What happens after identity groups gain representation in government?
“What do women symbolize?” written by Franceschet, Annesley, and Beckwith highlights the importance of representational
criteria, and what groups are worth being represented in a cabinet. These ministers are selected by which groups should be
represented instead of basing a cabinet position on political expertise or experience. “Letting Down the Ladder or Shutting the
Door” focuses on the differences in effect that female ministers and leaders have on increased women appointments in cabinets
based on if the government is left or not. They also conclude that this research shows some constraints for female leaders in
certain regimes.
I believe the strengthening of identity groups and increased inclusion of that group in society, or in this case politics, are two
main reactions when an identity group gains representation in government. “Letting Down the Ladder or Shutting the Door” first
hypothesis regarding an increase in access to cabinet positions due to female ministers focuses on these reactions. An
interesting point in this literature was made on how gender dictates the thought process behind selecting a suitable minister.
Research shows that men look at women as a group to be suitable for a position, rather than evaluating individual experience
and intelligence for ministries. I believe this strengthens and pushes the female identity group’s effort in trying to expand and
include more women in these positions. By proving their individual competency for the position women will gain more power
in passing policies, which could also help gender identity groups. As well as, changing male selector’s mindsets when choosing
for minister selections in the future.
This push for inclusion leads to my second point which was mentioned in “What do women symbolize?”. As a certain identity
group gains more and more representation, some people believe that individuals in these groups were qualified strictly based on
representative characteristics, like ethnicity or gender. This to me is a very interesting problem when trying to answer this question.
An increase in an identity group's representation in government can strengthen a group’s wants and voice. However, it can also
take away power from these representatives if people believe they were given the position solely based on representative
characteristics. My question is how can we change this trend of viewing identity group representation only on characteristics rather
than the qualifications that gave them the position? Eliminating this could help improve representation and allow more power to these
representatives beyond being symbolic for an identity group.
Both readings to me show the importance of legislators or ministers understanding their constituents concerns or needs. Having a
collective identity between a representative and their people increases that leader’s power. Understanding their background and giving
back to the community, district or individuals increases popularity and approval. This allows for more ability to pass policies that will
better represent identities. Knowing these concerns and needs for certain groups should be more largely considered when looking at a
candidate's qualifications for a legislative position. Changing the ambiguous way government positions are decided may eliminate variation
in how much certain identity groups are represented.
Yes, this is a difficult question. In India, there are legislative reservations wherein women and those from non-dominant ethnic groups are guaranteed representation, but are also allowed to run in "general" (non-reserved seats). This sets up two interesting factors: first, women and non-dominant ethnic groups compete to some extent for control over reservations that where only a non-dominant woman can win. Second, there are differences in the ways in which representatives are treated depending on if they won in a general seat or a reserved seat. A non-dominant member winning in a general seat might have more power. However, they might be more likely to be politically controlled by their party because they can be relegated to a reserved seat at any time.
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly interesting to me to consider what happens after a group gains political power, given your point about social response. It seems to me like the articles imply that groups can gain political power without really changing much about the actual power structure itself. This carries over to social expectations about who should be appointed, elected, etc. So even if a woman is elected president, for example, it may not cause broad structural changes in government and it probably won't change implicit social expectations about the identity characteristics of government leaders (though it will probably help a little bit for the next generation maybe). Nice work!
ReplyDeleteI think you have made some very strong points. I wonder if it is possible for a lawmaker to be able to represent their constituents even if they have differing identities. We see presidents do this all the time. Are there representatives that are able to relate to many groups at once? I agree with William's point on India. Is it necessary for us to have laws where we have a set number of seats reserved to have adequate representation for all?
ReplyDelete