Search

Political representation in the UK continues to be dominated by white, middle-aged, middle-class men, but several equalities groups now have an established presence in national political institutions. This article draws on research with stakeholder organisations, lobby groups for under-represented groups within political parties, former, current and unsuccessful candidates and sitting and former elected politicians conducted prior to the 2010 General Election. It finds that where aspiring candidates from under-represented groups have been selected, it was because they were ‘acceptably different’ conforming to aspects of the ‘archetypal candidate’. We argue that increasingly dominant professionalised ‘pathways’ into national politics have allowed greater diversity, but remain narrow and exclusionary. Progress is less a reflection of a more open political system, instead representing accommodation of still under-represented groups to, and by, the existing system. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Flowing out of wider debates regarding representative democracy, the diversity of political institutions has gained salience. Normatively, it is suggested that it is simply unfair for white, middle-aged males to dominate decision-making structures. Instead it has been argued that representative diversity can enhance the legitimacy of political institutions and processes, whilst improving the quality and inclusivity of policy-making. Although most of these arguments have been applied to elected institutions and their bureaucracies, they are also germane in the context of appointments to the boards of public bodies, as the work of these bodies and the decisions made by their board members impacts upon the everyday lives of citizens. Drawing upon original research conducted in the UK, this article argues that the capacity of political actors to make appointments to public boards offers an as yet unrealized democratic potential by offering more opportunities for social engagement and participation in public governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a notable surge in research on the shift from elected government to appointed governance. As the work of public bodies and the decisions made by their board members can impact upon the everyday lives of citizens, the extent to which their boards are both representative and diverse is of great salience. Focusing on the boards of public bodies in the UK, this article explores whether the Labour government's ambition to improve diversity in public appointments was achieved over its three terms of office, and seeks to explain why public boards have remained 'male, pale and stale'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]