Final answer:
Critiques of representation highlight a gap in how elites and non-elites are considered in politics, with pluralists seeing competition amongst groups as democratic while post-structuralists question the existence of any universal system. The discourse on Black representation calls for a focus on substantive outcomes rather than mere descriptive representation.
Step-by-step explanation:
Critiques of political representation suggest a chasm between governmental response to the elites versus the non-elites. Pluralist scholars, such as David Truman, propose that a variety of interest groups naturally compete for influence, which is beneficial for a healthy democracy. Conversely, post-structuralist critiques argue against the existence of universal, unmediated structures, emphasizing that realities are constructed through ongoing discourses shaped by power dynamics.
Additionally, the discussion on Black political representation highlights the necessity to investigate beyond descriptive representation, which refers to electing officials mirroring the electorate's demographic characteristics, to substantive representation, focusing more on the elected officials' actions reflecting their constituents' interests. The concept of representation is in flux, shaped by the pull between local and national interests and the varying approaches representatives adopt, either aligning with their constituents' immediate needs or their interpretation of what's beneficial for constituents in a wider context.