Képviselet és képviselői szerepek
The article seeks to examine the degree to which standard “western” conceptions of representation have developed in a context where alternative conceptions of democratic centralism had for most of the post-war period provided the parameters of representation, and one in which a mixed pattern of “eastern” and “western” representational roles had emerged before transition.
In examining representational roles in Hungary some insight can be gained into the comparative utility of conceptions of representational role. This first attempt at measuring such roles in Hungary underscores the point that asking legislators what they think they do reveals different and often discordant answers to- what they actually do in Parliament. This points to the need to examine the legitimatory and prescriptive purposes of representative theories alongside their descriptive potential. Hungarian parliamentarians obviously feel the need to espouse their independence of thought and to emphasize their own consience in decision making, but equally they recognise the need for linkage with their constituency, where appropriate, and for the articulation of national interest.
The fact that these perceptions do not align themselves neatly along the two parallel continual of trustee/delegate and nation/constituency points to the unrealistic model first articulated in the pioneering studies of representational roles.