Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
REPRESENTATION
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: RAY-RHU
del.icio.us it!
|
REPRESENTATION , a See also:term used in various senses in different connexions, but particularly in a See also:political meaning, which has See also:developed out of the others.
The word "represent " comes from See also:Lat. re-praesentare, to " make See also:present again," or " bring back into presence," and its Me word. See also:history in See also:English may be traced fairly well by the
citations given in the New English See also:Dictionary of its earliest uses in literature in senses which are still See also:common. Thus we find the verb meaning (138o) simply to " bring into presence," and See also:Barbour uses it (1395) in the sense of bringing clearly before the mind, whence the common sense of " explain," " exhibit," " portray." In 1513 it is used as synonymous with " describe," or " allege to be." In 146o we find it employed for the performance of a See also:play or a See also:part in a play, whence comes the sense of symbolizing, See also:standing in the See also:place of some one, or corresponding to something; and in 1655 for acting as authorized See also:agent or See also:deputy of some one. This is a notable point in the development of the word. In See also:Cromwell's speech to the See also:parliament, See also:January 22, 1655, he says: " " I have been careful of your safety, and the safety of those you represented." This strictly political use of the verb developed, it will be seen, comparatively See also:late.
The noun " representation " passed through similar stages. In 1425 we find it See also:equivalent to " See also:image," " likeness," " See also:reproduction," " picture," from which is derived a meaning hardly .distinguishable from " pretence." In 1553 it means a " statement " or " See also:account," a sense which leads later (1679) to that of a formal and serious plea or remonstrance. In 1589 it occurs for a performance of a play. In 1647 it is used in See also:psychology for the See also:action of See also:mental reproduction, a technical sense which applies especially to the " immediate See also:object of See also:imagination " (See also:Sir W. See also: See also:Good instances of this use are: See also:Gataker, Transubst. 4: " The Rocke was See also:Christ onely symbolically and sacramentally, by representation or re-semblance "; and R. See also:Coke, See also:Power and Subj. iii.: " So cannot these members be formed into one See also:body but by the See also: Lit. i. 154) , the politician and philanthropist See also:Daniel Gookin (1612-1687), an Irish settler in See also:Virginia, who, moving to See also:Boston and becoming See also:speaker of the See also:Massachusetts legislature, became prominent in standing up for popular rights in the agitation which resulted in the withdrawal of the colonial See also:charter (1686). But it was the See also:vogue of the " dogma " in See also:America, not its phrase, that he seems to have originated; and while the precise See also:form of the phrase does not appear to be attributable to any single author, the principle itself was asserted in See also:England See also:long before the word " representation," in a political sense, was current. In English constitutional history the principle was substantially
established in 1297 by the See also:declaration De Tallagio non concedendo,* confirmed by the See also:Petition of Right in 1628.
The growth of the parliamentary See also:system in England is traced in the See also:article PARLIAMENT, but the account there given may
be supplemented here by a more precise reference to The Idea the evolution of the idea of political " representa- oapo stical
tion " as such, and of its embodiment in the word now employed to See also:express it. The See also:simple idea of the substi- See also:tattoo. tution of one person for another, in some connexion, e.g. See also:hostage, See also:pledge, victim, is so old as to be only describable as See also:primitive;
it is found in the See also:proxy system, e.g. in See also:marriage, and in See also:diplomacy, the See also:legate or See also:ambassador being the alter ego of his See also:sovereign; but, so far as See also:general political legislative action, by one See also:man in an assembly on behalf of others, is concerned, no systematic employment of a " deputy " (the word still used both in a general sense and in politics as a synonym for "representative ") is known among the ancients. So long as political power rests in a small privileged class, such an idea must be slow to develop; and the primitive notion of a law-making body is that of all the members present in person, as in ancient See also:Greece. But, as See also:Stubbs (Const. Hist. i. 586) points out, the See also:early English See also:jury system (see JURY) shows the germ of the true idea of representation in England; it was the established practice of electing or selecting juries to present criminal matters before the king's See also:judges, and assessors to See also:levy taxes on the See also:county, that suggested the introduction of popular representation in the English political system, and thus brought " the commons " into play in addition to the See also:Crown and the nobles. Under See also: B. See also: A. See also:Freeman (Ency. Brit., 9th ed., viii. 297), when he says: " The national assemblies changed their See also:character . .. by no cause so much as by the growth of the practice of summons. . . . In the See also:great assembly at See also:Salisbury (I(386), where all the See also:land-owners of England became the men of the king (See also: The ' land-sitting men,' on the other See also:hand, not summoned personally or regularly, but summoned in a See also:mass when their attendance was specially needed, gradually lost the right of personal attendance, till in the end they gained the more See also:practical right of appearing by their representatives." From the same authority the account of the intermediate stages in the See also:adoption of the representative principle may be further quoted: " By the time of Henry II. the force of circumstances, especially the working of the practice of summons, had gradually changed the ancient assembly of the whole nation into a See also:mere gathering of the great men of the realm. . . . It is in the reign of See also:Richard I. that we begin to see the first faint glimmerings of parliamentary representation. . . . The object of his See also:wise ministers, of See also:Archbishop See also:Hubert among the first, was to gain the greatest amount of See also:money for their See also:master with the least amount of oppression towards the nation. Under Hubert's See also:administration, chosen bodies of knights or other lawful men, acting in characters which became more and more distinctly representative, were summoned for every See also:kind of purpose. How far they were nominated, how far freely elected, is not always