INTRODUCTION

As described by the French historian Fustel de Coulanges, the creation of the “Ancient Cities”, as a political-religious aggregation of family confederations, stemmed the communal deliberations of the embryonic polis, in the first traces of what would be an electoral process. In Athens, notably, citizens voted for military magistrates in the dokimasia, similarly to a modern-day election. Maturing throughout history, up-to-date ballots carry the role of protecting the constitutional “rule of the law,” legitimizing the seats’ choice on the political sphere, as well as guaranteeing popular representation to orient public policies. If not bringing justice and equality by itself, the electoral process has been a precondition to attaining the previous ideals, since, for the sociologist Max Weber, it offers the peaceful transfer of power to a government representative – who holds lawful dominance towards the course of public order. However, one may question to which extent does the electoral tool of today’s liberal democracies actually reflect the population’s will.

In this way, outsourcing people’s demands calls into question the tenuous balance, sewn by the electoral game, between representation per se and democratic illusion. In this sense, it is intended, through this writing, to address a critical reflection on whether the electoral results express the will of the people analyzing the subtopics:

●  What, in fact, is people’s will, and how is it manifested?

●  What are the obstacles of representative democracy in outlining popular aspirations?

●  Are there alternatives designed for the fair expression of people’s desires?

By delving into these themes it is conceivable to better comprehend the proportion at which elections and political representation intersect, generating the respective understandings of the issues raised. First, the multifaceted social web expresses itself politically through democratic elections and civil activism. Deliberated based on the profusion of internal and external factors, and subject to structural or conjunctural influences that alter the political scenario, the people’s will homogenizes in the form of parties and interest groups. Second, structural limits to representative democracy prevent exhaustive representation, only allowing marginal representation. To add up to the last concept, the formation of political elites, the influence of lobbying and money, and the manipulations from social networks, further undermine the fragile democratic confluence of population interests with their political leaders. Finally, the effort to contemplate all social strata in citizen life, requires transparent voting processes, civil society activism, as well as political awareness in the educational background of the population, building roots towards more representative elections. With that in mind, electoral results are inherently incapable of fully expressing the population’s will, even within a perfect democratic State of law, free from manipulative political forces. To that regard, elections are an incomplete assimilation of people’s wills – representing them marginally -, and their legitimacy varies pending on the presence or absence of democratic protections.

INSIDE THE VOTERS’ MINDS

In the Aristotelian connotation, the political animal, a citizen of the polis, is endowed with a vital impulse to live in the community, seeking meaning in drawing up guidelines that develop well-being. By expanding this definition to the context of liberal democracies, the citizen is the one who interacts with the State and civil society, participating in the political sphere as a voter. In this way, the historic change from the Obrigkeitsstaat, a state of arbitrary power, to the Rechtsstaat, ‘state-under-law,’ with the constitution of contemporary nation-states, places each resident in a sovereign territory as a pole of political action. This citizen, graced with his individuality, perpetrates their subjective ideology by entangling in non-excludable and universal electoral processes for choosing representatives of public seats. Bearing that in mind, it is just as remarkable to examine citizenship based on how one’s opinion is formed before one articulates their vote.

Taking the American National Election Studies as a reference, electoral deliberation permeates internal and external factors. On the one hand, socioeconomic context, ideological exposure, educational level, and cognitive-affective proclivities affect one’s view of a political candidate. On the other hand, conjunctural events of significant national impact (political campaigns or drastic news) and structural behavior (of families or social subgroups) deeply influence one’s deliberation. It is also vital to note, bearing in mind the next subtopic, that external factors, as described before, activate triggers for voters’ internal mental predispositions, and are not by themselves fragments from the voters’ conscience. Mend together, these aspects provoke individual political action.

Starting from the mind of one voter to the minds of all of them, we reach the so-called “will of the people” concept. Broadly speaking, for the philosopher Rousseau, the collective body politic adopts a common morality: the conservation or expansion of the well-being to every extent. However, how this public objective can be achieved is subject to the variability of interests or ideologies of men, which results, within a representative democratic system, in the formation of political factions that claim for power (political parties, interest groups, and NGOs that candidates join). It is noted that, before the elections, the diversity of agendas is homogenized in political clusters, which are incapable of taking forward subjective conceptions of each political agent or small group. For instance, according to a study from West European Politics, the European Parliament suffers from a distortion of political representation ever since national political groups coupled to ideological foundations within the assembly, threatening the diffusion of each member-nation interests.

