what is representation in political science

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

representation

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Political Representation

representation , in government, method or process of enabling the citizenry, or some of them, to participate in the shaping of legislation and governmental policy through deputies chosen by them.

The rationale of representative government is that in large modern countries the people cannot all assemble, as they did in the marketplace of democratic Athens or Rome; and if, therefore, the people are to participate in government, they must select and elect a small number from among themselves to represent and to act for them. In modern polities with large populations, representation in some form is necessary if government is to be based on the consent of the governed. Elected representatives are also less likely to reflect the transitory political passions of the moment than are the people, and thus they provide greater stability and continuity of policy to a government.

Through the course of long historical evolution, various methods and devices have been developed in attempts to solve the many problems that have arisen in connection with representation. These problems include the qualifications of electors ( see suffrage ); the apportionment of constituencies ( see constituency ); apportionment (electoral); the basis of election ( see plurality system ; proportional representation ); methods of nominating candidates ( see primary election ); and means of ascertaining the wishes of electors ( see referendum and initiative ). Because of the need to formulate systematically the demands of citizens, political parties have come to act as intermediaries between the citizens and their representatives. Political debate along party lines has thus become a characteristic feature of most representative systems of government.

How answerable a representative should be to his electors is an issue that has long been debated. The basic alternatives are that the representatives of the people act as delegates carrying out instructions or that they are free agents, acting in accordance with their best ability and understanding.

The representative principle is not limited to government: it is applied in electing executive officers of large social organizations such as trade unions and professional associations.

Representation

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 30 January 2021
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Oliver W. Lembcke 3  

39 Accesses

Introduction

Representation is a complex and, at the same time, highly contested concept that large parts of political science literature treat as a “puzzle” (Eulau and Karps 1978 ). Take, for instance, Pitkin’s well-known proposition to regard the basic meaning of representation as “making present again” of something that is literally absent (Pitkin 1967 : 8). Pitkin’s formula, of course, invites the question of how representation is able to square this phenomenon of simultaneous presence and absence – something that has been dubbed the “paradox of representation” (Runciman 2007 ). From the perspective of conceptual history (Hofmann 2003 ), there are three dimensions of political representation (Vieira and Runciman 2008 ): (i) a visual-aesthetic dimension that relates to the unity between the representer (representative) and the representee (represented); (ii) a personal-ethical dimension referring to the enabling agency of the representees via the representer’s actions; (iii) a dimension...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Alonso S, Keane J, Merkel W (eds) (2011) The future of representative democracy. CUP, Cambridge

Google Scholar  

Clements B, Nanou K, Real-Dato J (2018) Economic crisis and party responsiveness on the left–right dimension in the European Union. Party Polit 24(1):52–64

Article   Google Scholar  

Crouch C (2004) Post-Democracy. Polity, Cambridge, MA

da Conceição E (2010) Who controls whom? Dynamics of power delegation and agency losses in EU trade politics. J Common Mark Stud 48(4):1107–1126

Dahl RA (1971) Polyarchy: participation and opposition. Yale University Press, New Haven/London

Diehl P, Steilen F (eds) (2016) Politische Repräsentation und das Symbolische. Historische, politische und soziologische Perspektiven. Springer, Wiesbaden

Disch L (2011) Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. Am Polit Sci Rev 105(1):100–114

Eulau H, Karps PD (1978) The puzzle of representation: specifying components of responsiveness (1977). In: Eulau H, Wahlke JC (eds) The politics of representation: continuities in theory and research. Sage, Beverly Hills/London, pp 55–71

Friedrich CJ (1963) Man and his government: an empirical theory of politics. McGraw-Hill, New York

Hofmann H (2003) Repräsentation. Studien zur Wort- und Begriffsgeschichte von der Antike bis ins 19. Jahrhundert, 4th edn. Duncker und Humblot, Berlin

Lembcke OW (2016) Theorien demokratischer Repräsentation. In: Lembcke OW, Ritzi C, Schaal GS (eds) Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie. Bd. 2: Empirische Demokratietheorien. Springer, Wiesbaden, pp 23–58

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Manin B (1997) The principles of representative government. CUP, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Mansbridge J (2003) Rethinking representation. Am Polit Sci Rev 97(4):515–528

Marschall S (2005) Transnationale Repräsentation in Parlamentarischen Versammlungen. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Miller WE, Stokes DE (1963) Constituency influence in congress. Am Polit Sci Rev 57(1):45–56

Pettit P (2009) Varieties of public representation. In: Shapiro I et al (eds) Political Representation. CUP, Cambridge, pp 61–89

Pitkin HF (1967) The concept of representation. University of California Press, Berkeley et al.

Plotke D (1997) Representation is democracy. Constellations 4(1):19–34

Rehfeld A (2006) Towards a general theory of political representation. J Polit 68(1):1–21

Ruedin D (2013) Why Aren’t they there? The political representation of women, ethnic groups and issue positions in legislatures. ECPR Press, Colchester

Runciman D (2007) The paradox of political representation. J Polit Philos 15(1):93–114

Saward M (2006) The representative claim. Contemp Polit Theory 5(3):297–318

Saward M (2010) The representative claim. OUP, Oxford

Thomassen J (2014) Representation and accountability. In: Elections and democracy: representation and accountability. OUP, Oxford, pp 1–19

Urbinati N (2006) Representative democracy: principles and genealogy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London

Vieira MB, Runciman D (2008) Representation. Polity, Cambridge, MA

Voegelin E (1952) New science of politics: an introduction. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Williams MS (1998) Voice, trust, and memory: marginalized groups and the failings of Liberal representation. Princeton, Princeton UP

Young IM (1996) Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy. In: Benhabib S (ed) Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton UP, Princeton, pp 120–135

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

Oliver W. Lembcke

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver W. Lembcke .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Center for International & Comparative Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, Baltimore, MD, USA

Mortimer Sellers

Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften, University of Salzburg, Austria, Salzburg, Austria

Stephan Kirste

Section Editor information

Graduate School of Intercultural Studies, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan

Tetsu Sakurai

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Lembcke, O.W. (2021). Representation. In: Sellers, M., Kirste, S. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_682-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_682-1

Received : 29 December 2019

Accepted : 12 November 2020

Published : 30 January 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-6730-0

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-6730-0

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Law and Criminology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History

Political Science

• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Mechanisms of Representation

Introduction, introductory works.

• General Overviews
• Literature Reviews
• Public Policy and Executive Governance
• Democracy, Public Opinion, and Electoral Behavior
• Interest Groups and the Governmental Process
• Agenda Setting and Policy Change
• Politics of Attention and Information
• Institutions and Representation
• Political Parties and Public Policy
• Elections as Instruments of Democracy
• Dyadic Representation
• Dynamic Representation
• Performance Politics
• Resources on Public Opinion and Public Policy
• Delegation, Regulation, and Accountability
• Policy, Institutions, and Blame Avoidance
• Governance of Risk

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Bicameralism in Stable Democracies
• Channels of Electoral Representation in Advanced Industrialized Democracies
• Democratic Citizenship
• Democratization
• Electoral System Reform in Advanced Democracies
• Gender and Electoral Politics in the United States
• Ideal Point Estimation
• Interest Groups in American Politics
• Media Effects in Politics
• Politics of Japan
• Post-Communist Democratization
• Public Opinion and Public Policy in Advanced Democracies
• Science and Democracy
• The Impact of Campaign Contributions on Congressional Behavior

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Australian Politics and Government
• Cross-National Surveys of Public Opinion
• Politics of School Reform
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Mechanisms of Representation by Will Jennings LAST REVIEWED: 29 November 2011 LAST MODIFIED: 29 November 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0032

“Mechanisms of representation” relate to the organization of politics and its consequences, and the processes through which interests or preferences are represented in the political system and the outcomes of public policy. This article explores a diverse set of mechanisms through which politics is organized, and through which the preferences or interests of the public, voters, groups, and economic interests are either advanced or obstructed. Traditional approaches of political science often adopted a narrow focus on the formal democratic qualities of elected government and the pluralism of the political system in incorporating different interests or preferences into the decision-making process and policy outcomes. Later waves of research sought to explore bias in mechanisms of representation, such as the disproportionate influence of interest groups in the governmental process and the power of agenda setting in determining which issues make it onto the decision-making table and when. Nevertheless, there continues to be considerable interest in the role of formal political institutions in determining the performance of representative democracy, how political parties act as vehicles for representation, and how elections can provide mandates to governments and enable voters to reward or punish political parties or candidates for the quality of their representation or performance. Indeed, a growing field of enquiry identifies a direct link between the preferences of the public and their representatives, either in the representation of constituency opinion or in the responsiveness of the political system as a whole. Despite this pervasive concern throughout the discipline of political science with the functioning of democratic politics, important changes in modern states, economies, and societies occurring outside elected institutions also shape representation, particularly as executive governance and politics has assumed increasing importance. The conventional understanding of mechanisms of representation is built upon shifting sands, with the emergence of the “regulatory state” and the decline of traditional distributive and command activities of government, and with ever more “networked,” “nonhierarchical,” and “transnational” modes of governing—often by unelected authorities. These changing institutional arrangements also reflect a response to the rise of risk as a focus of organization, as traditional social and economic cleavages are redrawn and reconstructed around questions of risk—often manmade, created through scientific innovation or economic progress. These changes point toward the changing battleground for representation both of public and political interests and the increasing importance of understanding questions of bureaucratic politics and control, transnational regulation, the management of risk, and the preoccupation of officeholders with the avoidance of blame. Mechanisms of representation shed light on all these things and more, encompassing the role of institutions in reflecting public or private interests in the decision-making process.

“Who gets what, when, and how?” is the classic question posed by Lasswell 1936 , which lies at the heart of all modern political science. Mechanisms of representation relate to the organization of politics and its consequences. Whose interests or preferences are represented, and when and how are they represented? The mechanisms of representation are numerous and diverse in their character and implications. Some accounts are rooted in theories of homo economicus , derived from assumptions about vote-seeking politicians and utility-maximizing citizens (see Downs 1957 ). Others stress the importance of collective action ( Olson 1965 ), and institutions ( North 1990 and Ostrom 1990 ). What unifies this field of enquiry is a concern with the mechanisms through which policy is made and policy outcomes are affected. Policies determine politics, Lowi 1972 argues. That is, particular sorts of policy tools—such as distributive, redistributive, or regulatory mechanisms—tend to be associated with certain configurations and expectations of outcomes, serving as a focal point for the mobilization of political preferences and interests. Distributive policies with few direct losers might be rather more consensual and less debated than those imposing compliance costs on industry or raising taxes, for example. As such, public policies set the parameters in which the conduct of politics takes place. Variation in policy domains leads to varying degrees of conflict and consensus. Policies are the “variable” of interest across a wide range of theoretical perspectives and empirical studies. The mechanisms of representation include, for example, political institutions, elections, parties, interest groups, public opinion, social movements, bureaucracies, judiciaries, legislatures, regulators, media, and technology itself. At the same time, understanding the mechanisms of representation requires us to understand the obstacles to change: the exclusion of certain groups from office or from the decision-making process, the power of the definition of alternatives through agenda setting and the expansion of conflict ( Schattschneider 1960 ), and blame avoidance by officeholders. Further, the organization of politics is constantly testing boundaries and entering new spheres of mobilization, whether it is in the retrenchment of welfare states that followed postwar expansion, the government of risk, or the reshaping of the tools of governance in the digital age.

Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy . New York: Harper & Row, 1957.

Downs’s economic model of political competition is a founding work of rational-choice approaches to understanding democracy, outlining theoretical expectations regarding the spatial, left-right, distribution of voter preferences and the strategic reasons why parties have incentives to converge around the median voter.

Lasswell, Harold. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936.

One of the founders of modern political science, Harold Lasswell defined the study of politics as “the study of influence and the influential.” His is a broadly elitist conception of politics, but this work presents a framework for starting to unpick the question of who is represented.

Lowi, Theodore J. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.” Public Administration Review 32.4 (1972): 298–310.

DOI: 10.2307/974990

Building on a classic article published in World Politics in 1964, Lowi formulates a taxonomy for classification of public policy—the means of coercion of government—distinguishing between distributive, regulative, redistributive, and constituent forms of policy.

North, Douglass C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

A seminal contribution for understanding the formation of political and economic institutions, and how these affect economic performance over time. North argues that institutions serve to reduce uncertainties and shape path dependence in economic development.

Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.

An economic analysis that highlights the collective action problem for coordination of interest groups, as benefits from lobbying are a public good and there are incentives for participants to free-ride.

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

A major contribution on collective action and institutional design. Considers the collective management of resources, suggesting that such “common pool resources” (CPRs) do not necessarily imply a “tragedy of the commons” and instead highlights the design principles of systems associated with successful management of CPRs.

Schattschneider, Elmer E. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America . New York: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston, 1960.

One of the seminal works on agenda setting, and politics, more generally. Schattschneider’s ideas still resonate today as a challenge to pluralism and a thesis on the power of agenda setting: “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.”