clear. It seems most likely that in one See also:stage they were nominated by the sheriff in the county See also:court, while at a later stage they were chosen by the county court itself. In other words, the principle of representation was first established. and then the next stage naturally 1 The inevitable use of the word " represent " in its wider sense (" corresponds to "), is worth noting in this passage from Freeman, See also:side by side with the more technical one in representative " (" chosen delegate ").was that the representatives should be freely chosen. Summoned bodies of knights appear in characters which are the forerunners of See also:grand jurors and of justices of the See also:peace. They appear also in a character which makes them distinctly forerunners of the knights of the shire which were soon to come. A chosen body of knights have to assess the imposts on each shire. From assessing the taxes the next stage was to See also:vote or to refuse them. In I213 the sheriffs are called on to summon four discreet men from each shire, to come and speak with the king about the affairs of the realm. When we have reached this stage, we have come very near to a parliament, name and thing. The reign of See also: But in modern ideas those names imply two distinct houses; and it was not yet settled, it had not yet come into men's minds to consider, whether the national council should consist of one house or a dozen. But it' is decreed in so many words that the acts of those who came would bind those who stayed away. On such a See also:provision, representation, and not only representation but See also:election of the representatives, follows almost as a See also:matter of course. The mass stay away: a few appear, specially commissioned to act in the name of the rest. The Charter mentions only the king's tenants-in-chief ; so far had things been marred or feudalized by the See also:influence of the Conquest. But as the election could only be made in thq ancient county court, every freeholder at least, if not every freeman, won back his ancient right. If he could not come himself to say Yea or See also:Nay, he at least had a See also:voice in choosing those who could do so with greater effect." ,Ibid. pp. 307, 308.) " The constitution of the (national) assembly, as defined in the Great Charter, did not absolutely imply representation ; but it showed that the full establishment of representation could not be long delayed. The See also:work of the See also:period 1217–1340 was to See also:call up, alongside of the gathering of prelates, earls and other great men specially summoned, into which the ancient Witanagemot had shrunk up, another assembly directly representing all other classes of the nation which enjoyed political rights. This assembly, chosen by various See also:local bodies, communitates or universitates, having a quasi corporate being, came gradually to See also:bear the name of the commons. The knights of the shire, the barons, citizens and burgesses of the towns, were severally chosen by the See also:commune or communitas of that part of the people which they represented." 2 " The notion of local representation, by which shires and boroughs See also:chose representatives of their own communities, had to some extent to strive with another doctrine, that of the representation of estates or classes of men. The 13th century was the See also:age when the national assemblies, not only of England but of most other See also:European countries, were putting on their definite shape. And in most of them the system of estates prevailed. These in most countries were three,—See also:clergy, nobles and commons. By these last were commonly meant only the communities of the chartered towns, while the noblesse of See also:foreign countries answered to the lesser barons and knights, who in England were reckoned among the commons. The English system thus went far to take in the whole free See also:population, while the estates of other countries, the commons no less than the clergy and nobles, must be looked on as privileged bodies. In England we had in truth no estates: we had no See also:nobility in the foreign sense. . . . Yet the See also:continental theory of estates so far worked in the development of our parliamentary system that the ' Three Estates of England became a familiar phrase. It was meant to denote the lords, the commons and the clergy in their parliamentary character. For it is See also:plain that it was the intention of Edward I. to organize the clergy as a parliamentary See also:estate, alongside of the lords and commons. This See also:scheme failed, mainly through the unwillingness of the clergy themselves to attend in a See also:secular assembly. This See also:left, so far as there were any estates at all, two estates only,—lords and commons. This led to the common 2 See also:Professor Masterman, lecturing (1908) on the House of Commons, has pointed out how fortunate it was that this beginning of the organization of the communes into a central body did not come earlier than it did. Had there been one assembly representing the local communitates at any earlier time it would have been far too sectional in character and far too little conscious of any common See also:interest. The organization did not begin till England had become a self-conscious body, realizing its common interests and the common destiny that belonged to it as a nation. I1 I See also:mistake of fancying the three estates to be king, lords and commons. The ecclesiastical members of the House of Lords kept their seats there; but the parliamentary representation of the clergy as an estate came to nothing. So far as the clergy kept any parliamentary See also:powers, they exercised them in the two provincial convocations. These anomalous assemblies, fluctuating between the character of an ecclesiastical See also:synod and of a parliamentary estate, kept, from Edward I. to Charles II., the parliamentary power of self-taxation. For a long time lords and commons taxed themselves separately. So did the clergy; so sometimes did other bodies.:. . " During the reign of Henry III. assemblies were constantly held, and their constitution is often vaguely described. But in a great many cases phrases are used which, however vague, imply a popular See also:element. We read of knights, of tenants in chief, of freemen, sometimes even of freemen and villeins, sometimes, more vaguely still, of ` universi,' ` universita.s Angliae,' and the like. In some cases we are ably better to interpret these vague phrases. For instance, in 1224 each shire sends four knights chosen by the ` milites et probi homines.' Whether these knights were or were not to vote along with the magnates, they were at all events to transact business with them. We must always remember that in these times formal voting in the modern sense is not to be looked for." 1 (Ibid. pp. 314, 315.) This See also:summary shows clearly how the idea of " representation " as opposed to " presence in person " was applied to the The English parliament, so as to give the commons a Theory of proper voice in it as well as the lords. It is unnecessary Repre- here to trace further the See also:gradual increase in power of sentatlon. the House of Commons till it became the predominant partner in the English bicameral constitution (see PARLIAMENT). But from the point of view of historical theory it is important to See also:note that its representative character does not essentially depend upon the particular method (election by vote) by which its members have for so long been chosen. It is a common See also:error to regard the House of Commons as having a national authority higher than that of the House of Lords merely on the ground that it is composed of elected members, and to stigmatize the House of Lords as "unrepresentative" because it is not elected. But in strictness the question of election, as such, has nothing to do with the matter.2 The proper distinction (ignoring for the moment the later inclusion in the House of Lords of a certain representative element—strictly so regarded—in the Scotch and Irish peers) is that the House of Lords, as still constituted in 1910, remained a presentative chamber, while the House of Commons was essentialiy a representative one; in the former the members, summoned personally as individuals, were entitled to speak in the great council of the nation, while in the latter the members were returned as the mouthpieces of whole communitates, to whom, in the person of the sheriffs, the summons had been directed to send persons to speak for them .3 The preponderant authority of the House of Commons is due not to its' members being elected—that is only one way of settling who the mouthpieces of the commons shall be—but to the progress of 1 " Election " in these early times has its simple meaning of " choice." " We must guard ourselves from supposing that the citizens and burgesses. who were summoned to Parliament, were absolutely elected by the inhabitants of the towns as their representatives. Their presence in Parliament is another instance of representation without election. They were often nominated by the sheriff of the county, and even when that great officer, from See also:negligence or favour, permitted the return to be made by those interested in the transaction, the nomination was confined to the small governing body, who returned two of their members, in general very unwilling missionaries, to the great council " (Disraeli, Vindication of the See also:British Constitution, 1835). 2 In the American federal system the bicameral legislature is divided into a " House of Representatives," composed of members elected by popular vote in each See also:state, and a " See also:Senate," composed of members elected by the legislature in each state. In spite of the nomenclature, both houses are really composed of " representatives." But under a republican system there is no See also:room for a purely presentative assembly, and the term " representative " comes to imply a more See also:direct choice by the " commons." 3 There was at one time, it may be noted, a sort of " representative " element even in the See also:case of the House of Lords, in so far as peers (including peeresses in their own right, abbesses, &c.) could send deputies or proxies. But it must be remembered that the See also:privilege flowed directly from the personal and presentative character of the summons to a peer, who as such could name a deputy. It is quite illegitimate to See also:strain from it an See also:analogy with the election of a representative by the commons, who had no personal right to a summons.popular See also:government. The two British houses have historically existed as assemblies of the See also:separate estates of the realm—the House of Lords of the two estates of lords spiritual and temporal, and the House of Commons of the commons. The third estate has so increased in power as to become predominant in the See also:country; but the authority of its own assembly simply depends on the powers of those it represents. If the See also:balance of political power had not been shifted in the country itself, the authority and competence of the peers, speaking for themselves in a See also:primary assembly, would in theory actually appear higher, so far as their See also:order is concerned, than that of members of the House of Commons, who can only " represent " the popular constituencies. Moreover, the fact that most members of the House of Commons are elected by a party vote is See also:apt to make them very often even less authoritative spokesmen of their constituencies—the communitates—than if they were selected by some method which would indicate that they had the full confidence of the whole body they " represent." It is notorious that many members of a modern House of Commons, or of any other " representative " assembly, have only been elected by the votes of a minority of their constituency, or (where there have been more than two candidates) a minority even of those who voted; and there always comes a time when it is certain that if a representative has to come again before the electorate for their votes he will be defeated; he, in fact, no longer reflects their views, while he still sits and legislates. The real desires of the commons in a certain British constituency may even be more faithfully, even if only accidentally, reflected by a local peer whose only right to speak in parliament is technically presentative. In his Vindication of the British Constitution (1835), Disraeli, See also:writing of the Reform See also:Bill of 1832, observed that " in the effort to get rid of representation without election, it will be well if eventually we do not discover that we have only obtained election without representation." A truer word was never spoken. A man may be representative, practically consensu omnium, although no vote, resulting from a See also:division of See also:opinion, has been taken for the purpose of selecting him. The vote is merely a method of selection when there is a definite division of opinion involving an uncertainty; and even in the modern House of Commons many members are returned " unopposed," no actual voting taking place. A well-recognized representative character (as regards the functions involved) attaches, for instance, in British public See also:life to other persons in whose selection the method of popular voting has had no place; such as the king himself, the See also:Cabinet (in relation to the political party in power), or the bishops (as regards the See also: In the See also:absence of a written constitution, theoretical considerations have in England always been second to the force of circumstances. Most people regarded the House of Lords, as still unreformed in 1910, as purely a hereditary body; its members had been summoned to parliament as peers (the important question of their right to a summons need not here be discussed), and most peers enjoyed their titles by hereditary