The Quality of Representative Claims: Uncovering a Weakness in the Defense of the Liberal World Order
| Author | Pieter de Wilde |
| Published date | 01 May 2020 |
| Date | 01 May 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719845199 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719845199
Political Studies
2020, Vol. 68(2) 271 –292
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032321719845199
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
The Quality of Representative
Claims: Uncovering a Weakness
in the Defense of the Liberal
World Order
Pieter de Wilde
Abstract
All kinds of actors, elected and unelected, make claims to represent certain constituencies. This
article sheds new light on what this practice of representative claims-making might imply for the
legitimacy of the liberal world order. It develops a quality of representation index at the level of
representative claims and introduces a novel dataset. First, the article introduces the information
criterion as key benchmark against which to evaluate representative claims. Second, it constructs
a quality of representation index based on this criterion and uses it to assess representative claims.
Third, multivariate analysis corroborates differences between various makers while controlling for
context. Bridging the divide between political theory and empirical political sociology, this article
reveals that the supporters of the current liberal democratic world order make significantly lower
quality representative claims than various challengers. A range of new avenues for both theoretical
and empirical research ensues.
Keywords
representation, claims analysis, democracy, globalization
Accepted: 31 January 2019
Introduction
Political representation is often understood as “acting in the interest of the represented,
in a manner responsive to them” (Pitkin, 1967: 209). This definition stands at the basis
of the “standard account” (Rehfeld, 2006) of political representation, taking a descrip-
tive and principal–agent perspective on citizens and their representatives. To make sure
that representatives act in the interest of their constituencies, periodic elections take
place giving people the chance to punish or reward representatives. Whether this
Department of Historical Studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Corresponding author:
Pieter de Wilde, Department of Historical Studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
7491 Trondheim, Norway.
Email: pieter.dewilde@ntnu.no
845199PSX0010.1177/0032321719845199Political Studiesde Wilde
research-article2019
Article
272 Political Studies 68(2)
political representation is democratic depends on whether representatives enact policies
that people want (Dahl, 1971: 1; Esaiasson and Wlezien, 2017) and whether citizens
have control mechanisms available to hold representatives accountable (Pollack, 2002;
Strøm et al., 2003). This standard account has led those concerned with democratic
political representation to focus on classic institutions of representative democracy—
political parties, legislatures, and elections—and their relationship with citizens and
public opinion.
Three important challenges problematize the standard account nowadays. First, a
notion that representative democracy is in crisis has become widespread. Political par-
ties are hemorrhaging membership and turnout in elections is declining. As Mair
(2000: 37) argues: “at the level of the electorates, there is evidence of an individualisa-
tion and particularisation of voting choice, the fragmentation of traditional social-
structural identities, and a growing sense of indifference with, and disengagement
from, the political world.” A growing portion of the electorate develops a sense of
mistrust of elite politicians, disenchantment with politics, and subsequently disen-
gages from politics. This leads to a sense that we have now face “the end of representa-
tive politics” (Tormey, 2015).
Globalization presents the second challenge to the standard account. The standard
account is premised on the notion of territorial overlap of constituency, representatives,
and politics. That is, a local, regional, or ultimately national constituency votes into office
representatives who decide on the authoritative allocation of values for that territorially
demarcated group. Globalization, however, seriously undermines this principle. “Many
problems of the standard account [of representative democracy] involve the complexity
of constituency in issues such as global warming, disease, and trade, where people are
affected by laws and policies to which they are subject but have little capacity to influ-
ence” (Montanaro, 2012: 1097–1098). This presumed congruence of affected people and
their elected representatives no longer exists. The policies of large countries, particularly
rich Western ones, have disproportionate effects on the people of small and poor coun-
tries. Furthermore, as countries become integrated in globalized markets, their politicians
lose the possibility to credibly use a range of policy instruments. Economic stimulus
packages, for example, lack their intended effect in open markets (Hellwig, 2015). If the
electoral connection between representatives and voters fails because those voted into
office are not the ones who decide or do not have the means to make the desired policies,
it stands to reason to find disenchantment with key institutions of representative democ-
racy. Disaffected with national elected representatives, people look for other actors to
represent them. The question arises whether foreign and international actors, such as
international civil society groups, international organizations, and individual celebrities,
can viably represent interests which the classic agents of the standard account leave
under-represented (Bray, 2011; Lievens, 2015).
The declining support for classic institutions of representative democracy and rising
controversy in the wake of globalization result in an embattled status of the liberal world
order. This order consists on the one hand, of a marriage between liberal principles of
checks and balances, rule of law, human rights and minority protection, and the demo-
cratic principles of majority rule and collective self-determination. On the other hand, it
consists of powerful international organizations that orchestrate global and regional poli-
tics and facilitate liberal trade and international patterns of production. Defenders of this
liberal world order clearly face formidable challenges from disenchanted citizens, popu-
lists, protectionists, and authoritarians.
To continue reading
Request your trial