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Political Science »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Oceania, Gender, Indigenous and Ethnic Political Represent...
• Advanced Democracies, Electoral System Reform in
• Advanced Democracies, Public Opinion and Public Policy in
• Advertising and Election Campaigns in the United States
• Africa, Comparative Politics of
• Africa, Ethnic, Linguistic, Religious, and Regional Minori...
• Africa, Public Opinion in
• Africa, Women’s Political Representation in
• African Development, Politics of
• American Indian Politics
• Ancient Chinese Political Thought
• Arab Spring, The
• Arab-Israel Conflict, The
• Arendt, Hannah
• Argentine Government and Politics
• Aristotle's Political Thought
• Arms Race Modeling
• Asia, Environmental Politics in
• Asia, Water Politics in
• Asian American Mobilization and Political Identities
• Australia and New Zealand, Comparative Politics of
• Authoritarian Regimes, Lawyers in
• Authoritarianism in Russia
• Authoritarianism in the Public
• Authoritarianism in Turkey
• Big Data in Political Science Research
• Biopolitics and State Regulation of Human Life
• Birthright Citizenship
• Brazilian Foreign Policy
• Brazilian Political Development
• Brexit, British Politics, and European Integration
• Business-State Relations in Europe
• Campaign Finance in the Era of Super-PACS
• Canadian Foreign Policy
• Canadian Government and Politics
• Candidate Emergence and Recruitment
• Caribbean, Elections and Democracy in the
• Celebrities in US Politics
• Channels of Electoral Representation in Advanced Industria...
• China, Political Economy of
• China's One-Child Policy
• China-Taiwan Relations
• Chinese Communist Party
• Chinese Economic Policy
• Chinese Nationalism
• Civil Society in South Asia
• Civil War in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Civil-Military Relations in Asia
• Class in American Politics
• Climate Change and Politics
• Collective Memory
• Colombian Politics and Government
• Comparative Capitalism Theory
• Comparative Industrial Relations in Europe
• Comparative Political Economy of Resource Extraction
• Comparative Politics of Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bis...
• Comparative Politics of Chile and Uruguay
• Comparative Politics of Federalism
• Comparative Politics of the Middle East and North Africa
• Computational Social Science
• Congress, Defense, and Foreign Policy
• Congressional Reassertion of Authority
• Conservative Litigation Strategies and Groups in US Judici...
• Constitution, Ratification of the
• Constitutional Politics in Asia
• Constitutionalism
• Corruption in China
• Cosmopolitan Political Thought
• Crisis of European Integration in Historical Perspective, ...
• Critical Elections, Partisan Realignment, and Long-Term El...
• Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School
• Cuban Political Development
• Cycles of Protest
• Democracies, Political Clientelism in
• Democracy and Authoritarianism, Empirical Indicators of
• Democracy and Authoritarianism in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Democracy and Dictatorship in Central Asia
• Democracy and Minority Language Recognition
• Democracy in Latin America
• Democratic Consolidation
• Democratic Peace Theory
• Democratic Theory
• Democratization in Africa
• Democratization in Central America
• Democratization in Mexico
• Democratization in the Muslim World
• Development of Survey Research
• Diasporas and Politics
• Direct Democracy in the United States
• Dual Citizenship
• East Africa, Politics of
• East and Southeast Asia, Political Party Systems in
• East and Southeast Asia, Women and Politics in
• East Asia, Civil Society and Social Movements in
• Economic Voting
• Effects of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on American Public O...
• Egalitarianism
• Election Forecasting
• Election Laws in Democracies
• Election Observation and the Detection of Fraud
• Electoral and Party System Development in Sub-Saharan Afri...
• Electoral Assistance
• Electoral Change in Latin America
• Electoral Institutions and Women’s Representation
• Electoral Reform and Voting in the United States
• Electoral Volatility in the New Democracies of Latin Ameri...
• Electronic Voting Systems
• Emotion and Racial Attitudes in Contemporary American Poli...
• Environmental Governance
• Environmental Politics among Advanced Industrial Democraci...
• Ethnic Diasporas and US Foreign Policy
• Ethnic Politics
• Eurasia, Comparative Politics of
• European Parliament, The
• European Social Democracy
• European Union, Politics of the
• Extension of Voting Rights to Emigrants
• Failed and Weak States in Theory and Practice
• Far-Right Parties in Europe
• Federalism in the United States
• Feminist Political Thought
• Field Experiments
• Filibuster, The
• Framing Effects in Political Communication
• Gender and International Relations
• Gender and Political Violence
• Gender and Politics in South Asia
• Gender, Behavior, and Representation
• Gender Gap in US Public Opinion
• Gender Stereotypes in Politics
• Genetic Underpinnings of Political Attitudes and Behaviors
• German Politics and Government
• Global Inequality
• Globalization and the Welfare State
• Globalization, Health Crises, and Health Care
• Governance in Africa
• Governmental Responses to Political Corruption
• Gridlock and Divided Government in the U.S.
• Health-Care Politics in the United States
• Historiography of Twentieth-Century American Conservatism,...
• Hobbes’s Political Thought
• Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of
• Hume’s Political Thought
• Hybrid Regimes
• Identity and Political Behavior
• Ideological Reasoning in Politics
• Illiberal Democracies and Democratic Backsliding
• Immigrant Incorporation in Canada
• Immigrant Incorporation in Western Europe
• Immigration and European Politics
• Immigration and International Relations
• Immigration Politics and Policy in the United States
• Impact of Campaign Contributions on Congressional Behavior...
• Impact of C-SPAN on US Democracy
• Implicit Attitudes in Public Opinion
• Income Dynamics and Politics in North America and Europe
• Income Inequality and Advanced Democracies
• Income Inequality in the United States, The Politics of
• Independent Voters, The Study of
• Indian Democracy
• Indigenous Politics and Representation in Latin America
• Indigenous Rights and Governance in Canada, Australia, and...
• Indonesia, Politics of
• Informal Practices of Accountability in Urban Africa
• Institutional Change in Advanced Democracies
• Institutional Factors Affecting Women’s Political Engageme...
• Intellectual Property in International Relations
• Interest Groups and Inequality in the United States
• Interethnic Contact and Impact on Attitudes
• International Conflict Management
• International Criminal Justice
• International NGOs
• International Political Economy of Illegal Drugs
• Internet and Politics, The
• Intersectionality in Political Science
• Interstate Border Dispute Management in the Indo-Pacific
• Iran, Political Development of
• Israeli Politics
• Italian Politics and Government
• Judicial Supremacy and National Judicial Review
• Judiciaries and Politics in East Asia
• Kant's Political Thought
• Labor Migration: Dynamics and Politics
• Labor Politics in East Asia
• Land Reform in Latin America
• Latin America, Democratic Transitions in
• Latin America, Electoral Reform in
• Latin America, Environmental Policy and Politics in
• Latin America, Guerrilla Insurgencies in
• Latin America, Social Movements in
• Legal Mobilization
• LGBT Politics in the United States
• Liberal Pluralism
• Libertarianism
• Local Governments in the United States
• Machiavelli’s Political Thought
• Malaysian Politics and Government
• Marx's Political Thought
• Mass Incarceration and US Politics
• Mechanisms of Representation
• Media Politics in South Asia
• Mexican Political Development
• Mexican Politics and Government
• Military Government in Latin America, 1959–1990
• Minority Governments
• Minority Political Engagement and Representation in the Un...
• Mixed-Member Electoral Systems
• Modern Dynastic Rule
• Modern Elections and Voting Behavior in Europe
• Motivated Reasoning
• Narrative Analysis
• National Interbranch Politics in the United States
• Nationalism
• NATO, Politics of
• Negative Campaigning
• Neoclassical Realism
• New Institutionalism Revisited, The
• Nigerian Politics and Government
• North America, Comparative Politics of
• Oil, Politics of
• Online Public Opinion Polling
• Organized Criminal Syndicates and Governance in Mexico and...
• Origins and Impact of Proportional Representation, The
• Outcomes of Social Movements and Protest Activities
• Partisan and Nonpartisan Theories of Organization in the U...
• Partisan Polarization in the US Congress
• Partisan Polarization in the US Electorate
• Party Networks
• Party System Institutionalization in Democracies
• Peace Operations
• Personality and Politics
• Personalization of Politics
• Philippine Politics and Government
• Plato’s Political Thought
• Policy Feedback
• Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion
• Political Ambition
• Political Economy of Financial Regulation in Advanced Ind...
• Political Economy of India
• Political Economy of Taxation, The
• Political Geography in American Politics
• Political Humor and Its Effects
• Political Institutions and the Policymaking Process in Lat...
• Political Obligation
• Political Participation and Representation, Black
• Political Parties and Electoral Politics of Japan
• Political Roles and Activities of Former Presidents and Pr...
• Political Thought, Hegel's
• Political Thought of the American Founders, The
• Politics and Government, BeNeLux
• Politics and Policy in Contemporary Argentina
• Politics, Gender Quotas in
• Politics of Anti-Americanism
• Politics of Class Formation
• Politics of Disaster Prevention and Management
• Politics of Ethnic Identity in China
• Politics of Financial Crises
• Politics of Foreign Direct Investment in South Asia
• Politics of Higher Education in the U.S.
• Politics of Internal Conquest in the United States and Can...
• Politics of Natural Disasters, The
• Politics of North Korea
• Politics of Science and Technology
• Politics of South Africa
• Politics of Southern Africa
• Politics of the American South
• Politics of the Philippines: From Rizal to Duterte
• Politics of the US-Mexico Border
• Populism in Latin America
• Positive and Negative Partisanship
• Postcolonial Political Theory
• Postcolonialism and International Relations
• Preferential Trade Agreements, Politics of
• Presidential Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspectiv...
• Presidential Persuasion and Public Opinion
• Presidential Primaries and Caucuses
• Private Governance
• Protest Participation
• Public Opinion in Affluent  Democracies
• Public Opinion in Europe toward the European Union
• Public Opinion in New Democracies and Developing Nations
• Public Opinion on Immigration
• Public Opinion toward the Environment and Climate Change i...
• Public Presidency, US Elections, and the Permanent Campaig...
• Qualitative Methods, The Renewal of
• Race in American Political Thought
• Racial and Ethnic Descriptive Representation in the United...
• Recruitment and Selection for Elected Office
• Redistricting and Electoral Competition in American Politi...
• Referendums and Direct Democracy
• Regime Transitions and Variation in Post-Communist Europe
• Regional Integration
• Regional Integration in Latin America
• Regional Security
• Regulating Food Production
• Religion and Politics in Latin America
• Religion in American Political Thought
• Religion in Contemporary Political Thought
• Religion, Politics, and Civic Engagement in the United Sta...
• Republicanism
• Rousseau’s Political Thought
• Rule of Law
• Russia and the West
• Science and Social Movements
• Secession and Secessionist Movements
• Semi-Presidential Systems
• Social Networks, Mass Publics, and Democratic Politics
• Social Policy and Immigrant Integration
• South Asian Political Thought
• South Korea, Politics of
• Southeast Asia, International Relations in
• Southeast Asian Politics
• Spanish Politics and Government
• Spectacle, The
• Sport and Politics
• State Building in Sub-Saharan Africa
• State Formation
• State, The Nature of the
• State-Society Relations in South Asia
• Stereotypes in Political Reasoning
• Supreme Court and Public Opinion
• Supreme Court of the United States, The
• Systemic Theories of International Politics
• Taiwan, Politics of
• Tea Party, The
• Thailand, Politics of
• The Crisis of European Integration in Historical Perspecti...
• The New Right in American Political Thought
• The Politics of Parenthood: Attitudes, Behavior, Policy, a...
• The Politics of Waste and Social Inequalities in Indian Ci...
• Third-Party Politics in the United States
• Tocqueville’s Political Thought
• Transboundary Pollution
• Transitional Justice
• Transnational Private Regulation
• Trust in Latin American Governing Institutions
• Turkey, Political Development of
• US Military Bases Abroad
• US Politics, Neoliberalism in
• US Presidency, The
• US Presidential Campaigns and Their Impact
• Venezuela, The Path Toward Authoritarianism in
• Voter Support for Women Candidates
• Voter Turnout
• Voter Turnout Field Experiments
• Voting Technology and Election Administration in the Unite...
• War, Factors Influencing Popular Support for
• Welfare State Development
• Welfare State Development in Latin America
• Welfare State Development in Western Europe
• West Africa, Politics of
• White Identity Politics
• Women and Conflict Studies
• Women’s Inclusion in Executive Cabinets
• Women’s Legal and Constitutional Rights
• Women’s Political Activism and Civic Engagement in Latin A...
• Women’s Representation in Governmental Office in Latin Ame...
• Women’s Representation in the Middle East and North Africa
• Workers’ Politics in China
• Youth and Generational Differences in US Politics
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [81.177.182.154]
• 81.177.182.154

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 11, 2008, review article, the concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory.

• Nadia Urbinati 1 , and Mark E. Warren 2
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027; email: [email protected] 2 Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6N 2H7, Canada; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 11:387-412 (Volume publication date June 2008) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.190533
• © Annual Reviews

Democratic theorists have paid increasing attention to problems of political representation over the past two decades. Interest is driven by ( a ) a political landscape within which electoral representation now competes with new and informal kinds of representation; ( b ) interest in the fairness of electoral representation, particularly for minorities and women; ( c ) a renewed focus on political judgment within democratic theory; and ( d ) a new appreciation that participation and representation are complementary forms of citizenship. We review recent innovations within democratic theory, focusing especially on problems of fairness, constituency definition, deliberative political judgment, and new, nonelectoral forms of representation.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, framing theory, discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse, historical institutionalism in comparative politics, the origins and consequences of affective polarization in the united states, political trust and trustworthiness, public attitudes toward immigration, what have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research, what do we know about democratization after twenty years, economic determinants of electoral outcomes, public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature.

Publication Date: 15 Jun 2008

Online Option

Sign in to access your institutional or personal subscription or get immediate access to your online copy - available in PDF and ePub formats

Political Representation

The concept of political representation is misleadingly simple: everyone seems to know what it is, yet few can agree on any particular definition. In fact, there is an extensive literature that offers many different definitions of this elusive concept. [Classic treatments of the concept of political representations within this literature include Pennock and Chapman 1968; Pitkin, 1967 and Schwartz, 1988.] Hanna Pitkin (1967) provides, perhaps, one of the most straightforward definitions: to represent is simply to “make present again.” On this definition, political representation is the activity of making citizens' voices, opinions, and perspectives “present” in the public policy making processes. Political representation occurs when political actors speak, advocate, symbolize, and act on the behalf of others in the political arena. In short, political representation is a kind of political assistance. This seemingly straightforward definition, however, is not adequate as it stands. For it leaves the concept of political representation underspecified. Indeed, as we will see, the concept of political representation has multiple and competing dimensions: our common understanding of political representation is one that contains different, and conflicting, conceptions of how political representatives should represent and so holds representatives to standards that are mutually incompatible. In leaving these dimensions underspecified, this definition fails to capture this paradoxical character of the concept.

This encyclopedia entry has three main goals. The first is to provide a general overview of the meaning of political representation, identifying the key components of this concept. The second is to highlight several important advances that have been made by the contemporary literature on political representation. These advances point to new forms of political representation, ones that are not limited to the relationship between formal representatives and their constituents. The third goal is to reveal several persistent problems with theories of political representation and thereby to propose some future areas of research.

