Today, political representation is guaranteed in many countries in the world. From a historical point of view, it all began with the emergence of civilization and capitalism in the thirteenth century. Due to the need to control traffic caused by individuals, central authorities were established as a response to growing economic activities and social interdependence. Even if it was mainly bourgeois people who participated in political discourse at the beginning, the public sphere evolved and included more and more parts of society — status was no longer linked to birth, but rather to knowledge. However, we can observe that more and more countries having political representation have become less democratic. This is, above all, due to manipulated elections or a lack of vertical accountability of representatives. Even if these evolutions do not principally concern Western European countries like Germany or France, where democracy is an important constitutional value, there are countries where the ruling class influences the public sphere. This puts into question the democratic aspect of political representation. We can thus ask ourselves to what extent political representation enables democracy in mass societies with open public spheres.
First, the essential concepts must be defined. According to Pitkin's work “The concept of representation”, representatives should act in the interest of the represented in a responsive manner. To do so, Pitkin names different types of representation: formalistic representation requiring vertical accountability towards the masses and horizontal accountability towards the institutions; descriptive representation by resembling specific groups based on ethnicity, gender or social background; and substantive representation, based on acting in the interest of the represented, which goes with Pitkin's idea of representation.
Since the public sphere also has an impact on the respect of democracy in political representation, this concept can be defined by taking into account Habermas' work “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere”. According to him, it is a space between private individuals and government authorities where people can have critical debates about political manners.
Finally, the concept of political capital can be helpful in the following analysis. According to Bourdieu, it allows individuals to be influential in the political field.
When we link these concepts and put them in today's context, it is possible to state a thesis on political representation. I believe that its democratic potential depends on the respect of voters' interests, the openness of representatives to understand different social backgrounds, and the reaction to recent evolutions concerning the structure of the public sphere.
* * *
First, the evolution of the public sphere must be taken into account. Normally, it is a place contributing to democratization thanks to unrestricted communication. Even if, according to Habermas, the public sphere was initially a bourgeois sphere of educated doctors and lawyers who met in coffeehouses, the fact that knowledge is transmitted is always valid, independently of the historical period of the public sphere. For instance, voting rights could only be expanded thanks to a functioning public sphere. However, recent evolutions of the public sphere threaten its democratic characteristics, which becomes important in analyzing the democratic potential of political representation. For instance, surveys and user data show that people spend much time on social media and the internet. Due to the development of algorithms, users are very often exposed to like-minded views. Since the internet can be considered a part of the public sphere due to its position between private individuals and government authorities, its role as an echo chamber has a massive impact on the public sphere, originally operating for strengthening democratization. What we can observe nowadays is that social media is an interesting means during electoral campaigns to gain more votes. For instance, Donald Trump bought user data from Facebook to be able to address political messages well-directed to potential voters. The public sphere thus loses its original characteristics and can even threaten democracy if political representatives abuse it.
Second, political representation is highly linked to political capital. According to Bourdieu, political capital is unequally distributed. Political participation typically requires the apprenticeship of the political habitus. For instance, Daniel Gaxie names political language as one aspect of the political habitus. When we look at the recent German federal elections, it becomes clear that there is a shift of workers voting the social-democratic party towards the far right AfD. Especially in territories with much industry, this phenomenon can be observed. Direct interviews with citizens of the working class support this theory; When people do not feel represented because their representatives speak another language due to their education, they tend to vote far right parties. At this point, it is possible to introduce a new theory. In the work “On the Political”, Chantal Mouffe states that a liberal consensus-based approach which is reflected in the German formation of governmental coalitions, for instance, marginalizes dissenting perspectives. Since the new German parliament is formed by 81 % of university graduates, a percentage four times higher compared to the German population, it is obvious that coalitions of mainly highly educated people make large parts of the population feel deceived and underrepresented. Furthermore, political representation deceives even activists. To introduce another new concept, according to Robert Michels, the iron law of oligarchy leads to the evolution of party leaders to more moderate positions. For instance, Robert Habeck, the leading candidate of the German Green Party, lost his originally strong positions concerning migration politics. When political capital is unequally distributed and representatives lose their initial positions, it becomes obvious that citizens feel frustrated, which fuels anti-democratic movements. Another new theory supports this thesis: According to Schumpeter, democracy is the fight between parties and no longer between persons. It can thus be frustrating to not be able to participate in the self-reproducing system of political parties, formed by people who have accumulated the highest political capital and thus can resist internal party struggles. However, the legitimate base of authorities evolves. If Coluche did not manage to win elections as a comedian, the Ukrainian President Zelensky did. Linking Max Weber with Bourdieu, this shows that charisma and the trust of the population in the political suitability become more decisive in elections. Moreover, this shows the possibility of cultural capital to be transformed into political capital. Regarding whether political representation enables democracy, cases like the presidency of Zelensky show the importance of a possible transformation of different capitals to make representative positions more accessible and thus more democratic.
Last but not least, the rule of minorities is essential while assessing the democratic potential of political representation. Since people belonging to minority groups are often far away from mastering the political habitus due to their personal background marked by discrimination, they rarely belong to the representatives and are often less consulted than ordinary citizens. However, a major pillar of democracy is the possibility of all to have a say and to participate in decision processes. When we take into account the challenges of political representatives, it becomes difficult to imagine governmental institutions that perfectly respect the needs of all citizens. According to Pitkin, political representatives are challenged by the struggles to respect their voters' interests and their party values. The personal background represents an additional hurdle to perfect representation. According to Bernard Manin, the aim of political representation should only consist in finding a regime based on consent, not on participation. Burke supports this theory by arguing that an educated elite of wisdom and reason with unattached interests was the most suitable group to represent a population. However, Rawl's concept of the veil of ignorance shows the difficulty of ignoring the own role in society that normally depends on gender, ethnicity, health, and socio-economic factors. When the public sphere is influenced by the ruling class or even instrumentalized, like in the case of the internet, it becomes more and more difficult for minority groups to be heard and understood. Recent examples are numerous. For instance, Victor Orbán and Donald Trump instrumentalize frustration by using social media or restricting parts of the public sphere through censorship, which threatens democratization. They often blame minority groups like immigrants or queer people for deplorable states of social affairs. But even in Western European countries, similar evolutions started to occur. Recently, the leader of the German conservative party threatened civil initiatives acting for democratization with stopping financial support for them because they did not act in favor of his party. These actions have a severe impact on political participation in democracies.
* * *
In conclusion, a less democratic and accessible public sphere, as well as an unequal distribution of political capital, strengthen frustration in a society and fuel extremist movements, finding anti-democratic ways to fight for marginalized dissenting perspectives. A required political habitus deceives citizens that are far from political fields, especially minority groups are concerned due to several disadvantages linked to their social background. A serious respect of voters' interests and the will to understand the different needs of citizens can thus make representatives work in favor of democracy.
It is interesting to see how the public sphere will develop and how representatives will react to its evolution. If social networks like Instagram ban political content, being a major part of today's public sphere, democracy will be more and more threatened. Instead, the accessible potential of the internet should be used to include more citizens in political processes. The internet can also strengthen the principle of vertical accountability and enable everyone to judge their representatives.