What do you think?
Rate this book
Themes in the Social Sciences
Principes du gouvernement representatif
Des démocrates athéniens à Montesquieu, d'Aristote à Rousseau, personne ne songeait à faire de l'élection l'instrument démocratique par excellence ; démocratie n'équivalait pas à gouvernement représentatif, c'est le tirage au sort qui paraissait le mieux apte à respecter l'égalité stricte des candidats. Que s'est-il passé au tournant du XVIIIe siècle, en Europe et aux Etats-Unis, pour que se renverse cette conception multiséculaire et pour qu'advienne l'idée qu'une démocratie est, par essence, un gouvernement représentatif ? Le changement tient-il à la réalité des choses ou au regard que nous portons sur elles ? Ce livre présente une théorie du gouvernement représentatif, en s'attachant aussi bien à la tradition européenne qu'aux débats américains. Bernard Manin montre que le système représentatif n'a pas pour seule fonction de permettre au peuple de se gouverner lui-même. Le gouvernement représentatif même en fait des traits démocratiques et aristocratiques. L'élu n'est jamais le double ni le porte-parole de l'électeur, mais il gouverne en anticipant le jour où le public rendra son jugement.
319 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
16 people are currently reading
542 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
March 5, 2016
As a young college student studying economics I was looking to broaden my horizon and found this forgotten gem on a reading list for a political science course. The reading proved to change my mind on a number of things.
I have long believed in the need to look outside the normal canon and find works which question ones normal assumptions about the world. This book describes the early democracy in Athens and the modern resurgence of democracy. What intrigued me was Manins description of earlier types of democracy and how electives were chosen not through voting but by lottery. Any citizen could choose to be part of the lottery. This method, while it seems like a rather odd way of choosing who should manage the state, has certain advantages to it. For one it gets rid of the risk of demagogues tricking the public into electing them into office. The republic of venice used this method for 1100 years which makes me beg the question: how long will our way of electing officials last? Will it be as successful? Among other benefits is that forces citizen to become more active in politics and not assume that electives will solve all of society's problems.
James Madison and Emanuel Joseph Sieyes were responsible for creating the modern version of democracy ; Madison not only believed that representative democracy was different from direct democracy but superior. In smaller societies like the one in Athens citizens could assemble in a square and debate whereas modern societies are too complex. I heard a variation on this argument while living in China - "we are too many people, democracy wouldn't work!".
This book made me rethink certain ideas and I now believe that we should decide issues locally (when possible). The further elected officials come from the people who elected them, the larger the possibilities are of corruption. Just look at Frank Underwood and you'll see what I mean. I recommend this book for anyone interested in political science or economics.
I have long believed in the need to look outside the normal canon and find works which question ones normal assumptions about the world. This book describes the early democracy in Athens and the modern resurgence of democracy. What intrigued me was Manins description of earlier types of democracy and how electives were chosen not through voting but by lottery. Any citizen could choose to be part of the lottery. This method, while it seems like a rather odd way of choosing who should manage the state, has certain advantages to it. For one it gets rid of the risk of demagogues tricking the public into electing them into office. The republic of venice used this method for 1100 years which makes me beg the question: how long will our way of electing officials last? Will it be as successful? Among other benefits is that forces citizen to become more active in politics and not assume that electives will solve all of society's problems.
James Madison and Emanuel Joseph Sieyes were responsible for creating the modern version of democracy ; Madison not only believed that representative democracy was different from direct democracy but superior. In smaller societies like the one in Athens citizens could assemble in a square and debate whereas modern societies are too complex. I heard a variation on this argument while living in China - "we are too many people, democracy wouldn't work!".
This book made me rethink certain ideas and I now believe that we should decide issues locally (when possible). The further elected officials come from the people who elected them, the larger the possibilities are of corruption. Just look at Frank Underwood and you'll see what I mean. I recommend this book for anyone interested in political science or economics.
April 5, 2015
A lire absolument pour mieux comprendre nos démocraties... pas si démocratiques au regard de l'évolution du processus électoral au fil de l'Histoire.
J'ai personnellement préféré les derniers chapitres, qui traitent de l'évolution de la démocratie moderne, de manière très fine et rigoureuse. Vraiment un ouvrage très intéressant pour les curieux, ou les étudiants en sciences humaines ou en sciences politiques.
