Substantial representation would be the tendency to vote, through an informed process, by someone who represents the thoughts, ideals and principles that you, as a citizen, wish to see safeguarded .[1] Taking into account this and the democratic system in which the UK operates, I intend to argue that there must be adequate improvement in both descriptive and substantive representation for it to be sufficient to women and ethnic minorities. The UK is a representative democracy and the state must therefore strive to include all ethnic groups and genders in the political landscape. Furthermore, the legitimacy of Parliament would be called into question if the interests of ethnic minorities and women were not sufficiently taken into account within the House of Commons in particular. I intend to use an article by Karen Bird which details research on the presence of substantive representation in a representative democracy. This will be used to argue that “better representation of members of historically marginalized groups will improve the process of representative democracy.” »[2]Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay In addition to this, I intend to use an article by Zingher and Farrer which argues that descriptive representation is a important tool for political parties to appeal to ethnic minority groups. Finally, I will refer to an article by Erzeel and Celis which gives the substantive representation of women an ideological arc. Using this source, I intend to demonstrate that moderation of ideologies has improved the substantive representation of women as parties strive to articulate women's interests. If there were an influx of minority MPs into Parliament, then substantive representation would inevitably increase. Historically, the lack of visible minorities has caused disillusionment among ethnic groups. They may potentially have doubts about the quality of the substantive representation provided to them. Since the recent elections in 2017, the current parliament is the most diverse since its creation. “Currently around 8% of members in both houses are from an ethnic minority. This compares to 13.6% of the UK population. »[3] Furthermore, “the number of female ethnic minority parliamentarians in the House of Commons increased from 3.0% in 2015 (20 out of 650) to 4% in 2017 (26 out of 650). 650). Currently, non-white women parliamentarians represent 12.5% ​​of all women parliamentarians (208). »[4] Even though this parliament is the most diverse, ethnic minorities remain considerably underrepresented. Hence, due to the lack of proportional ethnic representation in Parliament, the UK's representative democracy, in England in particular, is inherently flawed. Mansbridge inadvertently supports my argument by proposing that more diverse representation will provide access to more information and promote trust between distinct groups, thereby improving policy outcomes.[5] Therefore, this diverse representation could have avoided disastrous policies that mainly affected working-class areas with large ethnic populations. There would be a stronger interconnection between minority groups and parliament. An example of this is the Poll Tax of 1989 which led to the infamous Poll Tax Riots. It could be argued that due to the lack of diversity within Parliament at that time, Thatcher and her cabinetmade serious calculation errors when developing this policy. There was a lack of embodied cultural capital, which seemed to hinder the policy-making process. Embodied cultural capital “includes knowledge consciously acquired and passively inherited, through socialization to culture and tradition. Unlike property, cultural capital is not transmissible, but is acquired over time, because it is imbued with the habits of the person (character and way of thinking), who, in turn, becomes more receptive with similar cultural values.influences. »[6] At the time, there were only four minority MPs, all members of the opposition party. With this in mind, it is possible that the Conservatives only kept their program in mind and did not take into account the burden of this tax. would impose on working-class minority groups. If, for example, there was a minority MP in the Conservative cabinet at that time, the process could have been handled differently because the MP could have drawn on their cultural capital to radically change policy. However, the cabinet was exclusively white and predominantly middle class; so they were more than likely preoccupied with their agenda and did not take into account the concerns of politically marginalized people. Historically, laws and acts that affected marginalized groups in general have attracted widespread opposition, such as the Local Government Act 1988[7] and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994).[8] . Substantial representation of the affected groups, homosexuals and young people, was relatively non-existent. Due to the marginal increase in the number of representatives of different groups, this has been improved somewhat, but not to a level where marginalized groups are truly represented. Therefore, to address the flaws of the current democratic system in the UK, improving the substantive representation of politically marginalized groups is a necessity. Similarly, women argue "that their gender has a more consultative approach to politics than men, and that parity and inclusion Increasing the number of women in politics will improve the quality of representative democracy." »[9] I largely agree with this statement because there is evidence that countries with a higher proportion of women in government have higher levels of government effectiveness. On the other hand, it is difficult to determine whether it is only women who contribute to high government efficiency or other omitted variables.[10] Tootell research findings found that governments with increased female representation “pass bills that increase funding for social services and change the nature of government, including reducing corruption.” Tootell's findings are consistent with her theoretical hypothesis that "these changes make government more effective because more women are, in fact, more effective and serve their people better." »[11] I partly agree with Tootell's theory as to how government would be more effective in serving their people with women who are more directly involved in governmental practice. Indeed, the current state of representative democracy in the UK would improve (along with the substantial representation of women) as the number of female parliamentarians in the House of Commons increases. Although this data is not conclusive, it is generally beneficial to include more representatives of politically marginalized groups in government, as this will inevitably improve thequality of substantial representation not only of the groups I mentioned, but also of the population as a whole. Representation constitutes a segment of politicians who represent the broader population from which they come. These are representatives who defend on behalf of one or more specific groups, homogeneous with the politician's background. [12] While the importance of substantive representation is obvious, nominating descriptively representative candidates can be a tool that political parties can use to show that they are able to demonstrate their commitment to certain group interests.