In this flux, representative democracy paints itself as a white matte mirror before the popular will. With its pulsating diversity, democracy unites its entire “palette of colors” into a “white object”. But, due to limited and homogenized representation, the political agents that dwell within this democracy are incapable of seeing their reflection in the mirror. By then, the actual popular yearnings become opaque and continuously marginalized.

IMPERFECT REPRESENTATION

Statistics is a primary tool in analyzing elections and the political game. Therefore, inside a representative democracy nation, a hypothetical function can relate elections’ actors:

●  Internal/subjective political views of all voters;

●  National scale political changes;

●  True interests/ideologies of the candidates for the election.

In that case, the region of the three-dimensional best fit would be unthinkably complicated to represent, endorsing the fact that electoral democracy is tangential to popular demands. So that this function, even though not meeting all the dots from the torrential scatterplot, may cross through the aspirations of some social strata, forming, in this way, what can be called as a marginal expression of people’s will. The imperfection of the electoral system per se is the target of criticism. The problematic alludes, under the observance of the Platonic theory of metempsychosis, to the failed attempt at mimesis the intelligible world (being the will of the people), but instead, its formal procedures cover a tiny vessel of social demands, as if being a shadow projecting the genuine yearnings inside a cave’s wall. For Hannah Arendt, the contemporary electoral formulaic distances the citizen from praxis (the individual search of meaning and originality). In contrast, people content themselves with poiesis, the manipulative fabrication of discourses through elections’ candidates, masking actual performance and deceiving the electorate. Amidst the inherent imperfections of the representative political model, which prevent the exhaustive representation of popular intentions, there are factors in the designing of political structures that aggravate the marginal popular expression. Beyond theory, the practical formation of parasitic political elites, lobbying allied to the flow of money for campaigns, and manipulation driven by social networks further undermine fair popular expression through voting. In the first case, the Austrian political scientist, Joseph Schumpeter, describes the “elite theory,” originated from representative democracy, as the group which disputes the power within the public scope. In this analysis, the idealized premise of popular expression is invalidated in the light of influential figures thirsting for influence. Schumpeter, therefore, is skeptical of the democratic process, which does not allow active participation in policymaking. Although, in theory, agents of popular representation, the elite “deep-state” – symptomatic of any democracy – deteriorates the pursuit of popular goals. In another regard, the wills of the majority are constrained by the influence of money in political campaigns. Corporate lobbying, financed by large companies for political candidates and causes, represent, in itself, an attack on political equality. By providing substantial resources, superior projection, and impact, candidates have greater chances of winning elections; for example, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the US, those who held extensive financial contributions in the campaign had a 90% higher chance of occupying the vacancies of House Representatives. This practice threatens minority groups or impoverished sectors of the population that seek isonomic participation in public policies.

Finally, studies by philosopher Nancy Fraser reveal the dangers of digital demagoguery, from which charismatic figures, usually radicals, explore political engagement based on the fears and vulnerabilities of the internet users. Despite recognizing the role of social networks in voicing segregated groups in society, the philosopher claims that networks reproduce unequal structures from outside socioeconomic structures, perpetuating the concentration of power. In this sense, the popularization of thought bubbles, as well as the increase of shallow activism, “slacktivism,” promote the rise of opportunistic political leaders who, deceptively, do not represent the desires of their electorate.

Thus, imperfections in representative democracy in expressing people’s desires occur due to limitations of the governance model per se, but also are amplified by the adverse side effects arising from meaningful distortions of the democratic playground.

TOWARDS POLITICAL EQUANIMITY

The mathematical function of political representativeness versus the electoral candidates illustrates the structural inability of the democratic regime to determine outright popular expression in the voting results. Despite this, society can move towards ensuring that marginal representation becomes increasingly comprehensive and equitable, armored from the constituent prepotency.

Among these initiatives, the promotion of higher transparency in the electoral process at all junctures stands out. The path to better political participation is being charted by moving towards fairer and inclusive elections. Therefore, it is necessary to comply with free, universal, non-excludable electoral rules, to execute the secret ballot (that protects the identity of the voter), to upscale the involvement of independent, national, or international supervisory bodies (United Nation High Commissioner for Human Rights in Electoral Processes), as well as to law down explicit provisions of political options and clear instructions on the voting procedures.

