Multi Level Representation: Councillors moving between political arenas, a tale of two mandates more

59th Political Studies Association Annual Conference April 2009 Panel 90 (Political Arenas: direct and indirect impacts on local government) MULTI-LEVEL REPRESENTATION: COUNCILLORS MOVING BETWEEN POLITICAL ARENAS, A TALE OF TWO MANDATES. Thomas Oliver Institute of Local Government Studies The University of Birmingham TCO601@bham.ac.uk Abstract The formation of regional assemblies in the UK since the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 created a new regional level of government and a new representative space within which councillors operate. Being formed on the basis of appointment, councillors are handed the mandate to represent by their appointing institution namely their local authority. However, they also receive a mandate from the electorate to represent on their local authority. The representative role of councillors has been studied at individual levels of government (Eulau et al. 1959, Newton 1974, Rao 1999) whilst the implications for accountability and representation by appointed members have also being addressed (Leach, Davis et al. 1991, Day and Klein 1987). In drawing together both these literatures a framework can be developed to aid an understanding of relevant factors and influences on councillors operating in multiple institutions. This paper is an initial draft. Comments and suggestions are very welcome. However, please do not cite without the explicit permission of the author. Copyright PSA 2009 Introduction This paper briefly outlines the development of new political arenas in the form of appointed regional assemblies distinct in their composition being composed of both local authority members and individuals from social, economic or environmental partners and formed on the basis of appointment. Of crucial importance to the paper is the juxtaposition between a desire to provide democratic representation in the regions and the system of appointment of politicians to regional assemblies. This paper explores the literature on representation and the representative role and develops a framework for analysing multilevel representation i.e. how the role, scope and focus of representatives alter when councillors operate in more than one political arena and the relative influence of their authority membership and party membership on their conceptions of their representative role at different levels of government. In exploring the inherent tensions between direct and indirect democracy this findings of this research will assist in an understanding of the affects of selection and election processes on how councillors conduct their role and the relative implications of this for democracy. Regional Governance under New Labour There have been significant policy and infrastructural changes instigated and developed in regional governance since New Labour’s election in 1997 commencing with the formation of the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) and the creation of regional development agencies (RDAs), which formed the cornerstone of Labours policies for the English regions. The green paper; Regional Development Agencies: Issues for discussion (DETR 1997a) and subsequent RDA Act (HM Government 1998) establishing RDAs and instituting voluntary regional chambers (latterly regional assemblies) introduced representative bodies formed from a broad pluralistic base and on the basis of appointment. The lack of accountability mechanisms for RDAs despite increasing and significant public funding was a problem for Labour. In a move to stave off criticism and create a clearer framework for regional working, the Government announced in March 2001 that regional chambers would be given an enhanced scrutiny role with regards to RDAs and their budgets were increased accordingly from a £15million central fund. The regional government White Paper ‘Your Region Your Choice: revitalising the English Regions (DTLR 2002) set out the Labour governments intentions to “introduce legislation during this parliament to give the people of each region the opportunity, over time, to opt for an elected regional assembly” (DTLR 2002:31). The main aims of the government were set out in the White Paper and spoke of ‘decentralising power and bringing decision making closer to the people’, ‘giving the regions more flexibility’, ‘making government more accountable’ and ‘providing democratic representation in the regions and a new political voice’ (DTLR 2002:11). The scope of activities of regional assemblies was initially to provide an overview and scrutiny role for RDAs and offer advice and support on regional economic strategies but since their inception has subsequently increased to include being designated a role as Regional Planning Body (RPB) (HM Government 2004) responsible for leading the preparation of the Regional Spatial Strategies and the Regional Housing Boards advising the government on investment priorities through their preparation of Regional Housing Strategies. Regional Assemblies were given a clear representational role to provide cross-sectoral input and feedback across a range of regional policy initiatives (While 2000). Democratic Representation The notion of representation and a representative assembly are the central tenets of a system of liberal democracy. These two components Beetham argues are ‘the most effective device for reconciling the requirements of popular control and political equality with the exigencies of time and the conditions of the modern territorial state’ (1992:41). There is a need to briefly examine the democratic claims made on behalf of representation within ‘representative democracy’. Starting from the premise that ‘democracy’ defined, as rule by the people is ideal yet impractical in the modern nation state as effective political participation is theoretically and practically limited, whilst the viability of direct democracy also diminishes with scale there is a need for alternative systems by which the process of decision making is democratised. Copyright PSA 2009 Representative democracy has its detractors who believe that the fundamental requirement of democracy is self rule by the people for example Rousseau ([1762] 1993) took the position that citizens cannot delegate their voting rights to representatives. Hirst (1990) whilst agreeing that representation is necessary in a modern world sees the process of representation as a practical exclusion of the mass of the people from the decision making process. Hirst also cites a need for more representative institutional forms to supplement traditional representative institutions (Hirst 1994). Others see representative government as a system designed not to encompass the interests and preferences of many by instead to reduce