Blick_UK Politics (9780198825555)_CH10

236 Chapter 10  Identity, equality, and power

and BAME people in the House of Commons remains dis- proportionately small relative to the profile of the overall population (see In Practice 10.1). Those who support greater diversity in the House of Commons are advocates of what is known as ‘ descriptive representation ’. Their outlook contrasts with the view that, in a representative democracy , those who hold office are able to do so on behalf of all members of the wider population without necessarily having to share some of their characteristics. The descriptive representation school challenges the idea that political representatives such as members of the House of Commons (MPs) might in theory occupy their posts on behalf of all people within the constituency from which they were elected—and the country as a whole—regardless of their characteristics. It holds that members of certain groups can only achieve full representation from people who share characteristics with them. This principle applies specifically to historically dis- advantaged groups (Mansbridge, 1999). Some proponents of descriptive representation see it not only as an end in itself, but as a means of promoting the material interests of given groups. For example, according to this theory, only women members of the House of Com- mons will properly represent the interests of women as women since only they will fully understand, through their position in society and life experiences, the needs and is- sues faced by women. Therefore, descriptive representa- tion, it is held, is connected to ‘ substantive representa- tion ’—that is, the more meaningful assertion of the needs of the group concerned (Lovenduski and Norris, 2003: 100; Wängnerud, 2009). Some scholars have identified an evidence base for this view. Analysis of parliamentary questions tabled in the House of Commons has shown that all MPs who represent constituencies with a relative- ly large proportion of BAME people living within them are more likely to raise issues related to ethnicity. In this sense, regular electoral pressures and the stimulus they create for politicians to respond to voters, including BAME voters, have some effect. But, over and above that tendency, MPs classed as belonging to a ‘visible minority’ are more likely still to raise matters pertaining to ethnicity (Saalfeld, 2011; Saalfeld and Bischof, 2013). In some discussion of the concept of descriptive and substantive representation the idea has arisen that it might not be sufficient simply to have a small number of such representatives: a significant quantity or ‘critical mass’ might be required to achieve real change in the way a group is represented (Childs and Krook, 2005). This po- sition suggests that the closer the composition of an insti- tution such as the House of Commons comes to reflecting the profile of the population it serves, the more effective it will become at representing that population. Other analy- sis stresses that it is not only numbers that are significant

but willingness to raise issues. An assessment of debates in the National Assembly for Wales during 1999–2003 found that women—who made up 42 per cent of the mem- bership at this time—were generally more likely than men to raise gender issues. But it also concluded that, in par- ticular, women who were previously active feminists were more likely to have a strategic impact in these areas once inside the Assembly (Chaney, 2006). Securing places inside bodies such as legislatures might, on some accounts, only be the beginning of efforts to achieve more diverse representation in politics. The role of previously underprivileged groups in institutions such as the UK Parliament has become the subject of considerable academic interest in the UK, including within feminist the- ory (Mackay, 2004). Gender analysis suggests that institutions that have his- torically been exclusively male, or male-dominated, have developed practices and customs reflecting this makeup. The way in which these institutions operate can therefore be alienating to women taking part. The proceedings of such institutions, viewed from the outside, might also dis- courage other women from seeking to embark upon po- litical careers. An example of a practice that might have this effect is Prime Minister’s Question Time , held weekly when the House of Commons is sitting. The gladiatorial, noisy, and aggressive nature of this event is potentially off-putting to some women (as well as some men), and can be an occasion for comments aimed specifically at them based on their gender, such as the Cameron com- ment cited above (Lovenduski, 2012). Abuse can come from outside as well. Women and BAME MPs, for instance, are particularly subject to targeting on social media. The Committee on Standards in Public Life noted in 2017 that every woman MP who used Twitter had been the subject of abusive online activity; and that women MPs who were Asian or black received even more such abuse than their white colleagues (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2017: 27). All of these tendencies can create barriers to en- try for certain groups, and lead to a lack of representation. How did we get here? 10.2 considers patterns of ethnic diversity in the UK House of Commons over time. 10.3.4 Equality and power An important principle of democracy is political equality, which we have already touched on in sections 10.2 and 10.3. In the UK, everyone possesses under the law a set of fundamental political rights (see Chapter 5); and all those adults meeting basic qualifying requirements can partici- pate in formal political processes—voting and perhaps run- ning for office. Membership of different parties is generally

© Oxford University Press