In addition to these legal-operational practices, one must consider the need for investments in educational training and political awareness by the State, with disciplines that include civic content, critical analysis of public policies, scrutiny over the electoral process, and the lectures on the roles of government powers. Thereupon, when implementing citizenship education, as it happens in several developed and democratic countries (according to The Economist’s Democracy Index, political education in secondary education occurs in at least 9 of the ten best-ranked countries) a nation may benefit from a more participative, reflective and skeptical electorate. Through that, voter turnout can increase, together with a greater culture of popular demand and oversight of public officers, which, ultimately, impulses a new prospect to hamper the electoral excesses described in the subtopic “Imperfect Representation.”

Finally, civil society activism must grow vibrant and widespread through social interest movements, protests, and third-sector initiatives, since this is the only mechanism to detach popular will from the shackles of the electoral process. By having an active civil society, which holds accountable their elected officials, new paths are opened for broad and open political participation.

The horizon for expanding popular yearnings in policies rely on civil action but also takes into account state initiatives, regarding education and elections rules. Only through this new behavior will there be room for a more comprehensive expression of popular demands in a system that is intrinsically tangential to them.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, the results of the elections do not exhaustively express the will of the people. However, within a democratic State-of-law, voting outcomes do represent the population marginally. In addition, the presence (or lack) of tools that guarantee the fairness of electoral processes, as well as that ensures the free participation of citizens in a democracy, determine further or smaller popular expression in the political structures.

REFERENCES:

ABBATE, C. E. “Higher” and “Lower” Political Animals: A Critical Analysis of Aristotle’s Account of the Political Animal. Journal of Animal Ethics, v. 6, n. 1, p. 54, 2016.

Anderson, B. (2011, March 28). Citizenship: What Is It and Why Does It Matter? Migration Observatoryhttps://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/primers/citizenship-wh at-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter/

Cambridge Dictionary. (2023, July 5). slacktivism. @CambridgeWords. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/dicionario/ingles/slacktivism

Choi, N. (2019). rule of law | Definition, Implications, Significance, & Facts. In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/rule-of-law

Clark, W. L. (1998). Activism and political participation: roles, relationships and dependencies. Uobrep.openrepository.com. https://uobrep.openrepository.com/handle/10547/556422

COSTELLO, R.; THOMASSEN, J.; ROSEMA, M. European Parliament Elections and Political Representation: Policy Congruence between Voters and Parties. West European Politics, v. 35, n. 6, p. 1226–1248, nov. 2012.

Denis, N., & De Coulanges, F. (2001). The Ancient City A Study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/fustel/AncientCity.pdf

Dokimasia | ancient Greece | Britannica. (n.d.). Www.britannica.com. Retrieved July 10, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/dokimasia

D’ENTREVES, MAURIZIO PASSERIN. Hannah Arendt (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Disponível em: <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arendt/>.

FRASER, N. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, v. 25, n. 25/26, p. 56–80, 1990.

Koerth, M. (2018, September 10). How Money Affects Elections. FiveThirtyEight; FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/

OECD. Lobbying – OECD. Disponível em: <https://www.oecd.org/corruption/ethics/lobbying/>.

OHCHR | OHCHR and elections and human rights. (n.d.). OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/elections

Roshwalb, I., Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1955). Voting, a Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Journal of Marketing, 20(2), 202. https://doi.org/10.2307/1247297

Rule of law (Rechtsstaat) – Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Www.rep.routledge.com. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/rule-of-law-rechtsstaat/v-1

SILVA (IFG), M. R. da, & CUNHA (IFITEG), J. N. (2014). FUNDAMENTOS DO ESTADO POLÍTICO EM ROUSSEAU. Kínesis – Revista de Estudos Dos Pós-Graduandos Em Filosofia, 5(10). https://doi.org/10.36311/1984-8900.2013.v5n10.4542

The Economist. (2023, February 1). The world’s most, and least, democratic countries in 2022. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/02/01/the-worlds-most-and-least- democratic-countries-in-2022

The Psychology of Voting and Election Campaigns: About the Psychology of Voting. (n.d.). ANES | American National Election Studies. https://electionstudies.org/papers-documents/conference-papers/the-psychology-of -voting-and-election-campaigns/the-psychology-of-voting-and-election-campaigns-a bout-the-psychology-of-voting/

Three types of legitimate dominance according to Max Weber – Jus.com.br | Jus Navigandi. (n.d.). Jus.com.br. https://jus.com.br/artigos/25863/os-tres-tipos-de-dominacao-legitima-de-max-webe r

Why Joseph Schumpeter Hated Democracy. (n.d.). Jacobin.com. https://jacobin.com/2020/04/joseph-schumpeter-john-medearis-democracy-elites

Essay for the John Locke Essay Competition 2023