When the elections are over, the successful candidates become the representatives of their electors. They sit in the legislature, make laws and run the government of the country. Several questions arise about the representatives, such as their term of office, their relation with their electors, etc.
Term of office.
The control of the electorate over the law-making representatives is essential for the democratic working of a popular or representative government. If the legislature is to be responsive and responsible to the public opinion, its term of office should be neither too long nor too short. It should be remembered that “in all elective offices the length of term affects the power of the electorate.” What should be the term of office of a representative? Obviously, a perpetual or a long term of office is contrary to the principles of representative democracy. There is, however, no precise rule of universal application; and the practice varies greatly from State to State. The members of the British House of Commons are el«cted for a term of five years; and so are the members of the National Assembly of Pakistan and of the House of the People in India. The members of the American House of Representatives are elected only for two years and of American Senate for six years. The membership of the British House of Lord is hereditary and therefore lifelong.
Annual Elections.
It was once strongly pleaded in the 19lh century that the legislatures should be elected for one year only, so that they might reflect public I opinion faithfully. The supporters of annual elections even declared that [ “where annual elections end, tyranny begins.” But practical experience has i revealed the difficulties, inconveniences and even dangers of holding annual elections. One year’s term is inconvenient for the representatives. They cannot leam anything about their duties in such a short time. The legislature I becomes reluctant to undertake and pass important laws in so short a time. I The executive cannot adopt a long-term policy and plans. The people become disgusted with too frequent elections, coming at the end of every year. Moreover, public opinion does change but not so frequently as to I require “the censorship of the voters every year.” Finally, there are several I other means besides elections by which the legislature can find out the
opinions of the people, such as the press, platform or official correspondence of the legislators. In short, annual elections are impracticable, inconvenient and troublesome. The length of office of a legislature was to be longer than a year.
Frequency and time of Elections
Although no hard and fast rule can be laid down, yet elections should be held often enough for the electorate to exercise effective control but not so often as to impair governmental efficiency by too frequent changes of men and policies. A term of four or five years is now considered as a fairly good period for the life of a legislature. It makes the government responsible to the people and responsive to public opinion. In a parliamentary government, this aim can be more frequently achieved by dissolving the legislature whenever it is felt that an appeal to the people to express their opinion on a question of national importance is necessary.
Two theories of the relation between the representative and his electors and party.
What is the duty of representative to his electors? There are two theories about it. One is known as the delegate theory or the theory of the instructed representation, and the other is known as the theory of uninstructed representation.
Delegate or Mandate theory or the theory of instructed representation.
According to this theory, a representative is merely a delegate of his electors; he is their mouthpiece. Therefore, his function is only to act according to the instructions received from his constituents. He is not to use his own discretion or judgment to decide the affairs of the State. If he fails to abide by their instructions received from his constituents, he can be recalled by them. Thus the duty of the representative consists in obeying the mandate or instruction of his constituents, the people with whom supreme power resides. This is the reason why this theory has been wittily termed as the “telephone theory of representation”. The representative is at the receiving end of the telephone and faithfully communicates the voice of the people to the council chambers of the State. In other words, he is to play back his master’s voice. The English writer, Edmund Burke, strongly criticised this theory. “It ought to be the happiness and glory of representative to live in the strictest union with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great force with him; their opinion in high respect their. Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.’
Due to the rise of the strong and well-organised political parties in the present days, the Delegate Theory has assumed a new form. The member is now regarded as a delegate not so much of the constituency he
represents but of the party to which he belongs. He has taken a pie before his election to support the party policy or “line” in the legislature, cannot break his pledge or mandate, by either deserting the party after election or oppose its policy in the legislature. But this view is stror criticised. For instance, Laski says, “A member is not the servant of a pi in the majority in his constituency. He is elected to do the best he can in light of his intelligence and his conscience. Were he merely a delej instructed by a local caucus, he would cease to have either morals personality.”
The Theory of uninstructed representation.
The theory of instructed representation has been rejected by it of the writers. It is now held that the member is not a delegate but a trus a representative. He is chosen by his electors because, firstly, his views in general accord with their view, and secondly, because his character attainments are such as to enable him to join with other representative: the legislature to make laws and policy for the good of the nation. He is bound to decide every matter only on the instructions of his electors consult them on every occasion. He can use his own judgment and reaso decide as he thinks best for them. Nevertheless, he must remain loyal to pledge he has given at the time of his election. It is now generally accef that a member is a representative not of the constituent from where h elected but of the whole nation.
