The Plurality of the Concept of Political Representation and its Challenges to Democratic Legitimacy

The emerging forms of non-electoral representation and the increasing interest in the concept of representation have inaugurated a research agenda very committed with the relationship between empirical analyzes and theorization. In addition to the colossal challenges that need to be met in this reconfiguration, scholars also lack a comparative analysis capable of casting light on the peculiarities of the different modes of representation and their legitimacy. Although the constructivist dimension is the most prominent and transversal among the different vocabularies that have emerged to conceive representation, we need further theoretical development in order to unpack its implication for democratic legitimacy, considering the paradoxical challenge to keep both the autonomy of the represented and of the representative. I propose to rethink the concept of representation from four distinct and interrelated dimensions. The constructive process of representation is affected by the definition of who is the representative, what is to be represented, how representation is carried out, and where the actors are located. This analysis allows denying the simplification of the concept and reaffirming its multifaceted and contestable nature. These questions will be grasped based on empirical and theoretical studies in Brazil and other countries, considering formal and informal experiences of civil society representation. I argue that the answers to these four questions conform different types of political representation that have implications to the democratic legitimation, in terms of what is included or excluded from representative process, and of the difficulties in maintaining the relationship between representatives and represented.