1.1 Delegate vs. Trustee

1.2 pitkin's four views of representation, 2. changing political realities and changing concepts of political representation, 3. contemporary advances, 4. future areas of study, a. general discussions of representation, b. arguments against representation, c. non-electoral forms of representation, d. representation and electoral design, e. representation and accountability, f. descriptive representation, other internet resources, related entries, 1. key components of political representation.

Political representation, on any account, will exhibit the following four components:

• some party that is representing (the representative, an organization, movement, state agency, etc.);
• some party that is being represented (the constituents, the clients, etc.);
• something that is being represented (opinions, perspectives, interests etc.); and
• a setting within which the activity of representation is taking place (the political context).

Theories of political representation often begin by specifying the terms for each of these four components. For instance, democratic theorists often limit the types of representatives being discussed to formal representatives — that is, to representatives who hold elected offices. One reason that the concept of representation remains elusive is that theories of representation often apply only to particular kinds of political actors within a particular context. How individuals represent an electoral district is treated as distinct from how social movements or informal organizations represent. Consequently, it is unclear how different forms of representation relate to each other.

This general agreement about the necessary components exhibited by political representation is somewhat misleading. For what exactly representatives do has been a hotly contested issue. In particular, a controversy has raged over whether representatives should act as delegates or trustees .

Historically, the theoretical literature on political representation has focused on whether representatives should act as delegates or as trustees . Representatives who are delegates simply follow the expressed preferences of their constituents. James Madison (1987) is one of the leading historical figures who articulated a delegate conception of representation. Trustees are representatives who follow their own understanding of the best action to pursue. Edmund Burke (1967) is famous for arguing that

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interest each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole… You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament (115).

Both the delegate and the trustee conception of political representation place competing and contradictory demands on the behavior of representatives. Delegate conceptions of representation require representatives to follow their constituent's preferences, while trustee conceptions require representatives to follow their own judgment about the proper course of action. Any adequate theory of representation must grapple with these contradictory demands.

Famously, Hanna Pitkin argues that theorists should not try to reconcile the paradoxical nature of the concept of representation. Rather, they should aim to preserve this paradox by recommending that citizens safeguard the autonomy of both the representative and of those being represented. Representatives must act in ways that safeguard the capacity of the represented to authorize and to hold their representatives accountable and uphold the capacity of the representative to act independently of the wishes of the represented. Objective interests are the key for determining whether the autonomy of representative and the autonomy of the represented have been breached. However, Pitkin never adequately specifies how we are to identify constituent's objective interests. At points, she implies that constituents should have some say in what are their objective interests, but ultimately she merely shifts her focus away from this paradox to the recommendation that representatives should be evaluated on the basis of the reasons they give for disobeying the preferences of their constituents. For Pitkin, assessments about representatives will depend on the issue at hand and the political environment in which a representative acts. To understand the multiple and conflicting standards within the concept of representation is to reveal the futility of holding all representatives to some fixed set of guidelines. In this way, Pitkin concludes that standards for evaluating representatives defy generalizations. Moreover, individuals, especially democratic citizens, are likely to disagree deeply about what representatives should be doing.

Pitkin offers one of the most comprehensive discussions of the concept of political representation, attending to its contradictory character in her The Concept of Representation . This classic discussion of the concept of representation is one of the most influential and oft-cited works in the literature on political representation. Adopting a Wittgensteinian approach to language, Pitkin maintains that in order to understand the concept of political representation, one must consider the different ways in which the term is used. Each of these different uses of the term provides a different view of the concept. Pitkin compares the concept of representation to “ a rather complicated, convoluted, three–dimensional structure in the middle of a dark enclosure.” Political theorists provide “flash-bulb photographs of the structure taken from different angles” [1967, 10]. More specifically, political theorists have provided four main views of the concept of representation. Unfortunately, Pitkin never explains how these different views of political representation fit together. At times, she implies that the concept of representation is unified. At other times, she emphasizes the conflicts between these different views, e.g. how descriptive representation is opposed to accountability. Drawing on her flash-bulb metaphor, Pitkin argues that one must know the context in which the concept of representation is placed in order to determine its meaning. Apparently, the views of representation can expand or unduly constrain our understanding of representation depending on how the ways in which the term is used in contemporary politics.

For Pitkin, disagreements about representation can be partially reconciled by clarifying which view of representation is being invoked. Pitkin identifies at least four different views of representation: formalistic representation, descriptive representation, symbolic representation, and substantive representation. (For a brief description of each of these views, see chart below.) Each view provides a different approach for examining representation. The different views of representation can also provide different standards for assessing representatives. So disagreements about what representatives ought to be doing are aggravated by the fact that people adopt the wrong view of representation or misapply the standards of representation. Pitkin has in many ways set the terms of contemporary discussions about representation by providing this schematic overview of the concept of political representation.

One cannot overestimate the extent to which Pitkin has shaped contemporary understandings of political representation, especially among political scientists. For example, her claim that descriptive representation opposes accountability is often the starting point for contemporary discussions about whether marginalized groups need representatives from their groups.

Similarly, Pitkin's conclusions about the paradoxical nature of political representation support the tendency among contemporary theorists and political scientists to focus on formal procedures of authorization and accountability (formalistic representation). In particular, there has been a lot of theoretical attention paid to the proper design of representative institutions (e.g. Amy 1996; Barber, 2001; Christiano 1996; Guinier 1994). This focus is certainly understandable, since one way to resolve the disputes about what representatives should be doing is to “let the people decide.” In other words, establishing fair procedures for reconciling conflicts provides democratic citizens one way to settle conflicts about the proper behavior of representatives. In this way, theoretical discussions of political representation tend to depict political representation as primarily a principal-agent relationship. The emphasis on elections also explains why discussions about the concept of political representation frequently collapse into discussions of democracy. Political representation is understood as a way of 1) establishing the legitimacy of democratic institutions and 2) creating institutional incentives for governments to be responsive to citizens.

David Plotke (1997) has noted that this emphasis on mechanisms of authorization and accountability was especially useful in the context of the Cold War. For this understanding of political representation (specifically, its demarcation from participatory democracy) was useful for distinguishing Western democracies from Communist countries. Those political systems that held elections were considered to be democratic. Plotke questions whether such a distinction continues to be useful. Plotke recommends that we broaden the scope of our understanding of political representation to encompass interest representation and thereby return to debating what is the proper activity of representatives. Plotke's insight into why traditional understandings of political representation resonated prior to the end of the Cold War suggests that modern understandings of political representation are to some extent contingent on political realities. For this reason, those who attempt to define political representation should recognize how changing political realities can affect contemporary understandings of political representation. Again, following Pitkin, it would appear that our ideas about political representation are contingent on existing political practices of representation. Our understandings of representation are inextricably shaped by the manner in which people are currently being represented.

As mentioned earlier, theoretical discussions of political representation have focused mainly on the formal procedures of authorization and accountability within nation states, that is, on what Pitkin called formalistic representation. However, such a focus is no longer satisfactory due to international and domestic political transformations. [For an extensive discussion of international and domestic transformations, see Mark Warren and Dario Castioglione (2004).] Increasingly international, transnational and non-governmental actors play an important role in advancing public policies on behalf of democratic citizens—that is, acting as representatives for those citizens. Such actors “speak for,” “act for” and can even “stand for” individuals within a nation-state. It is no longer desirable to limit one's understanding of political representation to elected officials within the nation-state. After all, such officials do not necessarily possess “the capacity to act,” the capacity that is most often used to identify who is acting as a representative. In other words, as the powers of nation-state have been diffused by international and transnational actors, elected representatives are no longer responsible for deciding or implementing the public policies that directly impact the citizens who authorized them. Given the role that International Non-Governmental Organizations play in the international arena, the representatives of dispossessed groups are no longer located in the formal political arena of the nation-state. Given these changes, the traditional focus of political representation, that is, on elections within nation-states, is insufficient for understanding how public policies are being made and implemented. The complexity of modern issues and the multiple locations of political power suggest that contemporary notions of accountability are inadequate. Grant and Keohane (2005) have recently updated notions of accountability, suggesting that the scope of political representation needs to be expanded in order to reflect contemporary realities in the international arena.

Domestic transformations also reveal the need to update contemporary understandings of political representation. Associational life — social movements, interest groups, and civic associations—is increasingly recognized as important for the survival of representative democracies. The extent to which interest groups write public policies or play a central role in implementing and regulating policies is the extent to which the division between formal and informal representation has been blurred. The fluid relationship between the career paths of formal and informal representatives also suggests that contemporary realities do not justify focusing mainly on formal representatives.

Given these changes, it is necessary to revisit our conceptual understanding of political representation, specifically of democratic representation. For as Jane Mansbridge has recently noted, normative understandings of representation have not kept up with recent empirical research and contemporary democratic practices. In her important article “Rethinking Representation” Mansbridge identifies four forms of representation in modern democracies: promissory, anticipatory, gyroscopic and surrogacy. Promissory representation is a form of representation in which representatives are to be evaluated by the promises they make to constituents during campaigns. Promissory representation strongly resembles Pitkin's discussion of formalistic representation. For both are primarily concerned with the ways that constituents give their consent to the authority of a representative. Drawing on recent empirical work, Mansbridge argues for the existence of three additional forms of representation. In anticipatory representation, representatives focus on what they think their constituents will reward in the next election and not on what they promised during the campaign of the previous election. Thus, anticipatory representation challenges those who understand accountability as primarily a retrospective activity. In gyroscopic representation, representatives “look within” to derive from their own experience conceptions of interest and principles to serve as a basis for their action. Finally, surrogate representation occurs when a legislator represents constituents outside of their districts. For Mansbridge, each of these different forms of representation generates a different normative criterion by which representatives should be assessed. All four forms of representation, then, are ways that democratic citizens can be legitimately represented within a democratic regime. Yet none of the latter three forms representation operates through the formal mechanisms of authorization and accountability.

Mansbridge's work holds an important insight for contemporary discussions of democratic representation. By specifying the different forms of representation within a democratic polity, Mansbridge teaches us that we should refer to the multiple forms of democratic representation. Democratic representation should not be conceived as a monolithic concept. Moreover, what is abundantly clear is that democratic representation should no longer be treated as consisting simply in a relationship between elected officials and constituents within her voting district. Political representation should no longer be understood as a simple principal-agent relationship. Andrew Rehfeld has gone farther, maintaining that political representation should no longer be territorially based. In other words, Rehfeld (2005) argues that constituencies, e.g. electoral districts, should not be constructed based on where citizens live.

There have been a number of important advances to the concept of political representation. In particular, these advances call to question the traditional way of thinking of political representation as a principal-agent relationship. Most notably, Melissa Williams' recent work has recommended reenvisioning the activity of representation in light of the experiences of historically disadvantaged groups. In particular, she recommends understanding representation as “mediation.” In particular, Williams (1998, 8) identifies three different dimensions of political life that representatives must “mediate:” the dynamics of legislative decision-making, the nature of legislator-constituent relations, and the basis for aggregating citizens into representable constituencies. She explains each aspect by using a corresponding theme (voice, trust, and memory) and by drawing on the experiences of marginalized groups in the United States. For example, drawing on the experiences of American women trying to gain equal citizenship, Williams argues that historically disadvantaged groups need a “voice” in legislative decision-making. The “heavily deliberative” quality of legislative institutions requires the presence of individuals who have direct access to historically excluded perspectives.

In addition, Williams explains how representatives need to mediate the representative-constituent relationship in order to build “trust.” For Williams, trust is the cornerstone for democratic accountability. Relying on the experiences of African-Americans, Williams shows the consistent patterns of betrayal of African-Americans by privileged white citizens that give them good reason for distrusting white representatives and the institutions themselves. For Williams, relationships of distrust can be “at least partially mended if the disadvantaged group is represented by its own members”(1998, 14). Finally, representation involves mediating how groups are defined. The boundaries of groups according to Williams are partially established by past experiences — what Williams calls “memory.” Having certain shared patterns of marginalization justifies certain institutional mechanisms to guarantee presence.

Williams offers her understanding of representation as mediation as a supplement to what she regards as the traditional conception of liberal representation. Williams identifies two strands in liberal representation. The first strand she describes as the “ideal of fair representation as an outcome of free and open elections in which every citizen has an equally weighted vote” (1998, 57). The second strand is interest-group pluralism, which Williams describes as the “theory of the organization of shared social interests with the purpose of securing the equitable representation … of those groups in public policies” ( ibid .). Together, the two strands provide a coherent approach for achieving fair representation, but the traditional conception of liberal representation as made up of simply these two strands is inadequate. In particular, Williams criticizes the traditional conception of liberal representation for failing to take into account the injustices experienced by marginalized groups in the United States. Thus, Williams expands accounts of political representation beyond the question of institutional design and thus, in effect, challenges those who understand representation as simply a matter of formal procedures of authorization and accountability.

Another recent way of reenvisioning representation was offered by Nadia Urbinati (2000, 2002). Urbinati argues for understanding representation as advocacy. For Urbinati, the point of representation should not be the aggregation of interests, but the preservation of disagreements necessary for preserving liberty. Urbinati identifies two main features of advocacy: 1) the representative's passionate link to the electors cause and 2) the representative's relative autonomy of judgment. Urbinati emphasizes the importance of the former for motivating representatives to deliberate with each other and their constituents. For Urbinati the benefit of conceptualizing representation as advocacy is that it improves our understanding of deliberative democracy. In particular, it avoids a common mistake made by many contemporary deliberative democrats: focusing on the formal procedures of deliberation at the expense of examining the sources of inequality within civil society, e.g. the family. The benefit of Urbinati's understanding of representation is that it emphasizes the importance of the domain of opinion and consent formation. In particular, this contemporary addition to the theoretical literature poses an agonistic conception of representation, one that emphasizes the importance of disagreements and rhetoric to the procedures, practices, and ethos of democracy. Her account expands the scope of theoretical discussions of representation away from formal procedures of authorization to the deliberative and expressive dimensions of representative institutions. In this way, those who recommend adopting an understanding of representation as advocacy provide a theoretical tool to those who wish to explain how non-state actors “represent.”

