The Role of Elected Officials

[Relambrien]

This is something that's been bugging me for quite some time now, particularly with the current situation involving the Bush administration.

America, and pretty much every other democratic country, is actually better described as a "democratic republic." A "republic" refers to a system in which official representatives of groups of people act in place of the people, so "democratic republic" describes a system in which people elect representatives, who then make decisions for the people who elected them.

However, this brings up a question of responsibility between the people and the official. Is it the people's job to elect a representative whose views they find acceptable, or is it the representative's job to find out what the people want, and support that regardless of his own personal views?

I personally believe the latter. Whatever candidate is elected to any office should be largely irrelevant; the representative is supposed to "represent" the people who elected him, therefore he is supposed to advocate what the people want. If a representative is pro-life but was elected for other reasons in a majority pro-choice area, that representative is supposed to advocate for a woman's right to choose.

The whole reason we research candidates is to find the one who is most "in tune" with us, the one that will have the easiest time of advocating for what we want. However, we should never have to worry that a candidate's view on a single issue will result in a lack of accurate representation on that issue. It is the people who make the decisions; it's the job of the representative to support those decisions in the government.

To use a current example, take the war in Iraq. A poll by the World Public Opinion group shows that a majority of Americans want a pullout of troops within two years (Article here). Thus, President Bush needs to respect this and create a timetable for pullout. It doesn't matter what he wants; he was elected to represent the American people in the international community, and advocation of continued presence is not what the American people want.

This is particularly relevant this year, with the coming election. If I were running as a candidate, here's what I would say. "I may be an independent, but a representative is supposed to support the people. If the people want something that I'm against, then I'm going to support what the people want. This is a country by the people, for the people, not for some elected official to run as he sees fit."

As an aside, I also firmly believe that periodic nationwide polls should be conducted by the national government to determine the country's stance on the biggest issues facing it. For instance, the poll could include a question about when we should leave Iraq: 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, open-ended. This would likely help to remedy the current feeling among many Americans that their voices don't matter, and would give a clearer indication of where America stands.

Now, the trouble with this occurs when problems arise that are beyond the average American. For instance, the current economic crisis and threat of recession (which is inevitable anyway; the whole thing is cyclical). Most people just don't know what to do. It is in this situation that the candidate chosen actually matters, as you want to elect someone that you believe has the ability to make correct decisions that the average American cannot. You want the president to be able to pull the country out of crisis when the people cannot come to a majority agreement on what to do.

For this reason, the ideal candidate for anyone is the strongest candidate that most closely shares his or her views. The one that can lead, and can make decisions in line with what the person believes.

However, there are people who argue that it is the people's job to elect the person that they believe has the ability to run the country best, and live with that choice. The candidate elected is the candidate whose views America has chosen to agree with. I do not agree with this, and I find it hard to come up with supporting reasoning for the position.

Perhaps I'm being influenced by Thoreau's belief that "the government is the mode by which the people have elected to execute their will," and is supposed to be a direct extension of the will of the people. Anyway, I'd like especially to see the supporting reasoning for the "America chooses to side with the candidate; it isn't the candidate's job to switch views every time America does" stance.