succession. But the See also:constant creation of peers by both political parties had in fact introduced even into the constitution of the House of Lords an essentially representative e1e nent (though not resulting from direct election), apart altogether from the fact that See also:heredity maintained there a number of See also:parsons whose See also:title had descended from men who were originally representative Englishmen, and whose successors, on the whole, were no less so. In the days when See also:kings really governed in England, the most powerful check on the king, in the interest of the nation at large, was the peerage; the earls and barons, in parliament, were the chief See also:bulwark of the people against tyranny. It was they who stood for the nation in extorting Magna Carta from King John; and as time went on, the representation of the commons in parliament was largely due, not to any direct popular pressure, but to the See also:desire of the kings to influence the See also:lower ranks of society independently of the nobles. Up to the reign of Charles I., at all events, the House of Lords was actually the predominant partner in parliament; the House of Commons was recruited from and returned by only a small section of the commons as now understood; and See also:Oliver Cromwell—certainly a " popular " See also:leader in the See also:ordinary sense—made as short work of it as he did of the king himself. Up to 1832, when the first modern Reform Act was passed, the House of Commons was an oligarchical body, and the See also:electors themselves were a small and privileged class. It is only since then—except in the granting of supplies—that first equality, and then predominance, in respect of the House of Lords, has been asserted by the House of Commons, owing to the fact that an extended See also:suffrage has made the estate of the commons more adequately coincident with the nation as a whole. See also:Prior to 1832 it was the king who directly made and unmade ministries; in 1835 for the first time the result of a general election caused a change of See also:ministry; and the modern view of the House of Lords as purely a revising chamber See also:dates only from then. But the very fact that the responsibility for creating new peerages now passed to ministers dependent on popular suffrage may well justify the contention that hence-forth it indirectly included a select number of representative men of the nation, holding their seats in virtue of authoritative nomination and not by heredity. In the sixty years preceding 1906 no fewer than 419 new peerages were created, 238 by the Liberal party, 181 by the Conservative, or a balance of 57 creations on the Liberal side.' It is See also:fair to assume that all these new peers were created as being representative men in the nation for one reason or another. And an See also:analysis of the See also:composition of the House of Lords in 1906 would have led an unprejudiced outside observer to suppose that its competence to speak on national affairs had not been weakened by any dependence on the hereditary title. It included 166 men who had been M.P.'s (i.e. had been elected by popular vote to the House of Commons), 172 who had held government office, 140 who had been mayors of county See also:councils, 207 who had served in the See also:army or See also:navy, 40 who had been judges or lawyers, 7 ex-viceroys, 16 ex-See also:governors of colonies, 50 who had been eminent in See also:art, letters, manufactures or See also:trade, and 21 archbishops or bishops (appointed by ministerial recommendation, but only after they had worked up to See also:eminence from being curates, and therefore had wide experience of the social life of the people).
It is possible to compare a chamber so composed some-what favourably with a modern House of Commons, if the point at issue—the provision of " representative men " (i.e. men generally accepted as national spokesmen)—be strictly considered, apart from the method of selecting them by direct popular vote .2 In the House of Lords the method is heredity plus selection by the political party which the popular vote has put in power; while in the election of members of the House
1 Between January 1906 and January 1910 See also:thirty-five more new peers were created by Liberal premiers, and seven more in See also:June 191o.
2 Speaking at See also:Oldham on See also:December 15, 1909, Lord Curzon said: " I have taken out the figures of the past 200 years, and I tell you this, that during that time 41 of our See also:prime ministers have sat in the Lords and only 17 in the Commons; of our foreign secretaries, 56 in the Lords and only 8 in the Commons; of our colonial secretaries, 46 in the Lords and 25 in the Commons; of our See also:war ministers, 29 in the Lords and 31 in the Commons; of first lords of the See also:Admiralty, a8 in the Lords and 28 in the Commons."of Commons the popular choice is doubly limited—first, by the fact that only the enfranchised commons can vote (in 1910 about 71 millions out of 43); and secondly, because the choice must be made from among candidates who are themselves not disqualified for various reasons (for instance they must not be clergymen, nor entitled to seats in the House of Lords). Now, to carry out the real " will of the nation'.' in parliament must require (1) a reasonable knowledge of the wishes of the nation, and (2) an understanding of the best ways of expressing those wishes in legislation and administration. In the case of the peers, those who sit as having been originally created and therefore selected for the purpose—a considerable section of those actively attending—the qualifications are obvious: and it is only necessary to See also:deal with those qualified by See also:inheritance of title. Here too, in a number of cases, preceding experience in the House of Commons, to which the popular vote has returned them while they were only in the succession to a peerage, is a frequent See also:factor; but, apart from that, the art of legislation is one which may well be considered to require a certain See also:special disposition and mental equipment. Though See also:allowance must be made for exceptional cases, it is obvious that the son of a man who has been responsible for legislating, who has himself been brought up as one who will have to take his part in legislating, is most likely, in any society, to have qualified himself for the business, as in the case of any profession or trade. He has been accustomed to breathe the parliamentary See also:atmosphere, and as one of a leisured class has had the opportunity to study the subject of legislation, and to obtain experience of its conditions. This is so generally accepted that, in fact, the same theory is commonly applied to candidates for the House of Commons, and predominantly to members of that House who are given office. The names of more than one See also:generation are writ large in English history in the case of the Pitts, Foxes, Grenvilles, Cannings, Cecils, Stanleys and Cavendishes. The sons of famous political commoners, a See also:Gladstone, a See also:Harcourt, a See also:Churchill, a See also:Primrose, a See also: If the House of Commons were deprived of those members who obtained their seats or their offices primarily for reasons of heredity, it would lose many of its best men—as indeed it occasionally does, to its disadvantage and possibly to the chagrin of the individuals themselves, when succession to a peerage forces a prominent parliamentarian to relinquish his seat in the Lower House and to take his place in the " unrepresentative " chamber. It remains nevertheless the fact that, in politics, " representative " government means not so much government by men really representative of the nation as government in 6xprea• the name of the whole body of citizens (and predomi- s/on of nantly the estate of the commons) through a chamber the" will or See also:chambers composed of elected deputies. The of the object in view is the expression of the " will of the Pe op/e.'