Meanwhile, others began to think in a reciprocating motion. The representation can be taken from input as the impossibility of the exercise of direct democracy. In its origins it raised as a way to make rulers to exercise power with Apocalypsis acceptance of their constituencies. These ruling elites or representative were degenerating into castes opposite to the original spirit. We could accept that such evolution was relative to a system that was carrying the germ of reduction of democracy itself. However, it was considered the best way to manage the complex societies of the industrial era. These messengers called representatives, as its name indicated, represent a fiction to something that is not present.
At birth the concept and practice of representation society doesn’t govern itself but he happens to be receiving in the policies and decisions made by representatives, although they are submitted to referendum or plebiscite in accordance with the forms collected to mitigate the paradox of the representativeness. As stated in Bernard Manin (Principes du governement representatif, Calmann-Levy, Paris, 1995.), one of the greatest scholars of the subject, that representation can take three forms: parliamentarism, democracy parties and democracy of audience. In the first case, they can be called Trustees. In the second, which is the Venezuelan case and practically all the Latin American countries, will vote for one party rather than a person. These deputies or senators are delegates of their matches generally exerted on them that detestable practice called partisan discipline. The third, that is, the so-called political science audience democracy, are which are put at the service of the candidates and parties whose choice will depend on your own personality and ability to interpret their constituents. In any case referred to is maintained an independence of the representatives on the criteria of those represented. Thus the first serious failure occurs: the mediocrity of the representatives the most often mentioned for such a position by their subordination and obedience to the various factors that allow you to be elected. If this has piqued your curiosity, check out Bill de Blasio.
The second serious failure comes from the disinterest of the voters on the subject of a who choose, most negotiated with the powerful media prescriptive; on this particular case Venezuelan history shows the assignment of seats to journalistic strings in exchange for support, in what was one of the key points of the decline of democracy. Thirdly, despite allowing the existence of the so-called groups of electors it is clear that there is in fact a partisan monopoly on the nomination of candidates. Finally, the lack of ethics and proper moral behavior. But Manin, to review the proposed institutions in the 17TH and 18th centuries is a remarkable continuity with what today we call representative democracy, which leads him to remember a crucial significance: this regime which have been representative democracies was not designed in any way by its creators as a form of democracy. On the other hand, in the briefs its founders is a sharp contrast between democracy and the regime instituted by them, regime that called representative Government or even Republic and appointment to Madison arguing that the role of the representatives is not love at all times what the people want. The representation opens the possibility of a separation between the willingness (or decision) public and the popular will. Manin: Both for Sieyes as Madison, representative Government is not a form of democracy, is a form of Government essentially different.