Le seul point négatif que je pourrais lui trouver est l'abondance d'exemples historiques, qui ne permet pas de bien dégager ce qui est vraiment important.
Sans cela, c'est un ouvrage de référence et on comprend pourquoi en le lisant. Un indispensable!
J'ai personnellement préféré les derniers chapitres, qui traitent de l'évolution de la démocratie moderne, de manière très fine et rigoureuse. Vraiment un ouvrage très intéressant pour les curieux, ou les étudiants en sciences humaines ou en sciences politiques.
Le seul point négatif que je pourrais lui trouver est l'abondance d'exemples historiques, qui ne permet pas de bien dégager ce qui est vraiment important.
Sans cela, c'est un ouvrage de référence et on comprend pourquoi en le lisant. Un indispensable!
December 5, 2021
Interessante studie over de ontwikkeling van de representatieve democratie, al zou Manin aristocratie zeggen. Binnen zijn relaas viel het me wel op dat hij geen onderscheid maakt tussen de districtenstelsels waar parlementariërs in worden verkozen met het evenredige stelsel.
July 24, 2017
As part of my class reading I had to read few chapters from this book. I could not finish reading the entire book, but read nearly two third of it. For the first time, after reading this book, I began to question critically about the kind of democracy we practice today.
Democracy is without a question the only well-accepted or well-regarded method of political practice around the world. Whether we want it or not, it is tough to survive as a state without being democratic, to what extent that remains an entirely separate issue. Democracy and representative model of government is almost synonymous in present day. But the question remains, does this model actually allows the practice of true democracy? There are certain utilitarian sides of this model, but are we absolutely sure of not overlooking the loopholes as well? Madison might have believed that representation in government would bring together men with “patriotism and love of justice”, but is it happening in real? How beneficial is the specialization of politics as a profession for the society now and how can it be improved? How the aristocratic elements are still retained in democracy? Is the dismissal of elitism and "aristocratic dimension" from democracy and representative government possible at all? Such questions have surfaced on my mind after reading this book. In addition to that, being a direct witness to the faulty practice of democracy in a developing country has only reinforced these questions in me. Overall, I am really glad to come across this particular book. It makes the reader question the political system that we live in. Hopefully we will reach to a better system through asking such important questions and finding constructive answers one day!
Democracy is without a question the only well-accepted or well-regarded method of political practice around the world. Whether we want it or not, it is tough to survive as a state without being democratic, to what extent that remains an entirely separate issue. Democracy and representative model of government is almost synonymous in present day. But the question remains, does this model actually allows the practice of true democracy? There are certain utilitarian sides of this model, but are we absolutely sure of not overlooking the loopholes as well? Madison might have believed that representation in government would bring together men with “patriotism and love of justice”, but is it happening in real? How beneficial is the specialization of politics as a profession for the society now and how can it be improved? How the aristocratic elements are still retained in democracy? Is the dismissal of elitism and "aristocratic dimension" from democracy and representative government possible at all? Such questions have surfaced on my mind after reading this book. In addition to that, being a direct witness to the faulty practice of democracy in a developing country has only reinforced these questions in me. Overall, I am really glad to come across this particular book. It makes the reader question the political system that we live in. Hopefully we will reach to a better system through asking such important questions and finding constructive answers one day!
Read
February 24, 2021Idk if this counts because I did skip a chapter and speed-read the last 50-60 pages in 15 mins, but we're rolling with it.
May 16, 2025
Ich weiß nicht, ob das im historischen Teil alles so stimmt, aber es ist beeindruckend, wie gleichzeitig abstrakt und greifbar Manin über Demokratie schreiben kann.
June 2, 2025
Mind-blowing.
Una dimostrazione certamente tosta da seguire, ma fa riflettere a fondo sul sistema di governo in cui ci troviamo a vivere. Lettura consigliatissima.
Una dimostrazione certamente tosta da seguire, ma fa riflettere a fondo sul sistema di governo in cui ci troviamo a vivere. Lettura consigliatissima.
