Chapter 33 

Representation 

When the elections are over, the successful candidates become the representatives of their electors. They sit in the legislature, make laws and run the government of the country. Several questions arise about the representatives, such as their term of office, their relation with their electors, etc. Term of office. 

The control of the electorate over the law-making representatives is essential for the democratic working of a popular or representative government. If the legislature is to be responsive and responsible to the public opinion, its term of office should be neither too long nor too short. It should be remembered that ”in all elective offices the length of term affects the power of the electorate.” What should be the term of office of a representative? Obviously, a perpetual or a long term of office is contrary to the principles of representative democracy. There is, however, no precise rule of universal application; and the practice varies greatly from State to State. The members of the British House of Commons are elected for a term of five years; and so are the members of the National Assembly of Pakistan and of the House of the People in India. The members of the American House of Representatives are elected only for two years and of American Senate for six years. The membership of the British House of Lord is hereditary and therefore lifelong. Annual Elections. 

It was once strongly pleaded in the 19th century that the legislatures should be elected for one year only, so that they might reflect public opinion faithfully. The supporters of annual elections even declared that ’where annual elections end, tyranny begins.” But practical experience has revealed the difficulties, inconveniences and even dangers of holding annual elections. One year’s term is inconvenient for the representatives. They cannot learn anything about their duties in such a short time. The legislature becomes reluctant to undertake and pass important laws in so short a time. The executive cannot adopt a long-term policy and plans. The people hxxxne disgusted with too frequent elections, coming at the end of every 

rm. Moreover, public opinion does change but not so frequently as to 

lire ”the censorship of the voters every year.” Finally, there are several means besides elections by which the legislature can find out the 
496       POLITICAL SCIENCE 

opinions of the people, such as the press, platform or official correspondence of the legislators. In short, annual elections are impracticable, inconvenient and troublesome. The length of office of a legislature was to be longer than a year. Frequency and time of Elections. 

Although no hard and fast rule can be laid down, yet elections should be held often enough for the electorate to exercise effective control but not so often as to impair governmental efficiency by too frequent changes of men and policies. A term of four or five years is now considered as a fairly good period for the life of a legislature. It makes the government responsible to the people and responsive to public opinion. In a parliamentary government, this aim can be more frequently achieved by 

dissolving the legislature whenever it is felt that an appeal to the people to 

express their opinion on a question of national importance is necessary. Two theories of the relation between the representative and his electors and party. 

What is the duty of representative to his electors? There are two 

theories about it. One is known as the delegate theory or the theory of the 

instructed representation, and the other is known as the theory of 

uninstructed representation. 1.         Delegate or Mandate theory or the theory of instructed 

representation. 

According to this theory, a representative is merely a delegate of 

his electors; he is their mouthpiece. Therefore, his function is only to act according to the instructions received from his constituents. He is not to use 

his own discretion or judgment to decide the affairs of the State. If he fails to abide by their instructions received from his constituents, he can be recalled by them. Thus the duty of the representative consists in obeying the mandate or instruction of his constituents, the people with whom supreme, 

power resides. This is the reason why this theory has been wittily termed i 

I 

the ”telephone theory of representation”. The representative is at the receiving end of the telephone and faithfully communicates the voice of the 

I 

people to the council chambers of the State. In other words, he is to play back his master’s voice. The English writer, Edmund Burke, strongly 

criticised this theory. ”It ought to be the happiness and glory 

representative to live in the strictest union with his constituents. The 

wishes ought to have great force with him; their opinion in high resp 

their. Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgme 

and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.’ 

Due to the rise of the strong and well-organised political parties 

the present days, the Delegate Theory has assumed a new form. 

member is now regarded as a delegate not so much of the constituency 1 
REPRESENTATION 

497 

represents but of the party to which he belongs. He has taken a pledge before his election to support the party policy or ”line” in the legislature. He cannot break his pledge or mandate, by either deserting the party after his election or oppose its policy in the legislature. But this view is strongly criticised. For instance, Laski says, ”A member is not  the servant of a party in the majority in his constituency. He is elected to do the best he can in the light of his intelligence and his conscience. Were he merely a delegate instructed by a local caucus, he would cease to have either morals or personality.” 2.         The Theory of uninstructed representation. 

