Saward’s approach of “Representative Claim Making” sheds new light on the comprehension and evaluation of democratic representation. Rather than being a result of electoral authorization, representation is considered as an ongoing constructive process: Politicians, NGOs’ spokespersons, or other public actors make competing claims about which interests should be represented by whom. In Saward’s concept, the “authority” to judge about those claims by accepting/rejecting them is the “audience” - understood in a broad sense: It can be the group claimed to be represented, the whole constituency, or, especially in corporatist systems, political decision-makers themselves. I argue that there is need for deeper investigation of the audiences since the evaluation of the claims’ legitimacy highly depends on their character. I reflect different normative approaches regarding the question who the relevant audience should be and which criteria are required for accepting representative claims. Different concepts of democratic legitimacy, accountability, and responsiveness are discussed.
