to mobilized public opinion and through elections that serve as referenda on the leader’s or the party’s performance in office (Taggart, 2000, esp. pp. 65-66).
The delegation model and its variants (IIa and IIb), on the other hand, are grounded in the notion that power is legitimate only when it is authorized by the legitimating consent of those who delegate it. And since power is always delegated for a reason, it is legitimate only so long as it serves its original purposes, which in the case of the nation, are the protection of rights and the pursuit of the public good. The act of delegation is what distinguishes authority from raw power. Nobody can claim authority over another on the basis of personal privilege, wealth, hereditary right or superior force. Those in power hold offices with specified duties so that power is not personal, but instead is associated with the authority of office. The central principle of accountability here, implied by this conception of political legitimacy, is that people with power ought to be accountable to those who have entrusted them with it. And the standard for recognizing abuses of power will be violations of that trust; acting beyond the authority of the office or in violation of its purposes (Locke, 1690/1980, esp. par. 149, 151).
According to the delegation model but not the participation model, representation is superior to direct democracy. One reason is that representation has advantages for accountability. It is often said that representation is advantageous because people can delegate their power to those most able to govern. It is less often noted that representation allows for a separation or distance between the governed and their governors that allows the former to call the latter to account. When particular powers are delegated to officeholders and representatives, it is clear whom to blame. And