wide scale citizen involvement. This idea was highlighted in the work of Manin which said “representative government was conceived in explicit opposition to government by the people” (Manin 1997:232). The dominance of representative democracy can be seen as due to its portrayal of extensive political involvement whilst actually maintaining a hierarchical system of government. Manin defined a ‘principle of distinction’ (Manin 1997:94) as representative democracy constitutes a clear division of political behaviour between represented and representatives both in terms of political activity and political competence and posits that representative democracy produces elected elites. The idea of Jefferson in the American declaration of independence that “governments are instituted among men” with all power residing in the people may stand true, but this power is only realised at electoral junctures. Conversely many theorists and politicians defend representative democracy predominantly by those diverting definitions of democracy from the notion of ‘rule by the people’ but instead recognise that democracy is instead a set of ‘political mechanisms’ (Hirst 1990:28) or a set of political ‘techniques’ and ‘instruments’ whereby popular power is exercised (Sartori 1987:30). In positioning representative democracy as a political process any claims for it to be considered democratic rest upon the process itself. Robert Dahl suggests the criteria for a democratic process (1989:108-114) as being effective participation, voting equality at the decisive stage of collective decisions, enlightened understanding and the demos must have control of the agenda. Dahl builds a case for the democratic process by stressing the intrinsic equality of all people and so every individual should be entitled to participate in collective decision-making. Dahl in this way argues that the democratic process is justified as it serves the interests of all individuals in society (Dahl 1989:322). Sartori (1987) stipulates that modern democracy hinges on similar yet alternative requirements, limited majority rule, elective procedures and; the representational transmission of power. In this respect theories of representation are central to any normative conception of democratic legitimisation in Britain. Theorising Representation John Stuart Mill declared representative democracy as the grand discovery of modern times whilst others describe it as a pillar of democratic theory (Manin 1997; Przeworski, Stokes et al. 1999) which forms the backbone of democratic politics. Despite this, what it actually is and how it is best done has been extensively debated in historic political theory and is still discussed extensively contemporary political science in theories of representation. Representation itself is not only a political procedure but has become a constitutional norm despite being broadly contested. Hanna Pitkin compared the concept of representation to “a rather complicated, convoluted, three-dimensional structure in the middle of a dark enclosure” where “political theorists give us, as it were, flash bulb photographs of the structure taken from different angles” (Pitkin 1967:10) The situation remains as characterised by Heinz Eulau in that “we can finally say with some confidence what representation is not. But in spite of many centuries of theoretical effort we cannot say what representation is” (Eulau 1978:31). There are three essential elements within a representative system, firstly there are the representatives, secondly there are the represented and thirdly is the relationship that exists between those two groups i.e. representation exercised by the representatives on behalf of the represented. Representatives may be individual agents or groups of individual agents and in each case where a party serves in a representative role; its members may act for their own ends, according to their own judgements or on the basis of the furthering a party goal or aim. In the case of furthering a party goal or aim this will be agreed as an end by the party and representatives will be expected to all act accordingly more as a cooperative agency than a collection of individual agents. The represented could be a single individual as when a politician takes Copyright PSA 2009 up a case on behalf of a constituent or the represented could be a larger group either a proportion of the electorate of a constituency or alternatively a group within a constituency e.g. GPs in a constituency. Three distinct ideas frame the meaning of representation each having broadly contrasting conceptions of the relationship between politicians and the electorate. The first of these is a figurative metaphor i.e. that the representatives are a ‘speaking likeness’ (Skinner 2005:163) of those that they rule with parliament being a visual representation of the people. With regards to the relationship between the two, representatives ought to exemplify the significant aspects of the people they represent; key variations between the electorate should also be represented in proportion to their distributions within the electorate. With regards to the development of electoral systems, those that deliver proportional representations of the relative composition of the votes best serve a figurative conception of representation (Mill 1865). The figurative conception of representation could also be the formative basis of the organisation of legislatures around geographically defined constituencies from the notion that the geographical divisions between areas are salient and important. Those who stand for election are likely to not be typical of the electorate and even if they are, they are often bound into the system of manifestos and hustings and a predominant interest in being elected or re-elected. Further questions arise regarding this figurative conception when considering who is the best person to represent a particular cultural or ethnic group, for example, as you do not have to belong to be part of a particular group to do a good job representing them. James Madison the fourth president of the United States of America, a predominant advocate for representation by population, inferred that his ideal of representation would be that the representative and the citizen will not only differ from each other (with regards to the representatives having greater political wisdom) but that they ought to differ as he saw one of the principal aims of political representation to select the wisest and best candidates for the office of representing the electorate in government. This idea leads directly onto the second conception of representation whereby the representatives either emulate or are agential representatives of the electorate. A clear example of this would be the way in which a lawyer acts on behalf of a client