One of the most contentious questions concerning representation is "Who do MPs actually represent?"

Political parties

In New Zealand, arguably MPs primarily represent their political parties.  Our system is a Westminster parliamentary system modeled on the British House of Commons.  A fundamental principle of the Westminster model is that the government must hold the confidence of the House of Representatives.  If it fails to gain a majority on confidence votes, or on significant money bills like the budget, then the government must resign.  Because of this, parties are disciplined: MPs reach decisions collectively in party caucuses and are then expected to stick together in support of their party’s policies.  Although MPs can break from party discipline and vote separately this rarely happens, especially in New Zealand; hence the assertion that MPs represent their parties first and foremost.

In New Zealand this has become even more evident since the introduction of mixed member proportional representation (MMP).  Votes in the House of Representatives are now usually block votes by party rather than individual votes by MPs.  MMP also introduced a new type of MP, the party list MP.  List MPs are the elected representatives of their party: they owe their election to the party vote, and the party’s decision to rank them high on the party list. In return, they owe the party their allegiance.  ‘Party hopping’ is not only frowned upon for list MPs, legislation passed in 2000 actually banned it.  The party-hopping bill had a sunset clause which meant it had a life of only 5 years which has since expired.  But strong opposition to party list MPs switching parties once elected to Parliament still exists and reinforces the perception of MPs as representatives of their political parties.

Their electorate

The electorate MPs, who make up over half of our 120 member Parliament, have a more complex role with responsibilities to represent both their political party and their electorate.  Maintaining a close connection between MPs and voters is seen as an important feature of an electoral system.  The fact that MMP maintains that link through the electorate MPs was, according to the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, one of the main reasons why MMP was preferred over a straight proportional representation party list electoral system.  Electorate MPs preserve this connection through newsletters and weekly clinics in their electorate.  Voters can go to their MP for help, and MPs frequently represent them on particular issues.  But while electorate MPs can act for their local voters, when it comes to voting in the House of Representative they are expected to vote with their party.

What happens when the interests of the party clash with the interests of the electorate?  Individual MPs may break from the party but only in exceptional circumstances and they are expected to clear it first with the party caucus and party whip.  This is partly because they are primarily representatives of their party; but it also because they are expected to act in the nation’s best interest.  According to Burke, MPs should, through deliberation in Parliament, take a national rather than a parochial view on issues.

Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole.  Neither local purposes nor local prejudices ought to guide deliberations, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.  Indeed, voters choose a member but, once chosen, that person is not a member for the electorate but a member of Parliament.

Social groups and communities

MPs are also expected to represent social groups or communities. Historically, in New Zealand the emphasis has been on socio-economic groups; for example National spoke for the farming sector and Labour for trade unions and the working class.  More recently, the focus of representation has broadened to include other social groups, particularly those identified as being ‘underrepresented’ in Parliament, for example, women in New Zealand.

There is, however, some disagreement about how groups’ interests are best represented.  One theory focuses on how and what decisions are made; the other on who is elected to make those decisions.  According to the first theory, known as virtual representation, all that is required is that these groups’ views are adequately represented in decision-making arenas.  It does not matter who the MPs are, nor their social characteristics such as gender or ethnicity, as long as they ‘act for’ and substantively represent all groups.  In fact focusing on an MP’s gender or ethnicity may be misleading; for example, were women’s rights championed more effectively by Tony Blair or by Margaret Thatcher?

A second theory, known as descriptive representation, focuses more on who is elected to parliament.  In order to truly represent the broader public, elected assemblies must re-present or mirror the electorate’s social diversity.  For example, women must be present to speak for women.  Taken to its extreme, descriptive representation would expect the legislature to recreate society in miniature or as a microcosm.  Alternatively, it is argued that descriptive representation merely requires that women, Maori and Pacific Islanders are elected in sufficient numbers to constitute a ‘critical mass’ , that is, in numbers sufficient to have an impact on policy decisions made by the House of Representatives.  This presumes, perhaps erroneously, that representing a social group can supersede representing one’s political party.