{"id":2934,"date":"2019-10-27T11:25:14","date_gmt":"2019-10-27T11:25:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/?p=2934"},"modified":"2019-10-27T11:28:24","modified_gmt":"2019-10-27T11:28:24","slug":"a-feminist-reading-of-rethinking-democracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/?p=2934","title":{"rendered":"A feminist reading of ‘Rethinking Democracy’"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

We are most certainly living in difficult democratic times, with populism on the up. Any lingering complacency over the health of liberal, representative democracy, is well and truly disabused by the contributors to Rethinking Democracy<\/em>. In the opening essay former UK MP and academic Tony Wright is pointed: democracies can die, and they do not always do so via non-democratic means (Levisky and Ziblatt 2018). Even as its authors document \u2013 and in many ways lament \u2013 the rather sorry \u2018condition and conduct of representative politics\u2019, they make a strong case for its defence. It might be that the era of \u2018pure representative politics\u2019 (Wright, p 61) is over, but for many of these highly and rightly regarded scholars, it is to be protected by more participatory reforms rather than rejected. The book is dedicated to the authors\u2019 grandchildren \u2013 \u2018citizens of the future\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The failings of representative democracy to do good by women is the focus of Joni Lovenduski\u2019s essay, \u2018Feminist Reflections on Representative Democracy\u2019, but hers is not alone in documenting how its institutions, actors and wider norms have not fully delivered on its promises  of political equality, popular control, freedom of expression and transparency (Saward 2003, 162). Whilst not all authors subject their analysis to a feminist reading, we can. As feminist defenders of representative democracy, we wish to see it protected from both a populist critique that is antithetical to feminist politics, even as it might claim to speak for women, and the varieties of post-representative politics which, like too much of representative democratic theory and practices, fails to admit gender inequality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like Lovenduski, we agree that representative politics fails to represent women well, notwithstanding advances in women\u2019s political presence and the greater attention given to \u2018women\u2019s issues\u2019. The failure to realize women\u2019s inclusion and equality rests on women being an \u2018afterthought\u2019. Established prior to women\u2019s political mobilization, it is premised upon a \u2018public\/private divide\u2019 and a sexual division of labour that traps women in the home. The evidence Lovenduski marshals is pretty damning: women are not equally present in our parliaments; they enter political institutions not of their own making \u2013 institutions which privilege a masculinized political agenda and reproduce gendered norms of behaviour; and gendered institutional reforms have thus far been inadequate, and frequently resisted. Her reconsideration on the centrality of women\u2019s political accountability is a must read. Elected representatives, \u2018tend not to have a clear mandate about how to act concerning women\u2019s issues and interests\u2019; women are \u2018explicitly considered to be a group to whom decision makers should be accountable\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is moreover a strong warning that proposed institutional and other reforms in circulation and put forward in Rethinking Democracy<\/em> must themselves be subject to feminist critique. Much is made for the redistribution of political power, with the reform of local government advocated across chapters. Vernon Bogdanor argues for local government becoming \u2018self-government\u2019 once again; Gerry Stoker seeks to counter \u2018the politics of resentment\u2019 with a \u2018politics of place and identity.\u2019 Through local accountability citizens will regain their \u2018stake\u2019 in politics. There is an appeal to a \u2018more consensual, better gender balanced and more open representative politics\u2019 (Stoker p 148). But some caution is needed here: feminization does not happen by chance nor is it secure. Stoker\u2019s example \u2013 the National Assembly of Wales \u2013 was \u2018made\u2019 more gender-balanced by Labour using a sex quota; and overtime the institution has become less gender-balanced. Questions must be asked too of how gender plays in the politics of place and identity? In popular commentary feminism and \u2018metropolitan elites\u2019 are frequently elided. When Stoker considers \u2018resentful social liberals\u2019, we worry about a populism\/anti-populism that is nostalgic and sees feminism as a cause of democracy\u2019s current difficulties \u2013 not that we are suggesting that Stoker thinks this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current fashion for more participatory and direct democracy to augment representative democracy requires critical reflection too. Participatory experiments are quite the fashion (Bogdanor, p 60; see also Allen 2018). Proponents of decisions made by groups selected by lottery make optimistic claims \u2013 and on paper they are correct. Women would almost certainly be better represented numerically given they make up half of the population. But recent scholarship queries whether women will be able to take up their invitations. Recalling Lovenduski, even when present women\u2019s lack of authority means that they are frequently silenced (Karpowitz and Mendlberg 2014). More than this, random lot will struggle to ensure that a diversity of women are made present; with privileged women able to participate by the private sphere labour of poorer and likely minority ethnic women. Nor should we assume that random lot unquestionably brings about \u2018good representation\u2019 \u2013 is it really representation? Accountability is in any case written out (Allen 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The attention to who participates in our parliaments by male scholars in Rethinking Democracy<\/em> is to be welcomed. Criticism of narrow political classes (Runciman and Wright) and suggestions that \u2018we\u2019 should be \u2018far more interested in the whole business of pol recruitment than we currently are\u2019 (p 15) is something feminists have been talking for decades (Norris and Lovenduski 1995). Colin Crouch suggests a critical role for women\u2019s political leadership in facing up to populism\u2019s macho politics:  the problems of post-industrial society \u2018may be best articulated by women\u2019 given women\u2019s keener experiences of work\/life imbalance, precarious labour markets, inadequate care services, and consumer manipulation. Feminist criticism of populism, and of its academic study builds on criticism that there is simply no such thing as a \u2018pure\u2019 people (Wright; Weale), some are left out (Crouch). If illiberal democracies threaten the civil, social political rights of minorities (Gamble, p 153) they also threaten women\u2019s rights; \u2018the people\u2019 are not gender- undifferentiated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discussion of social media across chapters limits our confidence that women\u2019s and feminists\u2019 role in defending democracy will not be met by resistance. The political public sphere reproduces social and cultural inequalities and is dominated by the right (Finlayson pp 79, 89). In asking feminists to engage, or lead the democratic fightback, we may be putting them at serious risk. Margetts (p 117) argues that social media misogyny, and some gender and politics scholars consider this violence against women (Krook 2018) \u2018threatens to discourage a whole generation of women and ethnic minorities from public life\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A feminist defence of representative democracy against itself and its critics will need to be more extensive. We read in Lovenduski\u2019s essay a lingering optimism that it can be made. Rethinking Democracy<\/em> is great place to start, led by Lovenduski. She has always challenged non-gendered political science. In the face of a backlash against feminist gains, there is an urgency to identify and exploit the \u2018resources needed to mobilize for [feminist] change\u2019 (Lovenduski, p 34).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article originally appeared on the website of the <\/em>Birkbeck Centre for Political Life.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We are most certainly living in difficult democratic times, with populism on the up. Any lingering complacency over the health of liberal, representative democracy, is well and truly disabused by the contributors to Rethinking Democracy. In the opening essay former UK MP and academic Tony Wright is pointed: democracies can die, and they do not always do […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":176,"featured_media":2936,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1398,1405,1393,1396],"tags":[],"coauthors":[1763,1764],"class_list":["post-2934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-feminism","category-government","category-reviews","category-uk"],"amp_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/A-feminist-reading-of-Rethinking-Democracy-muzammil-soorma-Zo4y28gGlUc-unsplash-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2934","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/176"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2934\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2936"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2934"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalquarterlyblog.preliveweb.site\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcoauthors&post=2934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}