• people "—the people, that is, who are sovereign. Clearly the only pure case of such government can be in a See also:republic, where there is only one " estate," the free citizens. The See also:home and historical type of representative government, the United Kingdom, is strictly no such case, since the See also:monarchy and the House of Lords exist and work on lines constitutionally See also:independent of any direct contact with the electorate. British practice, however, is of vital importance for the theory of representative institutions, and it is worth while to point out that the " will of the people " may even so be effectively expressed—some people may think even more effectively expressed than in a pure republic. The king and the House of Lords, qud estates of the realm, are just as much part of " the people," in the widest sense, as " the commons " are; they are an integral part of the nation. In a republic they would as individuals be equal citizens, able to become candidates for the representative chamber or chambers; but as it is, since they are expressly debarred from taking part in elections to the House of Commons, they remain entitled and expected to use their historic method of playing a part in the government of the state. They assist to constitute " the people " in the wider sense, and in the narrower sense " the people " (i.e. the commons) know it and rely on it. Under the British constitution the commons have habitually relied on the monarchy and the House of Lords to play their part in the state, and on many occasions it has been proved, by various methods by which it is open to the commons themselves to show their real feeling, that action on the part of the monarch (e.g. in foreign affairs) or the House of Lords (in rejecting or modifying bills sent up by the House of Commons), in which a popular vote has played no initiating or controlling part, is welcomed and ratified, by consent of a large See also:majority, on the part of the nation at large. So much is this so that it is notorious, in the case of the House of Lords, that elected members of the House of Commons, tied by purely party See also:allegiance and pledges, have constantly voted for a measure they did not want to see passed, relying on the House of Lords to throw it out. Ultimately, no doubt, the reconciliation of this " presentative " element in the British form of constitution with the growth of democracy . and the predominance of the " representative " system depends purely on the waiving of historical theory both by king and peers, and its See also:adaptation to the fact of popular government through the recognition that their action rests for its efficient authority upon conformity with the " will of 'the people." Thus it has become an established See also:maxim in England that while it is the proper See also:function of the House of Lords to reject a measure which in their opinion is not in accordance with the wishes of the nation, they could not repeat such a rejection after a general election had shown that its authors in the House of Commons were supported by the country. The experience of politics from 1832 to 1910 gave abundant See also:justification to the House of Lords for supposing that in such cases they were interpreting the desire of the country better than the House of Commons; the case of the Irish Home See also:Rule bill of 1893 is, of course, the classical example.' So that in practice the House of Lords only acts in opposition to the House of Commons, subject to the remedy of a See also:dissolution of parliament (which depends strictly on the See also:prerogative of the Crown, but in practice on the See also:advice of the leader of the majority in the House of Commons), at which the view of the House of Commons might be confirmed and reasserted, and in that case would prevail. The violent attacks made on the House of Lords by the Liberal party, on occasions when that party has had a majority in the commons and has had its See also:measures rejected or distastefully amended, have always been open to the See also:criticism that if the majority in the House of Commons were really supported by the electorate in the country they had the remedy in their own hands. If it were shown by the result of a general election that their defeated measure were the " will of the people," the House of Lords, as was generally understood, must give way. Such a position, though naturally objectionable to a party in power in the House of Commons (because general elections are uncertain things in every respect but that of trouble and expense), could clearly be strong only in view of the confidence of the House of Lords in its action being more truly representative of public opinion. It therefore must be said to have acted, however clumsily and indirectly—and no direct way would be feasible except that of the See also:Referendum—as a " representative " body, i.e. as carrying out what it judged to be the national will and not merely the will of the peers, although not constituted as ' The result of the general election of January 1910, following on the rejection of the See also:Budget by the House of Lords, cannot properly be said to show anything to the contrary. It was notorious that there was no genuine majority in the new House of Commons for the Budget, and that the Irish Nationalists only voted for it as part of an arrangement for ulterior purposes.113 such in the narrower sense. In practice, and in accordance with this view, it has on more than one occasion (e.g. in the case of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906) accepted and passed measures which it was notorious, and indeed avowed, that the peers themselves regarded as See also:bad. The immense See also:extension of the " representative principle " in government, by means of popular election, and its adaptation to municipal as well as national councils, has in See also:recent times resulted in attracting much See also:attention to