A Comparative Study Of Theories Of Representation Between Rousseau And Mill

Benifiting from the coordination of democracy and representation, democracy got rid of the bad reputation as“the rule of poor”and became the dominant model of democracy during modern times. Because of the mediation attribute of representation, however, people and their representatives often get divorced and misplaced, which is clearly against the basic principle of democracy. To avoid this democratic pitfall, we should investigate the relationship between representation and democracy thoroughly and scientifically. Based on the significant position Rousseau and Mill have in the theory of democracy and representation, as well as their entirely different judgments towards this theme, it would be of great benefit from an in-depth and systematic comparative study of theories of representation between Rousseau and Mill.Historically, representation and democracy was disparate, even conflicting. So we should firstly investigate the position and function of representation in modern democracy. Based on the theoretical argument of“the general will should not be represented”and practical argument that the assembly could prevent the abuse of executive power more effectively, Rousseau clearly denied the legislative representation at first. Nevertheless, influenced by the suffering in Geneva and the reality of large scale countries such as Corsica and Poland, Rousseau realized that the assembly was impractical and lately proposed a rigid mandate representation system. Representation, as for Mill, could play an essential role in the transition from individual interest to common interest. Besides, the representatives, who usually had excellent knowledge and virtue, would encourage the common citizen to improving their political abilities and public virtue and promote the all-round development of society. Mill admitted that representative democracy could cause“the lack of intelligence”and“class legislation”among the governing group. But he considered they were the defects of democracy, not representative system. On the contrary, a well-established representative system could overcome these defects. Generally speaking, even though Rousseau and Mill both accepted representative system, they had totally different attitudes towards the value of representation. Rousseau accepted representative system because he had to and always tended to reduce the position and function of representatives. Quite the opposite, Mill considered the representative system as the best model of modern democracy and always tended to strengthen the role and function of representative system.Normally, different theories of representation would have different institutional orientations. Rousseau regarded representation as“necessary evil”and made the indirect representative system embody the direct democratic principles: the elected representatives were just popular sovereign’s delegates and subordination. Mill considered the indirect attribute of representation as a tremendous advantage and had his representative system implement the indirect principles thoroughly: the elected representatives were with considerable discretion. Both Rousseau and Mill proposed to select representatives by election. Both of them recognized it was necessary to distinguish between legislative power and executive power clearly. However, they adopted different ways and went opposite direction. Rousseau wanted to maintain popular control by reducing the mediated function of representation, while Mill wanted to enforce the popular control by strengthening the mediated function of representation.The behavior of representatives, pro-mandate or pro-independent, largely depends on the defining and positioning of the represented, representatives as well as the interaction between the represented and representatives. Rousseau regarded the represented as a unity of moral and will as well as the only source of legitimacy of all political authority, whilst the representatives were just delegate and clerk of the represented. So Rousseau obviously inclined the mandate representation. Mill considered the represented as a plural unity with sovereignty of individual, unequal political rights, while the representatives were responsible for expressing the interest of electorate, refining the public interest and promoting the development of knowledge and moral. So Mill inclined the independent representation. Rousseau and Mill both regarded people as the represented. Both of them insisted that the representatives should be under the control of people and emphasized the indispensability of general, active participation of citizens. However, there was obvious difference between them: Rousseau’s people was a highly homogenous, collective unity interlinked by general will, while Mill’s people was a plural individual unity driven by interest. Rousseau’s representatives were popular sovereign’s clerk and subordination without any independence before general will, while Mill’s representatives with tremendous independence and discretion. As for the interaction between the represented and representative, Rousseau preferred a kind of one-way, non-deliberation interaction so as to form the correct general will, while Mill proposed a bilateral, deliberative interaction so as to find the real public interest.To sum up, even though Mill’s theory of representation is more suitable for modern democracy based on the practice of modern democracy, Rousseau’s theory of representation isn’t meaningless. As a matter of fact, the participatory democracy and deliberative democracy, for example, which succeed Rousseau’s democratic theory to some extent, are always challenging the dominative position of representative democracy. In my opinion, we can defuse these challenges by explaining and developing Mill’s theory of representation correctly and properly.