Paradox Of Government Essay

Elected officials in democracies often struggle in their role as a representative of the “people.” Should they act more like a delegate or a trustee? In Edmund Burke’s speech to his constituents of Bristol, he argued that the representative is a member of parliament. Hence, he serves for the interest of the nation, of the general good, rather than the particular interests of his particular constituents. That being said, he stated that representatives should listen and consider the interests of his voters, yet if their desires contradicted and opposed the rest of the nation, the representative has the responsibility to do what is “reason and judgement” and adhere to the good of the nation. While Burke illustrated a clear example of a “trustee,” Sigelman’s, Sigelman’s and Walkosz’s paper tested how and what the …show more content…
Simply through personal experiences and conversations with other citizens, I understand his conclusion that citizens do recognize how they deviate from either wanting delegates or trustees depending on the situation, while not supporting either type if the official’s rational is insupportable. I merely speculate how these papers would fare in analyzing other democracies around the world. How does culture and the maturity level of democracy in a state influence the citizens’ relationship with their elected officials? Perhaps a collectivist and elder-respect culture would have more leaders while the opposite types of cultures would have more followership. My questioning illustrates the complexity of analyzing the causes and effects of different types of leadership and their relationship to different types of citizenry. There remains a myriad of factors that goes beyond politics and political stances. Culture, social class, ethnicity and other factors are elements that need to be included in the analysis of leadership in a