Session 9: The Dilemma of Representative Loyalty.

My analysis in this paper will elaborate my thoughts on the normative role of a representative legislature.

One of the alleged roles of the legislature in a functional democracy that prides itself on public inclusion is their willingness and ability to reflect what people on the streets, in offices and at roadside ‘dhaabas’ are talking about inside a hall dedicated to the voice of the common man being raised by their loyal and altruistic elected well-wishers.

I will discuss the theoretical normative dilemmas faced with regards to the manner and priorities that representatives should employ. What is the role we want them to have? The political field is split amongst preferences for loyalty to the party, to the constituency, the self and to the ‘people’ (a term I will soon proceed to define). It is a profusely fascinating conflict.

In assemblies such as the Pakistani Parliament and the British House of Commons, every elected representative is bound to vote the party line, in the case of a violation of which they are liable to be asked to vacate their seat in the hall dedicated to the good of the people. In the American model, the primary priority of loyalty is to the electing constituencies. Both these approaches create conflicts of interest that require almost painful value judgments for resolution.  

The legislation that followed the Peshawar school attack of 16^th December provides a valuable microcosm. Military courts were suggested after days of all-party deliberations in which an immense effort was exerted to bring the Zardari-led PPP on board with a constitutional amendment. On the day the Senate (the upper house of Pakistan’s Parliament) voted, Raza Rabbani (elected to his seat as a member of the PPP) was found in tears as he announced that his vote was a blow to his conscience. While political theory explains that legislators are workers of a party that is representing the interests of the broader public, the positive reality is quite different as all three agents are quite often at odds with each other and pulling for affairs to move in opposing directions. Is a representative of the people who is a worker of a party primarily answerable to the people, the party, or himself?

A similar scenario is found when the representatives of a particular constituency are face with a decision that, if made, would benefit those with whom are affiliated their regional allegiances, but at the cost of utilitarian disadvantage to the province or the country in the legislature of which they are sitting and to serve which they swore an oath. Constituency-oriented voting is the political trend of both American houses. However, to further explain this paradox, I will utilize the close-to-home Kalabagh Dam controversy, which is different in nature but will hopefully drive the point home as it is a sufficiently qualified parallel. Multiple comprehensive studies were conducted, communicating the conviction that the project could be a sustainable attempt at solving the country’s energy woes. The feasibility of the project was backed by several leading technocrats and energy experts. However, political will could not be mustered because of broken consensus between parties (the Pakistani parallel of elected American representatives) with regional loyalties. It is possible (though empirically unverifiable due to the rejection of the dam’s construction) that the ‘voices of the people’ caused Pakistan to bare a monumental opportunity cost in their attempt to minimalize the negative impact of the initiative on certain sub-segments of the Pakistani population. Dilemma: are popular Pakistani political parties (and hence elected legislators of the two American Houses of Representatives) normatively meant to look out for Pakistan (and hence for American interests) in a utilitarian and holistic manner or for the regional, ethnic, religious support groups from whom they derive their power, popularity and legitimacy (hence, the American constituencies that elected them).  

There remain several unanswered questions in the realm of normative political thought.