A Research On The Legitimacy And Accountability Mechanisms Of The Informal Representatives

The standard account of political representation focuses on the authorization andaccountability of representatives, it emphasizes that the representatives must beauthorized to act for others, and be accountable for his activities during the followingelection. With the diversity and complexity of social political life, more and moreorganizations and individuals, such as non-governmental organizations, interest groups,public welfare foundations, public intellectuals and journalists, claim that they speak forinterests, ideas, views and perspectives of certain citizens or groups. Such actors oftenparticipate in writing, implementing, and even monitoring public policies, they play animportant role in promoting the proper functioning of democratic political institutions.However, according to the standard account of political representation, theseorganizations or individuals lack of the authorization of the represented during theprocess of acting for others, nor do they seem to take responsibility. Thus the legitimacyand accountability of these actors have been questioned.The contemporary democracy theory requires that those who affected by thecollective decisions should have opportunities to express their demands in the processof collective decisions making. In this article，we define that those who claim to act as arepresentatives are the informal representatives, they represent interest whose bemarginalized or excluded by the formal political process, speak for people’ requirements,and perform duties in the public space. As a medium between government and citizens,the informal representatives are able to promote healthy communication between them,and guarantee citizens’ orderly political participation, they promote the properfunctioning of democratic political institutions in another way. Different from thestandard political representation which link the legitimacy with authorized electoralprocess, although the informal representatives not be elected, they obtain legitimacy ofaction by positively communicating with the represented, understanding theirrequirements, providing substantive services and building trust. While legitimatelyacting for others the informal representatives have to responsible for their words and deeds. The formal political representatives have to responsible for constituencies withwhom they have direct electoral relation, but for the informal representatives, the objectthey are responsible for are not constituencies based on geographic territoriality. Whatthey actually responsible for are constituencies formatted according to the affectedinterests principle, they should accountable to all of people who affected by theirrepresentative claims, such as citizens in other states or nations, marginalized groupsand the unborn. In view of the disconnection of election and the informalrepresentatives, thus the accountability mechanisms on basis of electoral process cannotbe simply copied to practice process of the informal representatives. Some informalpolitical accountability mechanisms, such as voice accountability, market accountabilityand public reputational accountability, are more suited for the informal representatives.The prominent role of the informal representatives in democratic politics indicates,that election and representation are not inseparable, the relationship betweenrepresentatives and constituencies are no longer restricted to an electoral relationship.The construction of the informal representatives does not means electoral representationis dreadful and unnecessary, even not an alternative of it. Although the informalrepresentatives play an important role in remedying formal electoral representatives,promoting political equality and structuring political inclusion, there are still manyproblems.