Manin's Principles of Representative Government: A Critical Review

Introduction to Manin's Central Argument

The Principles of Representative Government (1997) by Bernard Manin is one of the more ambitious recent attempts to study the political theory that guides governmental structure and to trace the changes in the form of government since ancient times. Manin presents his arguments in a lucid manner; however, the book does suffer from its share of weaknesses, which will be discussed later in this review.

For now, it is important to understand that Manin's book revolves around the thesis that democracy is not exactly established through representative government. Representative government was meant to control the deficiencies of democracy, not to grant it excessive powers. As Manin writes: "Contemporary democratic governments have evolved from a political system that was conceived by its founders as opposed to democracy.... What today we call representative democracy has its origins in a system of institutions... that was in no way initially perceived as a form of democracy or of government by the people" (p. 1).

While the book has a thesis, it is not well defined and is not as consistently pursued as it might be. More attention has been paid to the method of selecting government representatives, as the author believes that the selection method reveals a great deal about the influence, scope, and effectiveness of government.

Selection by Lot Versus Election

Manin begins with the way Athenian governments selected representatives — a method known as selection by lot, or sortition. This method has largely been abandoned today in the name of democratic rule. Manin argues that selection by lot was not altogether impractical, noting that "lot was not totally impracticable" (p. 82). He explains that the lottery method was quite popular for a long time in city-states, but by the late eighteenth century it had been replaced by other selection systems. "Never was it seriously considered during the American and French revolutions" (p. 79).

Interestingly, Manin argues that selection by lot was actually a more democratic way of choosing representatives. In his research, he found that the lottery was more closely associated with democracy, while election was historically found in oligarchies. Important political theorists such as Harrington, Montesquieu, and Rousseau were also more in favor of the lottery system, since they could see the democratic principles on which this method was based. The lottery system allowed everyone an opportunity to seek governmental positions.

However, that same democratic quality is almost entirely absent from the election system, where the majority is excluded and only a few are selected for limited seats. Two prominent figures discarded the lottery system — James Madison in America and Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès in France — and they are responsible for designing the structure of the new representative government and for introducing the election system. Though the election system gave rise to democratic rule, it was, in Manin's view, less democratic in nature than governments chosen by lot.

Manin further maintains that the conflict witnessed at the time of the ratification of the American Constitution was also closely connected with the election system. Anti-Federalists were more in favor of a direct form of democracy and felt that the election system could endanger the spirit of democracy.

Principles and Evolution of Representative Government

Manin identifies four important principles on which representative government rests. The first is the most obvious: representatives are chosen by means of an election. The second identifies a degree of independence from the electorate. The third focuses on the extent of freedom the public enjoys under representative government. The fourth deals with the public policy development process.

While Manin understands that the strength of representative government lies in the election system, he nonetheless appears to favor the ancient form of direct democracy. This preference emerges from his argument that, although the election system is valuable in allowing everyone a chance to select their representatives, it remains a government run by a selected few. The worst feature of representative government, in his view, is that it allows a small number of people to control a large public, and those who are genuinely interested in governing are never given a chance unless they already possess political standing.

Manin also observes that representative government has not remained static over the past two hundred years but has changed form with the emergence of modern forces. During its early stage — the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries — representative government was in what he calls its "parliamentary stage," when external influences were less powerful and local notables ran the country. This changed with the introduction of the party system, after which each voter was divided over which party to support rather than which individual representative to elect. In its most recent and modern form, representative government is one in which external forces exert significant pressure and the media plays a major role. Despite these changes, representative government has continued to rest on essential principles that have remained consistent across all stages of its evolution.

Conclusion

While the book is good and offers insight into the political theory that directed forms of government, it does suffer from some notable weaknesses. Manin's underdeveloped thesis, his debatable claims about the lottery system, his neglect of important prior scholarship, and his imprecise use of terminology all limit the book's impact. Nevertheless, The Principles of Representative Government remains a thought-provoking contribution to political theory, particularly in its challenge to the assumption that representative government and democracy are one and the same.

Reference

Manin, B. (1997). The principles of representative government. Cambridge University Press.