Elected representatives have a dual role; they are expected to promote particular interests but also to act as impartial deliberators. Although representative institutions are to some degree designed to enhance impartial reasoning, specific institutional arrangements seem to be needed to foster such reasoning, especially when it comes to most important decisions. There seems to be at least three different strategies for this: first, encouraging impartial reasoning among representatives e.g. through the secrecy of committee work or veil rules; second, encouraging interaction with independent actors and experts in the processes of deliberation; third, organizing deliberation among non-accountable representatives, e.g. deliberative mini-publics. This paper explores institutional arrangements through which impartial reasoning can be enhanced in the context of representative democracy. The paper points out some potential trade-offs between impartiality and democracy, especially when it comes to democratic legitimacy and the ‘developmental’ aspects of democratic discourse and participation.
