Representation in politics

[MoreSpamThanGlam]

I am after a bit of help. I have to present on Friday at uni on representaion in politics (in particular for women and ethnic minorities).

So I am trying to discuss the benefits of having women represent women, or even if there are benefits and should it really be more about what the individual doing the representing has to say and to what degree they are influenced by pressure groups.

Can anyone give me a few things to think about please?

Thanks.

I think it is really important that I am and that I feel represented in the running of the country. The environment as it is is very male centric and distinctly not in the interests of women. Where are the individuals in the cabinet, representing me or my interests? Is it really fair? Is this really the product of a democracy? It isn't of course and that is the crux of it.

I personally don't want to require my representative to be a woman, or the same ethnic group as me - I think it is actively anti-feminist to say that a man CANNOT represent me, but I do want there to be a mix of genders, ethnic groups, income levels and experience in Parliament.

Yes its not about everyone being represented by their individual MP. It's not possible. I'm in a fairly marginal seat constituency so my engagement with my MP swings between governments.

Parliament as a whole needs to be representative of the community it is meant to represent in order to have legitimacy. People have different lived experiences depending on the whole myriad of identities that make them up and unless those diverse experiences are represented then sectors of the community parliament are meant to represent are excluded. I can never know what it is to actually be black for example. I can read about it but that is not a lived experience so I will never actually know. A white man who went to private school and then Oxbridge will never know what it is like to not be from that background. And there are lots of them in parliament. Poor representation and also poor policy as they don't really understand the issues.

(That's a jumbled brain dump)

do women really need to justify the 'benefit' of having representation

OP is this the approach you have chosen to take or been asked to take? Because I agree with AliceWorld and southeastastra. We shouldn't have to justify the benefits. Parliament should represent society and by no-one's measure does it do that at the moment (overwhelmingly white male). So perhaps you should think of it in terms of parliament is not currently representing society and having more women/minorities would rectify this thereby giving more balance.

I think the main thing about any minority (and women are a minority in the sense that they are marginalised politically, financially, socially, culturally) being represented by one of their own, is that they are less likely to be hijacked by people who have their own agenda which may conflict with that of the minority they are representing.

If you are born with a privilege, you have to work much much harder than someone who isn't, to see that privilege and to recognise and acknowlege the privilege in action. It's not that other people can't recognise it, it's just that they are outside the process and are observers rather than participants, IYSWIM. Adn it is important to hear the voices of the marginalised, rather tahn have the usual privileged folk speak on their behalf. It seems to me that the danger of being represented by a member of the privileged group rather than one of your own, is that you are re-inforcing that marginalisation. Does that make any sense?

:o at link, AliceWorld

I am speaking the obvious here, but the thing to remember is that if we're talking about MPs they're not just representing us, they're legislating for us. All of us. My view is that it's wrong where a group of people are making a law that they know they never will or could be subject to.

So if they're legislating for things that affect one group's behaviour primarily (or entirely, e.g. law on whether/when you can have an abortion), it's totally wrong for that to be done by a group who will never be affected by that (e.g. men). (See this famous picture for example)

Obviously most law-making is not so clear cut, but the bits that do disproportionately affect one section of the country should never be left up to those who cannot and will not understand what it is like to e.g. live with a disability, be gay/lesbian, be a woman, be judged for your race, practise a religion other than Christianity etc. We need everyone in, to represent the country we live in.

Maybe it would help to imagine (I'm thinking for your presentation) a government entirely made up of women/Sikhs/gay people/people who are blind. Would people have a problem with that? Why? What issues might come up? What problems might it cause? People are so used to seeing white men as the default rulers that it is not per se a shocking sight. But if you mocked up a picture of cabinet entirely made up of another group, it might help.

I think that if we lived in a perfect world that a man could represent my interest just as much as a women. Differing expectations of women condition their experience and their life and hence their problems and issues. This is why a balanced legislature is important.

You're so much more succinct than me, witch. Totally agree.

Also agree that it's not about if you're e.g. Hindu that you need to have a Hindu MP. But it's important that there is someone/some people round the table to say "hey, have you thought about XYZ" coming from an understanding of that religion/background. And it's more likely to happen if there are representatives of that religion/background there.

thank you so much. i have been in floods of tears over this today, scrambling through miles of research and comparing with other countries, and all it has done is make me angry and frustrated, and the one thing I must not do in this presentation is get angry or frustrated.

My problem is now that I have to present a balanced view...which I cannot.

What is a "balanced" view?

Who says it's balanced?

Are you alright now Glam?

Why have you been upset?

What do you mean by having to present a "balanced" view? You can talk it over here you know. :)

It is about empathy. Can a millionaire white male truly empathise with a single black mother, for example?

Achieving empathy isn?t just about putting yourself in someone else?s position, it?s also about seeing that position from someone else?s perspective. True empathy is being able to strip away your own thoughts, feelings and judgment in order to clearly see a situation through someone else eyes, with their heart, filters and experiences taken into account. Empathy is not just putting yourself in another?s position and saying ?what would I do if I were in this situation??. Indeed this approach often leads to poor judgment calls, misunderstandings and in this case, poor policy.

So the question is, is it possible for a rich white male to truly simulate what someone at the other end of the spectrum is experiencing and relate to it. Research is pretty conclusive that they?ll never think, feel or behave quite the same way as someone very different to them - and their policies will always reflect this.

So, our brains are wired to put ourselves at the centre of the action, which means intentionally / unintentionally, consciously/unconsciously, white middle/upper class MPs will never be able to truly empathise with people is very very different situations to them.

And it's not even their fault. They can claim all they like that they know how people different to them think, and that they can empathise, problem is, they can't.

Also the other issue, is that although you personally may be an empathetic, knowledgable person, if you are surrounded by people who came from the same privileged group as you, it's all too easy to fall into unempathy, IYSWIM

Also another dimension to this is that a team made up of people of very similar types is much less likely to perform well.

Research shows over and over again that teams will perform better if there is more diversity. That means it actually pays to be different...in ages, gender, cultural background and educational background.

Something we seem to think doesn't apply in Politics

the lecturers will not probably be looked for "balance" - most do want you to take a position but will not want a rant and want you to present a case based on fact and argument.

I think if you are feeling emotional about this (as most of us do) it might be a good idea to start by saying that you are going to argue from the position
that women suffer from discrimination in society at homes in the workplace etc etc and that given this you are going to examine the case for policies to achieve a greater gender balance in parliament. This will remove a big issue from your presentation that makes you angry.

well the op could mention the difficulty of increasing the numbers of women in parliament. I think the argument that representative democracy can only work in the absence of any large imbalance of power or fundametal cleavage in society is a fair one.

Glam, don't get upset by it. There is no such thing as a balanced view. Agree with witch, a view backed up in the literature is what is going to do well. And if you feel passionately about something that will potentially make for a much more interesting presentation. Just make sure you back up what you are saying.