Criticism or instructed representation.
The theory of instructed representation has been severely critici and rejected by many writers due to its defects, difficulties and danger: mentioned hereunder:
1. It favours ignorance against wisdom.
A representative is chosen for he is a person of superior wise and judgment among the people of his constituency. The theory instructed representation would require that he must implicitly comply v the instructions and mandate of his constituents, which really means tha must obey those men in his constituency who are not his equal in wist and knowledge. Really, as Gilchrist says, it must be the representative ‘ gives instructions to his electors, being abler than most of them, rather I to receive from them. Prof. Lindsay writes, “We all recognize that ex and technical knowledge must come from specialists that the ordinary i or woman is not capable of judging the detail of legislative proposals, say that the public decides upon broad issues (facing the people country).
It is immoral.
It demands that the representative should subordinate his opinion to that of others, even though they may not be his equal in wisdom and intelligence. “He is elected,” writes Laski, “to do the best he can in the light of his intelligence and his conscience. Were he merely a delegate, instructed by local caucus, he would cease to have either morals or personality.”
It is impossible to receive instructions.
Even if the theory is accepted, it is impracticable. The constituents cannot give a detailed instruction to their representative which can be acted upon for a long time by him. They are so many that no such instructions can be agreed upon among them. Furthermore, neither the representative nor his constituents have time enough to consult each other on every new occasion or problem. Finally, most of the voters are neither interest^nor do they understand many of the laws and matters discussed and adopted by the legislature. What instructions can they give to their representatives regarding such laws and problems, obviously little or none?
It disrupts the legislative process.
No legislature can perform its legislative functions if its members are bound to act only on the instructions of their constituents. It will really deprive it of real work of deliberation and adoption of laws. It will split the legislative process into two. Deliberation will be done by the voters in their millions, while adoption of laws by their instructed representatives. But such a process would reduce the legislative work to a farce, for those who will make the laws will not hear the arguments of those who discussed and debated upon them. The legislature will not remain a legislative body but will be reduced to the level of registration office, which records the decisions made outside its council chambers. Moreover, such a long-drawn process would cause delays and obstructions in making new laws. The representatives will have to wait for instructions from their constituents before they discuss and pass a new bill.
It will reduce the tone and quality of the legislature, for men of ability and talent would be reluctant to be elected to a body which has no power to decide anything.
It emphasises local interests and local opinion, for an instructed representative regards himself as a delegate and custodian of the interests of the constituency he represents. Thus it will make the representatives to neglect the national interests. So the nation as a whole would be the loser.” Parliament”, as Burke said, “is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests. But Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole, where, not local purposes not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member, indeed, but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament.”
Instructed representation is obvious meaningless in modem times, for the constituents can reject a representative who is flatly against their interests by refusing to re-elect him. Really, the rise of strong and well- organised parties has strengthened the hold of the constituents over their representatives who are pledged to support their party in the legislature.
Conclusion.
Although we have rejected the theory of instructed representation, we cannot go to the other extreme and conclude that representative is absolutely free to do whatever he likes, regardless of the wishes and convictions of his electors. A proper view of the duties of a representative towards his constituents is as follows:
The representative is not a master, but he cannot disregard the views of his electors altogether. He is elected to confer and consult other representatives who come from other parts of the country as to what is best for the nation as a whole. He should be consistent in his views, and should not change them radically after his election. For instance, as Laski says, a representative who is elected as a free trader should not vote in the legislature for a protective tariff. “He must be decently consistent in opinion and reasonably diligent in the performance of his duty”. He must not only receive instruction from his constituents, but also be ready to guide them in understanding the problems of the nation, for he occupies a pre-eminent and prominent position among them. He must enlighten and liberalise their views and outlook. Lastly, the representative should be allowed freedom of judgment, that is, to act as he thinks best in the circumstances and to be guided by his experience of the legislative debates and discussions. Authoritative instructions, to be acted upon blindly and obeyed implicitly, would be contrary to the parliamentary system.