Blick_UK Politics (9780198825555)_CH10

10.3 In theory 241

mote the interests of different groups if democracy is to be meaningful. These views on representation can add a different di- mension to the way in which we analyse the effective- ness of political procedures and mechanisms. Observers have often asked questions such as: what are the implica- tions of different voting systems upon the performance of parties at elections? How effectively do institutions such as legislatures and governments engage members of the public in their activities? How effective are legislatures at holding executives to account for their actions? How well supported are executives by their staff, and are their inter- nal governance arrangements satisfactory? How well are the courts able to uphold the rule of law? Identity issues add a new dimension to these assessments of the po- litical system, encouraging us to ask questions such as: what are the characteristics of people who are elected and appointed to hold public offices? How far and in what ways do political institutions represent different groups within society? Is there a connection between the num- ber of members of a group present within institutions and the extent to which genuine representation is achieved? How effective in practice are legislative provisions and policies designed to prohibit discrimination and promote equality? When previously excluded social groups begin to achieve a greater presence within political institutions, do ingrained practices associated within those bodies serve to alienate these new members, reducing their po- tential impact?

are relatively excluded and do not have direct access to people in positions of power than does the ‘closed’ space. For an example of a campaign of this type, see In Practice 10.3: the campaign against ‘upskirting’. It also, however, provides the opportunity to abuse those same groups. 10.3.5 Identity, equality, and the UK political system Traditional approaches to identity and equality within the UK political system have come under pressure late- ly. There used to be a tendency towards domination in Great Britain by two main parties: the Conservatives and Labour, though this began to unravel sometime in the 1970s. The Conservative Party historically tended to be attractive to people of more privileged socio-economic standing, while the Labour Party appealed more to the less privileged. The policy programmes of these parties broadly reflected these orientations. In general terms, the Conservatives—with close connections to the business community—were disposed more to favour free market economics and the idea of personal responsibility, while Labour—supported by the trade union movement—was associated with support for welfare policies and a large public sector. However, social trends that gained force from the 1960s onwards saw the increased incorporation of oth- er concerns into politics. Identity became a factor, with groups such as ethnic minorities, women, and LGBT peo- ple organizing and asserting themselves and their per- ceived interests. Gradually the political system respond- ed to these tendencies. Parties now take into account the existence of groups in society that previously received less recognition, though there is varying opinion on how effectively they do this. It should be noted that ‘identity’ issues are not always entirely separate from class-based politics, and ideologies such as feminism and socialism can be closely linked. The rise of identity politics has called into question another important aspect of the traditional UK political system: the concept of representation. Increased atten- tion to issues of identity has led to scrutiny of the charac- teristics of those who occupy public offices supposedly on behalf of the whole of society. As we saw in section 10.3.3, according to some analysis—and advocates of descriptive representation—for institutions truly to be representative, they must reflect the makeup of society. Furthermore, according to some schools of thought, it is necessary for public policy actively to support and pro-

Thinking about the different aspects of power and rep- resentation might make you reassess the UK political sys- tem as conventionally understood. If we focus only on pub- lic-facing institutions and processes, such as Parliament, we may miss some important dynamics at work. Important decisions may take place in less formal or closed environ- ments that are not immediately visible but have important consequences for the more visible procedures that can provide formal ratification for courses of action formulated elsewhere. Discussion in Cabinet, for instance, remains—in theory at least—confidential. We may not know the moti- vations or context for the proposals formulated in this en- vironment that may lead to legislative proposals then pre- sented to Parliament for approval. External interests could potentially wield extensive but concealed influence. We should also look to those activities—such as popular mo- bilization—that, though taking place outside of governmen- tal structures, might influence decision-making processes. All these different facets of power and decision-making should help you to form a picture of how effectively you think identity and equality are considered as part of the UK political system, and how much this has diverged from the traditional view of the system. © Oxford University Press