Territorial vs. Functional representation. Practically all modern States have adopted; the principle of territorial representation. The whole State is divided into a number of constituencies. All the voters living in a constituency elect one or more candidates together regardless of their differences of occupation, profession, religion or social interests and status. This system of representation is known as Territorial Representation, for the elected member claims to represent the territory from where he is elected, whatever his occupation or social work or status may be. For instance, a representative may be a lawyer, but he represents doctors, teachers, workers, peasants, miners, railway men and all other sections and classes of people in his constituency. This system is justified on the ground that a man is more attached to his locality than to his profession and that voters are more locality-conscious.
In recent time, however, territorial representation is attacked by several writers, such as the Guild Socialists like G. D. H. Cole, the two Webbs, and also by the early Soviet Communists, the Fascists, etc. In its placQ, they propose Functional Representation, also called, Occupational or Vocational Representation. They claim that the population of a State has diverse interests, professions and occupations and is divided into many classes, sections and groups.
It has many religious, economic and social differences. All these differences cannot be represented by men who are elected on territorial basis. A lawyer can not represent the doctors, a cobbler cannot represent the railway men, or a teacher cannot represent the factory workers. Yet each of them can represent his own profession. Hence representation must be functional rather than territorial. Men are “much more intelligent and trustworthy judges of the real qualities of those who work in the same industry than of those who live in the same geographical
district”. Many writers also believe that the chief political issues are necessarily industrial issues which need be decided by the representatives of the industries concerned.
Although it is nowhere adopted in its entirety, functional representation has been introduced in a modified form in many countries. In Great Britain the universities were given special representation in Parliament. In the Soviet Union, the Soviets comprised the workers, peasants and soldiers during the early years of its history. The Weimar Constitution (1920): of Germany provided for the German Economic Council which was based on functional representation of various agricultural, industrial and commercial groups and interests.
“The corporate Slate” of Mussolini’s Fascist Italy and the scheme of “economic estate” in Nazi Germany also toyed with the concept of functional or occupational representation. The English writer Graham Wallas suggested that while the lower chamber of a legislature should be territorially elected, the upper chamber should contain representatives of different functional groups and interests. The Webbs proposed that there should be two parliaments, one political and the other social, the former to be territorially elected and the latter functionally.
Merits of functional representation.
Functional representation is in harmony with the pluralistic and federal nature of modern society. It makes authority federal in character. Every occupation, profession or interest should be controlled by representative council of its own, while the power and authority of the traditional government should be reduced to the necessary minimum of maintaining peace and order, defence and judicial settlement of disputes.
This will give two advantages: (i) sectional interests will be given a voice and (ii) the.elected delegates will, more likely have an expert knowledge of ihe matters which relate to their occupation or interest. “A political theory,” writes Coker “that is realistic must recognise that the modem community is made up essentially of groups rather than of individuals, and the ordinary citizen can be organically linked with the community only through the various intermediate associations into which his more intimate interests naturally draw him. He can impress the stamp of his will and opinion only on those decisions that relate to matters he can understand and in the formulation of which he can collaborate with others, with whom he feels some special bond of vocational or cultural interests. The associations formed on these bonds, therefore, should become substantially autonomous in both policy and administration.”
Demerits of functional representation.
In practice, functional representation has revealed “such serious weaknesses as to make it little, if any, better than territorial representation.”
Firstly, functional representation destroys the basis of national unity and sovereignty. It splits the society and State into conflicting classes and groups. If such a system is adopted, it would emphasize class interests at the expense of national interests and national unity. Vocational representation encourages class consciousness and undermines national unity and sovereignty. A man is a citizen first, a worker or a teacher afterwards. Secondly, this system creates several practical difficulties. It is difficult to define what a function is and how it is to be represented. Are all functions of equal importance and hence to be represented equally? Obviously, they are not.
Thirdly, national policy cannot be viewed differently by different functional groups and professions. For instance, as Laski has rightly said, “there is not a medical view of foreign policy, of the nationalisation of mines, or of free trade.” All professions, occupations and groups have to play their individual role in the life of the State, but they have to keep the common good in view. They cannot send their own representatives to the legislature which makes laws and policy for the common good of the whole nation and not of various classes and groups.
The advocates of functional representation have really overestimated man s role as a producer. But they take a narrow and limited view of the duties of the representatives who must serve national interests rather than group interests. Fourthly, it is, as the French writer Esmien says, an illusion and a false principle which would lead to struggles, confusion and even anarchy in the community and the nation.
We conclude, therefore, that functional or occupational representation will not solve the problems of the State and cannot replace the present system of territorial representation. “Weaver, miner, baker, teacher each has his part to play in the commonwealth. But it would seem on the whole advisable that all these economic interests should combine to send to the parliament a representative of the locality to which in common they belong, rather than by vocational representation, to emphasise their class interests and, exaggerate their economic antagonisms.” The interests of economic minority groups cannot be safeguarded by a system of proportional representation.
f