in a court of law. The two conceptions of emulating representatives and representatives as agents work together with emulating representatives standing for the electorate by typifying or epitomizing it whereas an agent conception positions representatives as acting, as an agent of the electorate. The notion of an emulating representative holds with the idea of the representative being representative of the electorate as a whole the agential representative would act in line with what they believed to be the electorate’s interests at the centre of their thinking. This positions the representative firmly in a position of flux continually having to weigh up their perceptions of the current mood of the electorate as opposed to a role as a passive indicator defined in the figurative conception of representation. An electoral basis is needed to ensure that the electorate consent to the agential role of representatives and the is also a need of a device to ensure a regular check and control of the definition and implementation of the representatives brief e.g. regular elections and manifesto consultations. The final conception of representation is interpretative representation whereby the representative takes on the role of both a spokesperson and interpreter of the views of the electorate. Interpretative representatives speak for the electorate, they interpret how the electorate wants them to act and position themselves to act accordingly. This was defined as ‘personation’ (Hobbes 1981) an act in which the representative speaks with authority for another, in particular another individual or group of individuals dissimilar to themselves. This conception fits with situations where representatives have diverse constituencies and need to use their judgement to act in a coherent manner ascribing a set of interpreted attitudes to the represented. Delegates versus trustees There is a continuing debate between both classic and modern theorists over the question of who representatives are and whom, what and how they represent. The majority of theoretical discussion is situated around the debate on whether representatives should act either as delegates or as trustees. Madison (Madison 2003) was a strong supporter of the delegate conception of representation that representatives are delegates and so should basically follow the preferences expressed by their Copyright PSA 2009 constituents. This can be directly contrasted with the position of politician Edmund Burke who advocated a trustee conception of representation when he made an address to the electors of Bristol an excerpt is shown below. “Parliament is not a Congress of Ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an Agent and Advocate, against other Agents and Advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative Assembly of one 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 you have chosen him, he is not Member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament.” (Burke 1999:13). This address blew apart traditional conceptions of representation and is a critical juncture in how representation and the representative role was to be done, considered and studied in the future. Burkes speech set in motion ideas that freed the representative from being bound by the views of the electorate and should instead follow their own understanding of what actions are best to pursue. Delegate and trustee conceptions of political representation thus place competing and contradicting demands for the representative role. The trustee theory of representation requires neutrality in politics, public servants are supposed to act in the public interest without regard to the competing demands of a pluralistic society (Pitkin 1969). If the trustee model is to work pubic interest needs to be translated into policies formulated and enacted on the basis of technical and apolitical criteria such as efficiency or effectiveness. Such a model seems impossible to accomplish as politicians find it difficult to divorce themselves fully from their own ideologies, political realities and the values of society. In contrast the delegate theory of representation posits that politicians should expressly act for the people that elect them or alternatively if they are appointed they should act for the people that appoint them. The appointee’s role is to make decisions as if they were their appointing institution. The contemporary variant of delegate theory is principal-agent theory whereby an agent of spokesman acts for the principal precisely as the principal would (Birch 1971) this however is clearly down to the appointee interpreting correctly what the interests and policies of the appointing institution are. Furthermore the question arises as to whether the appointee represents the ruling group on the local authority. The way politicians conceive of the nature of representation will have an extensive effect on how the fulfil their role the next section will address how theorists have tried to break down and study how representatives go about the business of representation. Operationalising the Representative Role (Style, Scope and Focus) When considering the concept of representation research has been focused around four distinct questions, how ‘the demos’ is conceived which can enable categorisation of types of representation, how the representatives are conceived, what representatives ‘represent’ and finally how the electorate is represented (Judge 1999). These four questions highlight the inherent tensions in systems of representative democracy. The research will explore these tensions but gaining an understanding of not only how representatives go about the business of representation but also the causalities as to why they represent in a certain way. Theorists have sought to categorise the behaviour of representatives in order to explore these tensions by elucidating the role orientations of politicians. Many theorists have tried to unlock the concept of representation through analyses of how representatives perform their role in practice . By doing so, they have developed typologies and categories of representative’s behaviour. Normative theories of representation have focused on a basic delegate/trustee dichotomy of how representatives act with the majority of empirical work on representation being theoretically rooted and couched in the Burkean vocabulary of the 18th century (Rao 1994). In his exploration of the differences between representatives and delegates, Burke focuses on the idea that a representative can represent people without requiring their views. Conversely, a delegate is required to consult the public and respond accordingly. The representative role of Burke has been interpreted and developed extensively to form typologies of type of representative. Historically with