Why Aren't They There?: The Political Representation of Women, Ethnic Groups and Issue Positions in Legislatures
198
Why Aren't They There?: The Political Representation of Women, Ethnic Groups and Issue Positions in Legislatures
198Paperback
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780955820397 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | ECPR Press |
| Publication date: | 03/01/2013 |
| Series: | ECPR Monographs |
| Pages: | 198 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.10(w) x 9.10(h) x 0.50(d) |
| Age Range: | 18 Years |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Why Aren't They There?
The Political Representation of Women, Ethnic Groups and Issue Positions in Legislatures
By Didier Ruedin
ECPR Press
Copyright © 2013 Didier RuedinAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-9558203-9-7
CHAPTER 1
political representation: a framework
The concept of political representation is often used in the literature, but its exact meaning is rarely examined in detail (Birch 1971; Eulau and Wahlke 1978; Blondel et al. 1997; Brennan and Hamlin 1999; Miller et al. 1999). When looking at the concept in detail, it becomes clear that there is no single understanding (Pitkin 1967; Brennan and Hamlin 1999). It is therefore helpful to reflect on the different notions of representation. It is the central concept of this book and this chapter unpacks its complexity, bringing together the varied approaches into a comprehensive understanding of political representation.
The chapter begins by looking at the different components of the concept of representation, which helps to define the scope of this book. The role of representatives is investigated, as well as which characteristics should be represented. This discussion builds towards the theoretical framework by selecting the forms of representation most relevant to the empirical analysis. The framework itself is a new synthesis of previous contributions and forms the basis for the chapters that follow. Whilst the framework integrates different facets of representation, it does not attempt to provide a comprehensive theory. It is a tool to inform the hypotheses presented at the end of the chapter.
What is representation?
Whilst political representation is frequently studied, surprisingly few contributions work towards a better understanding of its meaning. In this book, representation in legislatures refers to a case of political representation. At its most general, representation is defined as '[being] present on behalf of someone else who is absent' (Britannica 2006a). In the context of politics, this describes 'the idea that people, while not in person present at the seat of government are to be considered present by proxy' (Ford 1925: 3). In order for representation to take place, two conditions are required: a person or group of persons that should be present, and a person or group of persons to take their place instead. This process implies a specific purpose that representation serves (Fairlie 1940a, 1940b). For political representation, this specific purpose is involvement in decision-making, and it requires a specific means of selecting representatives.
Implicit in this classic view of representation is the contention that the citizens deserve a voice: they are sovereign citizens. The fundamental moral principle isthat the preferences of the citizens should prevail. For practical or other reasons, the sovereign citizens cannot be present at a place, and they elect representatives to look out for their substantive interests. The basis of the notion of sovereign citizens is the concept of equality. If the citizens are of equal worth, this means that all citizens should be eligible to vote, as well as to stand for election (Rehfeld 2006). Whilst most classical contributions emphasise the representation of policy preferences, the general argument equally applies to the representation of women and ethnic groups.
There are two sets of principles of social justice that can be applied to political representation. First, there are principles of distributive justice, as championed by Dahl (1985) or Rawls (1999). Secondly, there is Young (1990) arguing for a justice of difference. Rawls' approach regards justice as fairness, and it is based on a thought experiment involving rational actors behind the veil of ignorance. For Rawls, justice means that people are not discriminated against because of criteria such as skin colour or age. The principle of equality is based on individual rights. Young's argument contradicts both the logic and consequences of Rawls' approach. Young focuses on domination and oppression as the basis of injustice. Groups are regarded as oppressed if they are marginalised and powerless, amongst others, because they cannot take part in decision making. Justice can only be achieved where all voices can be heard, no matter how dominant one group may be. Her argument is based on the rights of groups. Whereas Rawls pays attention to the outcome of policy making, Young's approach includes an unmistakable claim that all minority groups should be present in the legislature to defend their interests.