the problem of making such elected bodies more accurately representative of public opinion than they frequently are. There are three distinct problems involved—(I) that of making the number of enfranchised citizens correspond to a real embodiment of the nation; (2) that of getting candidates to stand for the office of representative who are competent and incorruptible exponents of the national will, and (3) that of adopting a system of voting which shall result in the elected representatives forming an assembly which shall adequately reflect the balance of opinion in the electorate. (1) The history of the gradual extension of the See also:franchise in the United Kingdom is given under PARLIAMENT, and the conditions for other countries under their respective headings. But while, in countries with a representative The Suffrage. system at all, the question as to the extent to which the male citizens shall have the vote is mainly one of degree-as to See also:property or other qualification, up to the inclusion of all adults (see VOTE AND VOTING)—the question of the incapacity of See also:women, as a See also:sex, raises a distinction which is more radical. The facts as to the progress of the See also:movement for women's suffrage are given in the article WOMEN. It is only necessary to say here that, where the franchise is limited to the male sex, the theory of " no taxation without representation " is under modern conditions of life carried out in a decidedly one-sided way. The question of women's suffrage is, however, one of public policy, in whatever state it is raised; and even where, as in Great See also:Britain, it has been adopted for municipal affairs, a distinction is commonly made as regards the national assembly. So far as the historical facts as to the See also:disability of women are concerned, it has been unanimously decided in England by the highest law-court of the realm (See also:judgment of the House of Lords in the See also:Edinburgh University case, December lg ~8), presided over on this occasion by a Liberal Lord See also:Chancellor (Lord Loreburn), that, according to their authoritative statement of the common law, women never had in earlier times any legal right to vote for members of parliament; this judgment is therefore entirely adverse to such ingenious arguments to the contrary as are ably expressed in Mrs See also:Charlotte See also:Carmichael Stopes's British Free-women (1907).
Sex, however, apart, there are various interesting questions as to the principles which should govern the extension of the suffrage and its limitations, to which a brief reference may here be made. It is noteworthy that John See also:Stuart See also: It is not useful, but hurtful, that the constitution of the country should declare See also:ignorance to be entitled to as much political power as know-ledge." Modern democracy may ignore Mill's emphatic plea for plural voting, as it ignores his equally strong arguments against the See also:ballot'—his contention being that See also:secret voting violated the spirit of the suffrage, according to which the voter was a trustee for the public, whose acts should be publicly known—but Mill's discussion of the whole subject proceeds on high grounds which are still worth careful See also:consideration. Where a representative system, as such, is extolled as the ideal polity, the reservations made by Mill, a liberal thinker who cannot be dismissed as a prejudiced reactionary, should be remembered. Mill postulated, in any event, a state of society which was worthy of such a system, no less than the necessary checks and balances which should make it correspond to the real conditions of rational government. " Representative institutions," he pointed out, " are of little value, and may be a mere See also:instrument of tyranny or intrigue, when the generality of electors are not sufficiently interested in their own government to give their vote, or, if they vote at all, do not bestow their suffrages on public grounds, but sell them for money, or vote at the See also:beck of some one who has See also:control over them, or whom for private reasons they desire to propitiate. Popular election, as thus practised, instead of a See also:security against misgovernment, is but an additional See also:wheel in its machinery." When, in modern' days, See also:advocates of representative institutions seem ready to extend them to all countries, they become See also:doctrinaires who depart widely from the standpoint of Mill, and forget that democracy is itself only a " form of government," as Sir Henry See also:Maine insisted, for which all communities may not be ripe or fitted. The ideal form of government must be relative to a certain state of See also:civilization and certain conditions of national life, and its advantages can only be tested by results and practical working. (2) As regards the important question of the selection of candidates (which depends partly on their willingness to stand, Selection and partly on the means available for discovering of Candi- suitable persons), modern practice is entirely dominated dales. by the organization of political parties and the requirements of party allegiance. Though much has been said as to the desirability or not of paying members for their services (see See also:PAYMENT OF MEMBERS), this is certainly overshadowed by the question of the availability of really capable men at all to the number required, for all candidates become " professional " Before 1872, when the Ballot Act was passed, voting was public.politicians, whether paid or not. The ideal of having a " representative man " in the broader sense as a " representative " in the narrower is only very roughly attained where the conditions of public life make a capacity for electioneering a See also:necessity. To a large extent the political See also:candidate depends purely upon the support of a party organization. His choice rests with party See also:wire-pullers, and the See also:average individual elector is confronted with the task of voting for some one of whom he may personally know very little, except that, if returned, the candidate will in parliament vote for measures embodying certain general principles as indicated in some vague party See also:programme. Since the elector as a rule himself supports a party, he votes accordingly, but there are always a good many electors who under such a system fail to get a See also:chance of voting for a candidate who fully represents their views. The supremacy of party interests, resulting from the difficulty of having any other form of electoral organization, is apt to bring many evils in its See also:train, including the corruption of the electorate, and the practice of " See also:lobbying," i.e. the pressure upon members in parliament of important " interests " whose electoral assistance is indispensable. (3) The more important point to be considered here is the third. When a representative assembly is to be elected by a direct popular vote, it is obviously necessary (a) that systems either there should be some system by which the whole of voting. body as a unit should elect all the members en bloc, or, as this usually appears impracticable, that the mass of electors should be divided within defined areas, or " constituencies "; and (b) that in the latter case voting shall take place for the purpose of electing one or more representatives of each such See also:area according to some method by which due effect shall be given to the preferences of the-electors. In theory there can be no perfectly fair arrangement as between constituency and constituency, where a single representative is to be returned, except on the terms that they are exactly equal in the number of electors; each elector's voice would then See also:count equally with that of any other in the nation (or mutatis mutandis in the See also:municipality, &c.). But in practice it is difficult to the point of impossibility to See also:attempt more than an arbitrary See also:distribution of electoral areas, more or less approximating to equality; and recourse is had to the formation of constituencies out of See also:geographical districts taken as See also:units for historical or practical reasons, and necessarily fluctuating from time to time in population or influence. It may become necessary periodically to revise these areas by what in England are called Re-distribution Acts, but it has to be admitted that any perfect system of representation is always stultified by the necessary inequalities involved; and what is known as " gerrymandering " is sometimes the result, when a party in power so recasts the electoral districts as to give more opportunity for its own candidates to be returned than for those of its opponents. This flaw is particularly noticeable when the arrangement for the method of voting is that which allots only one member or representative to each See also:district (scrutin d'See also:arrondissement). The essential See also:vice of this single-member system, which prevails in the United Kingdom2 and the United States, is the lack of See also:correspondence between the proportions in which the elected members of each party stand to one another and the proportions in which the See also:numbers of the electors who returned them similarly stand; and it may well be that the minority party in the country obtains a majority of representatives in the assembly, or at any See also:rate that .a substantial minority obtains an absurdly small representation. " As a result of the district system," writes Professor J. R. Commons of See also:Wisconsin (Proportional Representation, 1907), " the national House of Representatives (in America) is scarcely a representative body. In the Fifty-first See also:Congress, a majority of representatives were elected by a minority of the voters "; the figures being 5,348,379 Republican votes with 164 elected, and 5,502,581 Democratic votes with 161 elected. In 2 The House of Commons in 1910 was elected by 643 constituencies, of which 27 (including three See also:universities) returned two members each, and the rest one; and the Royal See also:Commission, which reported in that year, recommended the See also:abandonment of the existing two member constituencies " at the earliest convenient opportunity." the case of the Fifty-second Congress, the Democrats, with 50-6% of the votes, returned 71.1% of the representatives; the Republicans, with 42.9% of the votes, returning 26.5% of the representatives. Lord See also:Avebury (Proportional Representation, 1890; new ed. 1906) has given various similar experiences in England; thus, at the general election of 1886, the Liberals, with 1,333,400 votes, only obtained 176 seats, while the Unionists, with 1,423,500, obtained 283 (not counting 99 unopposed returns on the Liberal side, and 111 on the Unionist). In the general election of 1895, at which 132 Unionist seats and 57 Liberal were unopposed, the result in the 481 seats contested was the return of 279 Unionists and 202 Liberals; yet the actual votes given were 1,800,000 for the Liberals, and 1,775,000 for the Unionists. Again, in 1906, the Unionist vote, though 44% of the See also:total See also:cast, returned only 28% of the members, and the Liberal majority, which in strict proportion would have been 68, actually was 256. The establishment of mere party majority rule, which is characteristic of a representative system, is a necessity, no doubt, in popular government; but the way in which a substantial minority of voters may only obtain a contemptible minority of members, and may in practice be tyrannized over in See also:con-sequence, somewhat detracts from its blessings, and leads to extreme party measures. The division of the whole electoral body into constituencies is, after all, only a See also:device for getting over the difficulty of the electors voting en bloc, and it does not seem to justify the See also:conversion of a real majority in the country into a minority as represented in parliament, nor the See also:complete exclusion of a substantial number of the electorate from parliamentary representation—so far as their views are concerned—at all. Yet under the English system such results are possible as the See also:capture of every seat in See also:Wales (34), in 1906, by the Liberal party, with 217,462 votes, the 100,547 Unionist voters having no representation in parliament; while in See also:Warwickshire, though 22,490 votes were given to the Unionist candidates against 22,021 for the Liberal, three Liberals were returned against one Unionist. The attempt to rectify this flaw in the representative method has led to the See also:suggestion of various devices by the adoption Propor+ of which the elected members may correspond more tional equally to the .divisions of opinion in the electorate. repre- Under the See also:plan of scrutin de liste (or " general See also:ticket ") sentatton. larger districts are created, each returning several members, and each voter has as many votes as there are members to elect; but while this system apparently provides the opportunity for the return of candidates with different views, it only requires a solid party vote to capture the whole of the representation for a majority. What is known as the " limited vote " is a form of scrutin de See also:lisle by which the elector has less votes than there are seats to be filled; with (say) three to be elected, the elector has only two votes. Systems of " limited vote " are in force in See also:Portugal, See also:Spain and See also:Japan. A somewhat better plan is the " cumulative vote, " which gives each elector as many votes as there are members to be elected, but allows him to See also:divide them as he pleases (instead of giving only one vote to any one candidate). This enables an organized minority, by concentrating their votes, to elect at all events some representative; but the " cumulative vote " works rather capriciously, and is commonly defeated by careful party organization.
