Substantive 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] Considering this and the democratic system in which the UK operates, I intend to argue that adequate improvement in both descriptive and substantive representation is needed for it to be sufficient for women and ethnic minorities. The UK is a representative democracy, so the state should strive to incorporate all ethnic groups and genders into the political landscape. Furthermore, the legitimacy of parliament would be called into question if ethnic minority and women's interests were not adequately taken into account, particularly within the House of Commons. I intend to use an article by Karen Bird that 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In addition to this, I plan to use an article by Zingher and Farrer that argues that descriptive representation is an important tool for political parties to appeal to minority ethnic groups. Finally, I will refer to an article by Erzeel and Celis that gives the substantive representation of women an ideological arc. Using this source, I intend to argue that the 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 concerns about the quality of the substantive representation being provided to them. As of the recent 2017 elections, the current parliament is the most diverse since it was founded. “Currently around 8% of deputies in both houses come from an ethnic minority. This compares with 13.6% of the UK population. 650). Non-white female parliamentarians currently represent 12.5% ​​of all female parliamentarians (208).”[4] Although this parliament is the most diverse, ethnic minorities are still significantly underrepresented. Consequently, due to the lack of proportional ethnic representation within 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, ultimately improving political outcomes.[5] Therefore, this diverse representation could have avoided disastrous policies that mainly affected ethnically dense working-class areas. 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 the time, there were serious miscalculations on the part of Thatcher and her cabinet in constructing this policy. There was a lack of embedded cultural capital that apparently hindered the policy-making process. Embodied cultural capital “includes theknowledge acquired consciously and that inherited passively, through socialization to culture and tradition. Unlike property, cultural capital is not transmissible, but is acquired over time, as it is imprinted in the habits (character and way of thinking) of the person, who, in turn, becomes more receptive to similar cultures.[6] At the time there were only 4 minority deputies, all members of the opposition party. With this in mind, it is possible that the Conservatives only kept their own agenda in mind and did not consider the burden this tax would place on working class minority groups. If, for example, there had been a minority MP within the Tory cabinet at that time, the process might have been handled differently as the MP would have been able to bring his or her cultural capital to dramatically change policy. However, the government was exclusively white and predominantly bourgeois; therefore they were most likely preoccupied with their own agenda and did not take into account the concerns of the politically marginalized. Historically, laws and acts that have affected marginalized groups in general have faced widespread opposition, such as the Local Government Act 1988[7] and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994)[8]. Substantial representation of affected groups, homosexuals and young people, was relatively non-existent. Due to the marginal increase in representatives of different groups, the situation has improved slightly, but not to a level where marginalized groups are truly represented. Therefore, to correct the current flawed democratic system in the UK, there is a need to improve the substantive representation of politically marginalized groups. Similarly, women argue “that their gender has a more consultative approach to politics than men, and that equality and inclusion of more women in politics will improve the quality of representative democracy”.[9] I largely agree with this statement as there is evidence that countries with a higher percentage of women in government have higher levels of government effectiveness. On the other hand, it is difficult to conclude whether it is only women who make government effectiveness high or other omitted variables.[10] Tootell research findings found that governments with greater female representation “pass bills that increase funding for social services and alter the nature of government, including reducing corruption. Tootell's findings are in line with her theoretical hypothesis that "these changes make government more effective, with more women, are, in fact, more effective and better serve the population".[11] I partially agree with Tootell's theory about how government would be more effective in serving its people by having women more directly involved in government practice. This is because the UK's current state of representative democracy would improve (along with the substantial representation of women) with an increase in female MPs in the House of Commons. While this evidence is not conclusive, it is helpful, overall, to include more representatives of politically marginalized groups within government as it will inevitably increase the quality of substantive representation not only for the groups I have mentioned, but for the population as a whole .Descriptive 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 respect to the politician's background. [12]Although the importance of substantive representation is clear, nominate candidates descriptivelyrepresentative can be a tool that political parties are able to use to demonstrate that they are capable of showing commitment to certain group interests.[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 own ethnic group, if applicable, as there is a perception that sharing a common background and life experiences with “their representative is important to ensure quality representation”.