Representational democrarcy is illogic, because the representant is by no means euqual to the elector. The basis of logics is A = A and not A not = to A' = B...

On a declarative level, the answer is 'yes', citizens do have a sort of control over politicians, but I think a more appropriate word is influence. The control belongs to politicians, and this control is approached differently, in some states. Besides Belarus, all European countries (members or non-members of EU) promote the respect for people's opinion, but not entirely, and the consequences are expressed in all social movements that have struck one year ago. Nobody asked for austerity measures, for instance, but the governments applied them in several states, without taking into consideration the consequences of neo-liberal solutions. Anyway, all in all, the relation between citizens and politicians is 'persuasion through argumentation' in a democratic state and 'coercion through force' in a dictatorial state (quoting Hannah Arendt).

Venezuela it is a good example. We have the recall referendum in our Constitution since 1999 and we had a recall in 2004 with observers such as the Carter Centre. Unfortunately the country is so polarized that the elections were classified as fraud by the opposition and as a success for the government. The process was not easy and the government used some tactics to postpone the recall. The experience was good in order to understand that the opposition was not certainly the majority but it did not mean that the polarization finished.

Also we have a populist government in Venezuela, so the situation is completely different from your example in the fourth question.

yes

For the question: Do the citizens have "any control.....". The answer is yes, although it may not be a "total control". In fact, in democracies, the electoral system is based on a term period (between 3 and 6 years) that enpowers the government to proceed with its policies. The members of such a government are politically responsible. The award is the reelection; the punishment will be losing the election in favour of the opposition party.

Besides, there are of course other means such as manifestations, public protests; strikes, which an intelligent government will attend to, whilst introducing the necessary changes to cope up with the people's demand.

Remember that there are (at least) three powers: executive, legislative, and judiciary. One put checks and balances on the others such that the can not do whatever they want. One problem could be that terms coincide, but from French Revolution that separation of powers tries to check and balance governments.

You can also add Central Banks, International Agreements and even Press, as control mechanisms, together with participation of social groups and lobbists. If citizens do not use these channels is not because channels do not exist, but because it is too expensive for citizens to make them work.

What mechanisms of accountability, methods of influence on politicians and parties introduce or already exist in your country/city/region? For instance: elections not in the same time, but every two years; (to some degree) participatory budgeting; non-payment on campaign?

In theory the accountability is through deeds of the politician. That does not by necessity mean that they did what everyone wanted but they get things done or at least bring the general voice of the people. In my brother’s home riding of Charlottetown in Canada the federal minister there was re-elected for 22 year in 4-5 year increments. That was because he would be there for people of his riding and when people had something to say he would actually listen. People in reality don’t care to account for the problems because they have not done it for so long they believe that people can’t change anything. If a jurisdiction told their given political leader at the municipal, state/provincial, or federal level listen to us or you will not make it back into office. For a politician the constituency is the employer, but most of the time they are absent from supervising their politician. If the employer says "do as I say" or you are fired they would listen more. People must also account for their actions VOTE. Voting in and of itself is the true nature of accountability for a democracy.

In the constitution of most democracies as Claudio says there are three branches the executive the legislative and the judiciary. These three are supposed to take care of balance and accountability from the states perspective, but then there are also lobbyists and interest groups that skew the playing field because campaigns need money so companies can fund them. Look at the rules for superpacs in the US, and you will see that these things skew the process much more.

There are always going to be the ‘who you know not what you know’ people in office. The problem becomes that many people in many places do not hold them to account. In Prince Edward Island there was a program to bring immigrants to the province, but they were all high net worth individuals. The program was shut down because of mismanagement and no one really took the blame for it. Only a minority party called for an inquiry. Both the government and their official opposition said there was no need. Though people who voted gave the government another term, and they only lost one or two seats keeping their majority in the legislature.

I hope this helps. It is as much a problem of the people as of the politician. If a parent lets a child do as they wish they are not going to police themselves, and in many cases adults are the same.

Recall would be a great mechanism, but since we don't have it in India, we have the election commission keeping a check on the candidates. This being only until elections, we have the house committe taking note of serious allegations and even take decisions on suspension of members if necessary.

First, I would like to congratulate Radoslaw Fellner for asking such a well-formulated question.

Second, while I am unable to offer a good answer to the question, I want to reformulate it with a slight twist (representing my disciplinary interests):

How can citizenship processes be made as powerful as (and of course, ideally, much more powerful than) consumer processes and investor processes (the processes to which capitalist systems seem somewhat more responsive than to citizenship processes)?

in democracies politics/politicians are well controlled by people....i.e through a constitution of their own either evolved or written or what ever it may be.....the question comes from the understanding of people who come across daily papers and have dissent on so called present politics......we do have control over our politics and politicians.....but we do not have the time......3-6 years is not an insufficient time to influence the policies....if we think that the time should be some more short....there will be no stable politics....no time to implement policies.....etc.....whAT WE SHOULD FIND OUT IS.....EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY...i believe

To answer your question we first need to measure the quality of representation and then look at what factors have an effect on the quality of representation.