the movement to geographic areas as the units of representation the idea of delegate representation became increasingly complex as ‘the demos’ became a more diverse body to represent. The problem of detachment from a delegate role confronted by Burke in his 1774 speech to his electors in Bristol when he avowed that he was not only the member for his Bristol Copyright PSA 2009 constituency, but also a Member of Parliament, and should be entitled to vote on legislation as he saw fit remains prominent in literature on the form of political representation. Theory is dominated by the mandate-independence’ controversy of Burke and Mill. In their seminal work on representation Eulau, Wahlke, Buchanan and Ferguson (1959) operationalised the mandate independence controversy for empirical research as ‘delegates versus trustees’. In their analysis of state legislatures of North America, Eulau et al showed that representatives focused their attention on four basic elements, the geographical unit, a party, a pressure group or an administrative organisation. They explored the concept of representative ‘focus’, which concerns where the representative concentrates their attention within political processes. Theory on constituency representation has concentrated on not only ‘representative focus’ but also around the idea of ‘representative style’. Wahlke, Eulau et al developed the representational styles of Burke around the criterion of judgement on how representatives act and proposed a spectrum with ‘independent trustees’ at one end and ‘mandated delegates’ at the other. In the middle of the spectrum they defined a further classification that of a ‘politico’ where the representative can adopt either of the two styles as they saw fit. They argue that delegates rather than using their judgement in decision-making subordinate to an alternative ‘superior’ authority whereas those taking the trustee role are either free agents working to their own ‘moralistic interpretation’ of what they believe to be fair and just or alternatively act on their own assessment of the facts. The trustee role was the most popular role orientation according to Eulau et al, due to the increasingly technical and specialist business of government with representatives as they became more involved in the business of government becoming intrinsically more detached from representing the concerns of the electorate. In extending this idea to incorporate memberships of political parties and loyalty to party groupings a logical extension of the argument of Eulau et al is that the party forms a strong element of the business of modern government. This further removes the politician from the business of representing the electorate. The third category that of politicos represents a group who express both trustee and delegate orientations and overall are less dogmatic and therefore more flexible in their decision-making. Eulau et al elaborated on the differences between representatives and how they go about representing others in considering their areal focus. They identify three foci, which are interlined with the style of representation a district orientation; a state orientation and combination of the two where the representative fails to see a clash of interests between them. Eulau et al discovered that district orientated representatives were more likely to take a delegate role orientation whereas state-orientated representatives are more likely to take a trustee role. Where the representative focused on both the state and the district the representative was more likely to take on the role of politico. Jones (1973) did similar work to Eulau et al in the British local context and noted that as well as representing a geographical area, councillors may also act as a representative of a broad section of the community, another local authority, a particular organised group or individual citizens. Research on the notion of representational focus maintained the idea of an ‘areal’ focus and also incorporated the growth and development of political parties and functional groups. This was conceived of as a ‘triadic relationship’ between the legislator, the legislator’s parliamentary party and his primary constituency (Norton and Wood 1993). Copus (2000) illustrated this triadic relationship as the ‘crisis of representation’ as politicians weigh up the clashing views of the electorate and the party with both sides expecting loyalty. The basic dichotomy on the choice of who to represent, the party or the electorate was expanded upon by Glassberg (1981) when he wrote on an additional level of tension beyond the choice between loyalty to the party or loyalty to the electorate and identified the ‘scope of representation’ as the criteria. This idea focuses on the extent to which councillors see the ward or their borough as their focus of attention. Those with as ward scope he classified as ‘classic parochials’ who saw the ward as the only fact of importance in conducting council affairs and ‘localists’ who approached ward representation with a broader political context in mind taking into account local issues within a national framework. Glassberg’s approach towards representation is particularly useful when considering the tensions between politicians operating at more than one level of government. Appraising the work of other theorists gives a broad basis of understanding about the relative effects on the representative when making role choices in terms of focus, style and scope. Within the context of Copyright PSA 2009 politicians in the regional assembly the work of Eulau et al is too simplistic with regards to areal roles and also fails to take into account the strength of political party affiliation. Eulau et al extensively consider how a councillor represents but do not address why they represent in this way or the reasons for them to adopt a particular representative role. It is increasingly difficult to measure the extent to which representatives are representing through analysing the congruence between the electors policy preferences and the actions of the elected member in their elective institution. There is a need therefore to assess the relative influence of authority membership; party membership and the electorate on the way politicians choose to fulfil their representative role. With regards to the regional assembly another critical factor is introduced namely the notion of mandate and the issues associated with representative appointments as opposed to elected representation. Representation: Election or Appointment? Within modern British politics the notion of trusteeship remains and alongside a fixed elective system brings together the basic representational forms, consent, authorisation, accountability and responsibility (Sartori 1968). Within the regional assembly