December 28, 2025
A very interesting read that turns upside down some commonly held notions about representation and democracy. Manin's goal with this book, based on a previous work he wrote in French, is to discuss the historical emergence and change of representative government, and its underlying principles. He does this through six chapters, which after the introduction are: 1) direct democracy and representation, 2) The triumph of election, 3) The principle of distinction, 4) A democratic aristocracy, 5) The verdict of the people and 6) Metamorphoses of representative government.
Manin's main argument is that representative government contains a blaring contradiction. It is based on elections and representatives, phenomena which until the 19th century were considered inherently aristocratic, not democratic. As Manin points out, the canonical founders of representative government such as Madison and Sieyès did not see representation as democracy, rather it was the complete opposite and partly a bulwark against democracy. The way these men saw it, "democracy" entailed the whole people making decisions and the selection of office holders through lot, like in ancient Athens. It was seen as an impractical, turbulent and outdated system, fit only for small, poor and homogenous societies, and prone to instability and collapse.
The greatest change in the idea of representation was the change from sortition to election. Manin points out how sortition was not only used in the democracies of ancient Greece but saw frequent employment in the various Italian city states and until the late 18th century, most political scholars identified it with democracy, including Montesquieu and Rousseau. However, by the great revolutions such as the American and French at the end of the century, the system seem not to have been seriously considered. This, Manin thinks, is due to the tradition of liberal thinking stemming from Hobbes and Locke focused on the consent of the governed being the basis of all legitimate government, and that elections was a way of eliciting this.
Manin spends some time to discuss an important debate in early representative thinking, whether representatives should be like those they represented or not. On the one side, in a tradition represented amongst other by the American Federalists, the representatives should be the best men of the community, as they were to assemble and to discuss in order to arrive, through reason, at the common good. The Anti-Federalists on the other hand, believed that representatives should be as like the people as possible in order to understand their plight. They feared the inherent aristocractic aspects of elections. Manin spends some time disentangling this argument, showing through reason that yes, those elected will by definition be different than those elected because in a system where everyone can stand for office, they will be elected based on characteristics that make them stand out. The fundamental fact about elections then, as he points out is that they are "simultaneously and indissolubly egalitarian and inegalitarian, aristocratic and democratic".
He points out that though representative government thus cannot be deemed the "rule of the people", the verdict of the people does play an important role. There are no imperative mandates, but people can choose not to reelect their representatives. Politicians thus most constantly assess how their various actions will be perceived and assessed by their voters in the next election. Voting is, at least in theory, a retroactive behavior. Consequently, the system has ways of keeping the representatives accountable.
Lastly, Manin discusses the changes in representative government since their institution in the early 19th century. He points out that they have gone from parliamentarism to party democracy to what he labels audience democracy. By this he means that originally, the representatives were elected local as the best men in the community (notables) sent to parliament to debates based on their own conviction. With the rise of industrial society and modern communications, this system morphed into the party democracy, where all deliberation happened within the parties which also represented separate silos of society. With the changes in communication technology at the end of the 20th century, however, this morphed into an audience democracy, where voters are much more malleable and where politicians constantly must consider which cleavages to activate and work with at any given moment and where deliberation happens between government and interest groups and within the media.
The best part of Manin's book is the first chapters where he points out the changes in the concept of democracy. That democracy was once linked with lot and that the system of election and representation was originally considered the opposite of democracy is so clear in the source material, yet has for so long remained unnoticed or uncommented on by scholars (and certainly by the general public) and Manin breaks down this paradox methodically and clearly. The other aspects of the book I find less interesting, not because it is not well argued and presented, it is, but because the changes in representative government from parliamentarism to party democracy and then to something new in the late 20th/early 21st century has been pointed out and elucidated by many scholars before and since Manin. However, Manin's approach is refreshing. Rather than a dry presentation of empirical data, Manin at times takes an explicitly deductive approach when he, for example, presents why election by necessity has to be "aristocratic". And reading about how the system of representation has changed in the past points out how it is a flexible system, that might also be able to change in the face of the massive challenges it is currently facing in the 2020s.
All in all, Manin's book is well worth reading. The frontpage and title might make it seem exceedingly dull, and Manin can be a bit cumbersome to read at times (very French), but the topic is extremely fascinating. I thus recommend this book to anyone interested in the principles of representative government or how the concept of "democracy" has changed through time.
