Abstract
Representation is a process of making, accepting, or rejecting representative claims (Disch, 2015; Saward, 2014). This groundbreaking insight challenged the standard assumption that representative democracy can be reduced to elections and activities of elected representatives (Pitkin, 1967). It broadened the scope of representative democracy to encompass representation activities beyond those authorized by elections, transformed our thinking and provided a new perspective, putting claims and their reception into the center. This paradigm shift erased the distinction between elected and non-elected representatives and disclosed the potential of non-elected actors’ claims to represent (Andeweg, 2003; Kuyper, 2016; Rosanvallon &amp; Goldhammer, 2008; Saward, 2006, 2009; Van Biezen &amp; Saward, 2008). In spite of this lively debate, we identify an important gap in the literature: while this paradigmatic shift inspired many authors, conceptual <em>frameworks that can be applied for systematic empirical analysis of real-life cases</em> are missing. In this article, we fill this gap and propose frameworks for assessing and validating a variety of real-life claims. Our study provides empirical substance to the ongoing theoretical debates, helping to translate the mainly theoretical ‘claim approach’ into empirical research tools. It helps to transform the conventional wisdom about what representation can (not) be and shines a new light on the potential future of (claims on) representation.
Highlights
Contemporary representative democracies are under considerable strain
We aim at answering questions like: How can we conceptually grasp and empirically capture the multitude of claims of representation? How can we typologize claims in order to cover a variety of different claims in real-life cases? How can we examine the acceptance of claims of representation in empirical studies of real cases, if the standard mechanism—acceptance via elections—is challenged?
The article proceeds as follows: in the first section we discuss current research gaps, in the second section we develop a typology of claims on representation, in the third section we outline a conceptual approach allowing us to examine the acceptance or rejection of different types of claims
Summary
Contemporary representative democracies are under considerable strain. Political parties and elected representatives are failing to keep their monopoly on (formal) representation, and allegations of misrepresentation are omnipresent. Beginning deductively with the theoretical basis (Bäckstrand, Kuyper, Linnér, & Lövbrand, 2017; de Wilde, 2013; Disch, 2011; Disch, van de Sande, & Urbinati, 2019; Montanaro, 2012, 2017; Saward, 2006, 2010) we added an inductive procedure based on systematic empirical research With this mixture of deductive and inductive processes, we were able to develop frameworks that can be applied to a variety of real-life cases, which differ with respect to: topic; time frame (different point in time and lengths); location (local, state and federal level); and actors (elected, delegated, self-appointed). More often a claim maker only implicitly insinuates to speak for a claimed constituency or does not even mention a claimed constituency and only makes a proclamation e.g., “park benches are needed.” To cover all these different claims, we apply the term “claims on representation”, which we see as better capturing the variety of claims
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