The theory of instructed representation has been rejected by most of the writers. It is now held that the member is not a delegate but a trustee, a representative. He is chosen by his electors because, firstly, his views are in general accord with their view, and secondly, because his character and attainments are such as to enable him to join with other representatives in the legislature to make laws and policy for the good of the nation. He is not bound to decide every matter only on the instructions of his electors and mnsult them on every occasion. He can use his own judgment and reason to deci de as he thinks best for them. Nevertheless, he must remain loyal to any pledge he has given at the time of his election. It is now generally accepted that a member is a representative not of the constituent from where he is dected but of the whole nation. 

Criticism or instructed representation. 

The theory of instructed representation has been severely criticised aid rejected by many writers due to its defects, difficulties and dangers as 

tioned hereunder: 

It favours ignorance against wisdom. A representative is chosen for he is a person of superior wisdom judgrrient among the people of his constituency. The theory of 

cted representation would require that he must implicitly comply with 

instructions and mandate of his constituents, which really means that he 

obey those men in his constituency who are not his equal in wisdom 

knowledge. Really, as Gilchrist says, it must be the representative who 

instructions to his electors, being abler than most of them, rather than 

receive from them. Prof. Lindsay writes, ”We all recognize that expert 

technical knowledge must come from specialists that the ordinary man 

woman is not capable of judging the detail of legislative proposals. We 

that the public decides upon broad issues (facing the people or 

trY).”- 

I 

Op. cit p. 268. 
498        POLITICAL SCIENCE 

2.        It is immoral. 

It demands that the representative should subordinate his opinion to that of others, even though they may not be his equal in wisdom and intelligence. ”He is elected,” writes Laski, ”to do the best he can in the light of his intelligence and his conscience. Were he merely a delegate, instructed by local caucus, he would cease to have either morals or personality.” 3.        It is impossible to receive instructions. 

Even if the theory is accepted, it is impracticable. The constituents ft’                      cannot give a detailed instruction to their representative which can be acted 

upon for a long time by him. They are so many that no such instructions can be agreed upon among them. Furthermore, neither the representative nor his 

constituents have time enough to consult each other on every new occasion •    or problem. Finally, most of the voters are neither interestqlpor do they 

understand many of the laws and matters discussed and adopted by the legislature. What instructions can they give to their representatives regarding such laws and problems, obviously little or none? 4.       It disrupts the legislative process. 

No legislature can perform its legislative functions if its members are bound to act only on the instructions of their constituents. It will really deprive it of real work of deliberation and adoption of laws. It will split the legislative process into two. Deliberation will be done by the voters in their millions, while adoption of laws by their instructed representatives. But 

such a process would reduce the legislative work to a farce, for those who 

will make the laws will not hear the arguments of those who discussed and debated upon them. The legislature will not remain a legislative body but will be reduced to the level of registration office, which records the decisions made outside its council chambers. Moreover, such a long-drawn process would cause delays and obstructions in making new laws. The 

representatives will have to wait for instructions from their constituents 

before they discuss and pass a new bill. 

5.       It will reduce the tone and quality of the legislature, for men of ability and talent would be reluctant to be elected to a body which has no 

power to decide anything. 

6.      It emphasises local interests and local opinion, for an instructel 

representative regards himself as a delegate and custodian of the interests of 

the constituency he represents. Thus it will make the representatives to 

neglect the national interests. So the nation as a whole would be the loser.’ 

Parliament”, as Burke said, ”is not a congress of ambassadors from different I 

and hostile interests. But Parliament is a deliberative assembly of an nation, with one interest, that of the whole, where, not local purposes not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the 

general reason of the whole. You choose a member, indeed, but when yowl 
REPRESENTATION 

499 

have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament.” 7.       Instructed representation is obvious meaningless in modem times, for the constituents can reject a representative who is flatly against their interests by refusing to re-elect him. Really, the rise of strong and wellorganised parties has strengthened the hold of the constituents over their representatives who are pledged to support their party in the legislature. Conclusion. 