Manin's main argument is that representative government contains a blaring contradiction. It is based on elections and representatives, phenomena which until the 19th century were considered inherently aristocratic, not democratic. As Manin points out, the canonical founders of representative government such as Madison and Sieyès did not see representation as democracy, rather it was the complete opposite and partly a bulwark against democracy. The way these men saw it, "democracy" entailed the whole people making decisions and the selection of office holders through lot, like in ancient Athens. It was seen as an impractical, turbulent and outdated system, fit only for small, poor and homogenous societies, and prone to instability and collapse.
The greatest change in the idea of representation was the change from sortition to election. Manin points out how sortition was not only used in the democracies of ancient Greece but saw frequent employment in the various Italian city states and until the late 18th century, most political scholars identified it with democracy, including Montesquieu and Rousseau. However, by the great revolutions such as the American and French at the end of the century, the system seem not to have been seriously considered. This, Manin thinks, is due to the tradition of liberal thinking stemming from Hobbes and Locke focused on the consent of the governed being the basis of all legitimate government, and that elections was a way of eliciting this.
Manin spends some time to discuss an important debate in early representative thinking, whether representatives should be like those they represented or not. On the one side, in a tradition represented amongst other by the American Federalists, the representatives should be the best men of the community, as they were to assemble and to discuss in order to arrive, through reason, at the common good. The Anti-Federalists on the other hand, believed that representatives should be as like the people as possible in order to understand their plight. They feared the inherent aristocractic aspects of elections. Manin spends some time disentangling this argument, showing through reason that yes, those elected will by definition be different than those elected because in a system where everyone can stand for office, they will be elected based on characteristics that make them stand out. The fundamental fact about elections then, as he points out is that they are "simultaneously and indissolubly egalitarian and inegalitarian, aristocratic and democratic".
He points out that though representative government thus cannot be deemed the "rule of the people", the verdict of the people does play an important role. There are no imperative mandates, but people can choose not to reelect their representatives. Politicians thus most constantly assess how their various actions will be perceived and assessed by their voters in the next election. Voting is, at least in theory, a retroactive behavior. Consequently, the system has ways of keeping the representatives accountable.
Lastly, Manin discusses the changes in representative government since their institution in the early 19th century. He points out that they have gone from parliamentarism to party democracy to what he labels audience democracy. By this he means that originally, the representatives were elected local as the best men in the community (notables) sent to parliament to debates based on their own conviction. With the rise of industrial society and modern communications, this system morphed into the party democracy, where all deliberation happened within the parties which also represented separate silos of society. With the changes in communication technology at the end of the 20th century, however, this morphed into an audience democracy, where voters are much more malleable and where politicians constantly must consider which cleavages to activate and work with at any given moment and where deliberation happens between government and interest groups and within the media.
The best part of Manin's book is the first chapters where he points out the changes in the concept of democracy. That democracy was once linked with lot and that the system of election and representation was originally considered the opposite of democracy is so clear in the source material, yet has for so long remained unnoticed or uncommented on by scholars (and certainly by the general public) and Manin breaks down this paradox methodically and clearly. The other aspects of the book I find less interesting, not because it is not well argued and presented, it is, but because the changes in representative government from parliamentarism to party democracy and then to something new in the late 20th/early 21st century has been pointed out and elucidated by many scholars before and since Manin. However, Manin's approach is refreshing. Rather than a dry presentation of empirical data, Manin at times takes an explicitly deductive approach when he, for example, presents why election by necessity has to be "aristocratic". And reading about how the system of representation has changed in the past points out how it is a flexible system, that might also be able to change in the face of the massive challenges it is currently facing in the 2020s.
All in all, Manin's book is well worth reading. The frontpage and title might make it seem exceedingly dull, and Manin can be a bit cumbersome to read at times (very French), but the topic is extremely fascinating. I thus recommend this book to anyone interested in the principles of representative government or how the concept of "democracy" has changed through time.
June 12, 2019
Esta lectura es obligatoria para los alumnos de políticas de la Universidad de Barcelona. El término "lectura obligatoria" siempre pone barreras entre querer leer y tener que leer. El profesor insistió que le había cambiado su concepción sobre la política, nos quedó claro que, conociendo al profesor, el libro debía ser bueno. Este ensayo aporta conocimiento interesante y útil. Recomendada para quién interese el tema.