In a number of current research papers (see http://ideas.repec.org/f/pst262.html) we match individual senators’ voting behavior on legislative proposals with real referendum decisions on exactly the same issues with identical wording. Thus, we measure directly what constituents want and what representatives actually do.

This setting allows us to analyze which factors influence the behavior of politicians towards their voters. Moreover we may evaluate theoretical predictions such as the median voter model’s quality (see published papers on my RG profile) with revealed constituents’ preferences.

Now interestingly, the quality of past representation has a direct influence on the probability of election. Thus, retrospective voting also matters and it constrains politicians (compare attachment).

Article Voters Elect Politicians Who Closely Matched Their Preferences

I am speaking in the background of suspension of a few members from a provincial legislature for voting in the house against their political party's order. I do not agree that this is the most effective way of ensuring a member's better performance in the house, but in indirect democracies, citizens' control over the members is largely absent. Recently, we have brought in interesting mechanisms, whereby a citizen can ask the house to furnish information on a member's conduct. Another interesting move has been making political parties accountable under the Right to Information Act. Such a provision would ensure that there is more transparency with regard to the functioning of the political parties.

The lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

The assumption that citizens should not intervene during legislation periods stems from Joseph Schumpeter's democratic theory. It is mostly true for electoral democracies with very low democratic standards. In democracies with longer traditions, citizens can intervene through public pressure and exchange of arguments in a public sphere. Still, the different interventions do not easily find entrance into the political system, but this depends on different aspects. I think it is necessary to distinguish between different types of democracy (electoral or participatory, party or personal) and different political cultures. In countries with long and strong party traditions and consensual political culture, the will of citizens is canalised by political parties and thus it takes longer to transfer this will into decisions and laws. This is not necessarily bad for a democracy: it means that the will of the majority is not directly entering the political system, because other interests are also respected and the result is very often a compromise among parties and social partners. This consensual political system and culture stabilizes and helps consolidating democracy. But it is often considered as paralysing. On the other hand, in political systems with majority voting, the will of the majority is translated more quickly and directly into legislation.This, however, means that the opposition mobilises against these measures, demonstrates etc.. In these countries, the cleavage of left/right is deeper and the will for a compromise lower. In general, we cannot speak about the will of the people, because normally, there is not one will, but there are many different interests Succesful intervention of citizens depends also on instruments of participation and direct democracy. In Switzerland these instruments are very well developed, in many European countries, there are at least some instruments of intervention (referenda, petitions, etc.)

The below given attempt to suggest some answer to your first question is from Indian context:

The Right to Information Act that has come into being in India in the past decade has improved the 'accountability and visibility' of political and executive decision making process. It has to some extent set into motion at least an attempt on the part of politicians and bureaucrats to appear transparent. One of the greatest impacts is of course on the elections itself. In the recently completed elections in national capital, people have (though not in the absolute terms) voted for more transparency in governance. This may not be a big thing in a huge country like India, but the trend, I feel, has started.

I am also in search for some answers as to how to improve citizen participation in governance. I do have got some interesting answers. You could see the discussion thread:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_what_ways_can_citizen_participation_contribute_to_good_governance

with best wishes for a Happy New Year,

srinivasan

The below given attempt to suggest some answer to your first question is from Indian context:

The Right to Information Act that has come into being in India in the past decade has improved the 'accountability and visibility' of political and executive decision making process. It has to some extent set into motion at least an attempt on the part of politicians and bureaucrats to appear transparent. One of the greatest impacts is of course on the elections itself. In the recently completed elections in national capital, people have (though not in the absolute terms) voted for more transparency in governance. This may not be a big thing in a huge country like India, but the trend, I feel, has started.

I am also in search for some answers as to how to improve citizen participation in governance. I do have got some interesting answers. You could see the discussion thread:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_what_ways_can_citizen_participation_contribute_to_good_governance

with best wishes for a Happy New Year,

srinivasan

The quantity of the governed and its geographic and ideological proximity to the government measure citizen control over politics. I live in rural New England, northeastern United States, where citizens, using town meetings, know everyone else, and exercise complete control over politics. Officials are elected biennially. Controversial issues are settled by direct referendum. This model of government is closest to the ancient Greek paradigm of direct democracy in the polis.

On the other hand, on the level of the national (Federal) government, size, scope, and distance of the governed from the government make citizen control over political difficult if not virtually impossible. In the United States, the national parliamentary body or Congress has one house with members elected every 6 years and the other with members elected every 4. There is heavy email contact between citizens and elected officials. Most of the time the officials appear to vote as most of their constituents advise, but not always.

To maintain that citizens have any control over Presidential policies or over the Federal judiciary is ludicrous. The more the country grows, the less the control of the citizenry.

A very interesting insight, Nelson. I endorse the view that 'distance' between the governed and the government (politicians) is a factor in governance. In India, we have two representatives elected from two constituencies (a geographical area with a given population) - one each for State Legislature and national Parliament. Local issues are to be taken up by the representative to the State Legislature and national issues by the representative at Parliament.