Other political theorists have asked us to rethink our understanding of democratic representation. In Inclusion and Democracy Iris Marion Young asks us to rethink the importance of descriptive representation. Young warns that attempts to include more voices in the political arena can suppress other voices. She illustrates this point using the example of a Latino representative who might inadvertently represent straight Latinos at the expense of gay and lesbian Latinos (1986, 350). For Young, the suppression of differences is a problem for all representation (1986, 351). Representatives of large districts or of small communities must negotiate the difficulty of one person representing many. Because such a difficulty is constitutive of representation, it is unreasonable to assume that representation should be characterized by a “relationship of identity.” The legitimacy of a representative is not primarily a function of his or her similarities to the represented. For Young, the representative should not be treated as a substitute for the represented. Consequently, Young recommends reconceptualizing representation as a differentiated relationship (2000, 125-127; 1986, 357). There are two main benefits of Young's understanding of representation. First, her understanding of representation encourages us to recognize the diversity of those being represented. Second, her analysis of representation emphasizes the importance of recognizing how representative institutions include as well as they exclude. Democratic citizens need to remain vigilant about the ways in which providing representation for some groups comes at the expense of excluding others.

Moreover, based on this way of understanding political representation, Young provides an alterative account of democratic representation. Specifically, she envisions democratic representation as a dynamic process, one that moves between moments of authorization and moments of accountability (2000, 129). It is the movement between these moments that makes the process “democratic.” This fluidity allows citizens to authorize their representatives and for traces of that authorization to be evident in what the representatives do and how representatives are held accountable. The appropriateness of any given representative is therefore partially dependent on future behavior as well as on his or her past relationships. For this reason, Young maintains that evaluation of this process must be continuously “deferred.” We must assess representation dynamically, that is, assess the whole ongoing processes of authorization and accountability of representatives. Young's discussion of the dynamic of representation emphasizes the ways in which evaluations of representatives are incomplete, needing to incorporate extent to which democratic citizens need to suspend their evaluations of representatives and the extent to which representatives can face unanticipated issues.

Another insight about democratic representation that comes from the literature on descriptive representation is the importance of contingencies. Here the work of Jane Mansbridge on descriptive representation has been particularly influential. Mansbridge recommends that we evaluate descriptive representatives by contexts and certain functions. More specifically, Mansbridge (1999, 628) focuses on four functions and their related contexts in which disadvantaged groups would want to be represented by someone who belongs to their group. Those four functions are “(1) adequate communication in contexts of mistrust, (2) innovative thinking in contexts of uncrystallized, not fully articulated, interests, … (3) creating a social meaning of ‘ability to rule’ for members of a group in historical contexts where the ability has been seriously questioned and (4) increasing the polity's de facto legitimacy in contexts of past discrimination.” For Mansbridge, descriptive representatives are needed when marginalized groups distrust members of relatively more privileged citizens and when marginalized groups possess political preferences that have not been fully formed. The need for descriptive representation is contingent on certain functions.

Mansbridge's insight about the contingency of descriptive representation suggests that at some point descriptive representatives might not be necessary. However, she doesn't specify how we are to know if interests have become crystallized or trust has formed to the point that the need for descriptive representation would be obsolete. Thus, Mansbridge's discussion of descriptive representation suggests that standards for evaluating representatives are fluid and flexible.

Mansbridge's discussion of descriptive representation points to another trend within the literature on political representation — namely, the trend to derive normative accounts of representation from their function. Russell Hardin (2004) captured this trend most clearly in his position that “if we wish to assess the morality of elected officials, we must understand their function as our representatives and then infer how they can fulfill this function.” For Hardin, only an empirical explanation of the role of a representative is necessary for determining what a representative should be doing. In Ruling Passions , Andrew Sabl (2002) links the proper behavior of representatives to their particular office. In particular, Sabl focuses on three offices: senator, organizer and activist. He argues that the same standards should not be used to evaluate these different offices. Rather, each office is responsible for promoting democratic constancy, what Sabl understands as “the effective pursuit of interest.” Sabl (2002) and Hardin (2004) exemplify the trend to tie the standards for evaluating political representatives to the activity and office of those representatives.

There are three persistent problems associated with political representation. Each of these problems identifies a future area of investigation. The first problem is the proper institutional design for representative institutions within democratic polities. The theoretical literature on political representation has paid a lot of attention to the institutional design of democracies. More specifically, political theorists have recommended everything from proportional representation (e.g. Guinier, 1994 and Christiano, 1996) to citizen juries (Fishkin, 1995). However, with the growing number of democratic states, we are likely to witness more variation among the different forms of political representation. There is likely to be much debate about the advantages and disadvantages of these different ways of representing democratic citizens.

This leads to a second future line of inquiry — ways in which democratic citizens can be marginalized by representative institutions. This problem is articulated most clearly by Young's discussion of the difficulties arising from one person representing many. Young suggests that representative institutions can include the opinions, perspectives and interests of some citizens at the expense of marginalizing the opinions, perspectives and interests of others. Hence, a problem with institutional reforms aimed at increasing the representation of historically disadvantaged groups is that such reforms can and often do decrease the responsiveness of representatives. For instance, the creation of black districts has created safe zones for black elected officials so that they are less accountable to their constituents. Any decrease in accountability is especially worrisome given the ways citizens are vulnerable to their representatives. Thus, one future line of research is examining the ways that representative institutions marginalize the interests, opinions and perspectives of democratic citizens.

In particular, it is necessary for to acknowledge the biases of representative institutions. While Schumpeter (1976) has long noted the class bias of representative institutions, there is little discussion of how to improve the political representation of the disaffected — that is, the political representation of those citizens who do not have the will, the time, or political resources to participate in politics. The absence of such a discussion is particularly apparent in the literature on descriptive representation, the area that is most concerned with disadvantaged citizens. Anne Phillips (1995) raises the problems with the representation of the poor, e.g. the inability to define class, however, she argues for issues of class to be integrated into a politics of presence. Few theorists have taken up Phillip's gauntlet and articulated how this integration of class and a politics of presence is to be done. Of course, some have recognized the ways in which interest groups, associations, and individual representatives can betray the least well off (e.g. Strolovitch, 2004). And some (Dovi, 2003) have argued that descriptive representatives need to be selected based on their relationship to citizens who have been unjustly excluded and marginalized by democratic politics. However, it is unclear how to counteract the class bias that pervades domestic and international representative institutions. It is necessary to specify the conditions under which certain groups within a democratic polity require enhanced representation. Recent empirical literature has suggested that the benefits of having descriptive representatives is by no means straightforward (Gay, 2002).

A third and final area of research involves the relationship between representation and democracy. Historically, representation was considered to be in opposition with democracy [See Dahl (1989) for a historical overview of the concept of representation]. When compared to the direct forms of democracy found in the ancient city-states, notably Athens, representative institutions appear to be poor substitutes for the ways that citizens actively ruled themselves. Barber (1984) has famously argued that representative institutions were opposed to strong democracy. In contrast, almost everyone now agrees that democratic political institutions are representative ones.

Bernard Manin (1997)reminds us that the Athenian Assembly, which often exemplifies direct forms of democracy, had only limited powers. According to Manin, the practice of selecting magistrates by lottery is what separates representative democracies from so-called direct democracies. Consequently, Manin argues that the methods of selecting public officials are crucial to understanding what makes representative governments democratic. He identifies four principles distinctive of representative government: 1) Those who govern are appointed by election at regular intervals; 2) The decision-making of those who govern retains a degree of independence from the wishes of the electorate; 3) Those who are governed may give expression to their opinions and political wishes without these being subject of the control of those who govern; and 4) Public decisions undergo the trial of debate (6). For Manin, historical democratic practices hold important lessons for determining whether representative institutions are democratic.

While it is clear that representative institutions are vital institutional components of democratic institutions, much more needs to be said about the meaning of democratic representation. In particular, it is important not to presume that all acts of representation are equally democratic. After all, not all acts of representation within a representative democracy are necessarily instances of democratic representation. Henry Richardson (2002) has recently explored the undemocratic ways that members of the bureaucracy can represent citizens. [For a more detailed discussion of non-democratic forms of representation, see Apter (1968).] Similarly, it is unclear whether a representative who actively seeks to dismantle democratic institutions is representing democratically. Does democratic representation require representatives to advance the preferences of democratic citizens or does it require a commitment to democratic institutions? At this point, answers to such questions are unclear. What is certain is that democratic citizens are likely to disagree about what constitutes democratic representation.

One popular approach to addressing the different and conflicting standards used to evaluate representatives within democratic polities, is to simply equate multiple standards with democratic ones. More specifically, it is argued that democratic standards are pluralistic, accommodating the different standards possessed and used by democratic citizens. Theorists who adopt this approach fail to specify the proper relationship among these standards. For instance, it is unclear how the standards that Mansbridge identifies in the four different forms of representation should relate to each other. Does it matter if promissory forms of representation are replaced by surrogate forms of representation? A similar omission can be found in Pitkin: although Pitkin specifies there is a unified relationship among the different views of representation, she never describes how the different views interact. This omission reflects the lacunae in the literature about how formalistic representation relates to descriptive and substantive representation. Without such a specification, it is not apparent how citizens can determine if they have adequate powers of authorization and accountability.

Currently, it is not clear exactly what makes any given form of representation consistent, let alone consonant, with democratic representation. Is it the synergy among different forms or should we examine descriptive representation in isolation to determine the ways that it can undermine or enhance democratic representation? One tendency is to equate democratic representation simply with the existence of fluid and multiple standards. While it is true that the fact of pluralism provides justification for democratic institutions as Christiano (1996) has argued, it should no longer presumed that all forms of representation are democratic since the actions of representatives can be used to dissolve or weaken democratic institutions. The final research area is to articulate the relationship between different forms of representation and ways that these forms can undermine democratic representation.

Bibliography

• Alcoff, Linda. 1991. "The Problem of Speaking for Others" Cultural Critique (Winter) pp. 5-32.
• Beitz, Charles. 1989. Political Equality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Chapter 6 is on ‘Representation’]
• Burke, Edmund. 1968. Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: Penguin Books.
• Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University.
• Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper: 1957
• Hardin, Russell. 2004. “Representing Ignorance” Social Philosophy and Policy (2004), 21:76-99.
• Lublin, David. 1999. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton University Press.
• Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. 1987. The Federalist Papers. Ed. Isaac Kramnick. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. ‘Rethinking Representation’, American Political Science Review , 97, 4: 515-28
• Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pennock, J. Roland and John Chapman, eds. 1968. Representation . New York: Atherton Press.
• Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California.
• Plotke, David. 1997. “Representation is Democracy.” Constellations. 4 (November 1): 19-34.
• Rehfeld, Andrew. 2005. The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation, Democratic Legitimacy and Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rosenstone, Steven and John Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: MacMillian Publishing Company.
• Sabl, Andrew. 2002. Ruling Passions: Political Offices and Democratic Ethics , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Schumpeter, Joseph. 1976. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: Allen and Unwin.
• Schwartz, Nancy. 1988. The Blue Guitar: Political Representation and Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Urbinati, Nadia. 2000. “Representation as Advocacy: A Study of Democratic Deliberation: Political Theory 28: 258-786 .
• Warren, Mark and Dario Castiglione. 2004. “The Transformation of Democratic Representation.” Democracy and Society. Volume 2. Issue I. pp. 5, 20-22.
• Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy . Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
• Dryzek, John. 1996. “Political Inclusion and the Dynamics of Democratization.” American Political Science Review 90 (September): 475-487.
• Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rousseau, Jean Jacques. 1978. The Social Contract. Trans. Judith Masters and Roger Masters. New York: St. Martins Press.
• Apter, David. 1968.‘Notes for a Theory of Nondemocratic Representation’ in Nomos X , Chapter 19. pp. 278-317.
• Cohen, Joshua and Joel Rogers 1995. Associations and Democracy The Real Utopias Project Volume 1 ed. Erik Olin Wright. London: Verso.
• Ryden, David K. Representation in Crisis: The Constitution, Interest Groups, and Political Parties. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996).
• Truman, David. 1951. The Governmental Process. New York: Knopf.
• Steunenberg, Bernard and J. J. A.Thomassen. 2002. The European Parliament : Moving Toward Democracy in the EU . Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Schmitter, Philippe. 2000. ‘Representation’, in How to democratize the European Union and Why Bother? , Rowman and Littlefield, Ch. 3. pp. 53-74.
• Richardson, Henry. 2002. ‘Representative government’, in Democratic Autonomy Oxford University Press, Ch. 14, pp. 193-202
• Warren, Mark. 2001. Democracy and Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Amy, Douglas 1996. Real Choices/New Voices: The Case for Proportional Elections in the United States . New York: Columbia University Press.
• Barber, Kathleen. 2001. A Right to Representation: Proportional Election Systems for the 21 st Century. Columbia: Ohio University Press.
• Canon, David. 1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Christiano, Thomas. 1996. The Rule of the Many . Boulder: Westview Press.
• Guinier, Lani. 1994. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. New York: Free Press.
• Przworksi, Adam, Susan C. Stokes, and Bernard Manin Eds. 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Thompson, Dennis. 2002. Just Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Jacobs, Lawrence R. and Robert Y Shapiro, 2000. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Grant, Ruth and Robert O. Keohane. 2005. “Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics” American Political Science Review. (February) 99: 29-44.
• Mansbridge, Jane. 2004. “Representation Revisited: Introduction to the Case Against Electoral Accountability.” Democracy and Society. Volume 2 Issue I. pp. 1, 12-13.
• Fishkin, John. 1995. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Hibbing, John and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Saward, Michael Ed. 2000. Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association . Routledge, 2000
• Williams, Melissa. 2000. ‘The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation and Deliberative Democracy’, in Citizenship in Diverse Societies , eds. W. Kymlicka and Wayne Norman, Ch 5. pp. 124-153.
• Young, Iris Marion. 1999. “Justice, Inclusion, and Deliberative Democracy” in Deliberative Politics. Ed. Stephen Macedo. Oxford: Oxford University.
• Canon, David. 1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Dovi, Suzanne. 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Or Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?” American Political Science Review 96: 745-754.
• Fenno, Richard F. 2003. Going Home: Black Representatives and Their Constituents . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Gay, Claudine. 2002. “Spirals of Trust?” American Journal of Political Science 4: 717-32.
• Gould, Carol. 1996. “Diversity and Democracy: Representing Differences.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. Seyla Benhabib. Princeton: Princeton University: 171-186.
• Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. "Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent 'Yes'." The Journal of Politics 61: 628-57.
• Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97: 515-528.
• Phillips, Anne. 1995. Politics of Presence. New York: Clarendon.
• Phillips, Anne. 1998. “Democracy and Representation: Or, Why Should It Matter Who Our Representatives Are?” Feminism and Politics . Oxford: Oxford University. pp. 224-240.
• Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Los Angeles: University of Press.
• Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. “When are Interests Interesting?” American Political Science Review 75 (September): 701-721.
• Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2004. “Affirmative Representation.” Democracy and Society (June) 3-5.
• Swain, Carol M. 1993. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
• Thomas, Sue. 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” Journal of Politics 53 (November): 958-976.
• Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Weldon, S. Laurel 2002. ‘Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources of Representation for Women in Democratic Policymaking’, Journal of Politics 64(4), pp. 1153-1174.
• Williams, Melissa. 1998. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
• Young, Iris Marion. 1986. ‘Deferring Group Representation’, Nomos: Group Rights . eds. Will Kymlicka and Ian Shapiro. New York: New York University Press, pp.349-376.
• Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
• Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• FairVote Program for Representative Government
• Proportional Representation Library , provides readings proportional representation elections created by Prof. Douglas J. Amy, Dept. of Politics, Mount Holyoke College
• Representation , an essay by Ann Marie Baldonado on the Postcolonial Studies website at Emory University.
• Representation: John Locke, Second Treatise, §§ 157–58 , in The Founders' Constitution at the University of Chicago Press
• Popular Basis of Political Authority: David Hume, Of the Original Contract , in The Founders' Constitution at the University of Chicago Press

