Depending on the type of mandate, the deputy has or is not able to act solely on his own convictions, bears or does not bear responsibility to voters. Today, two main categories are distinguished. Constitutional law recognizes a free and peremptory deputy mandate. Let us consider in more detail what they are. 
Imperative mandate of a deputy
It is a rule in accordance with which an elected member of a representative body is bound by the orders of citizens voting for him and is responsible to them in the course of carrying out all his activities. Along with this, the possibility of early recall of those who did not live up to the hopes of voters was fixed.
History reference
An imperative mandate has been in effect since the Middle Ages. At that time, the main political rights were granted to counties, communal unions, cities. In this regard, deputies of these entities defended only their interests. Typically, the representative received from the community that chose him the “order” - an instruction that the deputy was to follow. In case of failure to comply with the requirements, the above entities had the right not only to recall the chosen one, but also to recover property damage from him.
Subsequently, universal suffrage appeared, and the number of representatives increased. Under the new system, an imperative mandate has become ineffective. This was due to the fact that the “orders” slowed down the activity of the representative body, and in some cases made functioning impossible.
New order
During the Great Revolution, the French National Assembly exempted its representatives from compulsory receipt of "orders" by them. This order was introduced by Decrees of June 23 and July 8, 1789. In the same year, December 22, another act was passed prohibiting instructions for future periods. Since that time, the rejection of “orders”, the responsibility of deputies to voters, and the exclusion of the possibility of recall became general principles of constitutional law in democratic states.
Further development
An imperative mandate existed in socialist states, primarily in the USSR. The official beginning of the rules was laid by the adoption of the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in 1917. The idea of creating such a document was borrowed from documents adopted by the Paris Commune in 1870. The elect members included in it were obliged to adhere strictly to strict instructions and could be replaced at any time. In the formation of the constitutional foundations of the USSR, an imperative mandate of members of the Soviets at all levels appeared as one of the manifestations of a higher and new type of representative social democracy. 
Main elements
The imperative deputy mandate in the Soviet state included:
- Obligation to execute orders given by voters.
- Strict periodic reporting on its work and the activities of the representative body for the implementation of the requirements.
- The right of voters to recall deputies if the latter have not justified the trust.
Thus, it was assumed constant control over the work of members of the representative body by those who chose them.
The formation of parliamentary democracy in Europe
At a certain stage of development, the theory of the separation of powers arose. Along with this, there was a need for free elections. All this predetermined the formation of a new institution. It was to guarantee the special status of members of the representative body, independence and lack of responsibility to voters.As a result, the principle of free mandate was established within the framework of the European constitutional doctrine. That is, the independence of the elect was expressed in the absence of a recall procedure. The consolidation of the new order assumed that the parliament acts as an institution of state power, which has delegated authority to exercise sovereignty on behalf of the whole nation. This leads to the conclusion that the instructions to the deputies are null and void, since they are not representatives of a specific district, but of the whole nation.
National representation
As a result of the above changes, a new idea was established. Territorial was replaced by national representation. Its essence was the expression by deputies of the will of the whole people, bearing the sovereignty of the state. At the same time, the national representation, while denying tough interaction with voters and the latter’s control over the activities of the parliamentarian, became a conductor of local interests, which, in turn, were considered through national interests. 
Free and imperative mandate: comparative
In the foreign theory of state and law, a number of advantages of national representation are noted. In particular:
- A free mandate gives the deputy more opportunities for further improvement of professionalism. A parliamentarian who is confident that he will work without the threat of recall can express his position more independently and openly.
- The transfer of powers to exercise power to the deputy corps allows to transfer the intensity of the struggle to parliamentary walls. This, in turn, reduces the risk of a direct confrontation in society itself.
- National representation helps neutralize regional lobbyism.
Soviet state scientists, in turn, proving the need to use only an imperative mandate, cited as an argument the lack of free representation, consisting in the legal absence of a responsible parliamentarian dependency. They said that if the recall procedure is not fixed in the national legislation and the relevant institution is not recognized, such a situation leads to absolute irresponsibility of the representative of the people and excludes any connection with the voter. Nevertheless, in practice, the parliamentarian is in close contact with the electorate. At the same time, various meetings, correspondence and regular reports take quite a lot of time. And, as a rule, such a relationship does not exist because such a requirement is established by law. The deputy seeks to maintain the trust of the chosen ones, and therefore comes in contact with them.