Although we have rejected the theory of instructed representation, we cannot go to the other extreme and conclude that representative is 

absolutely free to do whatever he likes, regardless of the wishes and convictions of his electors. A proper view of the duties of a representative lowards his constituents is as follows: 

The representative is not a master, but he cannot disregard the views of his electors altogether. He is elected to confer and consult other 

intatives who come from other parts of the country as to what is best 

the nation as a whole. He should be consistent in his views, and should 

change them radically after his election. For instance, as Laski says, a 

!.ntative who is elected as a free trader should not vote in the 

islature for a protective tariff. ”He must be decently consistent in opinion 

reasonably diligent in the performance of his duty”. He must not only 

ive instruction from his constituents, but also be ready to guide them in 

rstanding the problems of the nation, for he occupies a pre-eminent and 

’anent position among them. He must enlighten and liberalise their 

and outlook. Lastly, the representative should be allowed freedom of 

.tnt, that is, to act as he thinks best in the circumstances and to be 

by his experience of the legislative debates and discussions. itative instructions, to be acted upon blindly and obeyed implicitly, 

be contrary to the parliamentary system. 

MINORITY REPRESENTATION 

ms of Minorities. 

Many States have heterogeneous population, comprising of two or groups of people who differ from each other in political views, 

race, language or culture. The larger group in the State usually 

it, while the smaller group or groups have no share in the government 

their numerical inferiority. Such a lesser group which differs from 

re numerous groups in political views, religion, nationality, language, 

culture, is known as a minority. There are political, national, 

or communal, linguistic and racial minorities. Among them, the political minority is different from all other kinds. Political 

ies are temporary, for the people usually change their political views 

sane time, so that what is a minority party today may become a 

- _ _ 

- 
500       POLITICAL SCIENCE 

majority party tomorrow. But one cannot thus change the colour of his skin, religion, language or his race and nationality. Hence national, racial, religious or linguistic minorities are permanent. If minority groups are not given a share in the government of their country, as it is often the case, it becomes a source of permanent injustice and grievance, and a blot on its democratic system, if such a country claims to be a democracy. Arguments for minority representation. 

John Stuart Mill was the first great advocate of ’minority representation in a democratic State. In his book, ”Representative Government”, he declared that ”it is an essential part of democracy that minorities should be adequately represented. The idea of democracy, according to its definition, is the government of the whole people by the whole people, equally represented.” ”Mill lamented the fact that such a democracy exists nowhere. On the other hand, he said, the existing democracies are really ”the governments of the whole peoples by a mere majority of the peoples exclusively represented.” Analysing the reason why 

the majority rules and the minority disfranchised, he says, it is due to 

voting system, that is, the principle that majority votes must decid 

discussion and deliberation in a representative body or legislature. ”But” goes on to say, ”does it follow that the minority should have representatives at all? Because the majority ought to prevail over 

minority, must the majority have all votes, the minority none?” Such a 

of affairs should cause injustice, inequality and would be a blot on the 

name of democracy, ”which professes equality as its very root 

foundation.” Justice and equality demand that majority and minority she 

be proportionately represented. So the method of proportia 

representation was Mill’s solution of the minority problem, without 

democracy becomes not equal government but a government of inequ 

and privilege. Accordingly, the minority has a right to elect 

representatives to the legislature so that they participate in the delit 

and adoption of laws, along with those of the majority representati’ 

laws, as Laski says, must be built on the widest wishes of the minc 

which must be taken into consideration in making them. Otherwise it 

result in oppression, tyranny, discontent and rebellion. Methods of minority representation. 

Five methods of minority representation have been devisedi 

applied in the modern States. We shall first consider the melba 

proportional representation. Proportional representation. 

