Scholars of political science and government are often engaged in arguing whether political representation and decision-making processes should assume a trustee approach or a delegate orientation. The first approach holds that political representatives should indeed be trustees who first listen to their constituents’ opinions and viewpoints before employing their sense of judgment to chart the way forward and act sorely in the best interest of the nation. This implies that the leader’s decision in the decision-making process supersedes the viewpoints held by the electorate. The second approach of representation is that political representatives should act as delegates; that is, they should abide by the constituents’ decisions and opinions irrespective of whether these decisions and viewpoints coincide with those of their own.
Elected representatives should behave more as trustees due to several factors; key among them is that they should always put the nation’s best interest before anything else. Of course, there is an argument that is owing to their positions as elected officials; representatives should always project the views and opinions of their constituents because their mandate is intrinsically derived from the electorate. However, in my opinion, the nation’s interests supersede those of members as the latter cannot exist in a vacuum, implying that the interests of the country must first be safeguarded before any guarantees can be made regarding the parts and opinions of the constituents.