Representation and Republicanism: Two Views

Abstract

In recent years, concept of representation in American founding has received considerable scholarly attention. Two of most important studies have been The Creation of American Republic: 1776 to 1787 by Gordon Wood and Political Representation in England and Origins of American Republic by J.R. Pole.' Both Pole and Wood believe that constitution of American republic marks a watershed in theory of representation, though they assess this development differently. Wood and Pole agree that architects of constitution, and especially James Madison, sought to replace representation of virtue, traditional in republics, with representation of interests. For Wood, this means the decline of classical politics, that is, disappearance social homogeneity and disintegration of organic connection between representative and his constituents on matters affecting common good. Wood argues that Federalists twisted rhetoric of republicanism to create a liberal representative government based upon an elitist theory of democracy. Wood's central concern is with meaning and requirements of republican government, and with kind of representation appropriate to it. Pole is both more and less critical of founding than Wood. Although Pole also believes that framers substituted for virtue representation of material interests, he goes even further than Wood when he argues that the representatives of interest were not obliged even in theory to consult for public (p. 531). Instead of disinterested representatives deliberating about common good, common good is now understood to be nothing more than balancing of conflicting interests.