February 25, 2014
Précis, éclairé et éclairant. A lire absolument !
July 24, 2015
Important.
April 16, 2015
Passionnant pour comprendre le fonctionnement du système représentatif, sa conception en opposition à la démocratie et son caractère oligarchique.
March 25, 2023
Este es uno que me antojó repetir. Lo usé mucho como libro de consulta cuando tuve la oportunidad de dictar materias de representación política y opinión pública. Para mí es un clásico de la ciencia política en el que se discuten con rigor los rasgos comunes a los gobiernos representativos y propone una estructura de análisis para dar cuenta de sus metamorfosis a lo largo de los últimos 200 años.
El libro dedica más de un capítulo a explicar la desaparición del sorteo como sistema de elección para los encargados de los asuntos de gobierno. Aunque hoy la idea parece obvia y considerar un sorteo en la selección de nuestros representantes parece absurda, el recorrido que llevó a los sistemas políticos a desecharlo es revelador.
La relevancia de esta desaparición se explica en un cambio fundamental a la hora de entender las democracias representativas contemporáneas: el consentimiento sobre la probabilidad de ser elegido. Manin desarrolla con detalle la paradoja de los sistemas representativos que legitiman elementos democráticos y oligárquicos.
Presenta un marco teórico convincente de los elementos comunes o principios del gobierno representativo: independencia parcial de representantes, libertad de opinión pública, periodicidad de las elecciones y decisión mediante la discusión.
Al final, demuestra cómo las alteraciones que han sufrido los gobiernos representativos, especialmente detonado por irrupciones de ajustes o nuevos arreglos institucionales como el voto universal, los partidos políticos o los medios de comunicación, resultan en gobiernos representativos en constante transformación pasando del parlamentarismo a la democracia de partidos, para llegar a una democracia de “audiencias” al momento de la publicación del libro.
Aunque el libro fue escrito con anterioridad a la aparición de las redes sociales y plataformas de deliberación política digitales, es un marco coherente bajo el cual es posible discutir y plantear nuevas metamorfosis de los gobiernos representativos producto de las alteraciones que se presentan en los cuatro principios planteados.
El libro dedica más de un capítulo a explicar la desaparición del sorteo como sistema de elección para los encargados de los asuntos de gobierno. Aunque hoy la idea parece obvia y considerar un sorteo en la selección de nuestros representantes parece absurda, el recorrido que llevó a los sistemas políticos a desecharlo es revelador.
La relevancia de esta desaparición se explica en un cambio fundamental a la hora de entender las democracias representativas contemporáneas: el consentimiento sobre la probabilidad de ser elegido. Manin desarrolla con detalle la paradoja de los sistemas representativos que legitiman elementos democráticos y oligárquicos.
Presenta un marco teórico convincente de los elementos comunes o principios del gobierno representativo: independencia parcial de representantes, libertad de opinión pública, periodicidad de las elecciones y decisión mediante la discusión.
Al final, demuestra cómo las alteraciones que han sufrido los gobiernos representativos, especialmente detonado por irrupciones de ajustes o nuevos arreglos institucionales como el voto universal, los partidos políticos o los medios de comunicación, resultan en gobiernos representativos en constante transformación pasando del parlamentarismo a la democracia de partidos, para llegar a una democracia de “audiencias” al momento de la publicación del libro.
Aunque el libro fue escrito con anterioridad a la aparición de las redes sociales y plataformas de deliberación política digitales, es un marco coherente bajo el cual es posible discutir y plantear nuevas metamorfosis de los gobiernos representativos producto de las alteraciones que se presentan en los cuatro principios planteados.
June 12, 2020
Un livre passionnant qui retrace l'histoire et la définition de la démocratie à travers. Bernard Manin y démontre que nos gouvernements actuels, qui se veulent démocratiques, ressemblent plus à des gouvernements représentatifs. Le plus intéressant reste l'analyse des évolutions de ce système représentatif. Ainsi, il est troublant de voir que les prédictions de ce livre se réalisent et donnent matière à réfléchir sur le système électoral des prochains années.