politicians are appointed as opposed to elected therefore there is a need to research how this affects how they go about the business of representation. Members of the regional assembly may be elected to their ‘home’ institutions however the basis of their presence on the regional assembly is through appointment by their local authority. This section will consider how politicians and other actors appointed to organisations have viewed their role in terms of representation and accountability. Appointments can be seen as weakening the representative link and producing representatives that are increasingly distant from their original representative basis. With regards to descriptive representation if a representative is elected on the basis of party political platform and then appointed by the local authority to stand on the regional assembly what is the representative basis on which they are selected either as a member of the local authority or a member of the dominant group on the local authority. Modern definitions of representative democracy express the dominance of party as the defining feature of the system, however in the case of regional assemblies there is an elongated representative chain with representatives in the first instance being given a mandate by the electorate to represent them on the council. Secondly the appointees are allocated a mandate from the local authority to represent them on the regional assembly. In both cases party and geographic area remain dominant factors influencing representatives however in the case of appointees to the regional assembly there is an additional requirement for appointees to reflect the wishes of the home institution who had appointed them and had conferred on them the mandate. This would in turn reinstate and thus strengthen the geographic /areal representative link between the assembly member and the constituency or local authority unit. The crucial question therefore is what type of representation does assembly membership engender for the elected officials operating within it and how does this differ from their conception of representation in organisations to which they are elected. With regards to appointed members of a regional assembly the lack of a formal representative chain to the electorate means both the structures and scope for representative democracy are considerably weakened. The critical representative mix of the assembly encompassing both elected officials from multiple levels and tiers of regional and local democracy alongside non-political social, environmental and economic partners, this extension of the representative field could be loosely described as a form of participatory democracy or even market democracy. Yet another relevant conception of democracy with regards to the assembly would be to define it as a ‘delegate democracy’. The main research conducted regarding the appointment of politicians as opposed to their election to tiers of government was done by Leach, Davies et al (1991). The abolition of metropolitan county councils and the Greater London Council in England in 1986 heralded a change from a two tier system with a directly elected upper tier to a two tier system with an indirectly elected upper tier. One of the arguments of the government for this move was to make metropolitan government more accountable; however the movement towards delegate democracy was seen as an erosion of representative democracy. In their research on joint boards Leach, Davies et al. (1991) saw few examples of appointees briefing, mandating or reporting back to districts as a weak system of delegate democracy. Appointees failed to offer any clear form of accountability to local districts with many district leaders becoming increasingly detached from Copyright PSA 2009 those they were representing. This research offers an appropriate approach to representation by appointment through a discussion of the communication and reporting procedures, which contribute to clarity about accountability. Day and Klein (1987) conducted research and assessed accountability with regards to the roles of appointed members in public services. In the National Health Service they looked at district health authorities whose members were all appointed and accountable through statute to the Secretary of State however their role focused upon deciding priorities for their respective districts. They assessed the perceptions of accountability of members with the majority specifying a horizontal accountability towards the district and only a minimal theoretical accountability upwards. The majority of those interviewed did not see themselves as accountable to central government but instead saw the local district management team as the main constraint on their role. Day and Klein (1987) concluded that it the predominant differences between those authorities made of directly elected members and those of nominated members did not stem from perceptions of their own role, but rather reflected differences in the way they responded to the tensions inherent in their role. They revealed a paradox whereby the rhetoric of election being seen as synonymous with accountability may actually divert attention from the conditions that have to be met if accountability is to be achieved, whereas those members who lack the legitimacy of election seem to be more conscious of their need for control. In this way those appointed took the mandate which “imposed a duty on them: the real sanction was not revocability of the mandate, but their own civic alter ego. They saw themselves as trustees or tribunes rather than delegates.” (Day and Klein 1987:229) Representation and the West Midlands Region Assembly The main sample for research is the West Midlands Regional Assembly which has a voting membership of 100 nominees, 68 of which were local authority representatives, 16 from the business sector and 16 from social, economic and voluntary stakeholders. Crucially local authority members were chosen by the West Midlands Local Government Authority to reflect the geography and political composition of the region. A full-scale analysis of the role of regional assembly members was conducted in 2004 on behalf of the English Regions Network (ERN) (Aulakh, Snape et al. 2005) this examined the nature and level of member involvement in regional assemblies. This was conducted in all regions, but the response rate from the West Midlands was only 33%. The data provided by the survey gives base level profiles of assembly members whilst also offering an assessment of motivations for joining the assembly. The top three motivating factors being to promote the overall economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the region, to represent the interests of the nominating council and to contribute to the shaping and development of