This article explores the relationship between non-electoral representatives and democratic legitimacy by combining the recent constructivist turn in political representation with systemic work in deliberative theory. Two core arguments are advanced. First, non-electoral representatives should be judged by their position in a wider democratic system. Second, deliberative democracy offers a productive toolkit by which to evaluate these agents. I develop a framework of systemic representation which depicts the elemental parts of a democratic system and assigns normative standards according to the space occupied. The framework gives priority of democratic analysis to the systemic level. This helps mitigate a central concern in the constructivist turn which suggests that representatives mobilize constituencies in ways that are susceptible to framing and manipulation. I engage in case-study analysis of the collapsed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to unpack the different spaces occupied by non-electoral representative and elucidate the varied democratic demands that hinge on this positioning. © 2016 American Political Science Association.
Bibliographical noteCited By :14
Export Date: 19 September 2018
Correspondence Address: Kuyper, J.W.; Stockholm UniversitySweden; email: email@example.com
Funding details: 200971 DII, ERC, European Research Council
Funding details: 421-2011-1862, VR, Vetenskapsrådet
Funding details: 2011-779, VR, Vetenskapsrådet
Funding details: RJ, Riksbankens Jubileumsfond
Funding text: This research was made possible by grants from Riksbanken Jubileumsfond and the European Research Council (200971 DII) as well as the Swedish Research Council (Project No. 421-2011-1862) and Formas (Project No. 2011-779). All remaining errors are mine.
References: Abizadeh, A., Democratic theory and border coercion: No right to unilaterally control your own borders (2008) Political Theory, 36 (1), pp. 37-65; Abizadeh, A., On the demos and its kin: Nationalism, democracy, and the boundary problem (2012) American Political Science Review, 106 (4), pp. 867-882; Ankersmit, F., (2002) Political Representation, , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; Benhabib, S., Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy (1996) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, pp. 67-94. , ed. Seyla Benhabib. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Bohman, J., The coming age of deliberative democracy (1998) Journal of Political Philosophy, 6 (4), pp. 400-425; Brown, M.B., Survey article: Citizen panels and the concept of representation (2006) Journal of Political Philosophy, 14 (2), pp. 203-225; Chauchard, S., Can descriptive representation change beliefs about a stigmatized group? Evidence from rural India (2014) American Political Science Review, 108 (2), pp. 403-422; Disch, L., Toward amobilization conception of democratic representation (2011) American Political Science Review, 105 (1), pp. 100-114; Dovi, S., Preferable descriptive representatives: Will just anywoman, black, or latinodo? (2002) American Political Science Review, 96 (4), pp. 729-743; Dovi, S., In praise of exclusion (2009) Journal of Politics, 71 (3), pp. 1172-1186; Drahos, P., Braithwaite, J., (2002) Informational Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy, , London: Earthscan Publications; Dryzek, J.S., Political inclusion and the dynamics of democratization (1996) American Political Science Review, 90 (1), pp. 475-487; Dryzek, J.S., Democratization as deliberative capacity building (2009) Comparative Political Studies, 42 (11), pp. 1379-1402; Dryzek, J.S., Rhetoric in democracy: A systemic appreciation (2010) Political Theory, 38 (3), pp. 319-339; Dryzek, J.S., Niemeyer, S., Discursive representation (2008) American Political Science Review, 102 (4), pp. 481-493; Dür, A., Mateo, G., Public opinion and interest group influence: How citizen groups derailed the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (2014) Journal of European Public Policy, 21 (8), pp. 1199-1217; Eckstein, H., (1960) Pressure Group Politics: The Case of the British Medical Association, , London: Allen and Unwin; Elster, J., (1998) Deliberative Democracy, , Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; Goodin, R.E., Enfranchising all affected interests, and its alternatives (2007) Philosophy & Public Affairs, 35 (1), pp. 40-68; Grant, R., Keohane, R.O., Accountability and abuses of power in world politics (2005) American Political Science Review, 99 (1), pp. 29-44; Gutmann, A., Thompson, D., (1996) Democracy and Disagreement, , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; Habermas, J., (1996) Between Facts and Norms, , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Levine, D.S., Transparency soup: The acta negotiating process and 'black box' lawmaking (2011) American University International Law Review, 26 (3), pp. 811-837; Macdonald, T., (2008) Global Stakeholder Democracy, , Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; Mansbridge, J., Rethinking representation (2003) American Political Science Review, 97 (4), pp. 515-528; Mansbridge, J., The 'selection model' of political representation (2009) Journal of Political Philosophy, 17 (4), pp. 369-398; Mansbridge, J., Clarifying the concept of representation (2011) American Political Science Review, 105 (3), pp. 621-630; Montanaro, L., The democratic legitimacy of self-appointed representatives (2012) Journal of Politics, 74 (4), pp. 1094-1107; Näsström, S., Democratic representation beyond election (2015) Constellations, 22 (1), pp. 1-12; Owen, D., Smith, G., Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn (2015) Journal of Political Philosophy, 23 (2), pp. 213-234; Parkinson, J., Mansbridge, J., (2012) Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, , Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; Phillips, A., (1995) The Politics of Presence, , Oxford: Oxford University Press; Pitkin, H., (1967) The Concept of Representation, , Berkeley: University of California; Rehfeld, A., Towards a general theory of political representation (2006) The Journal of Politics, 68 (1), pp. 1-21; Rehfeld, A., Representation rethought: On trustees, delegates, and gyroscopes in the study of political representation and democracy (2009) American Political Science Review, 103 (2), pp. 214-230; Rubenstein, J.C., The misuse of power, notbad representation: Why it is beside the point thatnoone electedoxfam (2014) Journal of Political Philosophy, 22 (2), pp. 204-230; Saward, M., Authorization and authenticity: Representation and the unelected (2009) Journal of Political Philosophy, 17 (1), pp. 1-28; Saward, M., (2010) The Representative Claim, , Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; Saward, M., Shape-shifting representation (2014) American Political Science Review, 108 (4), pp. 723-736; Schäferhoff, M., Campe, S., Kaan, C., Transnational public-private partnerships in international relations: Making sense of concepts, research frameworks, and results (2009) International Studies Review, 11 (3), pp. 451-474; Sell, S.K., Revenge of the 'nerds': Collective action against intellectual property maximalism in the global information age (2013) International Studies Review, 15 (1), pp. 67-85; Urbinati, N., Representation as advocacy: A study of democratic deliberation (2000) Political Theory, 28 (6), pp. 758-786; Urbinati, N., Warren, M., The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory (2008) Annual Review of Political Science, 11, pp. 387-412; Valentini, L., Coercion and (global) justice (2011) American Political Science Review, 105 (1), pp. 205-220; Warren, M.E., When, where and why do we need deliberation, voting and other means of organizing democracy? A problem-based approach to democratic systems (2012) The Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, , Paper presented at September 2012; White, J., Ypi, L., On partisan political justification (2011) American Political Science Review, 105 (2), pp. 381-397; Young, I.M., (2000) Democracy and Inclusion, , Oxford: Oxford University Press