It is the earliest and the best method of minority represent 

seeks to remove the defects of the majority principle in the single- 

constituency, on which the present-day election and representation 
REPRESENTATION 

501 

are based Minorities are not represented in the legislature, at least in proportion  to their voting strength, that is, in proportion to the number of votes they have actually secured at the  polls. The system of proportional representation seeks to obviate or correct such defects of the existing system of representation. 

The principle of proportional representation is succinctly explained by J.S. Mill in these words: ”In a really equal democracy, every or any section should be represented, not disproportionately but proportionately. A majority of the electors would always have majority of the representatives; but a minority of the electors should always have a minority of the representatives. Man for man, they would be as fully representative as the majority.” Lecky, another advocate of minority representation, wrote, ’The importance of providing some representation for minorities is extremely mat. When two-thirds of a constituency vote for one party and one third for the other, it is obviously just that the majority should have two-thirds and minority one-third of the representatives.” This is the aim of the probational representation. Two methods of probational representation are the Hare or the single transferable vote system and the list system. 1.         The single transferable vote system. 

This method is in use in Ireland and for municipal elections in Canada and the U.S.A. It is also known as Hare System. It was devised by an Englishman, Thomas Hare, in his book ”Election of representatives” in 1857. It is also called Andrae system, after the Danish Minister, named Andrae, who first applied it in Denmark in 1855, with a slight difference 

legarding the method of determining the quota, as mentioned hereafter. Some writers also call it the Preferential System, for it enables the voter to indicate his preference for one or the other candidate. Finally, it is usually 

Dwn as the Single Transferable Vote System. The vote of an elector is 

. wasted. If his candidate is unable to get a majority or plurality of votes, vote is transferred to the next candidate for whom he was shown his 

Dnd preference and so on. 

The essentials of the single transferable vote system are the 

altiple number constituency, a single vote, preferences, the quota and the 

Isfer of votes. 

ferences. 

This system requires the multiple member constituencies with at three seats. No maximum number of seats is necessary, but Lord 

ley suggested a fifteen-member constituency as a responsible limit. In 

tice, however, the number of seats varies between three to fifteen. Now, 

voter has only one vote. But he can indicate his preference on the 

got-paper by marking his first, second, third or more choices for the 

is candidates on the ballot-paper as 1, 2, and 3 so on against the names 
502 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

of the candidates. He can thus indicate as many choices as there are the representatives to be elected. Quota. 

Before the counting of votes begins, the quota of votes which a candidate must secure to be declared elected is first determined. In the Hare System, the quota is determined by dividing the total number of votes in the constituency by the number of seats to be filled, as thus: 

Quota = 

Total No. of votes  

No. of seats 

Suppose there are 10,000 voters in a constituency, and 4 seats to be 

filled. Quota              = 10.000    = 2,500. 4 

In the Andrae System, the quota is calculated as thus: 

Total No. of votes + 1 No. of seats + I 

Suppose there are 10,000 votes, and four seats to be filled. The quota of votes will be: 

10.000 + 1 = 

2,001 4 +1 

The Andrae system of reckoning the quota is better than that of the Hare system. 

Counting of votes. 

Next the counting of votes begins. First of all the first choices arel 

counted. When a candidate has secured the required quota of first choice, bel 

is declared elected. The surplus votes cast in his name are then transferre 

to the candidates of the second choice, till he secured the requisite quota 1 

votes and so on. In case no candidate completes the quota, then the votes I 

those candidates who secured the lowest number of votes are transferred, 

the other, according to the preferences expressed on the ballot-papers 

their quota is complete. Thus as many candidates are declared successful 

there are seats to be filled. In this way, every minority gets representab 

according to its voting strength, provided it is more then the required qu 

of votes. 
REPRESENTATION 

503 

I.        Its Defects. 

The single transferable vote system has some obvious defects. It is complicated and difficult to be understood by ordinary voters. It encourages party intrigues and combinations and such tricks as ”bullet voting.” that is, voting for only one candidate in order to receive votes from other parties while giving none. It, therefore, encourages differences and cleavages among ’parties and interests. Lastly, it may happen sometimes that the candidate with first choices may fail to secure the quota while those of the second and third choices may be declared successful. How can we say that the second, third or later choices are the real preferences of the voters? 2.        The List System. 

