What is representation?

Why is it important?

The study of representation is the study of power: who holds it, how they wield it, and why these functional aspects of democracy are important. Without understanding the exercise of power within political systems, including the relationships between different types of power, we are unable to evaluate the true intentions and effects of policy and decision-making and are liable to perpetuate cyclical and marginalising patterns of political behaviour.

Who are the constituents of a parliamentary member, who does this member claim to represent, and who influences their decision-making?

How are processes and decisions influenced by the identity, experience and relationships of parliamentary members?

Why do the composition (who) and processes (how) of parliament matter to its decision-making capacities?

Representation in Australia

Australia is a constitutional liberal democracy characterised by liberal citizenship values of equality of opportunity and a strong belief in individualism.

Forms of Representation

The ways in which constituents are represented through the parliamentary body.

Substantive

Critical acts and actors that make legislative changes directed toward a specific issue or group.

In a deliberative democracy like Australia, constituents grant authority to members of parliament to make policy decisions on their behalf. This consent is given through elections and operates as a combination of the following models of representation:

When MPs are acting as delegates or trustees they may have the latitude to pursue legislative change on the basis that it supports or ameliorates the disadvantages of their communities (electorate or identity-based). In contrast, partisan representation favours the party plurality and diminishes the chance that non-traditional political actors are able to influence change in a substantive manner.

ie. The 2017 amendment to the Commonwealth Marriage Act that created marriage equality for Australians of all sexual orientations:

• ALP and LNP MPs that voted against their constituents’ no votes, in favour of the Bill, exercised trustee representation (these MPs had indicated support for the Bill regardless of party or electorate level disagreement). This is also true of LNP MPs that chose to abstain from voting on the legislation.

• LNP MPs that voted with their constituents’ no votes, against the Bill, and all MPs that voted with their electorate’s preference in the marriage equality plebiscite enacted delegate representation.

• ALP MPs, while still technically exercising a conscience vote, were bound by a partisan commitment to marriage equality in the party platform that included a binding yes vote if an amendment had not been made by 2019.

Claims-making in representation

The representative cycle is a diagrammatic visualisation of responsiveness in parliamentary representation:

• A member of parliament’s understanding of self and their place in society influences the claims they make on their own behalf and on behalf of others;

• These claims influence the policy decisions that are considered, evaluated and implemented;

• Policy design and implementation in turn affects the way individuals and groups view the role of government in their lives and trust the decision-making of their representative;

• Levels of trust in government influence the likelihood that citizens will become involved with the political process, including sharing concerns with their local member; and

• A more engaged populace should have an expansionary effect on an MP’s worldview and influence the claims they present to parliament.

Representation is fundamentally an exercise in claims-making; in the expression and positioning of values and interests in parliamentary procedures and relationships. At each stage of the policy cycle political actors are making claims that determine who can - and should - be represented. Importantly, this process may be unconscious and guided by cognitive short-cuts and social networks.

Measuring descriptive representation through parliamentary composition is one way to uncover the potential influence of these practices on parliamentary processes: in committees, caucuses, private members’ statements, legislative debates and the budgetary process among others. Mainstreaming theory indicates that diversity must be considered holistically: conflicting identity claims must be presented at each stage of parliamentary processes as the practice of a fully integrated diversity-sensitive organisational culture; as illustrated in the following set of questions.

Each member of parliament will intuitively and critically have different responses to each of these questions, influenced by their personal experiences; education; partisanship; networks and relationships. More diversity in these responses increases the vibrancy of, and engagement with, the parliamentary informational ecosystem and improves representation of a broader range of the electorate’s opinions.

To ensure that parliamentary processes consider these questions - to force recognition of different perspectives in system design - the representative system relies on proportional-to-population diversity in the actors establishing and implementing these processes. Such a diversity sensitive parliament requires sufficient representation of non-traditional political actors within parliament to fulfil its democratic aims.