, eds. Ungleichheit und politische Repräsentation [Inequality and political representation]. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 53–80. Linden, M., 2014. Einschluss und Ausschluss durch Repräsentation – Theorie und Empirie am Beispiel der deutschen Integrationspolitik [Inclusion and exclusion by representation. Theory and practice of German integration policy]. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Sontheimer, K., 1973, Der Pluralismus und seine Kritiker [Pluralism and its critics]. In: G. Doeker and W. Steffani, eds. Klassenjustiz und Pluralismus. Festschrift für Ernst Fraenkel zum 75. Geburtstag [Classjustice and pluralism] Hamburg: Hoffman und Campe, 425–443. Offe, C., 1969. Politische Herrschaft und Klassenstrukturen. Zur Analyse spätkapitalisticher Gesellschaftssysteme [Political rule and class structures. On the analyses of late capitalistic societies]. In: G. Kress and D. Senghaas, eds. Politikwissenschaft. Eine Einführung in ihre Probleme [Political Science. An introduction to its problems]. Frankfurt: Europ. Verl. Anstalt. Warren, M.E., 2002. What can democratic participation mean today? Political theory, 30 (5), 677–701.10.1177/0090591702030005003 Dalton, R.J., 2008. Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political studies, 56 (1), 76–98.10.1111/post.2008.56.issue-1 Rosanvallon, P., 2008. Counter-democracy. Politics in an age of distrust. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511755835 Keane, J., 2009. The life and death of democracy. London: Simon and Schuster. Urbinati, N. and Warren, M.E., 2008. The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annual review of political science, 11 (1), 387–412.10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.190533 Lieb, M., 2013. Dialogorientierte Beteiligungsverfahren [Dialogical forms of partizipation]. Thesis (MA). Trier University. Dalton, R.J., et al., 2004. Advanced democracies and the new politics. Journal of democracy, 15 (1), 124–138.10.1353/jod.2004.0004 Bödeker, S., 2011. Die soziale Frage der Demokratie: Einkommen und Bildung beeinflussen die Chancen politischer Teilhabe [The social question of democracy: Income and education affect the chances of political participation]. WZB-Mitteilungen, 134, 26–29. Böhnke, P., 2011. Ungleiche Verteilung politischer und zivilgesellschaftlicher Partizipation [Unequal distribution of political and civil society participation]. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 61 (1–2), 18–25. Schäfer, A. and Schoen, H., 2013. Mehr Demokratie – aber nur für wenige? Der Zielkonflikt zwischen mehr Beteiligung und politischer Gleichheit [More democracy but only for some. The trade-off between more participation and political equality]. Leviathan, 41 (1), 94–120.