Demands for “Real Democracy”: Constructing "The People" Beyond Representative Claims

The “constructivist” turn in representation theory has shown us that every relation of representation is discursively constructed and that the representative (or, more precisely, the “claim-maker”) can have an important role in constructing the represented. Michael Saward’s “representative claim” is probably the most influential theoretical contribution to this movement. His four-element framework (articulating maker, subject, object and audience) expanded the horizon of research in the field, allowing us to analyze extra-institutional representations. Nevertheless, a more profound analysis of his framework shows that Saward’s approach does not explore all the possibilities of the notion of “construction”. The study of some representation-related empirical cases indicates that there can be political “construction” of collective identities that do not fit into Saward’s categories. Moreover, as Pieter De Wilde has argued in a recent article, Saward has some difficulties in distinguishing “a representative claim from a (non-representative) political claim” (De Wilde, “Representative Claims Analysis,” 2013, p. 287). An example of a (non-representative) political claim appeared during recent “indignation” protests like Occupy Wall Street in the United States (2011), “Indignados” movement in Spain (2011) and “Nuit Debout” in France (2016), among others. In all these three demonstrations, it was possible to hear a demand for “real democracy” following a generalized sentiment that political representation is inadequate and must be abandoned. In all these cases, the main discourses were not “We represent the people” but rather “The people don’t need representatives” and “Not in my name! They don’t represent us!” Based on an empirical study of these three protests and of the discourses which were present in speeches, manifestos and on social networks during the events, my paper analyzes what I called an “anti-representative claim”. As I try to show, the main aspect of this “anti-representative claim” is that Saward’s “subject” is apparently missing. There is a maker (the protesters), an object (“the people”), an audience (the citizens in general), but the subject is blurred. What I try to demonstrate from the empirical analysis is that Ernesto Laclau’s theory of the construction of collective identities can be articulated with Saward’s framework. The conclusion of this articulation is that the presence or the absence of a subject depends on the signifier chain that names “the people”, either separating subject from object or merging them. In other words, the presence of a clear subject depends on the way the object is discursively constructed. My main argument can be summarized in the following way: the “constructivist” turn has proven that “Vertretung” (political representation understood as a relation between representative and represented) is always accompanied by “Darstellung” (aesthetic and performative political representation). However, the inverse is not necessarily true. It is possible do have aesthetic and performative political representation even without the presence of a proclaimed representative. “The people” can be discursively constructed as a political object (to use Saward’s category) without being associated with a clear subject.