6 Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy governance. Except for certain limitations relating to age, mental status and certain crimes, the previous historical disabilities suffered by several sectors have been at least formally waived in modern democracies. It bears noting that the empirical governance of modern countries credibly claiming to be a democracy also largely reflects this expanded sense of the people and the controlling idea of popular sovereignty. (Mayo 1960; Held 1987; Diamond and Plattner 2009) Popular sovereignty is the frame that defines the theoretical limits of democratic governance but the latter's practical operation seldom allows most citizens to be directly involved in the processes of national governance. The idea of direct political involvement of citizens in the daily running of a polity might have been possible in the small Athenian polis of the 5th century B.C. or in some New England towns of the 18th century, but it was impractical and impossible in nearly all other cases, whether in antiquity or current times. Representative government in all but the smallest political communities—regardless of regime type—has been the dominant reality. In a democracy, representative government poses several challenges. One has to do with the verity and reliability of representation. Are the people's representatives consonant with the interests of the people they represent? Another has to do with the latitude enjoyed by the representatives in acting for their sovereign clients. Are they mere spokespersons for constituencies who strictly define what their representatives are authorized and thereby capable of doing, even in rather specific ways, or, alternatively, enjoying the mandate and confidence of their constituencies, are they free to act in whatever manner they deem will serve the latter's interests? The contemporary literature on delegative democracies inclines towards a liberal interpretation, one might even say an extremely liberal interpretation, of what representatives can do and the range of issues they can act on in behalf of their constituencies (O'Donnell in Diamond and Plattner 2009: 36-39). Yet another concern that links to representative government relates to the political authorities working in behalf of the public, whether they be publicly elected or simply appointed by the authorities. Since many issues of governance (e.g. public finance, economic growth and development, international relations) increasingly are often beyond the competence of the general public to understand, much less manage, the rise of experts in governance has been predictable. A bureaucracy not only of public servants but professional politicians and technical experts—technocrats—inevitably has come about. How does a sovereign public monitor the actions of these authorities and compel them to be accountable in a democracy?