In his introductory piece for this series, Luca Verzichelli asked whether we can re-establish a connection between political institutions and citizens. Dario Castiglione suggests we can. But first, we must rethink democratic representation as a process of mutual engagement; then re-imagine its political practices and institutions 

Who does Mark Rutte speak for – and how? 

‘Who elected the European Commission?’ is a disingenuous Eurosceptics’ trope questioning EU’s democratic legitimacy. But have these same people stopped to ask, ‘who elected Mark Rutte?’ about the current Nato Secretary-General? 

Following a gathering of Western leaders in June, Rutte lavished fawning praise on US President Donald Trump. A personal message posted on the President's Truth Social platform revealed that Rutte had gushed ‘we’ve got them all signed onto 5 percent!’. 

In a stroke, European Nato members were committed to spending 5% of their budgets on armament. But regardless of that decision’s substance, what legitimacy did Rutte have in speaking for EU member states? Who elected Secretary-General Rutte – and for whom does he speak? 

European constitutions don’t mention Nato being part of their decision-making processes. There are arrangements for international alliances, but policy decisions must pass through legislative procedures. Nato has no role in them. 

To use Hanna Fenichel Pitkin’s definition of ‘formal’ representation, Rutte has no authority. Nor is he accountable. Perhaps he regards himself as a ‘substantive’ representative, even though his language is that of an enforcer. None of the European governments, however, protested against Rutte. Did they think he was acting for, or standing as their representative, albeit in the manner of a grovelling, sycophantic courtier? 

The representative disconnect 

Rutte’s unbecoming case is an example of scaling-up as a form of representative disconnect. Supranational scaling-up favours executives’ encroachment over legislatures. It is naïve to think that in matters of national defence, political representation can be fully democratic. This was never so even in direct democracies. Defence and security are hard, yet representative disconnect runs deep across the spectrum of political decisions. 

There is much academic literature on representative disconnect: inadequacies of representative institutions and the political class; citizens’ distrust and contempt for politics. Manifestations of representative disconnect are obvious, but the nature of disconnection isn't entirely evident.

Representative disconnect means more than a lack of communication and generic trust

Often, scholars and commentators see this as a break in the chain linking represented and representatives: a malfunction in the parliaments, parties or mechanisms that channel representation. 

Disillusionment with politics, because it is unresponsive to citizens' needs and demands, is another explanation for the disconnect. Yet neither malfunction on the offer side nor disillusionment on the demand side fully account for the current malaise. We must stop thinking about representation in a mechanical way, imagining citizens and representatives at separate poles. Clearly, disconnect means more than a lack of communication and generic trust. 

Interactive representation 

In complex societies, democratic representation is in an interactive, recursive relationship between citizens, institutions, and the political class. Such an interaction consists of moments of communicative and intellectual engagement aimed at producing a broadly shared political judgement over public matters. 

There is nothing ideal in this view; disagreement, competition, and power politics are intrinsic to it. Nonetheless, conceptualising democratic representation as a fragile arena for the interactive production of a broadly shared, but reversible, political judgement over public choices means identifying it as more than a simple relationship between citizens and representatives. More properly, it is a network, an ecology (what Peter Mair called ‘zone of engagement'), of formal and informal practices resting on changing institutional, legal and socio-political conditions.

Democratic representation is an ecology of formal and informal practices resting on changing institutional, legal and socio-political conditions

Processes endogenous to the agents of intermediation and to deeper changes in the social, cultural and technological conditions that make such engagement possible are responsible for breaking up this interactive form of engagement. 

Representative disconnect has at least three dimensions. 

First is the intermediation disconnect. This is caused by the malfunctioning of electoral and representative institutions; changes in the ecologies of information; and wider changes in associationism and activism. 

Second is the governance and accountability disconnect. This is caused by factors limiting democratic influence and control on governance and administration in increasingly complex societies; or the dislocation of political decision-making outside formal institutions of representation. 

Third is the affective disconnect – attitudinal changes to politics among the citizenry and elites; or changing patterns of identity formation and affective allegiances in diverse and individualised societies. 

Make elections meaningful again (MEMA)! 

Elections are good examples of these dimensions of disconnect. In democratic representation, elections play normative, identitarian, and symbolic roles. The normative role needs institutionally adequate means for citizens to feel they have a say in selecting representatives (intermediation). It also requires clear public accountability (governance and accountability). 

On their own, elections’ ex-ante and ex-post accountability functions cannot provide normative legitimacy. Their normative function needs organisational structures such as parties and associations that offer citizens effective involvement in politics during and in-between elections, as well as their presence in deliberative moments.

Democratic systems require organisational structures that offer citizens effective involvement in politics during and in-between elections

No less important is the affective dimension of elections, as expressive partisanship. Elections make citizens feel they are contributing to their community's political direction, and manifest citizens' allegiance to the democratic game. Voter abstention is a symptom of the weakening of both these aspects of identification. It cannot be explained solely by political or civic apathy, or lack of civic education. Addressing it simply by technological means, by reducing the costs of voting or of information gathering, risks diminishing elections’ intrinsic value and identitarian function. 

Moreover, elections have an important symbolic role in cementing the democratic community. The ritual of elections confirms the underlying values of equality and emancipation established by the conquest of universal suffrage. Alternatives to elections, such as sortition or mini-publics, are useful, but lack the same symbolic force. Addressing the representative disconnect in relation to elections requires an understanding of democratic representation as part of the political construction of the zone of engagement and mutual commitments of citizens and representatives. 

Bringing meaning back to elections requires us to think of democratic representation as much more than merely ‘we got them to vote.’

🎈Third in a Loop series on Representative Disconnect