the assembly. These results are a strong basis upon which to build, particularly as there is no direct comparison between how the motivations of councillors in their home authority differ to the motivations for councillors in regional assemblies. Specific questions arise with the idea of representation and consent, as the consent of the principal is not a necessary condition of their being represented. The notion of ascriptive representation is often based around the idea of representation without consent, for often more than half the electorate would not have voted for the elected representative and at no time has any individual had the choice to not be represented. However, in the case of the appointed assembly members they are ascripted representatives. Jackson and King in their study of the House of Representatives introduced another type of representation and one that is particularly relevant to this research, the notion of institutional representation (Jackson and King 1989). In their research they substituted the collective representation of Weissberg (1978) with the idea of institutional representation whereby representatives act in accordance with the voting preferences of fellow party members in alternate institutions or members from the same geographic area. This notion is of particular relevance when considering the representative role of assembly members and the strength of party and its organisation at multiple levels of government alongside an appreciation of the importance of local geography as an influencing factor upon the representative concerns of appointed assembly members. The notion of institutional representation is also relevant with regards to assembly members and loyalty or representative allegiance to their appointing institution. Councillors provide the object of analysis for the research and their functional role choices about how they go about the business of representation has been extensively researched (Heclo 1969; Jones 1973; Copyright PSA 2009 Rao and Young 1993). Whilst the government has also commissioned surveys of local councillors were the Maud Committee (1967), the Robinson Committee (1977) and the Widdicombe Committee (1986). Young and Rao(1993:8) conducted research with councillors in as similar way to the Searing (1985) study with MPs and found that a majority of councillors gave first priority to dealing with the individual problems of their constituents (40%) with ward commitments coming a close second. An extensive survey of the representative role of councillors in Birmingham was conducted in the seventies and found 32% saw themselves as delegates, 43% regarded themselves as trustees and 25% identified themselves as politicos (Newton 1976). Newton compared these representation roles alongside data on areal roles and the policy orientations of council members. Studies commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation based on interviews with councillors positioned their representative role as more important than their involvement in council business (Rao 1993). More recently in 2006 the National census of councillors (IDeA 2007) positions local community representative (74.5%) as the best descriptor of their approach to the role other descriptors were community engager (49.6%), community leader (18.6%), community advocate (39.1%), scruitineer (25.8%) and party representative or activist (15%). A minority of councillors also operate within Europe as regional representatives particularly within the Committee of the Regions (COR) but also on other European representative bodies like the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe (CLRAE) and the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR). The pattern of party influence at national level is replicated at the local level, which has significant implications for the idea of local representation. Academic discussion on the political parties has tended to concentrate its focus upon central as opposed to local government. However Copus describes the situation in Britain in no uncertain terms when he says “one thing will be abundantly clear: local government in Britain is party-based government (Copus 2004:1). In positing the idea of ‘partyocracy’, Copus defines two contrasting views of the party in local politics either as a ‘bastion of democracy and mechanism to transform electorates policy preferences into a workable governing agenda’ or alternatively ‘an anti democratic partisan presence in local affairs’. With local parties often seemingly metarepresentations of national parties at a local level the representative role at a local level can often be to represent policy from a national level at a local level. This effect is highlighted with regards to national and local elections where the contests are described as “two skirmishes…part of one battle fought by the same armies” (Jones 1969:324). The development of local government resembling a branch of central government and the nationalisation of local politics came through from the 1972 Local Government Act and has been accelerated by further acts since. The role of local government is latterly portrayed as more to do with localised service delivery of national plans as opposed to being responsive to local concerns. This portrayal positions the role of councillors as less representative politicians but instead elected managers and national policy advocates. Research Approach The research will explore the concept of representation and critically not ‘representativeness’, which is the normative property of the relationship between a legislator’s opinion and that of their constituents. The research attempts to bring together the empirical study of representation with democratic theory. The aim being not only to describe the operation of a particular political system but also to define whether this system has value or can provide standards to which this system can be judged as democratic. Of critical importance is an actor centric focus; there is need within this research to focus beyond structure and organisation to reveal the dynamics of the political process. There is a complex interplay between individuals and institutions, although when considering the representative role the primary need is to explore the dynamics of personalities, policies and issues as opposed to institutions. There is a need within this research to find a methodological balance between an actor centred focus on one hand and a full appreciation of the context in which they operate. If an actor centric focus is taken context will have a significant impact on the relative conclusions that research can draw about the independent behaviour of individuals. If research positions political individuals as autonomously pursuing their interests it denies the effects of rules of