Representation

Pitkin II

Diversity of women's political opinions easier argument for quotas - not to support one party/agenda but to broaden and better reflect opinions of electorate

LSE Report

Establish gender limit quota for any party - 70% - and see what happens

Delegate

Expresses preferences of populous

Trustee

Makes decisions based on assessment of prefs

I M Young

'groupness' not enough... avoid essentialist terms - some once marginalised groups now no longer underprivileged, women can be rich etc, why represented? 'Five Faces of Oppression' to identify • exploitation • marginalisation • powerlessness - interests not built into polit syst • cultural imperialism • fear of violence if fulfil, you get rep - exploited who cant enact change- not essentialist qualities

R. Dworkin

Arguments like Pojman's misframe situation: Can't expect different criteria: no one has a right to a position; only entitlement is no prejudice or contempt

J. Butler

Critique (but not denial of) group representation: • Essentialising: assumes identity exists across women; part in producing this • Extended only to what can be described as subject - not represented if you fall outside of these parameters; increase marginalisation produced through power structures - does not denote common identity HR stuff - supervision

Forms of representation

Delegates & Trustees

L. Pojman

Merit candidates v quota candidates • High positions for most competent • Quotas mess with this = less capable holders of these • Unjustly discriminates against men etc who may not be oppressors themselves • 'Good people' to emulate better than role model's from one's 'own type'

Rainbow Murray

Quota for dominant group - politics of presence • Restrict to 50% • See what fills remaining 50% • Way around slippery slope argument? • Dominant group has to justify their place - more emphasis on existing notions of merit; where starting from? • Intro of gender quotas increases levels of education by pushing out less educated women

Arguments against group representation [2:4]

Sectionalism, parochialism and vested interests - one agenda - works against utilitarianism - intensifies social division - overpoliticises group differences 'Grouping' problematic - Assumes groups with sufficiently shared interests exist - Which groups qualify/are to be excluded? - Which get a quota? - Can atheist white woman represent muslim asian woman? - weakening basis of political accountability? Notion of basis for group - Butler

best person for job

assumes quota candidates couldn't still be best, that current data reflects naturally best, and that meritocracy exists have to look at 'pipeline' - why slow to change

tarnishes

candidate, other candidates, and institution breeds incompetence affects performance; not in business interests (bog off mate)

Why have representation?

ideally everyone speaks for themselves but is impractical; need indivs informed on our behalf to communicate wishes - difficult question is how best represent

Young criticisms (3)

just everyone except wealthy whites politics wouldn't be about broader issues diverse range of people, but not representative

men shouldn't suffer

not responsible for the actions of others (but have benefitted from; question privilege) dworkin reframing: no one entitled to position have to consider institution's purpose; company board not about representing women, but polit est/education linked to social good -> criteria should be linked to this

Young criticism

too broad - all quotas would be fulfilled politics wouldn't be about broader issues diverse range of people, but not representatives? if polit parties homogenous, something's gone wrong ^???

Substantive

• 'holy grail' • tries to further agenda of group

Pojman critiques

• Assumes those quotas select are less capable • Assumes existence within meritocratic context (applies to Pitkin too)

Philips rebuttal to Pitkin

• Defends descriptive - inclusion important • All-male parliament might reflect women substantively but inherently reflects deeper problem • Interests realised in course of decision making; someone part of group will have shared experiences "Pitkin killed descriptive representation, Philips brought it back" - relevant to Saudi Arabia?

Pitkin: forms of representation

• Formalistic • Symbolic • Descriptive • Substantive

???

• What right does a certain group have to dominate politics • limit dominate group and let space fill with diversity • gender parity one minimal condition for polit assembly - challenge arrangement placing groups in subordinate position

Formalistic

• e.g. MP; can encompass other forms

Pojman - 3 part argument against quotas

• men shouldn't suffer • best person for job • tarnishing

Descriptive

• shares characteristics of group - from this group

Symbolic

• stands for group • might not actually represent interests e.g. strong national figure, 'safe pair of hands', looks like a politician

Pitkin

• symbolic: suspicious of this • descriptive: not enough - why would someone who resembles me represent my issues? Don't know my feelings, women don't vote as group • substantive: aim for this; 'what they do, not who they are'

A. Phillips

• voices of marginalised in decision-making process increases likelihood of their concerns being fully addressed • gender parity minimal condition in transforming political agenda to address systematic subordination of women

Arguments for group representation

• widening of experiences • legitimisation in eyes of polity • decrease overrepresentation of dominant group