Burke, Edmund | democracy

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > American Political Science Review
• > Volume 110 Issue 2
• > The Limits of Political Representation

Article contents

The limits of political representation.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2016

A representation is always a selective and limited reproduction of the thing represented, an idea captured in the metaphor of a map. What is left out of a representation is as important as what is included. A specifically political conception of representation implies limits to the scope of that conception, the nature and character of the represented constituency, and the relationship between constituent and representative, irrespective of variations in institutional design and practice. The limits of political representation reflect normative commitments; consequently, a focus on those limits is central to an evaluation of representative practices. While it is important to look beyond familiar institutional forms, excessively inclusive descriptions of “representative,” “constituency,” or “representation” deprive those conceptions of their substantive content. The limits of political representation are not defects to be overcome by an ever-expanding definition of representation, they are an essential focus in the normative or empirical analysis of representative institutions and practices.

Access options

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 110, Issue 2
• HOWARD SCHWEBER (a1)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000137

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Submit?
• About Social Politics
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Political representation: a citizen perspective, case selection and methods, identifications and interests, citizens’ assessments of representation, supplementary data, acknowledgements, conflict of interest statement.

• < Previous

Political Representation and Intersectionality: Perspectives of Ethnically/Racially Minoritized Citizens

• Article contents
• Figures & tables

Judith C de Jong, Liza M Mügge, Political Representation and Intersectionality: Perspectives of Ethnically/Racially Minoritized Citizens, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society , Volume 31, Issue 1, Spring 2024, Pages 151–177, https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxad020

• Permissions Icon Permissions

How do ethnically/racially minoritized citizens feel represented by increasingly diverse parliaments? We approach this question intersectionally and study how ethnically/racially minoritized citizens (i) constitute and politicize self-identifications and interests, (ii) assess political representation, and (iii) discuss who represents them. We draw on twelve focus groups with Turkish, Moroccan, and Surinamese-Dutch citizens ( N  = 65), and find that citizens’ political self-identifications, rather than predefined group labels, are key to understanding assessments of representation. Citizens prefer politicians who act on their substantive concerns but feel that mainstream parties sometimes fail to do so. Parties led by ethnically/racially minoritized politicians and social movements fill this void by contesting the status quo. An intersectional perspective reveals that symbolic representation by descriptive representatives specifically matters for young women of color who lack role models.

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests in the United States triggered demonstrations in cities across the Netherlands, with protesters expressing solidarity and declaring that racism is a Dutch problem too. Politicians, activists, and political parties increasingly address the lack of ethnic and racial diversity in politics. This heightened attention raises new questions about how ethnically/racially minoritized citizens 1 make sense of, and assess, political representation. Who, in their view, represents them and why?

In unpacking this question, we provisionally identified minoritized citizens based on so-called “state categories” ( Monk 2022 )—predefined group labels often used in studies of representation and derived from government statistics and policies—of having a “migration background.” 2 We then asked minoritized citizens which political self-identifications and concerns they believed that politics should address. We aim to reveal how political self-identifications and concerns intersect within and between “migration background” state categories depending on gender, social class, religion, and age (cf. McCall 2005 ).

To understand how citizens assess representation, we draw on classical and constructivist representation theory. In her landmark work, Pitkin (1967) theorizes representation as a factual outcome of legislative politics. She distinguishes substantive (representatives acting in the interests of the represented), descriptive (a shared social background between politicians and constituents), and symbolic representation (symbols like flags that represent constituents because people believe they do) ( Pitkin 1967 ). Constructivist approaches ( Saward 2006 ) see representation as a claim. Representatives—inside or outside of parliament—claim to speak and act for the represented, and in doing so, constitute political groups and their interests. Despite their differences, political actors are central to both theoretical approaches. In this study, we put the spotlight on citizens (see also De Jong and Mügge 2023 ; Mügge, Özvatan, and De Jong 2021 ).

Drawing on twelve focus group interviews ( N  = 65), we compare citizens’ assessments across three state categories: Dutch citizens with Turkish, Moroccan, and Surinamese “migration backgrounds.” The Dutch proportional electoral system with preferential voting offers favorable conditions for the election of ethnically/racially minoritized candidates in comparison to other European democracies ( Fernandes, Morales, and Saalfeld 2016 ).

We find that citizens’ self-identified political groups do not always align with state categories that are often used in studies of representation. Citizens associated political concerns important to them with self-identified (intersectional) groups outside the scope of state categories (e.g. racialized Dutch). For most participants, racism matters more to their political self-identifications and concerns than migration background—the commonly used state category in scholarship on Europe.

In participants’ assessments of political actors, representation emerges as a “mélange” of constitutive, substantive, symbolic, and descriptive representation (cf. Celis and Childs 2020 ). Participants care most about whether parties or politicians act on their self-identified group interests: substantive representation. But they feel that established parties sometimes fail to do this. In this context, many research participants see political parties led by ethnically/racially minoritized leaders, as well as activist groups, as claim makers who represent issues that mainstream parties neglect. Even if substantive representation is decisive for most participants, the symbolic presence of role models appears to be significant too specifically for those who are descriptively most underrepresented (young Muslim, Black or Persons of Color identifying women). Finally, participants experience “moments of ambivalence” (cf. Emejulu 2022 ) that illustrate dilemmas in assessments of representation.

Next, we develop a conceptual framework of political representation from the perspective of ethnically/racially minoritized citizens. Subsequently, we detail case selection and methods. The empirical body consists of three parts. First, we investigate how ethnically/racially minoritized citizens constitute and politicize self-identifications and interests. Second, we explore how citizens assess parliamentary representation, and finally, we highlight the role of extra-parliamentary politics, taking BLM as a case.

Feminist theorists argue that historically disadvantaged citizens benefit from group-level representation to counter shared political obstacles ( Williams 1998 ; Young 2000 ). Hence, recognizable social groups and their interests are central to conceptualization and measurement of political representation. To study representation empirically, researchers mainly identify a group based on proxy “state categories” used in social surveys, the census, or policy, like “women/men” or “African American” ( Monk 2022 ) (hereafter: state categories). Subsequently, researchers often predefine what the political interests of this group are ( Reingold and Swers 2011 ). Three critiques on predefining groups and interests inspire our approach to intersectionally study how citizens themselves constitute and politicize their self-identifications and interests, in relation to how researchers and political actors do so.

First, using predefined categories as proxy for sociopolitical groups overlooks the diverse ways in which citizens politically self-identify ( Brubaker 2013 ) (hereafter: political self-identification or self-identified political group). While some citizens self-identify with state categories, others reject or redefine them (cf. Prins et al. 2013 ). Thus, citizens who fall in the same state category do not necessarily politically self-identify in the same way or share group-based interests ( Lee 2008 ). Many European countries avoid ethnic/racial markers and categorize citizens based on “migration background.” By focusing on shared migration history, the migration background as a state category disguises group identifications and interests based on shared racialization. Given this limitation of predefined state categories, we ask ethnically/racially minoritized citizens: how do you politically self-identify, and what are your political interests?

Second, predefined state categories allow for measurement along one social axis (e.g. ethnicity/race), assuming that minoritized citizens’ political self-identifications and interests are uniform. This risks overlooking how minoritized citizens experience representation differently, depending on their gender, sexuality, age/generation, social class, or ability ( Smooth 2011 ). We apply an intersectional framework to study how the perspective of individuals and groups in society is influenced by a range of interconnected structural positions ( Crenshaw 1989 ; Collins 1990 ; Hancock 2007 ). This permits a more nuanced account of variation both “within” and “between” predefined state categories ( McCall 2005 ). We adopt state categories provisionally to unpack how ethnically/racially minoritized citizens’ experiences vary within and between self-identified political groups.

Third, sociopolitical groups and interests are considered stable and transparent in classical representation theory ( Pitkin 1967 ). Constructivist scholars ( Saward 2006 ) stress how political actors construct groups and/or their interests through claiming to represent them: constitutive representation . Constructivist researchers do not predefine groups and interests and instead investigate how political actors do so. But we cannot be sure whether minoritized citizens agree with how political actors constitute their self-identified political group and interests. Representative claims that constitute groups can speak on behalf of, but also against, a group ( Siow 2023a , 2023b ). Disadvantaged citizens may lack the resources or networks to object to claims. Citizens could also experience that politicians address their interests without mentioning their self-identified political group ( Severs 2012 ).

To empirically study how citizens constitute their political self-identifications and interests, we draw on Young’s (2000) argument that minoritized citizens share social perspectives derived from their structural intersectional social positions. Social perspectives become visible when a diverse group of minoritized citizens discuss their experiences (e.g. police harassment). From this, individuals constitute shared, but also diverse, (intersectional) political self-identifications and interests ( Young 2000 , 139). We explore how minoritized citizens constitute political self-identifications and interests in conversations.

To understand how citizens assess representation, we depart from Pitkin’s (1967) three dimensions of representation. Substantive representation occurs when politicians act in the interests of the electorate, in a manner responsive to them. Descriptive representation refers to shared social backgrounds between citizens and politicians. Symbolic representation captures symbols (e.g. flags) that evoke people’s relevant attitudes or emotions towards what they stand for, or what is being represented (here the nation).

While Pitkin foregrounds substantive representation, feminist theorists argue that descriptive representation by politicians who share citizens’ experiences (e.g. of exclusion) is crucial for minoritized groups (e.g. Mansbridge 1999 ). Constructivists conceptualize representation as a claim by political actors consisting of constitutive, substantive, and/or other aspects (e.g. Siow 2023b ). This fits Celis and Childs’ (2020) proposition that citizens assess representation as an interrelated “mélange” of different aspects. Classical and constructivist theories inspire us to investigate how citizens assess representation, which aspects matter most, and to whom. Citizens may accept or reject claims, or they may be undecided or hesitant. Emejulu (2022 , 3) talks about ambivalence , when “a range of opposite emotions about a person or a situation comingle.” Moments of ambivalence allow us to study citizens’ emotional or cognitive orientations towards political representation in relation to the prevailing social norms, and the raced, gendered, and other social structures underlying these tensions ( Emejulu 2022 ).

To reveal who citizens believe represent them, the extant literature provides some pointers. Descriptive representation can advance minoritized groups’ substantive and symbolic representation (e.g. Brown 2014 ). Minoritized politicians’ presence in powerful positions can flip negative stereotypes by showing that historically excluded groups are “able to rule” ( Mansbridge 1999 ). A meta-analysis demonstrates that voters assess candidates with whom they share the same ethnic/racial background significantly more positively than candidates with whom they do not share this background ( van Oosten, Mügge, and van der Pas 2023 ).

We expect ideological and intersectional variation in how citizens value descriptive politicians. Citizens may prefer descriptive representatives with stronger connections to their self-identified political group ( Dovi 2002 ). Preferences for descriptive representatives intersectionally vary within and between self-identified political groups ( Bejarano et al. 2021 ; Montoya et al. 2021 ), depending on the political context and issue ( Bajpai 2019 ). How citizens value role models can also vary by age and gender, with role model discourses tending to be male centered ( Danilova and Kolpinskaya 2020 ). At the same time, minoritized politicians can downplay their identity to conform to dominant party or societal norms ( Murray 2016 ), triggering disappointment among citizens ( Akachar 2018 ).

Next to descriptive MPs, ethnically/racially minoritized citizens might favor certain political parties. Historically, left-wing parties have been relatively open to minority rights and socioeconomic mobility, although they have become less vocal on these issues ( Abou-Chadi and Wagner 2020 ). In this respect, the electoral system matters. Countries with open systems, like the Netherlands, allow greater space for new parties that take up minority interests to emerge ( Bloemraad and Schönwälder 2013 ). Even if they are small and do not enter government, they can be influential through contagion effects ( Cowell-Meyers 2017 ).

However, a study of parliamentary politics alone likely cannot distil who ethnically/racially minoritized citizens feel represented by. Ethnically/racially minoritized citizens may have interests that remain invisible in electoral politics because politicians and parties fail to address them ( Childs, Webb, and Marthaler 2010 ). Furthermore, politicians may favor prototypical over intersectionally disadvantaged groups and interests ( Reingold and Swers 2011 ). From a representative claim perspective, political actors include a broad range of players such as nongovernmental organizations, interest groups, and activists ( Saward 2006 ). Social movements may provide substantive representation and create spaces where minorities politicize self-identified groups and define shared political priorities ( Weldon 2011 ). To capture both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary avenues of representation, we ask ethnically/racially minoritized citizens who they believe represents them.

The Netherlands has a proportional electoral system. Political parties compose a party list and citizens can vote for a politician of their preference on the list. It has no pre-set electoral threshold and a single, nationwide electoral district ( Kranendonk et al. 2018 ). This has allowed the so-called “ethnic/racial minority” parties, led by ethnically/racially minoritized politicians with an explicit anti-racist agenda, to gain parliamentary presence.