It is another variation of the proportional representation. It is used in several European countries, such as Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, etc. It is also based on the multiple member constituency system. Each political party puts a list of as many candidates as the number of the seats to he filled from a constituency. Every voter has one vote, which he casts not for one candidate but for the list of the party of his  choice. Before the votes are counted, a quota is determined by dividing the number of votes cast by the number of seats to be filled from a constituency. Then the total number of votes secured by each party is divided by the quota, which gives the number of candidates of the party. Suppose 6,000 votes are cast in a fourmember constituency. The electoral quota is 1,501 votes. Now suppose there are three parties, viz., nationalists, socialists and conservatives The nationalists have secured 3,400 votes, the socialist party secured 2,100 and the conservative party 500 votes. So the nationalist party will get two seats, the socialist party one seat, while the conservative party none, for its votes polled are less then the quota of 1,501 votes. us merits and defects. 

The List System is exceedingly simple. The wastage of votes is far 

(lesser than in the case of the Hare System. As no preferences are shown, it is easily intelligible to the voters. But it places excessive power in the hands d the party organisation and denies to the voters the privilege of selecting Individual candidates. Nevertheless, the List System is far more popular limn the Hare or the single transferable vote system. Merits of Proportional Representation. 

The first merit of proportional representation is that it secures representation to all parties and groups in the nation in proportion to their voting strength. It makes the legislature a true mirror of the nation, as it 

slust be in a democracy, based on equality and liberty. Secondly, every 

inority has and equal chance to win seats in the legislature, especially if it a racial, linguistic or religious minority which is permanent in character 

can never hope to become a majority. It thus produces a sense of 

I 

504        POLITICAL SCIENCE 

security and satisfaction among the minorities. Thirdly, the very fact that the single transferable vote system is a complicated affair and makes it necessary for the voter to. indicate his preference has an educative value. The voter is compelled to reflect over the qualifications of the various candidates before he shows his preference. This develops his civic sense and makes him an intelligent citizen who has to consider the issues involved. Fourthly, proportional representation prevents any sudden and radical changes in the State constitution. It gives birth to multiple parties with various interests in the legislature, and thus makes coalition government necessary. Such governments do not favour radical and extreme measures and laws for they are the result of compromise. In short, this system recognises the pluralistic nature of modern society and gives a direct voice to all groups and interests in the law-making body. Demerits of Proportional Representation. 

It has more defects than merits. Practical experience has revealed many weaknesses in it some of which are of serious nature. First of all, proportional representation system lacks simplicity which is the requisite of a good electoral system. The need for indicating preferences, quota, etc., are things which the ordinary voters do not understand and the electoral officers 

cannot properly deal with. Secondly, all methods of proportional representation require large-sized multiple-member constituencies which 

hinder a direct and personal contact between the voters and the candidates. 

Hence proportional representation ”destroys all prospects of personal relations between the member and his constituent she would simply become 

an item in a list, voted for almost entirely on party grounds.” It increases the influence of the party bosses. It increases the influence of the party 

organisation and opens the door to such electoral evils as demagoguism, 

bribery, party intrigues, etc. By-elections are almost possible under this system. Thirdly, it encourages minority thinking and ”splintering”. It produces multiple parties and groups and thus fragmentaiiness the 

legislature. The voters and the candidates all think of and fight for groups’ 

interests. The legislature is filled with several parties and groups which 

destroy the national character of the legislature and make it an arena of 

divergent sectional and party interests. It causes several weaknesses. All laws are the result of compromise and serve party interests. Hence legislation becomes class legislation. Cabinets are coalition cabinets which 

are notoriously unstable and weak. Further, the coalition cabinets are 

unstable and irresponsible, weak and vacillating in policy and 

administration. All these defects can hardly help the legislature and 

executive to express the general will of the nation. Lastly, opinion and interests of the minorities cannot be safeguarded by such electoral devices 1 

1 as the proportional representation. The need is of a sound national economic 

system and a good moral character of the people, i.e., as Laski says ”by the 
REPRESENTATION 

505 

elevation of the popular standard of intelligence and the reform of the neatly graded volume of opinion.” On the other hand, proportional representation has not secured better representation. It has engendered such evils as party intrigues, jobbery, and bossism. Conclusion. 

