General introduction to the Research Handbook on Political Representation

The contemporary model of democracy, one of the historically most relevant inventions in the field of ‘political technology’, originally conceived and developed during the last two centuries in Europe and in its external projections (such as the United States) and then diffused in different parts of the world, has at its centre the idea of representation and the crafting of institutions to translate this into practice. The representative qualifier has thus come to be strictly associated with the noun ‘democracy’ to define the new model of representative democracy. This development, which has significantly contributed to shaping the politics of a large part of the world, is both the result of passionate ideological and philosophical debates and of very concrete and often dramatic political struggles, as well as of often contested institutional choices. The two dimensions, ideational and practical, have been closely intertwined, though sometimes conflicting. Theories of democracy and representation have inspired political struggles and institutional choices, but they have also been used to criticize the latter as insufficient or misdirected. In turn, practical choices have sometimes been guided more by expediency and compromises among political actors than by full attention to principles. In the context of contemporary democracy, representation has thus obtained the position of the central and powerful metaphor used to address the oldest and most crucial problem of politics: how to normatively prescribe, practically organize and empirically describe the asymmetric and dangerous relationship between rulers and ruled. The solution offered by representation to this problem is seen as providing what is today (at least in principle) the predominant source of authorization and legitimation for the rulers (they can rule because they represent the sovereign people). It is also seen as the instrument that enables influence and control over those who detain power by those who do not wield direct power, and ensures that those who rule can be called to respond to the demands of those who are ruled, and in some way held to account. When discussing the concept of political representation and its ramifications, we must therefore remember they are the result of extensive theoretical, political and institutional elaborations and of the enormous quantity of practices which have taken place over two centuries and more, first in a limited number, then in a multitude of countries. Stretching over time and across countries, the ideas and realities of representation have been challenged and contaminated by a huge variety of socio-political realities. Large or small communities, territorially homogeneous or heterogeneous countries, egalitarian or highly unequal societies, the presence or absence of ethnic minorities, the politicization or non-politicization of gender differences, the rise of parties with their variable organizational forms, the activation of social and political movements mobilizing population sections: these and many other aspects have caused the concept of representation to be continuously reinterpreted and different institutional solutions crafted to make it practicable. It should not be a surprise that a sort of Pandora’s box opens up as soon as we start unpacking the concept. This is not to say, however, that the idea of representation did not exist before this period and that practices embodying it have not been used in the context of rather different political models. It is well known, in fact, that in Europe the modern concept and concrete forms of rep-