behaviour, culture and ideology in shaping their preferences and ultimately the actions they make. The chaotic web of relationships between actors, organisations and rules in many respects clouds the thinking of individuals who fail to question the rules that influence their behaviour. Copyright PSA 2009 Therefore there is a need to adopt an approach with the individual as the unit of analysis based around a more empirical analysis of the actor’s behaviours, interests, identities, strategies and orientations. This approach needs to be done alongside and explored through a greater understanding of the potential structural factors including political parties, narratives and norms that surround the concept of representation. Rather than seeking a universal picture of representation, an empirical exploration of the motivations and behaviour of individuals when they ‘represent’ followed by a clustered aggregation of individuals will allow the development of a typology of individual’s conceptions the representative role. Once clusters have been recognised avenues can be explored relating to how scholars conceptualise representation and how practitioners conceptualise and ‘do it’. A growing demand for “more sociological and genuinely historical work” (Pierson 2004:130) to separate what is political conduct and what is economic behaviour highlights the need for a greater appreciation and understanding of the motivations and actions of individual political actors alongside a motivational assessment of their knowledge and representative bases. The conduct of political actors is intentional but ultimately contingent on a range of factors including the level of government in which they act, their local context, the outcome of contestations with other individuals and organisations and the preceding political history. There is no escaping that individual political conduct is nested within the concerns of larger groupings whether that is party organisations or political establishments. Delineating interests at larger units of analysis than the individual is increasingly difficult; therefore this research will focus on the individual alongside an appreciation of their relative context and history. Representation however is brought into the domain via individual action therefore the research will adopt an individualist and constructivist approach utilising inductive motivational and behavioural analyses of the conduct of individual political actors and map these analyses onto the earlier work of scholars’ exploring the conduct and bases of representation at different levels of government. A key organisation for focus will be the political party as it structures many aspects of the life and work of political actors which inversely being shaped by the actions of its members. A critical aspect that will be explored is the ways in which the party organisation trains, educates disciplines and indoctrinates its members to act in particular way when representing. To utilise a sporting analogy, institutions provide the playing field, parties choose the team, and both parties and constituents define the tactics and individuals play the game. To ultimately understand individuals and how they play the game the research needs to address the motivations and influences upon individuals. Within this research there is a clear need to assess the full extent of party influence on actors interpretations of the concept of representation as their interpretations will be influenced not only through their day to day interactions with fellow party members by also by their historic shared experiences of being party member. The clear divide between politicians literally re-presenting the will and views of citizens and acting according to a separate frame of reference is a crucial question for democracy and particularly for those who position representation as the sine qua non of democratic legitimacy. It is clear that parties attenuate the relationship between elected officials and those who they are representing therefore this research will seek to address the extent of party influence on representation at different levels of government. If democratic notions of representation are resilient to the approaches of politicians and the influences of parties and politicians re-present the views of the electorate there are still implications for the future. The representations of politicians re-presenting the views of others not only are informed by the views of groups and voters but the individual actions of those representing determine the nature of what they represent. This positions political representation as a crucial phenomenon for democracy. Public confidence in representative institutions has dropped significantly and there is a need to investigate both theoretical and practical aspects of political representation. A ‘reductionist realist’ definition positions representation as not simply a tool which alongside elections compensates for the impossible nature of bringing together the complete electorate into a practicable assembly for decision-making, but also as a concept that allows the nation to be represented bringing it into the political and historic sphere. In a complex and confused environment with numerous influencing factors the individual politicians are the sense-makers and take forward what they consider to be a correct representation of what is and what needs to be done. Without political representation the people cannot be represented as a nation and democracy cannot be achieved. Democratic politics is created through the electorate understanding Copyright PSA 2009 themselves as being represented. Our understanding of representation is shaped by the way in which people are currently being represented. Concluding remarks The research will explore the concept of ‘multi-level representation’ through an analysis of the representative role of councillors in their respective home institutions and within the organisation to which they are appointed (WMRA). The research concentrates on politicians as the object of analysis and will assess how they go about the business of representation and the causalities as to why they represent in a certain way. The research will explore the relative influence of authority membership, party membership, methods of selection, level of governance and the electorate upon the way politicians choose to fulfil their representative role. By comparing theories of representation and the representative role to the empirical data generated via interviews the research will help develop theory while also constructing a clearer picture of whom and how representatives, represent. Empirical data will be sought on the focus, style and scope of representatives to explore their motivations and role choices thus exploring the politics of