Proportional representation violates some of the basic principles of political science and practice. Political decisions are not made by counting votes alone.” Most urgent is the weighting of influences ”as Sidgwick says, ”that take place in the law-making process. And minority views may find adequate institutions therein for the expression of their opinions and desires.” The French Jurist, Esmien, has condemned it, for ”to establish the system of proportional representation is to convert the remedy supplied by the bicameral system into a veritable poison; it is to organise disorder, and emasculate the legislative power; it is to render cabinets unstable, destroy their homogeneity and make parliamentary government impossible.” To conclude: ”However useful for  a debating society, it is useless as a means of establishing an instrument of government.” In Germany and Italy it had been the stepping-stone for the establishment of fascist dictatorships. 

Other Methods of Minority Representation 1.         Limited Vote System. 

Under this system there are multiple-member constituencies with at least three seats. A voter can cast several votes but they are less than the number of seats to be filled. If the constituency has five seats, the voter will have only three votes. Hence it is called limited vote. Moreover, he must not give more than one vote to any single candidate, but spread his votes over several candidates. This will enable a minority party to win some seats in the legislature, provided it is a large minority. This system does not give representation to small minorities, as the proportional representation does. It was tried in Portugal and in some States of the U.SA. 2.         The Alternative Vote System. 

This system is applicable in single-member constituencies only. Under this system a voter, who has to choose from four candidates, indicates his preference by showing first, second and more choices. If no candidate obtains more than half the votes after first choices have been counted, then second choices are also counted to decide who wins, while those candidates are eliminated who secured the lowest number of votes. This system does not favour small minorities. 

3.         The Cumulative Vote System. 

Under this system the voter has as many votes as there are seats to be filled in the constituency, but he can cast them for one of the candidates or spread them over more or all of them. As he concentrates his votes on 

eine candidate, it is called the cumulative vote system. It enables a minority 

J 
506       POLITICAL SCIENCE 

to cast all its votes to its own candidate. This system is used for electing local officers in some States of the U.S.A. 4.         Communal representation. 

This method was employed in British India for giving representation to religious minorities, called the ”communities such as the Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and the economic classes such as the landlords, etc. It was done in two ways: by separate electorates. In this case the voters of each community voted separately for the candidates of their own community. Thus there were separate constituencies for each community. The second method was the joint electorate with reservation of seats. Since Independence, both Pakistan and India have given up the system of communal representation, except that seats are reserved in some cases in the India Constitution for the Scheduled Castes. 

FUNCTIONAL REPRESENTATION Territorial vs. Functional representation. 

Practically all modern States have adopted the principle of territorial representation. The whole State is divided into a number of constituencies. All the voters living in a constituency elect one or more candidates together regardless of their differences of’ occupation, profession, religion or social interests and status. This system of representation is known as Territorial Representation, for the elected member claims to represent the territory from where he is elected, whatever his occupation or social work or status may be. For instance, a representative may be a lawyer, but he represents doctors, teachers_ workers, peasants, miners, railway men and all other sections and classes of people in his constituency. This system is justified on the ground that a man is more attached to his locality than to his profession and that voters are more locality-conscious. 