Almost all accounts of political representation agree that the representatives should act for the citizens. The interests of individuals, however, can rarely be said to be singular. Together with different social roles and group membership – reflected in different and multiple identities – come different needs and interests (Squires 1996; Walby 2009; Smooth 2011). For example, a person's interests as a car driver may differ from those of the same person as an employee or as a parent. As a car driver, I might be interested in quick roads for short journey times. As a parent, I might be concerned with my children's safety when walking to school along busy roads. For all different roles, there are separate political interests that may not agree. When faced with the task of choosing a representative, these differing interests may complicate matters, since voters are normally only allowed a single vote. Most contributions to political representation ignore such cross-pressures or assume the primacy of certain political domains, such as concerns for the economy. The approach in this book allows for such influences and is open about which issue domain matters most to citizens.
Saward (2006, 2010) takes quite a different approach to the active aspects of political representation. Rather than simply insisting that representatives should act for citizens, he presents political representation as a question of claims-making, thus an active and creative process. Modern democracies are regarded as representative because they claim to be. Whilst this perspective expands the scope to non-electoral representative relationships, it can distract from the special role of electoral representation. Elections provide a systematic claim to legitimacy that is widely accepted – other representative claims may speak to a more limited audience. Because of its institutional nature, electoral representation may also increase the chances that uncrystallised interests will be represented should the need arise. The claims-making perspective regards such interests as not represented until someone claims to do so. Moreover, because it is possible to remove representatives, elections can ensure formal accountability.
Questions of accountability are made more difficult because different forms of representation can be differentiated (Mansbridge 2003, 2011; Rehfeld 2011). For example, the relationship between citizens and representatives can be shaped in terms of electoral promises made during campaigns, but it is also possible that representatives focus on the interests of citizens outside their constituency. Seen this way, issues of responsiveness – acting for citizens – appear in a new light. Despite highlighting various possible relationships, recent theoretical developments contribute a clear insistence on the relational nature of political representation. While the comparative approach of this book is unable to capture all the different relationships possible, the theoretical framework used in the empirical chapters agrees with these theoretical developments and regards representation as a relationship between citizens and representatives. By looking at the representation of women, ethnic groups and different policy preferences, this book works towards a wider understanding of political representation, particularly in terms of representative outcomes. The exact relationship these entail will remain unexplored. The focus on electoral representation limits the scope of this book to forms where accountability and legitimacy are clearer than in many other representative relationships that can and do exist.
Linked with accountability is, to a certain extent, the question of whether citizens are the best judges of their own interests. On the one hand, citizens are regarded as independent and able individuals, capable of judging their own needs and desires better than anyone else can (Williams 1995; Thompson 2001). In this case, the possibility to remove unwanted representatives is an important part of political representation. On the other hand, the view that citizens are not very capable of knowing or expressing their priorities is also common (Ross 1943; Schumpeter 1996/1976; Eichenberg 2007). In this context, the concept of guardianship is often cited, emphasising the common good thought to be beyond the grasp of the ordinary person. Whilst there might be a case for disregarding some declared wishes, the concept of guardianship is in danger of legitimising undemocratic governments that no longer act for its citizens.
The claim that representatives should mirror the population may appeal even to those insisting on guardianship, provided it does not contradict the selection of individuals qualified for work as representatives (Dunn 1999; Mansbridge 2005). Most of the literature is silent on how the legislature should mirror the population, although the next section will explore different possibilities.
In order to ensure a legitimate and responsive government, this book insists on democracy, as do most accounts of political representation. Representative democracy is by far the most common means for selecting representatives, although other approaches are possible, such as direct appointment (Pennock 1968; Rehfeld 2006). Democracy is the preferred means of selection because of accountability (Cheibub and Przeworski 1999; Dunn 1999). Since the representatives are elected to act for the citizens in the first place, they should be held accountable for their actions. The fact that free elections are held every few years is often considered a sufficient criterion for accountability (Plotke 1997; Manin et al. 1999). In elections, a particular representative may be replaced; this implicit threat is thought to work as an incentive for representatives to act in the interests of the citizens. Consequently, given the possibility to remove representatives, the result of any free election is regarded as legitimate. Paxton (2008) makes a strong argument that we can only speak of democracies where women have the right to vote (see also Walby 2009).
Forms of representation
The two most commonly considered forms of political representation are descriptive and substantive. Descriptive representation is concerned with matching the demographic characteristics of the population, whilst substantive representation deals with issue positions and how well the representatives match the ideological views and policy preferences of the citizens.
