Politicians who walked in your shoes? Ethnic minoritized citizens’ assessments of descriptive representation in the Netherlands and Germany

How do ethnic minoritized citizens feel represented by politicians who look like them? Since parliaments are mostly inhabited by white men, political equality – fundamental for a properly functioning democracy – seems questionable. Researchers have therefore placed the numerical presence (descriptive representation) of historically marginalized groups high on the agenda. Yet, intersectional and ideological variation within marginalized groups complicates a straightforward relationship between descriptive MPs and the group they allegedly stand or act for. Do minoritized citizens actually self-identify with descriptive MPs, and if so, how does their presence matter to citizens’ experiences of representation? To explore minoritized citizens’ under researched perspectives, I approach these questions by drawing on 21 comparative focus group interviews with ethnic minority and majority citizens (N=108) on assessments of political representation in Germany and the Netherlands. The focus groups were conducted online during different phases of the Covid-19 pandemic. Questions asked are (1) When do you consider that an MP ‘looks like you’? and (2) How, if so, does having MPs who ‘look like you’ matter? I take an intersectional approach by comparing what descriptive representation means to citizens between ethnic groups (i.e. Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese in the Netherlands, Turkish, former Soviet Union and African in Germany) and within ethnic groups, along axes of gender, religion, sexuality, social class and age. I find that, for ethnic minoritized research participants, an MP who ‘looks like them’ is not necessarily a politician who is categorized in the same way. Citizens frequently consider that political actors descriptively represent them, even though they belong to a different (ethnic) minoritized group. Moreover, citizens discuss descriptive representatives beyond formally elected actors, like majors, activists, or politicians abroad. Instead of solely looking at MPs’ ascribed social markers, participants talk about descriptive representatives as political actors who understand their position in society, based on politically relevant shared experiences, like discrimination, exclusion or social mobility-related inequalities. Furthermore, intersectionality matters to citizens’ assessments of what makes MPs ‘descriptive’ or not. For participants, the politicians’ gender, ethnicity/race, social class, religion, and age matter in intertwined ways. Participants generally considered descriptive representation important in its own right. Most stress how descriptive MPs provide ‘ability to rule’ to underrepresented groups and communicate that minoritized citizens belong to society, and therefore, should have an equal say in political matters. In contrast, participants hotly debate if MPs who ‘look like them’ would be more likely to act on their behalf compared to non-descriptive MPs. These discussions starkly differ between groups and countries, depending on the size and ideological heterogeneity of communities, and countries’ differing political systems. I discuss implications of these findings for how descriptive representation is commonly measured, and how this may be improved. Including minoritized citizens’ own perspectives on descriptive politicians contributes to understanding the conditions under which the numerical presence of minority MPs may increase political inclusion and equality.