Both these Reps are given certain facilities by the government (apart from what their respective Political Party may provide or they may obtain through sponsorship) in order to remain in touch with people of his constituency so as to understand their aspirations and project them appropriately in the legislature/Parliament and also to leverage government funding for developmental projects in his constituency.

Considering, India's size (population), I feel this system is good. Yes, it may need a little tweak and push here and there!

Srinivasan, all supersized nation-States have governments needing occasional tweaks and pushes. The more or less corrupt governments (none are free of some measure of corruption) and the totalitarian ones are immune to tweaks and pushes. This is most regrettable. I remember visiting Australia last December and being surprised at the downsizing of central government, the lack of ceremony, the simplicity. However, I learned that this happy nation has only about 23 million, whereas my home country of the United States has 350,000,000.

Dear Nelson,

Imagine India - 1.2 billion - a sixth of humanity..ha..ha! Even we Indians find it difficult to comprehend our country as a whole, sometimes.

But I think without saying so you have added an interesting point to the discussion - size of population is also a factor in determining the proximity of citizens to institutions of governance. Among my friends when we discuss governance issues, couple of them who are ardent fans of Singapore always say "look at Singapore, they do this. Look at Singapore, they do that". So, I do look at Singapore.

Let me take one example: Roads in Singapore (source: wikipedia)

Total length of expressways: 161 km

Total length of major arterial roads: 645 km

Total length of collector roads: 557 km

Total length of local access roads: 2048 km (as of 2011)

Now, let me take you to India: Chennai (source: www.cmdachennai.gov.in)

The total length of road network in Chennai city is 2780 km.

Total population of Singapore = 5.312 million

Total population of Chennai = 4.344 million

25% more roads for 25% more population. Excellent comparison, except that in one case it is an entire nation, in the other it is just one city in a nation. The roads in Singapore are good, agreed.

Can you visualise the challenge? Sometimes you know, Nelson, I just feel like laughing instead of breaking my tiny brain with issues of governance.

Have a great day!

Yes, Srinivasan, India is so heavily populated that I cannot visualize 1.2 billion. Your comparison of road lengths in Chennai and Singapore boggles the mind. It shows that India is well governed from the geographic standpoint. As you say, however, one must take into account the quality of the roads as well as the quantity. Today American highways are in notoriously bad repair. Bridges fall into the water. Sinkholes appear in unexpected sites. Why the delay in repairing highways funded by the Federal (Central) government? Because our Parliament or Congress is in a state of paralysis, with a dysfunctional two-party system. The division reflects the polarization of opinion in the citizens.

As a transportation engineer, I would like to interject a comment or two if I may. First, I would be careful about drawing a correlation between population and the size of a road network, as population density has much to do with it. Western cities will have larger road networks than eastern cities with a comparable population due to much lower population density and much more dependence on auto transport. Second, with respect to the poor condition of America's major highways, a major reason for the sorry state is that when the Interstate highway system was planned in the 1950s, the transportation community completely underestimated the diversion from other roads, as they were basing their forecasts more or less from experiences with the turnpikes and the disjointed urban freeways. Motorists are much more likely to abandon an existing route for a parallel continuous freeway than for either a tollway (due to costs) or a discontinuous freeway route (the few minutes that might possibly be gained in travel time does not offset increased inconvenience, fuel consumption, etc.). Not having witnessed the diversion phenomenon on a large scale, the transportation professionals made the best estimates they cold when designing the Interstate system, which is why many of the older ones were narrow with limited sight and merge areas- they were adequate for the low volumes expected, but not for the high volumes that actually occurred. The maintenance problem results from the fact that funds are encumbered many years in advance, which leaves no flexibility to adapt and respond to real-world conditions. I-69 is a great example- the discontinuous extension of the corridor from Indianapolis to the Rio Grande was started twenty years ago and probably won't be complete for another thirty, by which time it will be already obsolete, but funds needed for real-time maintenance elsewhere have already been encumbered.

Highways like I-69 and the Appalachian Development Corridors are great feel-good stories for the politicians, as they are "delivering" to their constituents the promised good highways, etc. To go back to the base question of whether or not citizens have any control over politicians, boondoggle projects like I-69 are a resounding "YES", as they wouldn't ever be funded and pushed by the politicians if the citizens didn't demand it.

Here is some new evidence that politician represent rich voters slightly better than poor voters. Perhaps this evidence is of interest too.

Article Income and policy choices: Evidence from parliamentary decis...

It seems to me that no. Modern neoliberal democracy, based on the representation of the interests of the majority, is faced with two important factors: the abscenteism of the majority of EU citizens; strengthening of the control system by the ruling elites. In this situation, it seems quite acceptable that any government ceases to give guarantees against itself. And the action of the collective elites is not reduced to the protection of national interests, but to the promotion of their own "political welfare" (hence we have populism and sovereignty). It is unlikely that this situation will change in the near future, given the consequences of the pandemic and the trend towards limiting democracy in the EU countries.

Article State and prospects of the European Union political advancement