Edmund_Burke_Analysis

Since the inception of representative government, the value of popular opinion within government has become one of the most debated issues of representation. Though the representatives within a government are elected to serve the people they govern, it has been debated as to whether they should serve their people by voting to serve common good or voting in favor of the opinions of their constituents. Philosopher Edmund Burke argues that an optimal representative government serves the people by voting in pursuit of the common good, not voting to support the ideas of their constituents. Furthermore, Burke asserts that by voting based on the opinion of constituents is destructive to the effectiveness of the government. In his Speech to the Electors of Bristol, Burke claims that representatives need to serve the government and common good of the country. In addition, they need to refrain from being swayed by the notions of the people that elected them. By doing this, representatives can serve the country as a whole, thus creating a more effective and efficient government. While Burke’s attack on populism does hold validity, his proposed ideal government alienates the interests of the people the government was formed to serve. Furthermore, the definition of national interest is ambiguous, and if one chooses to define it as the majority opinion of the people as a whole then Burke’s argument is debunked entirely. Obviously, the United States doesn’t heed to Burke’s notions, instead it emphasizes the opinions of the people, not the perspectives of the elected officials. However, the question becomes whose idea is more effective. Through the lens of Burke's ideologies, the intention of representative democracy the original intent of the United States governmental system becomes clear. As we know, Burke argues that representatives have the responsibility to vote according to their own judgments in the pursuit of the common good, rather than the judgments of the people. Therefore we can conclude that the government should be impartial in all decisions regarding things that would be good for the country as a whole, or the national interest. However, this form of government can easily lead to the alienation of the people. Assuming we are thinking in terms of a Lockean government where the government is meant to serve the ideas of the people, the absence of the people from the government seems counterintuitive. The government must responsive to the desires of the people in order to satisfy maintaining a government that is in tune to the national interest and public opinion. When the people are eliminated from the decision making process, the government ceases to be representative and cannot effectively serve the people it controls, making Burke’s ideas seem implausible. While it would be efficient to have representatives in government who know exactly what their people need and respond that, rather than what they want, this is not how Burke's system of government functions in a large reality such as the United States government. Because the national interest is an inseparable part of representative democracy it remains at the very heart of Burke's philosophy regarding government responsibilities. Though the government truly exists to serve the national interest, the question remains as to whether the national interest can be realized, or if it is just a vague concept attempting to illustrate the ideal function of government. Burke claims that the national interest takes precedence over local interests and public opinion. However, it is debatable whether any representative is truly aware of the national interest. For simplicity, the national interest is the policies and laws that the country requires to function effectively and to please its people. By this definition however, it stands to reason that anyone who has knowledge of the national interest possesses incredible foresight regarding the state of the country. Burke distinguishes between the national interest and the opinion of the people as two separate entities. Interestingly enough, if one defines the national interest as the majority opinion of the nation, then the two concepts of national interest and public opinion become virtually the same in nature. If one holds the opinion that national interest is defined by the people, then Burke's argument promptly falls to pieces. One cannot separate national interest from personal opinions if they are defined by one another and thus, ignoring, or rather selectively absorbing public opinion actually deprives legislatures of the pertinent information they need regarding the needs of their country. Through this analysis, one can see that Burke's argument is rather idealistic in nature, and requires the representatives to rely on a higher power in order to glean an effective strategy for government. Where does this wisdom truly come from' If there is no higher power to guide the representatives, are they not simply avoiding the obvious truth that they are there to serve the people, and as a result must listen to them' As Burke bases his argument on this idealistic notion of a higher power, his argument falls apart at the definition of national interest. When one applies Edmund Burke's political and governmental theory to the modern United States government, one is undoubtedly going to find a significant different between the two political philosophies. Though Burke argued that representative government that pandered to its constituents is destructive and ineffective, the United States government does exactly this. Representatives of the United States government often are forced to pander to their constituents in order to get reelected. Through the institution of term limits, the United States has allowed representatives to be checked by their constituents. This virtually limits the freedom of decision that a legislature would have if it did not have to worry about its job depending on the opinion of the people it represented. Unfortunately, in the United States, the people define the government as good when it serves them directly. This requires the government to serve the interests of a variety of political philosophies and social ideologies. In doing so, the government not only grossly overextends itself, but it often divides over politically sensitive issues such as taxes. The people of the United States do not care whether the government is serving the national interest, in the short term or the long term. The government has become an entirely results driven institution. If the people do not approve of the decisions of a representative, he or she will lose their job. Through this system, the government has become incredibly ineffective, as Burke predicted that it would. The system in action prevents representatives from serving the country first, and rather forces them to pander to the minor whims and desires of those who elected them. In doing so, this has greatly reduced the capacity for action in the Federal government, with the debate over petty social issues such as abortion ruling the legislative capabilities of Congress. With a two party system, the government is divided between two entirely different sets of interests and goals intended to please the very people that put them in office. This system has done exactly what Burke predicted that it would, and in doing so, vindicates Burke to some extent in his political philosophy. Regardless of the methods involved, representative government is intended to serve the people, whether through the pursuit of the national interest or through the placation of a representative's constituents. However, as Edmund Burke describes in his Speech to the Electors of Bristol, representative government should ideally not be placed entirely subject to the fickle and often selfish whims of the general population. These ideas greatly influenced the political philosophies of the founding fathers as they created a new government and a new country, the United States of America. Unfortunately, though Burke is correct in theory, the practice of his political ideology often leads to a total alienation of the people from the governmental process that control them, resulting in an unhappy populace. Additionally, if one considers the national interest to be defined by the majority of opinion in a country, then Burke's argument promptly falls apart due to the combination of the two distinctions he makes, the national interest and the opinions of the constituents. When applied to the modern governmental system of the United States, one can barely see remnants of Burke's political ideology in Congress. Representatives are often slaves and workhorses of the people they represent, living in constant fear that they may lose their job if they fail to produce what their base considers progress.