In 2015, the first political party led by ethnically/racially minoritized politicians, DENK—meaning “think” in Dutch and “equal” in Turkish—gained seats in national parliament. The party is left-wing on economic issues with an anti-discrimination focus. 3 In the 2017 and 2021 parliamentary elections DENK gained three seats (out of 150). In the 2021 national elections, the first party founded and led by a Black woman entered parliament: BIJ1. The BIJ1 program is intersectional, anti-racist, and decolonial. 4 DENK and BIJ1 put marginalized anti-racist critiques on the political agenda ( Loukili 2020 ). This breaks with the past, in which the dominant establishment often upholds an innocent self-image, denying racism and the continuing impact of colonialism ( Wekker 2016 ), while small, ethnic/racial minority parties have significant impact by expressing political ideas, requesting parliamentary debates and by building cross-party coalitions to get legislative proposals accepted.

To explore citizens’ assessments of political representation we conducted focus groups. This design facilitates studying how citizens collectively negotiate, debate, and potentially (dis)agree over who represents them. By composing groups based on state categories, we looked at how participants politicize self-identifications and define group-level political issues in relation to how they are categorized (cf. Munday 2006 ). To explore the relationship between state categories and political self-identifications, we selected participants based on state categories: “non-western” migration backgrounds in the Dutch context.

We draw on McCall’s (2005) “intercategorical” and “intracategorical” operationalization of intersectionality, whereby ascribed (state) categories are taken as starting points before systematically unpacking the inequalities that are imbricated “within” and “between” categories. The intracategorical approach involves studying a single social category “to analytically unravel one by one the influences of gender, race, class, and so on” ( McCall 2005 , 1786). We study how ethnicity/race, gender, and social class intersect in individual’s experiences within the same migration background category. The intercategorical approach investigates relationships of inequality among predefined categories “as imperfect and ever changing as they are, and … explicate those relationships” ( McCall 2005 , 1784–1785). Similarly, we compare assessments of political representation between different “migration background” state categories. Among each migration background state category, two focus groups were of mixed gender, and one comprised women only—to reduce social heterogeneity and power inequalities among participants ( Morgan 1996 ).

We selected Dutch citizens with Turkish, Moroccan, and Surinamese migration backgrounds: the largest electorates with “non-western backgrounds” and the most racialized and problematized in political debates ( FRA 2017 ; Huijnk and Andriessen 2016 ). Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch citizens arrived as semi-skilled labor migrants in the late 1960, followed by family migration. Most Surinamese-Dutch citizens migrated after the independence of Surinam, followed by labor, political, and family migration. They are all diverse in ethnic/racial and religious terms. Dutch citizens with a Turkish background are largely Muslim, but also include secular and ethnic/racial and religious minorities including Kurds and Alevis. Surinamese-Dutch are mainly Afro-Surinamese and East Indian-Surinamese, descendants of African enslaved people and contract laborers from India, respectively. Moroccan-Dutch are predominantly Muslim, rendering them a religious minority in an increasingly anti-Islamic political context ( Vermeulen 2014 ). Next to Moroccan-Arabic speakers, most Moroccan-Dutch descend from the Berber minority ( Bouras 2012 ).

The focus group topic list aimed to generate discussions, while ensuring comparability between focus groups (see Supplementary Appendix 1 ). We instructed the moderators to pick up on political self-identifications and representatives that participants themselves introduced and started by asking what feeling represented means to them. Subsequent questions zoomed in on substantive, descriptive and symbolic representation, and representative claims, for example, “Does it matter to have a representative who is like you? If so, why?”

Data collection was undertaken between October 2020 and February 2021—a few months after the BLM protests in June 2020, and before the Dutch national elections in March 2021. The topics that participants brought up reflect this political context. The first author and research assistants recruited participants through their own extended networks, social media, neighborhood and ethnic/racial and religious minority organizations, flyers, and snowballing. To reach less politically engaged citizens, we offered a monetary incentive (a twenty-five-euro voucher). Interested participants filled out a survey and an informed consent form (see Supplementary Appendix 2 ). We finetuned the focus group composition based on interested participants’ profiles (political views, political engagement, religion, gender, age, and education).

The final sample consisted of sixty-five participants distributed over twelve focus groups: four comprised Dutch citizens with a Turkish, Moroccan, and Surinamese migration background; three per migration background state category were mixed gender, one was women only. Twenty participants were first generation and forty-five second generation, both were present in almost every focus group to study generational differences in the conversations. The sample was slightly skewed towards university-educated, politically engaged, and left-wing oriented participants (see Supplementary Appendix 3 ). We conducted one focus group with Moroccan-Dutch women aged over fifty—a particularly hard-to-reach profile—who knew each other and met regularly; most participants, however, did not know each other in advance. Except for the pre-existing Moroccan-Dutch focus group, the conversations were organized online using Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants mainly joined from urban areas. Attendees ranged from three to six per group, a size consistent with recommendations for online focus groups ( Morgan and Lobe 2015 ).

With participants’ permission, we videorecorded the focus groups. Participants actively took part in the conversation. Conversations lasted between 90 and 180 minutes and were mainly in Dutch with occasional statements in Turkish or Arabic translated by the moderator. Two research assistants moderated the focus groups. One moderator was a veiled Muslim woman with an Egyptian migration background, the other a secular man with a Turkish migration background. The first author occasionally jumped in. She is a white secular woman without a migration background. All moderators took notes during the entire research process and discussed the focus groups together. All team members had the impression that participants, especially the Surinamese-Dutch groups, saw the first author as a white out-group member. Positionality of the team was dynamic ( Ackerly and True 2010 ) and changed across and during conversations depending on group composition and topic (see Supplementary Appendix 4 ).

The research assistants transcribed and pseudo-anonymized each focus group. The first author coded the transcripts in Atlas.ti in three stages: indexing and data reduction, applying analytical codes, and refining concepts through constant comparison ( Deterding and Waters 2021 ). First, we used the focus group autocoding tool to link demographics (e.g. state categories, political views) with participants’ statements. We indexed the transcripts by broadly coding political issues discussed (i.e. poverty), representative actors (i.e. politicians), political self-identifications (i.e. Muslim), and conceptual themes (i.e. substantive representation). We identified recurring or notable aspects of the conversations. Together with notes on the research process and team meetings, these formed the starting point of the next stage of analytical coding. We coded the indexed segments in which participants discussed political actors in relation to the political self-identifications and interests they mobilized, and the reasons they felt represented by these actors. We made use of Atlas.ti’s analysis tools such as code/document co-occurrence tables to explore similarities and differences within and between focus groups. Participants’ names were replaced by pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality.

What self-identified political groups and interests do participants constitute, and how do they relate to their ascribed state categories? The political issue that concerns nearly all participants are experiences with racism. When narrating these stories, participants sometimes adopt state categories, but in a reflexive way, mocking how state categories of non-white Dutch citizens change, while still maintaining racialized distinctions. For instance, they jokingly ask what their “politically correct” label is nowadays (Turkish-Dutch all-women focus group). Participants redraw the rigid boundaries of state categories by eschewing the state logic that divides them into distinct Turkish, Moroccan, or Surinamese migration backgrounds, talking more generally of racialized Dutch citizens. Participants refer to citizens with “migration backgrounds,” but also to “minorities,” “non-white Dutch,” or “foreigners.”

My two best friends are Black … one is Surinamese, and one is half Surinamese, and with them I sometimes talk about ethnic profiling. … That’s something that people who live in the Gooi region or Barendrecht or a very expensive neighborhood don't understand, while for other people in my environment it's a daily thing from the time you're a teenager … yes, then at moments like that, you really see that it's a sort of a minority problem.

Emir distinguishes himself from people who live in the Gooi showing how social class and ethnic/racial disadvantage intersect. Like Rachelle, he highlights common minority experiences across racialized citizens, rather than experiences from his migration background state category alone.

Socioeconomic inequality is another collective political issue that participants discuss, occasionally related to racism. They mention poverty and a lack of affordable public services such as housing and healthcare. Angela (Surinamese-Dutch mixed-gender focus group): “I didn't know where to go after my [student] room contract [ended]. … I didn’t have parents who had a pot of money. … for me the right to exist is important, that everyone can develop themselves and use public resources.” Young participants mention economic pressures, some as first-generation students without familial financial support. Most believe that combating racism and socioeconomic inequality are collective interests that cut across migration background state categories. In self-identified political groups, ethnic/racial and social class intersect.

Deniz: I think it’s very important that we leave Turkish issues in Turkey. … Let the Turks worry about their own politics. Erve: But when there are issues in France, the Netherlands interferes with that too. Then we don’t leave it in France either, right? Deniz: Well, maybe we should. … there are more important issues, which should be urgent, which concern us primarily, because we live in this country [the Netherlands]. (Turkish-Dutch mixed-gender focus group)

Turkish self-identification differs across focus groups. Most saw racialization as Turks relevant to political self-identifications and concerns. The division over whether Turkish ethnic self-identification is a private or a political matter, contrasted with the a priori assumption in state categories that “Turkish migration background” politically matters to citizens.

The history of slavery … what bothers me is … to approach it from the idea that it's about the other person. No, it’s always about you. So, when it comes to street names [of former colonizers], it’s [removing them] not because it hurts other people. … No, keep it to yourself and say, we [white people] have been responsible … and we still have some cleaning up to do.

POC/Black is the salient self-identified political group that formed the basis for common interests in the Surinamese-Dutch focus groups, illustrating that experiences of racialization matter to understanding their constitutions and politicizations of self-identified groups and interests rather than migration background. For most participants in the Turkish- and Moroccan-Dutch focus groups, self-identifying as Muslim trumps other political self-identifications. Politically, they discuss “Muslim” as a religious, but primarily as a racialized self-identification. They consistently talk about anti-Muslim racism and threats to the freedom of religious practice, such as countering attacks on mosques, negative stereotypes, and access to religious education.

Sarah: I really didn’t feel represented at all by politics, because it’s decided for women what freedom means and what they want, and therefore, what they don’t want and therefore they’re deprived of a right to behave as they like. … Arzu: Yes, I really agree with what Sarah says. Look, I don’t wear a headscarf myself unfortunately, but family members, just fellow Muslims, sisters of mine do. … In that kind of situation I don’t feel represented either.

This illustrates how intersectional racial/religious and gendered self-identifications, rather than Moroccan migration background state categorizations, matter to citizens’ constitution of political priorities and assessments of representation. Self-identifying as Muslim women, they disagree with the partial ban on face covering.

If you grow up in the Netherlands and you see only white people in politics, in positions of power, it gives a kind of feeling like you’re a guest in the country while you are born there … children [should] see, you have it in you to be in politics and lead this country. That it’s not reserved for a certain kind of person.

Naomi describes underrepresentation in relation to intersections of ethnicity/race, gender, and age. Age/generational political issues matter in other respects too. Young participants mention the climate crisis as an urgent issue. Age/generational concerns intersected with migration history and social class when participants discuss the lack of government communication in non-Dutch languages.

The relationship between state categories and how citizens themselves constitute and politicize their self-identifications and political interests is fuzzy. Generally, participants experience state categories as commonly divisive, politically self-identifying instead as ‘disadvantaged minorities’ that face economic inequalities and racism. To most, racialization as Turkish, Muslim, or POC/Black is more politically relevant than migration or ethnicity. This was more complex in the Turkish-Dutch focus groups, where Turkish ethnicity was political to some, irrelevant for others, and intersected with racial/religious political self-identification for the rest. The emphasis on racialization differs from common European research practice of referring to ethnicity or migration. In all cases, the (intersectional) political self-identifications that participants themselves constituted were key to understanding their political concerns.

Focus group participants relatively agree over what representation means. The political interests that politicians and parties constitute should match their self-identified political interests. Then, politicians or parties should act on these self-identified political interests, concerns, or values, by making policy, or at least by speaking out on their behalf. We interpret this as substantive representation . Participants also discuss politicians with whom they share lived experiences stemming from intersecting race, class, gender, and other social positions in society: descriptive representation . Finally, participants discuss whether descriptive politicians make their self-identified political group “stand for” something positive. We interpret this as resembling symbolic representation . Participants thus discuss representation as a mélange ( Celis and Childs 2020 ), but as we will highlight, prioritize some aspects of representation over others. In the following, we adopt participants’ understandings of constitutive, substantive, descriptive, and symbolic representation when referring to these concepts.

Parliamentary Actors

Most participants discuss three parliamentary actors as representing them somewhat: established progressive parties, ethnic/racial minority parties, and in both, descriptive representatives. We discuss how they evaluate these actors in turn and consider dilemma’s participants experience between them.

Most participants discuss established progressive parties such as GreenLeft (GL), Labor (PvdA), and Democrats 66 (D66) as substantively representing some important political concerns such as social class, education, and climate crisis. But most participants find established progressive parties inadequate in constituting, let alone substantively representing, their other concerns: anti-racism and religious rights.

The criterion that participants apply to evaluate descriptive politicians is mainly substantive representation. In theory, many hold that descriptive politicians’ experiential knowledge makes them more likely to substantively represent them. However, opinions vary. Turkish-Dutch-identifying participants are more doubtful that descriptive politicians share their views due to the ideological diversity of their self-identified political group. Participants across focus groups regard descriptive MPs in established progressive parties as unable to substantively represent them, because they must toe the white party line: “If you as a Black man, Black woman, join parties like D66, GreenLeft, CDA, then you are polished [ mat geslepen ]. … They [descriptive MPs] are not at all concerned with their origins. … They try to be as Dutch as possible” (Sam, Surinamese-Dutch mixed-gender focus group).

Karima: I think the [descriptive] representatives of my generation, the old generation, have mostly assimilated themselves. If you look at our house speaker [Arib], for example. … Najar: I do think that she has a role model function … for anyone who identifies with her and the culture that she is a part of. That it is possible. That you can get there. … Fatima: No, I don't feel represented by Arib. Yes, I do see her as a role model. For me she hasn't meant anything or contributed to discussion or whatever that affects me. [Karima nods]. Karima: Yes, I think it is very nice Fatima that you make that distinction. Because it is indeed role model and advocacy. So, in representation you want to see that your interests are represented. And that what you feel in your community is translated in a good way. … It's about action, yes.

