Representation vs. Stewardship (Part 1)

A question we should ask ourselves before creating our political ideologies is one of our fundamental ideology. Our elected and appointed officials are there for a reason - arguably to run the government that we don't have time to participate directly in. Since they're there to work for us, we should ask - do we expect them to be "representatives" or should they be "stewards".

First, let's roughly define each term (as they are often used in this line of study):

• Representative: an individual who acts as an intermediary, conveying the wishes of those they were elected by to the larger body of governance with little to no interference (consideration of anything other than what the people who elected say them want).
• Steward: an individual who acts in the stead of those who elected them, striving to do what is in the "public interest" / "public good" for those who elected them, even though it may go against the espoused opinions of those who elected them.

Now that we have a general starting point, I ask you, my dear readers - do you have any general feelings on stewardship vs. representation in government? Does that view change based on the level of government you're talking about (local vs. state vs. federal)? Should it matter if the officials are appointed vs. elected?

Coming soon: Part 2 - continuing to explore this topic.