Politics and Constitutionalism in the Liberal State: Direct vs. Representative Democracy
Politics and Constitutionalism in the Liberal State
The Constitutional State emerged in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, founded on the principle of representative democracy. In this system, citizens express their will through elected representatives. Works on the history of political thought often focus on the discussion between direct and indirect democracy.
Rousseau’s Perspective on Sovereignty
Rousseau argued that when sovereignty is vested in the people, it cannot be divisible (i.e., split among state organs) or denied. He viewed the English constitutional model, with its assembly governed by representatives, as problematic. While popular sovereignty and its respect are essential, many authors unanimously defend representative democracy, arguing that direct political representation may not be compatible with it.
These authors’ defense of representative democracy is not limited to the factual argument that in a large state, it’s impossible to gather the views of all citizens. They argue that representative democracy is superior to direct democracy, offering more guarantees. Switzerland stands as an exception, having extensively used direct forms of democracy since its inception. This isolated case highlights a common suspicion surrounding direct democracy: that such participation carries the danger of generating irrational decisions based on emotion, prejudice, or short-sightedness.
Arguments for Representative Democracy
The existence of a representative assembly offers favorable conditions for a more objective and detailed examination of issues. The involvement of representatives should focus on supporting reasoned arguments, thus fostering a more objective debate, as everyone has an obligation to hear all points of view. Solutions emerging from this process will be more reasoned and facilitate agreement among representatives.
The Dilemma: Rousseau vs. Representative Principles
These arguments, however, face Rousseau’s objections, leading to a dilemma. Rousseau’s arguments are not negligible, as he rightly states that citizens elect representatives to transfer their sovereignty. An artificial argument is often created to address this problem: differentiating between the ownership and the exercise of sovereignty. The people retain ownership, even though representatives exercise sovereignty. This distinction, however, often conceals the underlying issue rather than providing a clear answer. This situation is akin to someone who has ownership rights but cannot exercise them (e.g., a minor). It could be argued that establishing limits and rules can be a means to reach an agreement.
Key Concepts in Representative Democracy
Political representation is primarily achieved through the figure of the representative office, which stands in opposition to the imperative mandate.
- The Imperative Mandate: This is a mandate in which the representative is strictly linked to the instructions received from their principal. The representative could only agree to proposals set forth in their instructions and would need to consult their constituents on any new proposal.