Political Representation In France Research Articles

‘Representation’ and Dàibiǎo: a comparative study of the notions of political representation in France and China

By scrutinizing the semantics of words and going beyond a nominalist approach, this article compares the theoretical, linguistic and discursive evolution of the notion of representation in France and China, from its ancient origins to its contemporary interpretations. We argue that the word “representation” in English and “dàibiǎo 代表” in Chinese are not interchangeable synonymous, because “representation” includes a symbolic dimension that is absent in dàibiǎo, and because the latter is rarely used when informal representation is concerned. We also argue that both Chinese and Anglo-American political science research overemphasizes mandated representation and underestimates symbolic representation. Furthermore, our empirical research in three provinces of China and two regions of France demonstrates that in both countries, local officials and elected politicians serve a similar role of political intermediaries, who embody state power and respond to citizens’ demands simultaneously, thus enabling a de-facto representative loop. Such argument refutes the current understanding of representation as a “one-way authorization” that is supposed to come either from below (i.e. from the people) in the electoral democracies or from above (i.e. from the state authority) in authoritarian regimes and thus challenges the over-simplistic dichotomy of democratic and authoritarian regimes in representative studies.

Between Majesty and Proximity: The enduring ambiguities of political representation in France

The term ‘proximite’ has been very much in vogue during the past few years. J.-P. Raffarin recurred to it often when he was Prime Minister and so constantly do many French politicians and bureaucrats. Proximity, as understood by local analysts, is largely dismissed as a mere ideological device aiming at resolving the so-called ‘crisis of representation’. However, according to some authors (Le Bart and Lefevbre, 2005), the success of such a slogan would also be an indicator of the emergence of a new mode of political legitimation in France, no less! It matters to insist upon the polysemic nature of the notion when it comes to political and symbolic applications because proximity may have spatial, social or patronizing connotations, among others. Mainly taking into consideration here the issue of outward signs of superiority, as opposed to demonstrable modesty, it will be claimed with empirical backing that in France political elites must often play on two distinct, and not easily compatible, registers: constantly proving and transcending proximity. If, in some countries, projecting an image of substance is imperative for politicians who want to appear as credible representatives, in some others the legitimacy of representation demands the lowest personal profile. France, this article argues, is mired in ambiguity. Historical developments led to a tension that was never resolved between unpretentiousness — a legacy of the Republican ideals of the French Revolution — and the pursuit of distinction — a lasting influence of the aristocratic tradition. These two aspects of political legitimation may appear incongruous. Yet, both make perfect sense, as some findings from a survey on the Mayors of the 1,000 largest cities and towns clearly show.

Political Representation in France: A Crisis of Democracy?

The past two decades have witnessed growing political disaffection and a widening mass/elite disjuncture in France, reflected in opinion polls, rising abstentionism, electoral volatility and fragmentation, with sustained voting against incumbent governments. Though the electoral system has preserved the duopoly of the mainstream coalitions, they have suffered loss of public confidence and swings in electoral support. Stable parliamentary majorities conceal a political landscape of assorted anti-system parties and growing support for far right and far left. The picture is paradoxical: the French express alienation from political parties yet relate positively to their political institutions; they berate national politicians but retain strong bonds with those elected locally; they appear increasingly disengaged from politics yet forms of ‘direct democracy’ are finding new vigour. While the electoral, attitudinal and systemic factors reviewed here may not signal a crisis of democracy, they point to serious problems of political representation in contemporary France.

Comment on Fleury and Lewis-Beck: "Anchoring the French Voter: Ideology versus Party"

hen asked to review an earlier draft of this article, our comments roughly equalled the manuscript text in length, since there seemed to be a remarkable number of misrepresentations of our French work, along with a variety of errors of other kinds. This is a cleaner version of the argument, although at least two key misinterpretations remain. In a sense this is not surprising, since correction at these two points would leave a very unpersuasive article. On the other hand, given that the extensive bodies of evidence within our volume Political Representation in France (henceforth, PRiF) that sharply contradict judgments by Fleury and Lewis-Beck (henceforth, F&L-B) have now been specifically pointed out to them, it is depressing that they continue to keep such evidence from the reader. Indeed, while they are certainly entitled to dispute this counterevidence, it is hard to have an intelligent discussion unless they are willing to reveal why they contest it. We hope that the general reader interested in these issues will at least consult our many relevant discussions in PRiF rather than count on the impressions of our positions left by this article.