[14 ]However, the question of whether the nomination of ethnic candidates would be more beneficial to the party or more harmful. At the end of the day, parties are primarily trying to secure the most votes, which sometimes leads to not having a more inclusive field of candidates because they want to support their broader and more fundamental voter base. This is why political parties have varying levels of success when they have a significant number of minority MPs. In the article, studies provided evidence that “suggests that nominating ethnic minority candidates is associated with increased ethnic minority voter turnout and support for the co-ethnic candidate.”[15] Looking at the 2010 elections, the research found that those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent were likely to support co-ethnic candidates. [16] This shows that some groups of the electorate focus more on the characteristics of candidates rather than their opinions on issues that concern them. As mentioned above, this is likely due to the belief that they will be the most effective candidate in addressing the particular issues affecting their ethnic group. The effectiveness of having minority candidates differs in terms of which political party fields them. For example, left-wing parties have had an “advantage,” so to speak, because of their long-standing problem with the political marginalized, which includes minorities. Therefore, there has been a historical perception that the Labor Party is more effective in representing the interests of ethnic minorities. [17] From this it can be concluded that there is a correlation between the party ideologue and the effectiveness of the descriptive representation. Traditionally left-wing parties are better able to offer quality representation to these groups, but they do not have enough reputation. This may be due to the lack of majority governments they have had, compared to the Conservatives, which makes it difficult for parties like Labor to bring ethnic interests to the fore. This makes descriptive representation, in practice, very impractical and difficult to achieve due to the varying levels of success from parliament to parliament. Added to this is a serious shortage of minority parliamentarians, so much so that it even becomes a legitimate model of representation. Therefore, in a representative democracy such as the British one, it would not be sufficient to implement descriptive representation. Staying on the topic of political parties and ideology, these factors also influence the substantive representation of women. I argue that position on a post-materialist scale, left or right, plays a role in the quality of substantive representation provided to women. In terms of traditional ideology, they do not fit into social structures [18], so they are 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 values ​​orientation that emphasizes self-expression and quality of life over economic and physical security.[19] Parties leaning on the "post-materialist left" promote the expansion of freedomsindividuals on post-materialist issues who, in theory, would be best suited to engage with substantial representation of women.[20] This is due to the post-materialist agenda of the 1970s which led to a decline in class politics and embraced new social movements closely linked to egalitarianism, women's rights and feminism.[21] There is a strong case for why substantial representation for women has not been at the level it should be. Left-wing parties, which developed in line with the post-materialist agenda, such as the Green Party, have focused more attention on women's concerns than traditional socialist parties. [22] It can be argued that the reason there has historically been no continuous improvement in the substantive representation of women is because the two-party system has not allowed the most egalitarian parties to be the majority party in parliament. Ideally, within a democracy such as that of the United Kingdom, there would be a notable improvement in the substantive representation of the groups in question if parties such as the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party had a greater presence in parliament. In reality, it appears that the two-party system will not be derailed in the foreseeable future and first-mover makes it almost impossible for these parties to even make a small dent in either Labor or Conservative seats. However, the presence of women's organizations within the party forces the issue on women's issues. They typically have “feminist/gender expertise” and “offer useful, accurate, first-hand political information on women's issues”.[23] Beyond this, this is not to say that less egalitarian left-wing parties, such as Labour, do not offer a relatively high level of substantive representation (not just because of internal party organisations). Many studies find that higher levels of left-wing activity on behalf of women are partly due to the fact that female parliamentarians, especially Labour, are the most active defenders of women's causes.[24] It should also be noted that efforts are being made to increase the number of women deputies in right-wing parties as well. In general, the greater presence of women in parliament has created a “favorable condition for the expression of women's interests” in both right-wing and left-wing contexts. [25] In summary, the quality of substantive representation of women is not at the highest level it could be in a democracy like the UK, but it is adequate enough to warrant a focus on women's issues, but not to a level that allow them to focus on women's issues. they are the predominant focus of political parties. This is mainly due to the lack of egalitarian values ​​within these parties. Is it enough to improve the substantive representation of these groups? Of course, but the ability to do so is incredibly difficult considering the UK's very rigid democratic system. Improving substantive representation depends on dismantling the two-party system and introducing an alternative voting system. This would allow egalitarian parties to have more political power which in turn could bring a narrower focus on minority and gender issues and interests. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essayM. P. Bones. “What are the differences and similarities between descriptive representation and substantive representation?” eNotes, December 5, 2014, https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-differences-similarity-between-descriptive-285129. Access:10.1177/1354068816655561.