{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02459791863765374, 'fraction_numerical': 0.000946073793755913, 'mean_word_length': 5.571428571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Problems of accountability in outward work

Chapter 5 considers the dilemmas that arise in the outward orientation, when movements seek to define and pursue interests. The key difference is between constituents who define and pursue their own interests and adherents who define and pursue the interests of others. The chapter focuses on the work of representation and the accompanying dilemma of accountability. It argues that adherents, as supposedly disinterested non-beneficiaries, can be effective as representatives, but may also be harder to trust. It distinguishes between three approaches: disjoint “championing,” conjoint “allying,” and “self-representation.” The chapter also considers the difficulties that may arise when a movement is defining emerging interests rather than pursuing crystallized interests. The supporting case study considers labor representation and its professional advocates. The historical puzzle is why it has sometimes (but not always) been possible for workers to be represented in Parliament by middle-class Labour MPs.