Representative Democracy - February 2011

Having recently had a large number of emails on highly emotive subjects ranging from forestry privatisation to voting rights for convicts, I have been quite surprised at the number of communications that ended with a sort of veiled threat pointing out that -as their elected parliamentary representative- I was duty bound to vote in Parliament in accordance with their wishes. This is a curious doctrine. Does representing people really mean just doing what they say? Is your MP merely an opinion pollster who ought to abide by the findings of the polls?
As it happens, taking the most recent outcry on the future of forestry, some 68,700 of my electors have yet to express any opinion to me whatsoever. Do I owe them anything or should I rely for guidance only on the 300 emails and letters that I have had?
We still rely on representative democracy in Britain, even though we do make the odd exception in favour of absolute democracy by holding a referendum, and I am very much in favour of having many more such referendums.

The principle of representative democracy remains, however, that a representative is elected for a period to go to Parliament, to listen to arguments, and reach decisions on behalf of the voters. He is not their prisoner, a mere delegate to be mandated by them to vote in a particular way. If they find they do not share their chosen representative’s judgement and disapprove of his voting record, then they should take care to choose a different representative at their next opportunity.  

The best expression of this fundamental principle of our constitution is, I believe, Edmund Burke’s speech to the Electors of Bristol on 3 Nov 1774 just as he was elected to Parliament:

...it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. 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.

These are wise words. It would be absurd for an MP to go to all the way to Westminster and listen to the debate, but to cast his vote, not on his analysis of the arguments made, but in response to a local opinion poll -whatever its findings.