Participants discuss Arib as an example of an assimilated descriptive politician who does not represent them substantively by speaking or acting on their behalf. Karima sees this as exemplary of the first generation. Participants still consider Arib a symbolic representative: a role model. Nonetheless, most focus group participants prioritize substantive over symbolic representation in their assessments. Overall, to most, established progressive parties thus score high on substantive representation of some concerns (social class, student, climate issues), but low on others (religious freedoms, anti-racism). Many participants see these parties as constraining descriptive MPs, providing limited opportunities to substantively represent them. Although of secondary concern to most, participants nevertheless value them as symbolic representatives.

Participants discuss ethnic/racial minority parties as claim makers on their behalf: “When I think of diversity and someone who really fights for the interests of minorities, I immediately think of BIJ1” (Naomi, Surinamese-Dutch mixed-gender focus group). Similar to the discussion about Arib, participants note how the second generation claims a position as equal Dutch citizens with distinct roots. Some participants place the emergence of ethnic/racial minority parties in this generational trend: “now you have another generation participating” (Aysun, Turkish-Dutch mixed-gender focus group).

Political representation doesn’t immediately have to lead to action … in society, sometimes a dissenting voice is enough. The moment you only hear voices that don't represent your opinion, then it’s already very nice to have one who presents a counter message, your voice.

Many participants see ethnic/racial minority parties as advocating for them on critical matters that established politics neglects, which directly influences the political debate. In addition to direct substantive representation by speaking out on their behalf, some perceive ethnic/racial minority parties’ advocacy as having contagion effects on other parties, indirectly providing stepping-stones to policy-making. Benny (Surinamese-Dutch mixed-gender focus group) remarks: “I always say that if Sylvana [Simons, BIJ1 party leader] wasn’t there, there wouldn’t be so much change either.” Brigitte comments: “That’s quite complicated … to get done with one seat in parliament.” Brigitte adds that BIJ1 needs to work together with “larger parties to promote inclusiveness … to contribute certain themes.” Participants in other focus groups similarly express that ethnic/racial minority parties’ advocacy may lead established parties to constitutively and substantively represent these issues.

Benny applauds Simons for daring to stand up for marginalized issues. This reflects how most participants assess descriptive MPs within ethnic/racial minority parties more positively than those in established parties. Many consider them brave and outspoken, and as having more opportunities to substantively represent minoritized citizens. Participants thus assess ethnic/racial minority parties as constituting and substantively representing marginalized issues that established parties neglect. Most discuss descriptive MPs in these parties as more capable of speaking out on their behalf, next to secondarily seeing them as symbolic role models.

Up until this point, we described participants’ assessments as quite clear and straightforward. However, this does not capture moments of hesitation, doubt, and trade-offs in participants’ assessments towards parliamentary actors in the focus groups. In the following, we highlight ambivalence ( Emejulu 2022 ) stemming from two main dilemmas of representation participants discuss.

I think it [representation] is a bit [political] issue-dependent [Fatima and Najar nod]. When it comes to religious freedom, then specific representation is very important. So, I'm thinking a lot about this, especially now that [ethnic/racial minority party] NIDA is emerging, I'm thinking, gosh, why should a party represent itself so specifically, you know, and is that a good thing? But such a broad people's party as once the PvdA [Labor Party] is not quite right either [laughs]. So that's kind of my thought-struggle right now. … One moment you are a Muslim woman and the next you are a nurse who cares for the disabled. (Karima, Moroccan-Dutch all-women group)

Many participants state that they feel like they should support ethnic/racial minority parties because progressive parties fail to address racism or religious freedoms. At the same time, some state that ethnic/racial minority parties’ anti-racist advocacy comes at the expense of substantive representation related to other political self-identifications and concerns. Emir (Moroccan-Dutch mixed-gender focus group) states: “I think that some economic measures should be taken regarding inequality. But I can’t vote SP [Socialist Party] because, I see them as a bit xenophobic.” Emir concludes that the SP and Labor Party “just seem to have completely given up in people with my profile.” Others are more positive about established parties or prioritize climate or social class issues over anti-racism. Participants’ ambivalence stems from a dilemma between partial substantive representation by either progressive parties or by ethnic/racial minority parties, reflecting a context of anti-minority hostility.

Sandra: I think so [that descriptive representatives matter] now because there are so few. Although I do think that representation is a bit more important than the [political] views but generally many people who look like me in politics have similar views, so I don't mind a few of my views being put aside for representation. Naomi: … Indeed, I think that presence alone does something, just to show it is possible that someone of color reaches a high-ranking position. But at a certain stage, if enough people of color get into that position, I wouldn't necessarily be happy that that person with those [different political] views is there like I am now. Brigitte: Yes, but that's also very important to keep looking at what the [politicians’ political] position is. (Surinamese-Dutch mixed-gender focus group)

Participants state that having politicians who substantively represent them (should) matter most. Simultaneously, Sandra and Naomi value symbolic representation by descriptive politicians. They reconcile ambivalence by stating that descriptive representatives often share their views, and that substantive representation can be reprioritized once there are enough descriptive politicians. Young Muslim women-identifying focus group participants similarly hesitate between voting for the first Dutch candidate wearing a headscarf ever—Greenleft candidate Kauthar Bouchallikht—despite disagreeing with the Greenleft’s, in their view, at times assimilationist politics, constraining descriptive MPs. Sara (Moroccan-Dutch mixed-gender focus group): “Do I want to vote for her [Bouchallikht] because she resembles me and represents me even though I don't completely agree with the party? … I still struggle with that.”

Most ethnically/racially minoritized citizens prioritize substantive representation in assessing parliamentary politics. Although many see established left/progressive parties as substantively representing some issues (social class, climate), ethnic/racial minority parties substantively represent other neglected issues (anti-racism). Participants mainly judge descriptive representatives by their capacity to substantively represent them. Many see descriptive MPs in established parties as constrained, and those in ethnic/racial minority parties as more likely to act. Participants’ ambivalence (cf. Emejulu 2022 ) in the discussions reveals complex trade-offs within a context of structural racism. An intersectional perspective exposes the specific importance of symbolic representation for young women of color, whose intersectional raced/gendered political self-identifications are nearly invisible in politics.

Extra-Parliamentary Representation

In addition to politicians and political parties, participants speak of several extra-parliamentary representatives, BLM being the most extensively discussed. We explore how participants assess representation by BLM and how they relate experiences of representation by the movement to parliamentary politics.

Participants assess representation by BLM in similar ways as they do ethnic/racial minority parties, namely constituting and substantively representing concerns such as racism and colonialism that are neglected by the mainstream. Romana (Surinamese-Dutch mixed-gender focus group) comments that: “There’s a real awareness … Black Lives Matter, for example … that the Netherlands … colonized a lot of countries. And that simmers through in society.” Like Romana, participants note that racism and colonialism were publicly perceived as belonging to the past, and therefore, made invisible. BLM constitutes and advocates for these concerns, and by doing so, shifts the political agenda and makes the white majority attentive to their continuing salience.

Ishaan: Look we're talking about Black Lives Matter … that whole spectrum of engaging in protest has broadened. And so, you can call attention to the things that you consider important. … Rachelle: Yes, I also think you shouldn't forget that politics is dragging behind. Ishaan: Yes. Rachelle: So, where politics used to be leading, now movements in society are leading. And on that basis, politics starts acting, speaking, shouting, jumping, you name it. I enjoy observing that the spectrum is changing. Because we see that the power isn’t, like you learn, with politics [Samantha nods], no, the power lies with us. (Surinamese-Dutch all-women focus group)

Participants discuss BLM’s constituted interests and claims as close to their own. The movement can push parliamentary politics to substantively act for them. To paraphrase Weldon (2011) , to turn protest into policy. Some, however, emphasize that parliamentary politics still needs to respond to movements’ demands: “So, these movements and then pushing people to the front to use this space in parliament’” (Brigitte, Surinamese-Dutch mixed-gender focus group).

Most participants in the Surinamese-Dutch focus groups discuss BLM as an obvious and positive representative claim maker on their behalf. However, some argue that the movements’ framing of injustice was polarizing. One Surinamese-Dutch participant did not feel represented by BLM for this reason. She introduced this view as “I am going to say something shocking,” reflecting how BLM’s claim is accepted by most. Most, however, agree that to succeed BLM’s message needs to be clear and inclusive. Like ethnic/racial minority parties, Black/POC-identifying participants discuss BLM as engaging a younger generation that experiences insufficient representation by parliamentary politics. Rachelle (Surinamese-Dutch all-women focus group) says: “It often takes movements from the outside [of politics] to mobilize … young people from a different cultural background than the native Dutch background for what really matters.”

I think that since this movement has come to the fore, that, also with my [white] friends … I can talk about it [racist microaggressions] more easily and they understand me better, because now they are aware of it. … They can empathize more, because I can say, the comments that used to be normal are racist and discriminatory towards a group. And it's only now that that's becoming clear to some people. They're really getting a wake-up call.

In Ayşe’s story, BLM represents her by constituting racist microaggressions as an issue, triggering positive everyday changes. Her comment further shows how politically self-identifying as a disadvantaged minority, and perception of shared interest on that basis, underlies her experience of representation by BLM.

Karima: It does feel that way [being represented by BLM], because it's just an issue of being different against the establishment. … There are young people not being hired, because of their last name. … Najar: When a minority group like Black Lives Matter receives the attention that they need to get, that's really needed, and I feel represented through that. … Imane: A term like Black Lives Matter resonates more with me. … That has to do with the history, in which Black people were just seen as property. … First of all it should be about the Black community and then the other minority groups. Karima: Yes, now that you mention it, I completely agree. … Then maybe it dilutes [BLM’s impact], maybe. That you get that feeling [of being represented by BLM] because you are a minority yourself, [but] maybe not on a scale as bad as what the Black community is experiencing.

Participants initially see themselves as represented by BLM, because the movement constitutes and substantively represents issues such as discrimination that concern all those who politically self-identify as a minority. However, participants are ambivalent, as they indicate not being sure whether they should experience representation by BLM, which may come at the expense of addressing anti-Black racism and colonial continuities more specifically. Similarly, Ishaan, a Surinamese-Dutch participant who self-identified as Hindustani, comments: “Black Lives Matter for me very much concerns slavery history and Afro-Caribbeans … maybe I should not involve myself but support it and give others the space to talk.” Ambivalence arises from how racism differently positions participants, creating hierarchies of privilege/disadvantage within the self-identified political group of disadvantaged minorities. How participants who politically self-identify as disadvantaged minority differently assess representation by BLM reflects their self-identified political group history and their perceptions of relative privilege and disadvantage.

In other cases, participants do not feel represented by BLM either because they do not politically self-identify as disadvantaged minorities, or because they do not see their own interests as shared with minoritized citizens generally. In the Turkish-Dutch all-women focus group, Hatice notes that she does not feel represented by BLM, explaining that she notices racism in her social environment, but does not experience it on a daily basis. The others try to convince her that she should care about ethnic/racial inequalities. Sarah: “I understand Hatice’s dilemma [ tweestrijd ]. … But I think you have to transcend that for the greater good [Hatice nods].” Arzu agrees: “I have to make myself heard because [BLM] is a minority and I am also a minority. … We have to support each other.”

Senna: What's funny about Kick Out Zwarte Piet , I didn't have anyone to go to the demonstrations with, so I went with my father … and he literally spent half an hour preaching to me, how come there are no Turks here, and Moroccans, and this and that. … because Kick Out Zwarte Piet and the Black Lives Matter demonstrations now stand as a sign for all anti-racism, anti-discrimination. Why aren't we active in that?

Some participants thought that Turkish-Dutch are more concerned with Turkish politics, while others point to racism or lack of shared political self-identification between minoritized citizens as a barrier. Some Turkish-Dutch-identifying participants thus hold that they, or their self-identified political group, should experience representation by BLM. But for various structural reasons, including relative privilege, lack of shared political self-identification or interests, they do not experience being part of BLM, leading to ambivalent orientations.

Most Black/POC-identifying participants argue that like ethnic/racial minority parties, activist groups address, and advocate for, concerns that parliamentary politics neglects: constitutive and substantive representation. Pushing electoral politics into neglected spaces also increases the potential for substantive representation by parliamentary politics. Participants’ intersectional political self-identifications are important to understand assessments of representation by BLM. Participants who experience representation by BLM were not only those who politically self-identify as Black, but also as a disadvantaged minority. An intersectional analysis, focused on moments of ambivalence, contributes to understanding how participants assess representation differently by laying bare distinct self-identified group histories and relative privileges and disadvantages in racist structures among participants who politically self-identify as disadvantaged minorities.

Representation is about citizens. Yet, in empirical work on representation, the citizen’s perspective is marginal. The perspectives of ethnically/racially minoritized citizens are often even absent, their political identities and interests a priori assumed, or only exist as socially constructed claims by political actors. Bringing citizens back in, we find that the relationship between state categories and ethnically/racially minoritized citizens’ political self-identifications is fuzzy. Only in the Turkish-Dutch focus groups, Turkish ethnicity was politically relevant to some participants, triggering discussions between participants. Other participants mostly highlight socioeconomic disadvantage and racialization as a disadvantaged minority, Turkish, Muslim, PoC and Black in the constitution of their self-identified political groups and interests. The prominence of racialization in participants’ conversations contrasts with much European political science, where state categories based on migration background or ethnicity are default descriptors. An intersectional perspective exposes overlapping religious, gender, age, and social class self-identified political groups and interests within and between ‘migration background’ state categories, as well as specific intersectional political self-identifications and interests, like the freedom to wear a headscarf among Muslim-identifying women.

In their evaluations, participants consider elements that roughly approximate constitutive, substantive, descriptive and symbolic representation. Citizens discuss representation as a “mélange” (cf. Celis and Childs 2020 ) of different aspects. However, most prioritize substantive representation in this mélange. Participants experience that established progressive parties represent them partially: they substantively represent their socioeconomic or climate concerns. But these parties sometimes fail to represent their other concerns: anti-racism and religious rights. Most participants hold that ethnic/racial minority parties fill this gap by putting these issues on the political agenda. Outside parliament, BLM similarly constitutes and substantively represents anti-racism and the continuing impact of Dutch colonialism. Participants sometimes discuss challenger parties and activism as part of a generational trend, in which the second generation claims a position as distinctive, but equal, Dutch citizens. Some hope that ethnic/racial minority parties and BLM’s advocacy will lead established parties to act on these issues through contagion effects. Ethnically/racially minoritized citizens’ substantive representation should therefore be regarded as multisited.