In recent time,  however, territorial representation is attacked by several writers, such as  the Guild Socialists like G. D. H. Cole, the two Webbs, and also by the early Soviet Communists, the Fascists, etc. In its place, they propose Functional Representation, also called, Occupational or Vocational Representation. They claim that the population of a State has diverse interests, professions and occupations and is divided into many classes, sections and groups. It has many religious, economic and social differences. All these differences cannot be represented by men who are elected on territorial basis. A lawyer can not represent the doctors, a cobbler cannot represent the railway men, or a teacher cannot represent the factory workers. Yet each of them can represent his own profession. Hence representation must be functional rather than territorial. Men are ”much more intelligent and trustworthy judges of the real qualities of those whol 

work in the same industry than of those who live in the same geographical] 
REPRESENTATION 

507 

district”. Many writers also believe that the chief political issues are necessarily industrial issues which need be decided by the representatives of the industries concerned. 

Although it is nowhere adopted in its entirety, functional representation has been introduced in a modified form in many countries. In Great Britain the universities were given special representation in Parliament. In the Soviet Union, the Soviets comprised the workers, peasants and soldiers during the early years of its history. The Weimar Constitution (1920): of Germany provided for the German Economic Council which was based on functional representation of various agricultural, industrial and commercial groups and interests. ”The corporate State” of Mussolini’s Fascist Italy and the scheme of ”economic estate” in Nazi Germany also toyed with the concept of functional or occupational representation. The English writer Graham Wallas suggested that while the lower chamber of a legislature should be territorially elected, the upper chamber should contain representatives of different functional groups and interests. The Webbs proposed that there should be two parliaments, one political and the other social, the former to be territorially elected and the latter functionally. 

Merits of functional representation. 

Functional representation is in harmony with the pluralistic and federal nature of modern society. It makes authority federal in character. Every occupation, profession or interest should be controlled by representative council of its own, while the power and authority of the traditional government should be reduced to the necessary minimum of maintaining peace and order, defence and judicial settlement of disputes. This will give two  advantages: (i) sectional interests will be given a voice and (ii) the elected delegates will, more likely have an expert knowledge of the matters which relate to their occupation or interest. ”A political theory,” writes Coker ”that is realistic must recognise that the modern community is made up essentially of groups rather than of individuals, and the ordinary citizen can be organically linked with the community only through the various intermediate associations into which his more intimate interests naturally draw him. He can impress the stamp of his will and opinion only on those decisions that relate to matters he  can understand and in the formulation of which he can collaborate with others, with whom he feels some special bond of vocational or cultural interests. The associations formed on these bonds, therefore, should become substantially autonomous in both policy and administration.” Demerits of functional representation. 

In practice, functional representation has revealed ”such serious weaknesses as to make it little, if any, better than territorial representation.” 
508 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

’4#if#4044’ 

Firstly, functional representation destroys the basis of national unity and sovereignty. It splits the society and State into conflicting classes and groups. If such a system is adopted, it would emphasize class interests at the expense of national interests and national unity. Vocational representation encourages class consciousness and undermines national unity and sovereignty. A man is a citizen first, a worker or a teacher afterwards. Secondly, this system creates several practical difficulties. It is difficult to define what a function is and how it is to be represented. Are all functions of equal importance and hence to be represented equally? Obviously, they are not. Thirdly, national policy cannot be viewed differently by different functional groups and professions. For instance, as Laski has rightly said, ”there is not a medical view of foreign policy, of the nationalisation of mines, or of free trade.” All professions, occupations and groups have to play their individual role in the life of the State, but they have to keep the common good in view. They cannot send their own representatives to the legislature which makes laws and policy for the common good of the whole nation and not of various classes and groups. The advocates of functional representation have really overestimated man s role as a producer. But they take a narrow and limited view of the duties of the representatives who must serve national interests rather than group interests. Fourthly, it is, as the French writer Esmien says, an illusion and a false principle which would lead to struggles, confusion and even anarchy in the community and the nation.   We conclude, therefore, that functional   or occupational representation will not solve the problems of the State and cannot replace the present system of territorial representation. ”Weaver, miner, baker, teacher each has his part to play in the commonwealth. But it would seem on the whole advisable that all these economic interests should combine to send to the parliament a representative of the locality to which in common they belong, rather than by vocational representation, to emphasise their class interests and, exaggerate their economic antagonisms.” The interests of economic minority groups cannot be safeguarded by a system of proportional representation. 

111L