ee

The tension between whether government officials should be bound by the will of the people or whether they should have the autonomy to make their own decisions is a fundamental question of vital importance in any democracy. On the one hand, it is indubitable that one of the key roles of a democratically elected government is to uphold the views and values of a nation's people, and significant aberrations from this guiding principle represent a conspicuous violation of that government's electoral mandate. However, it is too simplistic to suggest that the actions and decisions of elected officials should be fully constrained by the will of the people; in such a society, one would effectively be conducting public policy in all situations by a majority vote of the public. To this end, while it is vital that officials are guided by the will of the people they serve, a balance is required between respecting the sovereignty of the people and granting these officials with the requisite autonomy to exercise their leadership roles effectively.

In conceptualising the fundamental role of elected officials, it is worthwhile to recall the following oft-repeated but aphoristic quote about democracy from President Lincoln: "Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people." As Lincoln makes manifest, the identity of democracy is inextricably linked to the will of the people. In a similar vein, the great economist Milton Friedman commenced a speech with a series of provocative questions: "What is government? Who is government? Do governments have responsibility?" Friedman subsequently answered his own question with the pithy observation that "governments don't have responsibility; people have responsibility". Drawing the threads together from these ideas, it is evident that democracy, via the conduit of electing representatives, permits individuals - the constituent members of society - to exercise their collective will. The upholding of this core tenet, and by extension, the value of democracy, therefore hinges upon whether government officials adhere to their mandate from the people. If elected officials are given free reign to implement their agenda, irresponsible government could potentially flourish, and a putative democracy could steadily devolve into dictatorship and totalitarianism.

Yet one must recognise that elected officials must be given a certain degree of freedom to make their own decisions, without which it would be impossible to administer any coherent form of government. Several political economists, including the Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow, have explored the need for elected representatives in a democracy "governed by the people", and have rationalised this necessity as due to the conflicts, or 'externalities', inherent to individual decision making. For example, consider a hypothetical society in which government funding is to be allocated to different regions. If elected representatives were strictly bound by the will of the people, it might turn out that only a small number of people would vote for funding to be allocated to each specific region, making it impossible for a majority to support any individual funding decision. The appointment of leaders ameliorates such issues by streamlining these externalities and creating an overarching body, that is, government, to implement the visions of individuals as a cohesive and streamlined whole.

In drawing the threads together, we can examine the financial crisis of 2008 as a case study in point. Under pressure from the public, lawmakers such as President Barack Obama and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke were under severe pressure from the public to resist the temptation to bail out failing banks and instead adhere to a mindless free-market ideology. Yet Bernanke and Obama recognised that a failure to act would be tantamount to complete destruction of the US and eventually the global economy, and against the public will, adopted a course of action that was to prove of paramount importance in preventing ubiquitous economic collapse. To this end, we can see that elected officials have a certain tacit responsibility to not conform to the public will and instead do what is in the best interests of their nation in times of crisis to avert catastrophic future ramifications. In short, we elect representatives to regulate, at times, the basest instincts of humanity, to prevent collapse, and to sustain stability and peace.

Thus, government, in its best form, is guided by the will of the people, but is not a mindless adherent to the views of the public. Elected officials must certainly respect the mandate by which they were appointed to office, but to allow government, and by extension, society, to run effectively, officials should be afforded a certain degree of autonomy to deliver an implementation of this public mandate.