Feminist scholars have developed a solid research agenda on gender equality in politics. This scholarship is built on the conviction that equitable representation of men and women is fundamental to the functioning of representative democracies (Mansbridge Reference Mansbridge1999; Norris and Lovenduski Reference Norris and Lovenduski1995). In order to comply with the intersectional research paradigm, gender and politics scholars have increasingly focused on other discriminatory mechanisms and how these relate to gender. Marginalized or privileged positions based on gender, ethnicity, race, class, or age are conceived not as “swinging free” from each other, but as interacting (Hancock Reference Hancock2007). Consequently, a group can be privileged in one context but disadvantaged in another depending on historical structures and contexts. Such an intersectional approach raises new questions about the meaning of political equality (Mügge Reference Mügge2013; Mügge and De Jong Reference Mügge and Jong2013). For instance, to what extent is women's sheer numerical presence an indicator for political equality if that presence is a marker of inclusion as well as exclusion? This contribution focuses on political recruitment and the question of whether inclusion fosters equality. Drawing on our ongoing research on Belgium and the Netherlands, we argue that an intersectional analysis of recruitment is indispensable to capture the nature of inclusion and exclusion and therefore to the understanding of political equality.
BETWEEN AND WITHIN GROUP INEQUALITY AND EXCLUSION
Intersectionality theory contends that gender equality should be understood in a relational perspective. Hence, intersectionality focuses on how competition between and within groups plays out. In the case of political recruitment and selection, intersectionality directs researchers to study how these struggles shape recruitment and selection processes. Studies focusing on competition between groups show that the promotion of equality and political inclusion for one group—for instance, women—may limit or be limited by the equality and inclusion of other groups. However, these mechanisms are conditional. In Belgium, for instance, ethnic minorities do not benefit from institutional reforms established for women, such as gender quotas (Celis and Erzeel Reference Celis and Erzeel2013). In the Netherlands, in contrast, feminist structures within parties have accommodated ethnic minority women but not ethnic minority men (Mügge and Damstra Reference Mügge and Damstra2013). Parties in both countries play an active role in the regulation of group demands that are potentially conflicting. In their role as gatekeepers, parties set boundaries to which groups are included and which ones are excluded. These choices are guided by ideological concerns for equality as well as by strategic considerations, such as electoral support. Parties produce and reproduce power relations between groups through efforts to increase the representation of one group while largely ignoring others.
Intersectionality also points researchers to complexities and patterns of competition within groups. In doing so, intersectionality pushes scholarship to uncover (in)equalities and hierarchies between different subgroups of women. Some studies reveal additive patterns of inclusion and exclusion and identify subgroups of women (e.g., black women or ethnic minority women) who potentially experience “multiple barriers” in politics due to their belonging to more than one disadvantaged group (Strolovitch Reference Strolovitch2007). Other studies, like ours, demonstrate more complex, interactive patterns of inclusion and exclusion. Our research shows that, although ethnic minority women remain underrepresented on candidate lists and in parliaments, they are relatively better represented than ethnic minority men, thereby contradicting the “double barrier” hypothesis (Bejarano Reference Bejarano2013; Celis et al. Reference Celis, Erzeel, Mügge and Damstra2014; Celis and Erzeel Reference Celis and Erzeel2015).
Previous examples have focused on the outcome of intersectionality. An intersectional approach, however, encourages scholars to move beyond the traditional focus on the distribution of political positions. An intersectional approach allows us to reveal the informal and formal mechanisms driving inclusion and exclusion. Regarding parties’ formal rules, various scholars have shown that measures adopted to increase the number of women, such as gender quotas, do not necessarily increase diversity among women, but actually support the political inclusion of dominant groups of women. Minority women only benefit from quotas when they are intersectional and combine minority quotas with gender quotas (Hughes Reference Hughes2011).
In addition to formal rules, such as quotas, recruitment practices often hinder the political inclusion of newcomer groups (such as women and ethnic minorities) and foreclose full representativeness among political candidates. Most importantly, incumbency supports the inclusion of those who are already in office and further consolidates the latter's political power. When newcomers with no vested interest in maintaining the power status quo try to alter the power of incumbents, they are perceived as potentially threatening for the internal peace within parties. Our studies show that parties use very creative ways to prevent potential conflict. One of the reasons why ethnic minority women are preferred over ethnic minority men in both countries is that the former are able to meet concerns for representativeness without challenging male incumbents. Parties select ethnic minority women—and not ethnic minority men—for top positions on candidate lists because of their particular profile. Their “intersectional identity mix,” namely being a woman, having a migration background, being of color and young, maximizes the representativeness of candidates’ lists. Because their profile complements that of incumbents—typically white middle-aged men—young ethnic minority women do not threaten incumbents’ power. Ethnic minority women even strengthen incumbents’ position (Celis et al. Reference Celis, Erzeel, Mügge and Damstra2014). The presence of ethnic minority women in our cases can be interpreted as a sign of inclusion; political equality; and of the power of women, ethnic minorities, and ethnic minority women. But at the same time, it can be read as a marker of political inequality because their inclusion is limited by and serving the ones in power and is a marker of exclusion for ethnic minority men.
IMPLICATION OF AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH TO POLITICAL RECRUITMENT
The study of political recruitment as an intersectional power mechanism increases our understanding about how the inclusion and the exclusion of (sub)groups work. Intersectionality sheds light on the selectorate's side of the story: equality and representativeness are part and parcel of their power-seeking and power-maintaining strategies. The intersectional nature of political recruitment by political parties has three implications for the political representation of the groups concerned.
First, at the descriptive level, the ticket that provides newcomers access to the political arena determines what they (can) stand for. Our studies point to a tension between women ethnic minority candidates representing ethnic minority citizens, on the one hand, and women ethnic minority candidates representing the “diversity label” of the party, on the other. Young ethnic minority women might even represent the power and virility of the senior white male incumbents (see also Guerrina Reference Guerrina, Celis and Childs2014), regardless of their own qualities and skills. This raises the question of what the groups primarily or sequentially stand for and how and by whom this is defined.
Second, intersectional power mechanisms of political recruitment have implications for symbolic representation—that is, the extent to which the inclusion of ethnic minority female candidates increases or decreases feelings of being represented. Generally, ethnic minority citizens, and women among them more specifically, might feel recognized, valued, and empowered by the inclusion of candidates sharing their characteristics. However, the inclusion of certain groups—such as Muslim women—may intensify stereotypes. Depending on their ideology, parties tend to present their “model” minorities that fit their idea of how modern citizens with a migration background should be integrated. What candidates stand for—how they are profiled by the party—infuses electoral strategies. Our research finds that ethnic minority women are expected to attract the “ethnic vote” without alienating the dominant “white” electorate. Parties’ demands for the ideal-type minority women representatives may force newcomers in a badly fitting straight jacket. When do parties intentionally or unintentionally “other” or misrepresent ethnic minorities? In other words, what are the symbolic consequences of parties’ strategies to diversify?
Third, our research suggests that ethnic minority women's inclusion might well be about keeping the powerful in place rather than empowering the powerless. In that case, the inclusion of ethnic minority women may limit their power to alter the content of politics and to represent new, other, and conflicting issues and interests (Celis and Wauters Reference Celis and Wauters2010). This raises a novel question on substantive representation: under which conditions are elected ethnic minority women able to speak their mind about issues regarding ethnic minorities?
