Many hurdles for minorities

Diversity – especially its absence – has been in the news of late. As we edge towards the start of local body elections, there have been some startling reports emerging from around the country on the evidence of a ‘‘democracy deficit’’ in local politics.

Among elected officials, for example, there are few women, even fewer nonEuropean ethnicities, and hardly any below the age of 40.

Equally of concern are the appalling voting statistics – only 43 per cent of eligible voters turned out to vote in the local body elections of 2016, while in Hamilton that figure fell to 33.6 per cent, the lowest across all metros.

The number of women in Hamilton City Council also plummeted to 25 per cent from the 2010 high of 42 per cent.

The 2017 national election in New Zealand did show a distinct improvement in both gender and ethnic representation.

Women MPs increased their presence to 38 per cent; Maori to 23 per cent; and Pacific and Asian MPs to 6 per cent.

The current Parliament is also relatively younger, with the presence among others of 38-year-old Golriz Ghahraman (the first from a refugee background) and Chlo¨ e Swarbrick (25) from the Greens. In contrast, local government is still far from diverse.

To address this issue of representation, it is useful to turn to an often-asked question: what does ‘‘diversity’’ mean?

The language of diversity often gets coopted into feel good corporate-speak and tokenistic gestures, which mean little in terms of transforming power relations and changing the nature of business as usual.

True diversity is about recognising the power of difference. Scott Page, in his 2017 book describes diversity as comprising both an individual’s ‘‘cognitive repertoires’’ – information, knowledge, tools, representation and mental models – and ‘‘identity diversity’’, such as race/ ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion and physical ability.

The two are connected, of course, as our identities shape our lived experience, influence what we know and the way we

think.

A second, more critical question is whether diversity, in fact, matters. The short answer is: yes, it does. Decades of research in political science, and more recent research in organisational studies and business studies offer a pretty clear response:

Diversity matters for several reasons which range from the philosophical to the actual substantive outcomes whether in governance or organisational performance.

First, in the context of local government, having an elected body of diverse elected representatives, that reflects the community it represents, is essential to improve the quality of democratic deliberation.

Representatives who can bring their knowledge shaped by their specific experiences of being part of a larger group – be it on the basis of gender, ethnicity, socio-economic class, age, physical ability and cultural background, for example – to decision-making debates will be much more likely to provide perspectives that would otherwise be missing in a homogeneous group.

This helps in crafting policies that are more responsive to the needs and interests of the diverse communities that make up our cities and regions.

Second, diversity strengthens the legitimacy of political bodies, such as councils.

A diverse governance group, by its very presence, is much more likely to build trust and reflect the needs and concerns of the people it represents. Indeed, it challenges the default setting of politics as a male space or a white space.

There is, of course, a familiar narrative, that periodically raises its head in the public domain, including on social media, that is dismissive of diversity. Such a narrative raises questions about people’s suitability and qualification to occupy positions of political leadership.

Implicit or explicit in this view is the idea that the current elected representatives – overwhelmingly white, male and wealthy – are somehow reflective of ‘‘merit’’ by virtue of their membership of dominant groups in society.

What is rarely acknowledged is that ‘‘merit’’ is a subjective concept measured by indicators of ‘‘success’’ that are too often reflective of unconscious bias.

A pragmatic reason for seeking diversity in our elected bodies is the clear need to revitalise democracy.

In times of reduced voter turnout and a significant feeling of disconnect between local government and voters in our youth and ethnic minority communities, a push for diversity of political representation is particularly crucial.

The world is rapidly changing around us. Identities are becoming fluid.

Gender and race, for example, are no longer absolute categories but exist in different shapes at different points across a broad continuum.

A changing world needs new ideas, new perspectives, new priorities, new ways of doing things.

And we can get these only through greater diversity.

As political scientist He´ le` ne Landemore says, complex and difficult collective problems – the stuff of politics – can be better addressed by ‘‘a group of sufficiently smart individuals who think differently than a group of very smart individuals who think the same’’.

So what can we do?

I believe we need to address the issue of diversity at three levels – those of ideology, structure, and mobilisation.

At an ideological level, we need to break the dominant societal perception of politics being a male (and a white male, at that) sport.

The monoculturalism and male dominance of our current political institutions militate against women, especially ethnic women, being recognised as legitimate actors in their own right.

That often acts as a deterrent in getting women to put themselves forward in elections.

In the US, for example, research shows that the most important thing is for women to be encouraged to run.

That is their bottleneck. Once in a race, women do as well as men.

At a structural level, it is clear that the current first past the post (FPP) voting system in place for Hamilton City Council is a barrier to diversity.

Unlike proportional representation systems such as Single Transferable Vote (STV), FPP disadvantages women candidates, especially those from ethnic minorities.

A shift to STV, which ensures through its ranking of voters’ preferences that no vote is wasted, is widely accepted among political scientists as highly likely to result in a council that more accurately reflects its communities.

A third significant issue is mobilising people and resources.

Part of this is taking seriously the issue of poor voter turnout.

People’s motivation to vote has a great deal to do with their perceptions of the relevance of local government’s work to their own lives, and a sense of their connection to candidates up for election. Running awareness campaigns on critical issues that face our communities now and in the future is one way to address this issue.

That is why we are running a panel on ‘‘Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in Local Government’’ at the University of Waikato tonight from 5.30pm.

The speakers are Linda Te Aho, Associate Dean Ma¯ ori at Te Piringa Faculty of Law at the University of Waikato and an expert in Treaty issues in local governance; Anjum Rahman, spokesperson of the Islamic Women’s Council, trustee of a number of organisations including Trust Waikato and Shama, and a former candidate in both local and national elections; and Penny Hulse, a leading Auckland politician who served as Deputy Mayor until 2016.

They will each speak on issues around the importance of diversity and inclusion in local government.