Descriptive representation is the extent to which demographic characteristics, such as ethnicity, gender or class, are reflected in the legislature (Pitkin 1967; Birch 2000; Paxton et al. 2007). Descriptive representation exists between two members of the same group, one in the citizens and one in the representatives. A male citizen is therefore represented by any male representative, a person from Scotland by a Scot. Throughout the book, I use the term 'descriptive dimension' to refer to the different groups within which representation can occur, such as gender or religious groups.
Interest in descriptive representation is rooted in the normative argument that the legislature should mirror the population. It is significant for several reasons related to the representation of interests. The absence of certain groups from legislatures – or their presence in only a reduced number – is sometimes taken as a sign that certain views and voices are suppressed (Phillips 1993). The underlying assumption is that whoever is not present in the legislature – be it in person or by proxy – has no means to express his or her views (Ganghof 2010). The absence or under-representation of certain groups is a concern to those who believe that the groups identified by demographic criteria have distinct interests (Wittman 1990; Fearon 1999). The argument is that there are certain (relevant) views or experiences that cannot be represented by anyone who is not directly affected (Schwartz 1988; Phillips 1995). For example, it can be argued, that the experience of racial discrimination cannot be understood unless experienced from the receiving end. Without an understanding of the issue, it follows that there is no appreciation for the importance of certain policy changes, for example (Arscott 1995; Allwood and Wadia 2004). The politics of presence theory introduced by Phillips contends that descriptive representation increases the chances of the substantive representation of such group interests. What is more, the presence of the groups affected ensures that policies are well informed in the sense that all legislators made their policy decisions based on knowing the potential impact on different groups. The presence of different groups thus ensures that policy debates are better informed – and because legislators are aware of different policy options, the conditions for transforming group interests into policy are optimised.
It is certainly controversial to argue that demographically-defined groups have intrinsic interests (Mansbridge 1999; Schwindt-Bayer and Mishler 2005), but the focus on experience makes it a more compelling case. A woman's interests are justified not because she was born with two X-chromosomes, but because of her experience of being a woman in a particular society. For example, Campbell et al. (2010) show that men and women have different attitudes with regard to gender equality (see also Shapiro and Mahajan 1986; Tremblay 1995; Minta 2011). Although difficult to ascertain (Chen 2009; Gray 2003), it is sometimes argued that the increasing number of women in the Norwegian legislature is associated with substantial shifts in policy such as on birth control (Bystydzienski 1995). It is thought that this is achieved through the representation of uncrystallised interests (Mansbridge 1999; Campbell et al. 2010). However, Osborn (2012) makes a convincing case that while women do represent women's interests, they do so primarily as partisans. Put another way, parties remain dominant over gender differences. Mansbridge argues that descriptive representation is also necessary where women and members of ethnic minority groups do not trust others to represent their substantive interests, even though such substantive representationwould be possible by nonmembers. In certain contexts, descriptive representation is necessary for substantive representation, but this is not universally the case.
There are also instrumental reasons to insist on descriptive representation. These include incorporating a wider pool of talents (Duverger 1955; Henig and Henig 2001; EHRC 2008), women and ethnic minorities as positive role models, considerations of efficient decision making and less alienation of minorities. Some writers highlight the lack of women as positive role models in public life in general, and in legislatures in particular (Phillips 1995; Wolbrecht and Campbell 2005; Girlguiding 2009). Their argument is that the little subtleties of everyday life help socialise men and women into distinct roles that recreate the gender divide and perpetuate associated injustice (Sharpe 1976; Okin 1994). The potential impact on future generations adds some urgency to this argument. There are also practical considerations of efficiency in decision making resulting from the composition of groups. Gratton et al. (2007) studied the impact of the gender composition of groups on the efficiency of decision making. They found that where the proportion of men and women is equal, decision making is associated with greater efficiency and innovation. When applying their argument to representation in legislatures, a call for select committees to be gender equal follows, something more likely to happen where the proportion of women in the legislature is high. The application to ethnicity and substantive representation is unclear.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Why Aren't They There? by Didier Ruedin. Copyright © 2013 Didier Ruedin. Excerpted by permission of ECPR Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.