A more elaborate plan, but depending like the " limited " vote and the " cumulative " vote on the formation of constituencies returning three or more members each, is that of the " transferable vote. " By this device an elector can indicate on his ballot See also:paper not only his first choice, but also his second or third, &c. To ensure election a candidate need not obtain a majority of the votes polled, but only a certain number, so fixed that it can be obtained by a number of candidates equal to the number of seats to be filled, but by no more; this number of votes is called the " See also:quota. " At the first count first choices only are reckoned, and those candidates who have received a " quota " or more are declared duly elected. If all the seatshave not then been filled up, the surplus votes of those candidates who have received more than the " quota " are transferred according to the names marked (2) on them. If these transfers still do not bring the requisite number of candidates up to the " quota, " the lowest candidate is eliminated and his votes transferred according to the next preferences, and so on till the seats are filled This system, which is the one usually associated with the term " proportional representation " was first suggested by See also: It was proposed in the draft of the See also:South See also:African constitution, but abandoned. The principle has also been adopted in the " See also:list systems " of See also:Belgium, some Swiss cantons, See also:Sweden, See also:Finland and parts of See also:Denmark, See also:Wurttemberg and See also:Servia, where candidates are grouped in lists and all votes given to individual candidates on the list count first as votes for the list itself, the seats being divided among the lists in proportion to the total number of votes obtained by the list. The use of the general term " proportional representation " for all of these is, however, somewhat misleading; people often suppose that only one identical system of voting is meant, whereas in fact some 300 possible varieties have been proposed, and each of the states mentioned has a different one from all the others. The only common element is the device of the " transferable vote, " i.e. the method of having an " electoral quota, " and the filling up of seats, where a quota is not provided by the first choices, by votes transferred from the second choices, and so on. It may be noted here that the " transferable vote " is calculated to multiply candidates to a point at which the minds of the electorate may well be embarrassed as to their preferences (the largest Belgian constituency returns 22 members), and, while undoubtedly providing for " minority representation, " to encourage what may be called " minority thinking " and particularist politics. The " transferable vote " is commonly objected to as puzzling to the electors and too complicated for the scrutineers, while it is not much favoured by " See also:machine " party organizations, which generally prefer the simpler plan of rough-and-ready majorities; but it has received a growing amount of theoretical support, as well as success in practical experiment, in recent years. The " second ballot " is a device for securing absolute majority, instead of relative majority, representation. Where the two- party system prevails, it is usual for only two The candidates, one for each party, to stand for each second single-member constituency. But there is nothing ballot. to prevent a third or even a See also:fourth candidate standing, and this multiplication of candidates becomes the more common in proportion as parliamentary organization- is split up into See also:groups. The consequence is that the candidate who heads the See also:poll may well have only a relative, not an absolute, majority of votes, and to meet this objection the " second ballot " has been introduced, and is in operation in See also:Austria-See also:Hungary; See also:France, See also:Germany, See also:Italy and See also:Russia. Under this system, if no candidate receives an absolute majority of all the votes, a second election is held, at which, as a rule, only the two candidates compete who received most; or in cases where more than one seat is to be filled, twice as many candidates compete as there are seats. In principle the second ballot has much in its favour, though it does not necessarily reflect the real opinion of the electorate, but only what is practicable; and while leading to political bargaining it does nothing for minority representation. In England the importance of the whole subject of the method of elections was recognized at the end of 1908 by the See also:appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire and See also:report. Its conclusions were published in 191o, after much interesting evidence had been taken, but they attracted little attention, being in the See also:main adverse to innovation. The one See also:positive recommendation was for the adoption of the " alternative vote " (already in use in See also:Queensland and Western See also:Australia) by which the electors might See also:mark their choices 1, 2, 3, &c.; this would not be for the purpose already discussed as part of the method of the " transferable vote," but the indications of preference would only be used for the same purpose as the " second ballot," while saving the voters the trouble of further elections. One objection to this " alternative vote," however, as compared with the " second ballot," is that it does not allow the voter to change his mind as to his preference, as he well might do after he knew the result of the See also:original voting. It may be said broadly that all the devices which have been proposed for mitigating or redressing the defects of electoral methods ignore the essential fact that in any case a representative system can only result in a rather arbitrary approximation to correspondence with the opinions of the electorate. It is by no means certain even that " proportional representation " in any of its forms would always result in the return of a representative assembly reflecting with mathematical accuracy the balance of opinion in the electorate; and even if it did, the electors have a way of changing their opinions long before their representatives come up for re-election. It was stated before the British Royal Commission that in Belgium, in spite of " proportional representation," both in 190o and in 1902 a majority of members was returned .by a minority of votes. While under majority rule, as Mr See also:Augustine See also:Birrell once re-marked, " minorities must suffer "—even large minorities—it is on the other hand not likely to conduce to the popularity of representative government that minorities should obtain too great a share of political power. The fact is that no " representation " can reflect the views of those " represented " as accurately as " presentation " by those entitled personally to speak. This conclusion, while in no necessary degree qualifying the importance of " popular government," undoubtedly detracts from the value of the representative method. The result is seen in the increasing desire in really democratic countries to supplement representative government by some form of Referendum, or direct See also:appeal to the electors for their own personal opinion on a distinct issue—a method which involves fundamentally the addition of a " presentative " element to the representative system. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] REPORTING |
[next] REPRIEVE (reprise, from Fr. reprendre) |