The ‘mirror’ theory of representation
It is sometimes argued that representation can only be fair if exact percentages of
groups within the population at large are ‘reflected’ in the composition of
representatives. If the population of a particular city (like Leicester in Britain)
contains, say, 40 per cent of people with black faces, then a mirror theory of
representation demands that there should be 40 per cent of representatives who are
black. The same is argued about poor people, gays, etc. It is not difficult to see the
problem with this notion. Ethnic minorities, like people in general, are not all the
same. Black people in Leicester are divided ethnically, regionally, along class and
gender lines, etc. and it would be wrong, therefore, to assume that one black person
is the same as another. A black businessperson may not identify with a black trade
unionist. It does not follow, therefore, that black representatives will necessarily
represent the interests of black constituents, any more than we can assume that
women representatives will necessarily represent the interests of women. It is one
thing to argue that representatives must have knowledge of (and experience of) the
people they represent; quite another that they must represent them in precise
numbers.
The mirror theory has a grain of truth in it: representatives should be sensitive
to the problems of their constituents, and it helps if a predominantly black
constituency, for example, has a black representative. But it has only a grain of
truth: it is not the whole story. There is an infinity of other factors to consider –
gender, class, sexual orientation, etc. We need to distinguish between politically
relevant differences (see Chapter 21 on Difference) and those ‘differences’ (like
wearing spectacles) that are not normally relevant.Chapter 5 Democracy 109- Democracy is a particularly confusing
concept because nearly everyone claims to
subscribe to it. - In fact this is a relatively recent development.
Liberals historically disagreed with
democracy, but because liberal theory
seemed to apply to everyone, this makes it
difficult to see who was being excluded.
Conservatives accused liberals of wanting to
be universally inclusive, just as Plato in
ancient Greece accused democrats of
wanting to abolish the distinction between
citizen and slave.- Liberals in the nineteenth century reluctantly
accepted the need for universal suffrage,
although they continued to fear that
democracy might express itself as a ‘tyranny
of the majority’. This fear helps to explain the
post-war argument that a realistic view of
democracy requires that the people only
minimally participate. - In fact, low participation is something that
undermines democracy, and suggestions are
offered as to how participation could be
increased. It is important in arguing for more
participation that we see democracy as both
representative and ‘direct’.
- Liberals in the nineteenth century reluctantly
The argument so far...