Political Representation in Sweden

Using interview data from studies with voters and members of parliament, both in 1968/69 and in 1985, Swedish representational democracy is assessed. The analysis focuses on four linkage processes ‐ social representation. role representation, policy representation and anticipatory representation. The results are compared with Converse and Pierce's from their study of political representation in France. In their analysis they find the French system falling ‘short of its potential for much of the electorate much of the time’. Heinz Eulau, in a review article of Converse and Pierce's book. goes one step further, branding the French democracy as elitist and run by unresponsive parties. Looking at the results from the Swedish studies, an Eulaucan conclusion seems a bit drastic, while a verdict of the kind Converse and Pierce delivered for France may be too lenient. Clearly, the Swedish system is far from any model of popular representation run from below. A more elitist model. with an emphasis on policy leadership on the part of the political parties, fits most of our results much better.

Political Representation in France. Philip E. Converse , Roy Pierce

<i>Political Representation in France</i>. Philip E. Converse , Roy Pierce

Political Representation in France

Political Representation in France

Political Representation in FranceConverse, Philip E. and RoyPierce. Political Representation in France . Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1986. Pp. 996. $49.50.

Political Representation in FranceConverse, Philip E. and RoyPierce. <i>Political Representation in France</i> . Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1986. Pp. 996. $49.50.

Legislative Behavior, 1967-1968

Some readers will be disappointed that, so far as behavior is concerned, Political Representation in focuses almost exclusively on classic Miller-Stokes parallelogram, in which end variable is roll-call vote (see p. 172, above). The other major variables Converse and Pierce deal with are legislators' private convictions on policy cleavages of day, understandings of district sentiment on these, and their conceptions of representative (pp. 693-694). They add one element, legislators' role conceptions, not part of original model. These constitute the raw materials contributing to process of political representation in France at molecular level (pp. 693-694). Readers will look in vain for information about dimensions of behavior which have long interested many scholars, though few are interested in all of them and many have individually preoccupied themselves with only one or two of them. Converse and Pierce do not consider legislators' political socialization and recruitment; their reliance on cues from and loyalties to such sources as subject-matter experts, personal friends, and friendship groups; their actual relationships with party organizations in their districts; or influence on their behavior (including their roll-call votes) of lobbies and pressure groups. Disappointment is understandable, given long period over which publication of work has been eagerly anticipated and hopes aroused by first sight of work's size. But authors' major concern is more with macrolevel aspects of political representation, not primarily with range of microlevel questions connoted by legislative behavior. So disappointment on this score is hardly a legitimate criticism of their work. Indeed, readers who stay with it will find not just a wealth of information about macrolevel aspects of decision making and about representation in general in France, but more than enough information about microbehavioral aspects of representation in to console them for their initial disappointment. There is a surfeit of information about each of relationships

The Irony of Political Representation in France

The Irony of Political Representation in France

The Responsible Party Model

Any French political scientist who has the ambition to write The French Voter to match the American study will now have to take into account Converse and Pierce's monument, Political Representation in France. Not only does it tell us a great deal about the subject treated, it also in the first five hundred or so pages deals at the highest intellectual level with both the common and the original traits of voting behavior, of parliamentary behavior, and of demonstrating behavior in France. It is a rare achievement of professional skill and political culture. The least inspiring part of the book was added to the initial project and deals with the unexpected events of May 1968. The variations in the number and origins of the demonstrators and of the strikers comes as no surprise, nor does the idea that they included many people who had never demonstrated or gone on strike before. The paradox of the June electoral tidal wave in favour of the government is classically explained by the excesses of a movement which was far from unpopular at the beginning. The responsiveness of the political elites once everything had returned to normal is also well known. Two interesting points, nevertheless, are worth noting. The first is that 40% of the electorate thought that the risks of a civil war were high, as against 31% only 10 years earlier, during the Algiers crisis, when a military rebellion put an end to the Fourth Republic. The second point is that the striking difference between the election results in March 1967 and those in June 1968 was due to the 16%7 of voters who changed their votes, of whom 7 out of 10 went from left to right. The finest part of this impressive book is the first half, devoted to the French parties and voters. It leaves no stone unturned and provides some convincing answers to many questions we have long asked ourselves. The unequal visibility of the parties in the French system is nicely matched with the expectations of the voters, who want an ideal system of some three or four parties. Such a system would force the parties to ally for the presidential contest and for the general election,