Representative Role Types

IN CONTRASTTO direct democracy, in which citizens directly vote on public policy, representative democracies require an intermediary who represents the interests of those who elect them. How this representational duty is accomplished can be more complicated that it might first appear. Legislators may perceive their roles in different ways. There are three main representative role types (also called “role orientations” or “models of representation”), used for classification by political scientists. They are the “delegate,” the “trustee,” and the “politico.”

The delegate role type is also sometimes referred to as the “instructed delegate.” Elected officials who view their role as that of a delegate will strive to directly reflect the will of the people they represent as accurately as possible. They see themselves as reflecting the way the entire group would vote were such a thing possible. Strict delegates would put the views of their constituents first, even if these conflict with their own judgment. For this reason, representatives with a delegate orientation will expend a great deal of energy watching polls and otherwise gathering information about the wishes and needs of those they represent.

The trustee role type is also sometimes called Burkean after the 18th century political philosopher and member of the British House of Commons, Edmund Burke, who advocated for a trustee role orientation. Representatives who sees themselves as trustees will be concerned with the broad dispositions of their district, but will feel free to exercise their own best judgment when making decisions. Trustees tend think voters expect judgment, wisdom, and expertise from their representatives, more than direct mirroring of public opinion on specific issues.

Clearly, there are disadvantages to either of these role types. In reality, it is impossible to be a pure delegate for several reasons. For one, constituencies are not uniform, and will invariably have divergent needs and opinions. Even attempts to represent the majority within an electorate can be impossible when there is no reliable means of discerning what that opinion might be. Also, even when public opinion data are available, citizens often express desires for conflicting goals such as wanting more government services as well as lower taxes. Even a committed delegate will have to make some tough decisions. Delegates focus on the needs of their particular electorate, and, as a result, may not be as concerned about the good of the whole state or country, especially if it conflicts with the interests of their constituents.

The trustee orientation comes with its own difficulties. Though ideally, trustees would be concerned with accurately representing the general will of their constituents, if they do not actively assess that opinion, they may be misguided. The main concern is that trustees may rely on their own judgment, and that judgment could differ from that of their constituents. In the most extreme case, trustees could act counter to the will of the majority of those they represent, and could arguably be behaving in an undemocratic way.

In practice, most representatives do not see themselves as pure trustees or pure delegates, but somewhere in between. Political scientists sometimes refer to those who vacillate between the two roles as politicos. A politico typically acts as a trustee on matters for which there is no explicit public guidance, but feels compelled to act as a delegate when constituents express a strong and consistent opinion on an issue. Studies by political scientists have shown that legislators are more likely to begin their careers on the delegate end of the spectrum, but end up closer to the trustee end over time. However, elected officials are also highly motivated by the desire for re-election. If representatives acts in ways that defy the explicit desires of those who elected them, there can be a political or electoral price to pay. This reality keeps a check on the excesses of those who fit the trustee model.

...