Claims of Misrepresentation: A Comparison of Germany and Brazil

Abstract

The system of representative democracy is under considerable strain. Its institutions are struggling to maintain legitimacy, and its elected representatives are failing to keep their monopoly on (formal) political representation. An emerging multitude of (new) claim makers contests the authority of elected representatives as well as the functioning of the existing system of representative democracy by alleging misrepresentation. In this article, we identify a significant shortcoming in Saward’s claims-making approach; specifically, we argue that it offers little direction in addressing misrepresentation. We distinguish between claims of representation and claims of misrepresentation, and show how the latter can fulfill one, two or all three of the following functions: (1) they appeal to an enemy/antagonist (strategy), (2) identify causes of misrepresentation related to policies, politics, and polity (persuasion), and (3) claim to create a new linkage to “the people”, sometimes present themselves as new representatives (reframing). To test this proposed framework, we compare claims of misrepresentation in Brazil made by civil society groups (before and during the presidential impeachment between 2014 and 2016) and in Germany (focusing on the parliamentarians of the Alternative for Germany during the first six months of mandate). Our results suggest that claims of misrepresentation are not intrinsically democratic or undemocratic, but are instead ambiguous, have different manifestations and disparate impacts on the representative system. Our article contributes to the conceptual development of the claims approach and to further understanding several critical and current challenges to representative democracy.

Claims of Representation: Between Representation and Democratic Innovations

“…The first question in this context is: what constitutes a claim (Saward, 2006, Saward, 2010de Wilde, 2013;Disch, 2015;Guasti and Rezende de Almeida, 2019). Most authors refer to Saward's general definition that a "representative claim" is "a claim to represent or to know what represents the interests of someone or something."…”

“…Fourth, outside the electoral arena, non-elected claim-makers often challenge elected representatives. Authorization provided to the elected representatives by election does not go hand in hand with the actual representation of respective constituencies-thus claims of misrepresentation emerge (Guasti and Rezende de Almeida, 2019). Fifth, the "subject" of representation (what is represented) is often not a "human being," but a "normative scheme," e.g., justice, freedom (e.g., Dryzek and Simon, 2008;Joschko and Glaser, 2019).…”

“…The linkage emerges thru acceptance of the claim and is confirmed by authorization in elections (cf. Guasti and Rezende de Almeida, 2019).…”

“…Some claim-makers start their claim with an accusation of misrepresentation, questioning the linkage (and the legitimacy) of other claim-makers (Disch, 2009: 52). For example, in their work on claims of misrepresentation, Guasti and Rezende de Almeida (2019) show how the alternative for Germany denies the existence of linkages between social democratic parties and workers in order to present itself as the new representative of German workers. Focusing on the presence, denial, and absence of the claimed linkage between the representative and the represented allows us to distinguish various types of claims and their possible authorization modes.…”

“…However, a conceptual and analytical framework allowing to grasp the cacophony of claims and alternative forms of their authorization was missing until recently (cf. Guasti and Geissel, 2019;Guasti and Rezende de Almeida, 2019;Joschko and Glaser, 2019;de Wilde, 2020). The lack of such a framework was probably the reason why empirical research in this field is rare and limited, focusing mainly on the behavior of claim-makers (de Wilde, 2013;de Wilde, 2020) or a few studies trying to develop new mechanisms of authorization (Kuyper, 2016;Joschko and Glaser, 2019).…”