October 24, 2023
Un ensayo más que interesante de la evolución de la representación ciudadana en las principales democracias del mundo. Desde los anales de la democracia pura de Grecia, pasando por las representaciones en la República y el Imperio Romano, los grandes pensadores franceses hasta la concepción moderna de finales de Siglo XX.
El autor nos deja conceptos y reflexiones con plena vigencia y necesarias de revisar para el fortalecimiento de la democracias.
El autor nos deja conceptos y reflexiones con plena vigencia y necesarias de revisar para el fortalecimiento de la democracias.
June 17, 2024
Muy interesante libro que analiza cómo el gobierno representativo, que se estableció específicamente como un medio de gobierno no democrático, se considera hoy en día el paradigma de la democracia sin que hayan cambiado sus componentes fundamentales. Incluye un estudio comparado del sorteo y de la elección, en el que acaba por determinar que esta (absoluta reina del sistema representativo) tiene un elemento democrático y otro aristocrático que están unidos de forma inseparable.
November 22, 2025
accessible en soit, bien qu’un bagage culturel voire politique permet une meilleure compréhension
Bon voilà la démocratie représentative n’est pas une démocratie du peuple #oxymore
Texte intéressant pour remettre en question notre système et devenir + anarchiste que je ne l’étais
3 étoiles parce que l’auteur appuie l’importance de l’élection juste après avoir démontré que c’est un processus aristocratique 🙂↔️ gurl bye
Bon voilà la démocratie représentative n’est pas une démocratie du peuple #oxymore
Texte intéressant pour remettre en question notre système et devenir + anarchiste que je ne l’étais
3 étoiles parce que l’auteur appuie l’importance de l’élection juste après avoir démontré que c’est un processus aristocratique 🙂↔️ gurl bye
January 30, 2018
Un saggio di grande interesse su un argomento completamente dimenticato dagli studi sulla democrazia. Manin presenta gli argomenti in modo molto chiaro e relativamente semplice, sebbene la forma della scrittura non sia particolarmente di mio gradimento.
January 3, 2019
I read this book when I was in Uni 15 years ago, and it sounded pretty current. I wonder if in an age of social media his analysis of the basis of representation on contemporary societies wouldn't need a bit of a refresh.
May 16, 2025
Contemporary democratic governments have evolved from a political system that was conceived by its founders as opposed to democracy.
In oligarchies, it is not anyone who wishes that may speak but only those who have authority; in democracies, anyone who whishes may speak, whenever he wishes.
In oligarchies, it is not anyone who wishes that may speak but only those who have authority; in democracies, anyone who whishes may speak, whenever he wishes.
December 29, 2021
me reading this book for school was the ultimate yassification of bernard manin’s explanation of the western
representative government’s cause and affects
representative government’s cause and affects
November 23, 2024
On m’a forcé
September 9, 2025
Incredibly informative and though-provoking. must read for those not formally educated in poly sci !!
October 4, 2022
This was a very powerful book on representative government and it really made me rethink a lot of my beliefs. Manin sold me. The writing is great and it was super interesting.
December 21, 2024
This was a required reading for my "Introduction to Political Science" class. Extremely easy to understand and contains historical information applied to the political sphere today. Revolutions, Venice and Florence--the idea of consent as a whole, this book is great for those who are looking for an easy read to rethink their ideas.
July 20, 2021
Excellent book! Would strongly recommend to anyone interested in political science.
June 9, 2016
If you had always have that strange feeling that there was something wrong in the way our western political systems were operating, here is a crystal clear explanation of the history of what real democracy is and should be.
Several examples of means used by our ancestors to avoid the different biases and mistakes results of our choices of who will represent our voices and how they can be placed under strict surveillance and control of their fellow citizens.
a must-read in these times of failed governments and absence of choices between regular political parties.
Several examples of means used by our ancestors to avoid the different biases and mistakes results of our choices of who will represent our voices and how they can be placed under strict surveillance and control of their fellow citizens.
a must-read in these times of failed governments and absence of choices between regular political parties.
August 8, 2015
An excellent book that is highly enjoyable and one which will become a standard reference in political studies. Brillinatly researched. The book was a bit academic and there was not a whole lot of insight which would justified a 5-star rating.
December 16, 2012
Awesome.
December 28, 2014
Read for Uni
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews