In most democracies, the people elect their representatives to govern the country, but there is a classic dilemma of whose will should prevail when lawmakers and the people disagree on a piece of legislation. This issue hinges on the choice between mandatory and liberal delegation, and the key issue is which approach should be adopted to ensure that democracy is true to its original meaning.
In most democracies, the people elect their representatives to run the country. This is an important mechanism for ensuring that the will of the people is reflected in the way the country is run. However, it presents a classic dilemma of modern politics regarding the relationship between the people and their representatives. For example, suppose a lawmaker and his or her constituents disagree on a piece of legislation. Whose will should be prioritized?
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea states that “The sovereignty of the Republic of Korea is vested in the people, and all power comes from the people.” This can be interpreted to mean that all power in the country must be exercised in accordance with the will of the people, who are sovereign. So if someone believes that lawmakers should legislate according to the will of their constituents, he or she can find support in this clause. When representatives are required to exercise their powers according to the will of the people, as in this argument, this style of representation is called mandatory delegation. Although the original meaning of democracy can be faithfully realized in a mandatory delegation system, in practice, undesirable results may occur if the expressed will of the people differs from the interests of the nation as a whole.
On the other hand, the Constitution of the Republic of Korea stipulates that “The legislative power shall be vested in the National Assembly” (Article 40) and “Members of the National Assembly shall perform their duties in accordance with their conscience, prioritizing the national interest” (Article 46, paragraph 2). This means that since legislative power is vested in the National Assembly, legislation must be in accordance with the ideas of lawmakers. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that each lawmaker considers the national interest rather than the actual expressed will of the people. This means that lawmakers don’t necessarily have to follow the instructions of their political party. This system of representation, which allows representatives to make decisions according to their own convictions, is called free delegation. In a free delegation system, specific national decisions are left to the representatives, while the people indirectly control the representatives through their right to elect them. The free delegation system does not contradict Article 1(2) of the Constitution because all the powers of the National Assembly are based on this right of the people to elect their representatives. South Korea basically takes the latter position.
However, since the people do not directly control their representatives on specific issues, there is a risk that the trust between the people and their representatives will be weakened and the original meaning of democracy will be eroded. In the extreme, there is no way to sanction representatives if they abuse their power to pursue private interests. To partially compensate for this problem, some countries have adopted direct democratic systems that allow people to directly participate in state decision-making or directly control their representatives.
For example, Switzerland has an initiative and referendum system that allows citizens to directly propose laws and hold referendums on important legislation. These direct democracy systems can contribute to reducing the gap between representatives and the people. By allowing people to directly participate in major national decisions, the will of the people is more clearly reflected. It also serves as a check against representatives making arbitrary decisions that ignore the will of the people.
Advances in technology are also making direct democracy easier to implement. The widespread use of the internet and smartphones has made it possible for citizens to voice their opinions on important national issues anytime, anywhere. This approach, called e-democracy, is playing an important role in broadening public participation and strengthening communication between representatives and the people. This is done in a variety of ways, not just through voting, but also through policy consultations, public hearings, polls, and other ways to ensure that people’s wishes are reflected in the policymaking process.
In conclusion, the relationship between the people and their representatives in democracies is complex and multi-layered. Both command and free delegation have their advantages and disadvantages, and one solution is to introduce elements of direct democracy to complement them. By increasing people’s participation and ensuring that the power of representatives is properly checked, a healthier and more balanced democracy can be realized.
