How do the rule of law and political representation relate to each other? I answer this question, hitherto neglected by rule-of-law scholars, taking my cue from Joseph Raz’s revision of his conception of the rule of law and by relying on a distinction between preferences and interests, which pervades discussions of political representation. I argue that political representatives’ attention to their constituents’ preferences, and not just their interests, is a necessary feature of a conception of representation that expresses a robust allegiance to the rule of law. More specifically, that such allegiance is better honoured when representatives are responsive to preferences warranted by public interests. I offer two groups of rule-of-law reasons for that claim. First, because respect for preferences by representatives facilitates the conditions for the law to be obeyed. Second, respect for those preferences through the justification of the representatives’ collective decisions allows for accountability and for non-arbitrary creation and application of the law. I finish addressing a threefold objection to my reliance on preferences as objects that representatives should consider when making their decisions.
La licencia del ítem se describe como Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional