Search Results

This chapter considers whether exiles can advance valid representative claims and under what conditions. The representative claim is implicit in exiles’ efforts to assist those left behind and to enable transnational solidarity with them. But it is often made explicitly, both by those who have formed themselves into governments-in-exile and those who act less formally. The representative claim is powerful. When valid, it grants exiles authority, placing their political claims and preferences on the same footing as those left behind; it empowers them to negotiate and make settlements; and it obligates third parties to defer to them. This chapter identifies three elements of representation—authorization, acting for, and accountability—and assesses the extent to which exiles can satisfy these elements. It identifies the importance of ‘connecting criteria’ between exiles and their putative constituents in the homeland and the role of third parties in ensuring accountability.

Starting from a short story by Borges, this chapter discusses the role that representation may play in a project of radical democracy, defined as a ‘collective will’ aiming at expanding the democratic horizon of freedom, equality and solidarity, as established in the democratic revolution. It is radical not in the sense of referring, with these terms, to a particular ground or foundation of democracy, but to the ultimate absence of such ground. This implies that we have to see radical democracy as an emancipatory project of expanding the democratic idea of representation – as a relation of mediacy and self-alienation – to more and more social fields. The chapter takes its lead from Claude Lefort, Ernesto Laclau and Frank Ankersmit, to claim that representation should be understood as, precisely, a relation of non-identity between represented and representative, as only then it attests to the ultimately ungroundable nature of the democratic regime. These points are exemplified by analyses of the case of Bosnia, where the democratic, non-identitarian form of representation was replaced by an identitarian one, and that of the anti-representational ideology of the assembly movement of 2011, which fell into the self-delusionary trap of a fantasy of presence and immediacy.

This chapter critically examines the most sophisticated and systematic version of the constructivist turn in recent scholarly work on political representation: that of Michael Saward and his theory of the representative claim. I argue that the constructivist turn means treating representation as inherently opaque and unstable; representation is an event and, as such, ultimately impossible to pin down. There are three areas where Saward does not take the full constructivist turn. They are, first, the notion of the referent, which is not constituted through the representative claim; second, while Saward argues that the representative claim is an event that cannot be pinned down, it remains transparent and stable in some respects; and, third, the normative aspects of the theory remain within the horizon of a future in which we may one day be able to pin down the meaning of the representative claim. To help make this case and show how Saward’s theory of the representative claim can be radicalised, the chapter enlists his own texts as well as Jacques Derrida’s deconstructive readings of discourses of representation.

This chapter offers here a sketch of eight theoretical issues that are fundamental to rethinking the problems and potentials of political representation under emerging conditions. The issues include: (1) the relational character of representation; (2) the role that trusteeship plays in forms of democratic representation; (3) an assessment of representation in terms of both input and output; (4) representation considered as a political practice; (5) the way in which representation is constituted by and within political processes; (6) the objects of representation: who and what are represented; (7) the question of who is a democratic representative; and (8) the relationship between authorization and accountability in informal representation. In each of these dimensions the theory of representation in democracies needs refurbishing, a task that requires returning to the concept of representation in a more systematic way, also taking on board theoretical intuitions from deliberative, participatory and radical populist conceptions of democracy. The postscript takes stock of some of these developments and suggests that rethinking political representation is part of the pressing task to reconsider democracy in the 21st century.

Representation is an acknowledgment that the political order is a constructive enterprise. Political representation is made by free citizens who are unified by a representative person or claim around some ideas or goals and in view of competing for the majority and for having representative recognition.  Representation is not a prerogative of the majority nor does its function end with the formation of a majority. The question that requires close analysis is whether constructivism is in itself democratic. In the paper I explore this conundrum and show what makes political representation a democratic form of constructivism. .

It is now widely accepted that political representation is not merely a passive, ‘mirroring’ process, but that the process of political representation plays a constitutive role in the construction of citizens’ ideas and preferences. This chapter argues that French political philosophy points to an even more fundamental role for power and representation in the construction (or the ‘constitution’) of society and the self-image of its members. It focuses on a key argument of political theorist, Claude Lefort, who maintained that the specificity of a society is determined by the way power is organized and symbolically represented in that society. On this account, the importance of political representation goes far beyond the formation of opinions and the process of collective decision making. The organization and representation of power is instead seen as a key determinant of society’s self-understanding and of the way citizens within that society understand themselves and their mutual relations.

The question of who represents Muslims in France is fraught because of differences in political beliefs among Muslims that stem largely from their class location. Drawing on ethnographic observation in and around the city of Lyon, this chapter argues that Muslim political participation is bifurcated. There is a middle-class politics of recognition directed at the state, and a movement of antipolitics among sectarian and marginalised Muslims in the working-class periphery. This class divide emerged largely due to state surveillance and control. As a result, Muslims in the urban periphery do not feel their interests are represented by middle-class and national associations. Meanwhile, there are great barriers to minority voting and complications with municipal-level participation, although this may be changing. Political potential among Muslims may thus lie primarily at the municipal level and within Islamic civil societies. But this potential will depend significantly on the future of class relations.

This chapter outlines the understanding of direct action on which the rest of the book builds. It begins with two vignettes of notable anti-militarist direct actions, before setting out some formal definitions of direct action. It then outlines a brief history of anti-militarist direct action in the UK, showing how the tactic developed through the two world wars and the anti-nuclear movements of the 1950s and 80s. The second half of the chapter introduces four concepts through which we can read the politics of direct action. These concepts – (anti-)representation, prefiguration, (anti-)strategy and empowerment – and the debates that surround them, help to situate direct action not only as a particular practice or tactic, but as generative of particular kinds of subjects, movements, and approaches to social transformation.

This chapter examines the different ways in which popular culture is understood to engage with politics. We refer to these as ‘points of engagement’. These begin with the idea that films, soaps and the like ‘inform’ us about, or seek to represent, a ‘real’ world. The second point of engagement is that of creating affinities, which refers to how popular culture can create an imagined community. The third point of engagement is that in which popular culture is used to pass judgement on, and express feelings about, a ‘real world’ or the actions of those who inhabit it. These points of engagement are then identified in different cultural forms (ie television, music and video games.

The first case study deals with the ‘mother’ of Egyptian documentary making Ateyyat el Abnoudy, and traces her career as a lawyer, journalist and filmmaker. As a pioneer of politically engaged and socially preoccupied documentary, she has influenced many young female filmmakers. Since the early seventies, her films, both short and feature length, have been celebrated throughout the world at festivals and retrospectives, but remain controversial in Egypt itself. This case study looks in detail at her early short films, Horse of Mud (1971), Sad Song of Touha (1972) and The Sandwich (1975), as well as feature length documentaries Permissible Dreams (1982), Responsible Women (1994) and Days of Democracy (1996). Dealing with the lower classes, women’s issues, education and illiteracy among women, their personal status and their political situation in Egypt, the films reflect a concern with the subaltern woman. The filmmaker’s concern with the subaltern woman stems from an intellectual preoccupation with inequality and a professional insight into the unwillingness of the state to deal with women’s problems.

Drawing on the results of our interviews and focus groups, we discuss how young people regard celebrities like Bono and Geldof who engage directly with politics. They tend to be suspicious of such involvement, and argue that the music or whatever is what is important. They prize sincerity and authenticity. At the same time, they display quite traditional views of political leadership, and hence deem figures like Simon Cowell and Jeremy Clarkson as possible contenders as prime minister.