Let's start off with a simple, overall question: How often does an average citizen feel connected to the goings-on of politicians that represent them and their country? I realize that the 'average citizen' is a mythical, non-existent creature, but bear with me here.
The ideals of representative democracy are wide and far-reaching: it includes that voters see their preferences in certain issues reflected in the politicians they vote into office. If this is not the case -at least in theory- these same voters can hold the politicians accountable by not voting for them again, thus punishing the off-key behavior of certain representatives.
My bet is that Americans and Britons recognize this style of politics much more than many other Europeans. This has to do with the differing style of electoral politics. The first-past-the-post (FPTP) system handled by (among others) the US and the UK lends itself to electing politicians per district, who represent a distinct bloc of people. This makes for a very direct way of accountability: a politician that disregards the popular will of its district can face a tough re-election back home. Somewhere in the country, there are voters that specifically rely on THEM.
How different this is in a system where proportional representation is the electoral system used. I'm from the Netherlands, a good example of this system in practice. 150 seats in the Dutch House of Representatives are simply divvied up by the percentage of votes each party gains in the national elections: no districs, no direct representation. We don't vote for people in a direct way. You do vote for a specific candidate on the list, but what matters far more is the party that this candidate belongs to. Once in office, these candidates will toe the party line, they have very little personality and individual will once Parliament is in session.
In short, of these 150 politicias, I'd estimate that about 100 are backbenchers: people who are not directly elected (preference votes for some of the people currently in office are ridicilously low) and are not accountable to a voter bloc somewhere in the countryy. They are cogs in a party machine which is judged overall. A political party has a few well-known faces who might fulfill an important post, or are very (social-)media-savvy. These people attract the lion's share of the votes a certain party acquires. Certain politicians win 5 seats worth of votes by themselves, but of course he/she can't sit on them all at the same time. So, they get distributed to others lower on the party list, who didn't do so well.
I think the backbencher-phenomenon is one of the most glaring issues with proportional representation, and it's a long-term issue I have with modern democracies that use this system. I recently read a book simply titled 'On Democracy' by Robert A. Dahl (1998). In this book, Dahl posits that the proportional system is more democratic overall than the first-past-the-post system, mostly based on the way FPTP can skew election results more heavily.
In my opinion, Dahl weighs the flip-side of the proportional system, that of the numerous backbenchers and the non-representative issues this creates with the electorate too little into his overall reasoning, to make the conclusion he has written. He seems too influenced by the excentricities of the American system, and too infatuated with the west-European systems. The grass indeed is always greener on the other side: the American Dahl goes to bat for the European system, and I'm arguing the merits of a foreign system as a Dutchman.
It's a very complex issue with many more facets, which I might review in further articles on this platform. I took a break from writing on this platform to be able to do more reading, which fueled into my desire to write down some thoughts again. I'd very much like to hear your views on the issue as well. I'll see you all next time,
-Pieter
(Top image from here)