representation. The research aims to deconstruct the numerous influences on political actors which include representing geographical areas, home institutions (local council), political parties, the pluralistic concerns of local actors or alternatively whether their appointed nature allows them to act independently of such influences and potentially represent on a regional basis. The broadening of the representative basis of regional assemblies to include non-political social, economic and environmental members suggests a more deliberative conception of democracy with the deliberative arena being a powerful alternative to public consultation for appointed politicians (Fishkin 1995). However due to the politicians being appointed on a geographic, local authority or party basis then their appointing authority forms their representative basis i.e. the group from which they receive a mandate and report back to. The model of democracy in which politicians operate has implications for how they perceive and enact their representative role. The regional assembly which is a deliberative chamber formed on a representative basis is not formed on the basis of a direct democracy. However if the assembly is to be defined as a system as a representative democracy there is a need to delineate the concept of representation, how it has been studied and how politicians conduct their representative role in an appointed arena. Copyright PSA 2009 Bibliography Aulakh, S., S. Snape, et al. (2005). The Role of Regional Assembly Members: The Survey. Warwick, English Regions Network / Warwick Business School. Beetham, D. (1992). "Liberal Democracy and the Limits of Democratization." Political Studies 40(5): 4053. Birch, A. H. (1971). Representation. London, Pall Mall. Burke, E. (1999). Edmund Burke's Speech To The Electors of Bristol '3rd Nov 1774'. Select Works of Edmund Burke. A New Imprint of the Payne Edition 1774. Indianapolis, Liberty Fund. 4: pp.8-15. Copus, C. (2000). Communities, Parties and Crises of Represenation. Representation and Community in Western Democracies. N. Rao. London, Macmillan Press. Copus, C. (2004). Party politics and local government. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, Yale University Press. Day, P. and R. Klein (1987). Accountabilities 5 Public Services. London, Tavistock Publications. DETR (1997a). Regional Development Agencies: Issues for Discussion. Department for Environment Transport and the Regions, London. DTLR (2002). Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions (Cm5511). Department for Transport Local Government and the Regions, Stationary Office. Eulau, H. (1978). 'Changing Views of Representation'. The Politics of Representation. Continuities in Theory and Research. H. Eulau and J. C. Wahlke. London, Sage: 31-53. Eulau, H., J. C. Wahlke, et al. (1959). "The Role of the Representative: Some Empirical Observations on the Theory of Edmund Burke." American Political Science Review 53(3): 742. Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, Yale University Press. Glassberg, A. (1981). Representation and Urban Community. Basingstoke, Macmillan. Hirst, P. (1990). Representative Democracy and Its Limits. Cambridge, Polity. Hirst, P. (1994). Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social Governance. Cambridge, Polity. HM Government (1998). Regional Development Agencies Act. Department of Trade and Industry, The Stationary Office. Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 45. HM Government (2004). Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, The Stationary Office. Public General Acts - Elizabeth II Chapter 5. Hobbes, T. (1981). Leviathan (1651). Harmondsworth, Penguin 1981. IDeA, L. (2007). National census of local authority councillors in England 2006, National foundation for educational research. Jackson, J. E. and D. C. King (1989). "Public Goods, Private Interests, and Representation." American Political Science Review 83(4): pp. 1143-1164. Jones, G. W. (1969). Borough politics: a study of Wolverhampton Town Council. London, Macmillan. Jones, G. W. (1973) "The Functions and Organisation of Councillors." Public Administration Volume, 135-146 DOI: Judge, D. (1999). Representation: Theory and practice in Britain. London, Routledge. Leach, S., H. Davis, et al. (1991). After Abolition: The Operation of the post-1986 Metropolitan Government System in England, PSI Publishing. Madison, J. (2003). The Federalist No.10. The Federalist with Letters of "Brutus" (Hamilton, A, Madison, J and Jay, J). T. Ball. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Manin, B. (1997). The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Maud (1967). Report of the Committee on the Management of Local Government (The Maud Report) Vol: 2 The Local Government Councillor, London, HMSO. Mill, J. S. (1865). Considerations on representative government. London, Longman. Newton, K. (1976). Second City Politics. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Norton, P. and D. M. Wood (1993). Back from Westminster: British Member of Parliament and Their Constituencies, University Press of Kentucky. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in Time. New Jersey, Princeton University Press. Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press. Pitkin, H. F. (1969). Representation. New York, Atherton Press. Przeworski, A., S. C. Stokes, et al. (1999). Democracy, Accountability and Representation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Copyright PSA 2009 Rao, N. (1993). Managing Change: Councillors and the New Local Government. York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Rao, N. (1994). The Making and Unmaking of Local Self-Government. Aldershot, Dartmouth. Rao, N. and K. Young (1993). Coming to Terms with Change? The Local Government Councillor in 1993, London Government Chronicle and Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Rousseau, J. J. ([1762] 1993). The Social Contract and Discourses. London, Orion Publishing Group. Sartori, G. (1968). Representational Systems. International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. New York, Macmillan-Free Press: pp. 465-474. Sartori, G. (1987). The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham NJ, Chatham House. Searing, D. D. (1985). "The Role of Good Constituency Member and the Practice of Representation in Great Britain." Journal of Politics 47(2): 348. Skinner, Q. (2005). "Hobbes on Representation." European Journal of Philosophy 13(2): 155-184. While, A. (2000). "‘Accountability and regional governance. The emerging role of regional chambers in England’." Local economy 14(4): 329-345. Widdicombe (1986). Commitee of Inquiry into the Conduct of Local Authority Business (The Widdicombe Report) Vol: 2 The Local Government Councillor, London, HMSO. Copyright PSA 2009