[12] 13] A portion of the electorate does not necessarily vote based on the candidate's thoughts on current issues. Minority groups in particular tend to vote for members of their ethnic group where appropriate because there is a perception that they share a common background and life experiences with "their representative is important to ensure quality representation ".[14]However, the question arises. whether nominating ethnic candidates would be more beneficial to the party or more damaging. Ultimately, parties are all about getting the most votes, which sometimes leads to not having a more inclusive field of candidates because they want to maintain their larger, broader voter base. This is why political parties experience varying levels of success when they have significant numbers of minority MPs. In the article, studies provided evidence that "suggests that the nomination of ethnic minority candidates is associated with increases in ethnic minority turnout and support for the co-ethnic candidate." »[15] Looking at the 2010 elections, research found that those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin were likely to support co-ethnic candidates. [16] This demonstrates that some groups in the electorate focus more on the candidates' characteristics rather than their opinions on issues that concern them. As mentioned above, this is likely because they believe they will be the most effective candidates in addressing the particular issues that concern their ethnic group. The effectiveness of having minority candidates differs depending on the political party that presents them. For example, left-wing parties have had a “head start,” so to speak, due to their long-standing affliction with the politically marginalized that includes minorities. Therefore, there is a historical perception that the Labor Party more effectively represents the interests of ethnic minorities. [17] From this, it can be concluded that there is a correlation between party ideologue and the effectiveness of descriptive representation. Traditionally, left-wing parties are more capable of providing quality representation to these groups, but they lack reputation. This may be due to the lack of majority governments they have had, compared to the Conservatives, making it difficult for parties like Labor to put ethnic interests first. This makes descriptive representation, in practice, very impractical and difficult to achieve due to the diversity in levels of success from one parliament to another. Added to this is a glaring lack of deputies from minorities, which does not even allow it to be a legitimate model of representation. It would therefore not be enough, in a representative democracy like the United Kingdom, to implement descriptive representation. Continuing the theme of political parties and ideology, these factors also impact substantive representationwomen. I argue that position on the post-materialist scale, left or right, plays a role in the quality of substantive representation offered to women. In terms of traditional ideology, they do not fit into societal structures [18] and are therefore not a good indicator of whether or not women's interests are meaningfully represented. First, we need to define what post-materialism is. Post-materialism is a value orientation that emphasizes self-expression and quality of life over economic and physical security.[19] Parties that rely on the "post-materialist left" promote the expansion of individual freedoms on post-materialist issues that, in theory, would be most appropriate for engaging in the substantive representation of women.[20] This is due to the post-materialist agenda of the 1970s which led to a decline in class politics and the adoption of new social movements closely linked to egalitarianism, women's rights and feminism. women have not reached the level they should have been. Left-wing parties, developed in line with the post-materialist agenda, such as the Green Party, have paid more attention to women's concerns than traditional socialist parties. [22] It can be argued that the reason there has not been continued improvement in the substantial representation of women in the past is that the two-party system has not allowed more egalitarian parties to be the party majority in Parliament. Ideally, within a democracy like the UK, there would be a major improvement in the substantive representation of the groups in question if parties like the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party had a greater presence in Parliament. In reality, the two-party system looks unlikely to be derailed in the near future and the first-past-the-post system makes it almost impossible for these parties to make a small dent in Labor or Conservative seats. However, the presence of women's organizations within the party forces debate on women's issues. They typically have "feminist/gender expertise" and "offer useful, accurate, first-hand policy information on women's issues." »[23] Furthermore, this is not to say that less egalitarian left-wing parties, such as the Labor Party, do not offer a relatively high level of substantive representation (not just due to intra-party organizations). Many studies find that higher levels of left-wing pro-women activity are partly due to the fact that women parliamentarians, particularly those in the Labor Party, are the most active advocates for women's causes.[24 ] Also noteworthy are efforts to increase the number of women parliamentarians in right-wing parties. Overall, the increased presence of women in parliament has created “favorable conditions for the expression of women's interests” in both right and left contexts. [25] In summary, the quality of substantive representation of women is not the highest it could be in a democracy like the UK, but it is adequate enough that the focus should definitely be on women's issues, but not to the point where they are at the center of the concerns of political parties. This is mainly due to the lack of egalitarian values ​​within these parties. Is this enough to improve the substantive representation of these groups? Sure, but this ability is incredibly difficult to achieve given the UK's very rigid democratic system. Improving substantive representation depends on:10.1177/1354068816655561.