Participants primarily judge descriptive representatives by their likelihood to substantively represent their interests, again highlighting the importance of substantive representation in participants’ assessments. Many consider descriptive MPs within established progressive parties as constrained, while those in ethnic/racial minority parties were felt to have more agency. Although secondarily to substantive representation for most, participants nonetheless value descriptive representatives in both established and minority parties as role model symbolic representatives.

Some participants clearly favor representation by a particular party, and most prioritize substantive representation. Yet, many participants experience dilemmas of representation stemming from ambivalence : a comingling of opposite emotions or orientations ( Emejulu 2022 ). In relation to parliamentary actors, participants experience dilemmas between substantive representation on some issues by established progressive parties, and by ethnic/racial minority parties on other issues. Moreover, despite the strong focus on substantive representation among most participants, young women of color, whose intersectional raced/gendered political self-identifications are nearly invisible in politics, specifically hesitate between substantive representation or symbolic representation by a descriptive role model. This echoes Mansbridge’s (1999) argument that descriptive representatives create a social meaning of “ability to rule,” which is crucial for historically subordinated groups. Finally, participants hesitate about experiencing representation by BLM due to differing self-identified groups, histories, interests, and privilege/disadvantage among those who politically self-identify as disadvantaged minorities.

We show that how ethnically/racially minoritized citizens themselves constitute political self-identifications and interests is central to comprehending assessments of political representation. The state categories that researchers and policy-makers frequently use are analytically weak, not least because they deny the subjectivity of European racialized citizens to constitute their own political self-identifications. Predefined state categories are often misaligned with citizens’ political self-identification and prioritize ethnicity/migration over race, othering, and citizens’ multiple, intersecting political self-identifications. An intersectional perspective is indispensable in analyzing how citizens “between” and “within’” ( McCall 2005 ) state categories assess representation differently. It reveals significantly greater nuance than single-axis approaches in variation in preferences of representation, and in evaluations of political actors.

Our bottom-up approach provides insights into how citizens assess representation as a “mélange” ( Celis and Childs 2020 ). We contribute to this approach by delving into the relationships and relative importance of constitutive, descriptive, substantive, symbolic dimensions of representation as well as (extra)parliamentary claim makers, to (intersectional) self-identified political groups of citizens. We show that citizens’ assessments are often not straightforward. Citizens carefully consider the options for representation available to them and discuss dilemmas of representation. Focusing on such moments of ambivalence towards representation and (extra)parliamentary actors reveals “the broader sociopolitical context which sets the terms of feeling in this moment” ( Emejulu 2022 , 8). Experiencing representation only partially, further highlights the need for citizens’ assessments of representation outside of claim-making frameworks to be more rigorously explored (see Begum 2023 ). Only when minoritized citizens’ views are taken seriously can we get to the bottom of the meaning of equal representation.

Our study has several limitations that we hope future studies will pick up. First, our focus on political self-identification cannot simply replace state categories in measuring how citizens prefer to be represented in politics. Political self-identifications such as “foreigners” can be used by insiders or group members. But it seems unlikely that ethnically/racially minoritized citizens want to be constituted as such by others, such as researchers or majoritized politicians (see Ryan et al. 2023 ). Future research should consider asking citizens how they prefer their self-identified political group to be constituted by various political actors. Second, we focus on ethnically/racially minoritized citizens’ prevailing assessments of representative claim makers. Yet, claims can change depending on context and audience ( Bajpai 2019 ), and so could citizens’ assessments, which may be further explored. Third, citizens’ views on descriptive representation could be further investigated by intersectionally studying when citizens perceive MPs as “descriptive” and when and how shared, lived experiences with MPs matter to citizens’ assessments of representation.

Supplementary data can be found at https://[email protected] .

We thank all focus group participants for sharing their perspectives with us. We are grateful to research assistants Roman Akyüz, Aya El-Yamany, and Mariam Hothout for their great support in recruiting participants, moderating focus groups and transcribing. We thank Fraser King for editing this article. Finally, we would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewer of Social Politics for their generous comments and suggestions.

This work is supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) VIDI grant [Grant number 016.Vidi.175.355], and by the Germany Institute Amsterdam (DIA).

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Considering the fuzzy distinction between the ways ethnicity and race socially construct difference, we use the two concepts interchangeably ( Hall 1989 ). We use “minoritized” instead of “minority” to emphasize that citizens are actively constructed as a minority by the dominant group ( Williams 1998 , 15–18). We use “ethnicity” only in cases where participants refer to group belonging based on shared (migration) history or culture.

The Dutch Bureau of Statistics (CBS) categorizes citizens with a migration background if they, or their parent(s), are born abroad. At the time of our study, the CBS distinguishes between “western” and “nonwestern” migration backgrounds, based on the socioeconomic position of the (parental) country of birth. See: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/onze-diensten/methoden/begrippen/persoon-met-een-migratieachtergrond (last accessed May 24, 2023).

DENK anders. Election manifesto 2021 DENK, https://www.bewegingdenk.nl/verkiezingsprogramma/ (last accessed May 24, 2023).

Allemaal anders maar toch gelijkwaardig. Election manifesto 2021 BIJ1, https://bij1.org/programma/ (last accessed May 24, 2023).

Abou-Chadi Tarik , Wagner Markus . 2020 . Electoral fortunes of social democratic parties: Do second dimension positions matter? Journal of European Public Policy 27 ( 2 ): 246 – 72 .

Google Scholar

Ackerly Brooke A. , True Jacqui . 2010 . Doing feminist research in political and social science . London : Palgrave Macmillan .

Google Preview

Akachar Soumia. 2018 . Representation in the eye of the beholder: Flemish Muslim youth on (not) feeling politically represented. Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel .

Bajpai Rochana. 2019 . What do descriptive representatives describe? Minority representative claims and the limits of shape-shifting . Ethnicities 19 ( 5 ): 740 – 62 .

Begum Neema. 2023 . ‘The European family? Wouldn’t that be the white people?’: Brexit and British ethnic minority attitudes towards Europe . Ethnic and Racial Studies , online first. Accessed July 31, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2023.2205499 .

Bejarano Christina , Brown Nadia E. , Gershon Sarah Allen , Montoya Celeste . 2021 . Shared identities: Intersectionality, linked fate, and perceptions of political candidates . Political Research Quarterly 74 ( 4 ): 970 – 85 .

Bloemraad Irene , Schönwälder Karen . 2013 . Immigrant and ethnic minority representation in Europe: Conceptual challenges and theoretical approaches . West European Politics 36 ( 3 ): 564 – 79 .

Bouras Nadia. 2012 . Het land van herkomst: Perspectieven op verbondenheid met Marokko, 1960-2010 (Doctoral dissertation) . Leiden University .

Brown Nadia E. 2014 . Sisters in the statehouse: Black women and legislative decision making . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Brubaker Rogers. 2013 . Categories of analysis and categories of practice: A note on the study of Muslims in European countries of immigration . Ethnic and Racial Studies 36 ( 1 ): 1 – 8 .

Celis Karen , Childs Sarah . 2020 . Feminist democratic representation . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Childs Sarah , Webb Paul , Marthaler Sally . 2010 . Constituting and substantively representing women: Applying new approaches to a UK case study . Politics & Gender 6 ( 2 ): 199 – 223 .

Collins Patricia Hill. 1990 . Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment . New York : Routledge .

Cowell-Meyers Kimberly. 2017 . The contagion effects of the feminist initiative in Sweden: Agenda-setting, niche parties and mainstream parties . Scandinavian Political Studies 40 ( 4 ): 481 – 93 .

Crenshaw Kimberlé. 1989 . Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics . University of Chicago Legal Forum 43 ( 6 ): 139 – 67 .

Danilova Nataliya , Kolpinskaya Ekaterina . 2020 . The politics of heroes through the prism of popular heroism . British Politics 15 ( 2 ): 178 – 200 .

De Jong J. C. , Mügge L. 2023 . Super politicians? Perspectives of minoritized citizens on representation . Political Studies Review 21 ( 3 ): 506 – 14 . https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299221138730

Deterding Nicole M. , Waters Mary C. 2021 . Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach . Sociological Methods and Research 50 ( 2 ): 708 – 39 .

Dovi Suzanne. 2002 . Preferable descriptive representatives: Will just any woman, Black, or Latino do? American Political Science Review 96 ( 4 ): 729 – 43 .

Emejulu Akwugo. 2022 . Ambivalence as misfeeling, ambivalence as refusal. Post45 (October 27): 1 – 10 .

Fernandes Jorge M , Morales Laura , Saalfeld Thomas . Pathways to power: The political representation of citizens of immigrant origin in eight European democracies . Pathways Report , 2016 .

FRA: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights . Second European Union minorities and discrimination survey (EU-MIDIS II): Main Results . 2017 .

Hall Stuart. 1989 . Cultural identity and diaspora. In Identity: Community, culture, difference , ed. Jonathan Rutherford, 222 – 37 . London : Lawrence & Wishart .

Hancock Ange-Marie. 2007 . When multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm . Perspectives on Politics 5 ( 1 ): 63 – 79 .

Huijnk Willem , Andriessen Iris . Integratie in zicht? De integratie van migranten in Nederland op acht terreinen nader bekeken . Den Haag : Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau , 2016 .

Kranendonk Maria , Vermeulen Floris , van Heelsum Anja . 2018 . “Unpacking” the identity-to-politics link: The effects of social identification on voting among Muslim immigrants in Western Europe . Political Psychology 39 ( 1 ): 43 – 67 .

Lee Taeku. 2008 . Race, immigration, and the identity-to-politics link . Annual Review of Political Science 11 ( 1 ): 457 – 78 .

Loukili Sakina. 2020 . Fighting fire with fire? ‘Muslim’ political parties in the Netherlands countering right-wing populism in the city of Rotterdam . Journal of Muslims in Europe 9 ( 1 ): 21 – 42 .

Mansbridge Jane. 1999 . Should Blacks represent Blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes” . Journal of Politics 61 ( 3 ): 628 – 57 .

McCall Leslie. 2005 . The complexity of intersectionality . Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30 ( 3 ): 771 – 1800 .

Monk Ellis P. 2022 . Inequality without groups: Contemporary theories of categories, intersectional typicality, and the disaggregation of difference . Sociological Theory 40 ( 1 ): 3 – 27 .

Montoya Celeste M. , Bejarano Christina , Brown Nadia E. , Gershon Sarah A. 2021 . The intersectional dynamics of descriptive representation . Politics and Gender 18 ( 2 ): 483 – 512 .

Morgan David L. 1996 . Focus groups . Annual review of sociology 22 ( 1 ): 129 – 52 .

Morgan David L. , Lobe Bojana . 2015 . Online focus groups. In The handbook of emergent technologies in social research , 199 – 230 . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Mügge Liza M. , Özvatan Özgür , de Jong Judith . 2021 . Vielfalt und Repräsentation Die Rolle der ethnischen Herkunft in der Politik . WZB-Mitteilungen 173 ( September ): 10 – 12 .

Munday Jennie. 2006 . Identity in focus: The use of focus groups to study the construction of collective identity . Sociology 40 ( 1 ): 89 – 105 .

Murray Rainbow. 2016 . The political representation of ethnic minority women in France . Parliamentary Affairs 69 ( 3 ): 1 – 17 .

van Oosten Sanne , Mügge Liza , van der Pas Daphne . 2023 . Race/ethnicity in candidate experiments: A meta-analysis and the case for shared identification. Acta Politica , online first. Accessed July 31, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-022-00279-y .

Pitkin Hanna F. 1967 . The concept of representation . Berkeley, CA : University of California Press .

Prins Jacomijne , van Stekelenburg Jacquelien , Polletta Franceska , Klandermans Bert . 2013 . Telling the collective story? Moroccan-Dutch young adults’ negotiation of a collective identity through storytelling . Qualitative Sociology 36 ( 1 ): 81 – 99 .

Reingold Beth , Swers Michele . 2011 . An endogenous approach to women’s interests: When interests are interesting in and of themselves . Politics and Gender 7 ( 3 ): 429 – 35 .

Ryan Caoimhe , Hopkins Nick , Ahluwalia-McMeddes Amrita , Dobai Anna , Pehrson Samuel , Reicher Stephen . 2023 . On the misrecognition of identity: Muslims’ everyday experiences in Scotland . Political Psychology, online first . Accessed July 31, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12885 .

Saward Michael. 2006 . The representative claim . Contemporary Political Theory 5 : 297 – 318 .

Severs Eline. 2012 . Substantive representation through a claims-making lens: A strategy for the identification and analysis of substantive claims . Representation 48 ( 2 ): 169 – 181 .

Siow Orly. 2023a . Needles in a haystack: An intersectional analysis of the descriptive, constitutive and substantive representation of minoritised women . European Journal of Politics and Gender , online first. Accessed July 31, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1332/251510821X16739744241737 .

Siow Orly. 2023b . What constitutes substantive representation, and where should we evaluate it? Political Studies Review , online first. Accessed July 31, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231154864 .

Smooth Wendy. 2011 . Standing for women? Which women? The substantive representation of women’s interests and the research imperative of intersectionality . Politics and Gender 7 ( 3 ): 436 – 441 .

Vermeulen Floris. 2014 . Suspect communities: Targeting violent extremism at the local level: Policies of engagement in Amsterdam, Berlin, and London . Terrorism and Political Violence 26 ( 2 ): 286 – 306 .

Wekker Gloria. 2016 . White innocence: Paradoxes of colonialism and race . Durham, NC : Duke University Press .

Weldon S. Laurel. 2011 . When protest makes policy: How social movements represent disadvantaged groups . Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.

Williams Melissa. 1998 . Voice, trust, and memory: Marginalized groups and the failings of liberal democracy . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press .

Young Iris M. 2000 . Inclusion and Democracy . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-2893
• Print ISSN 1072-4745
• Copyright © 2024 Social Politics LLC
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.