The Institutional Representation of Parliament
| Date | 01 February 2018 |
| Author | David Judge,Cristina Leston-Bandeira |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321717706901 |
| Published date | 01 February 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717706901
Political Studies
2018, Vol. 66(1) 154 –172
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032321717706901
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
The Institutional
Representation of Parliament
David Judge1 and Cristina Leston-Bandeira2
Abstract
Recent theoretical re-conceptualisations of political representation and contemporary empirical
analyses of parliamentary representation have largely neglected the representation of parliaments
as institutions. As a consequence, relatively little attention has been focused upon what is being
communicated to citizens about parliaments and upon the nature of the parliamentary institutions
that citizens are expected to engage with. This is the neglected institutional dimension of
parliamentary representation. Using official documents and interview data from 39 key actors in
the Scottish, Westminster and European parliaments, we analyse who act as ‘claim-makers’ on
behalf of parliaments, the nature of these claims in different political contexts, and the ‘symbolic
intent’ and claims associated with the architectural design of parliamentary buildings. We identify a
basic paradox of institutional representation in that those who ‘speak for’ (most loudly and most
persistently) and ‘act for’ parliaments as institutions are not primarily elected representatives but
rather non-elected officials.
Keywords
representation, symbolic representation, parliament, representative claim-making
Accepted: 19 January 2017
Established democracies in recent decades have been confronted with manifest political
disengagement, decreased levels of citizen trust in parliamentary representatives and
increased public dissatisfaction with the competence of parliaments (Dalton, 2004;
Norris, 2011). In these circumstances, parliamentary institutions increasingly have had to
‘become promoters of the values and operation of parliamentary democracy, bringing
about a cultural and attitudinal shift within each institution’ (Hansard Society, 2010: 68;
IPU, 2012: 41). In analysing this shift, the primary academic focus to date has been upon
democratic linkage – of how parliaments engage with and inform citizens (see Clark and
Wilford, 2012; Kelso, 2007; Leston-Bandeira, 2013, 2014, 2016; Walker, 2012). This
pre-occupation has reflected, in turn, a primary concern with what we identify in this
1School of Government and Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
2School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Corresponding author:
Cristina Leston-Bandeira, School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Email: c.leston-bandeira@leeds.ac.uk
706901PSX0010.1177/0032321717706901Political StudiesJudge and Leston-Bandeira
research-article2017
Article
Judge and Leston-Bandeira 155
article as the first dimension of parliamentary representation: of how the represented and
representatives (as individuals and groups of individuals) interact. As a consequence,
relatively little attention has been focused upon what is being communicated to citizens
about parliaments and upon the nature of the parliamentary institutions that citizens are
expected to engage with. This is the neglected institutional dimension of parliamentary
representation: the representation of what parliaments ‘are’, what claims are made on
their behalf and who are the makers of these claims. This second dimension is our focus
in this article. In this dimension, political representation is not confined to person-to-
person or group-to-group interactions but encompasses a second systemic institutional
dimension of political representation.
The institutions under examination in this article are parliaments, specifically those
nested in the multi-layered representative systems of the United Kingdom. We argue that
claim-based notions of representation and conceptions of symbolic representation, at the
heart of recent re-conceptualisations of representation, provide valuable conceptual step-
ping-stones from the first person-to-person dimension to the second institutional dimen-
sion. In focusing upon this second dimension, we seek to identify the differing contexts
within which institutional representative claims are made for parliaments, who act as
claim-makers on behalf of parliaments, the nature of the claims made, the symbolic
prompts offered by parliamentary architecture, and the growing significance of institu-
tional representation when basic assumptions about the legitimacy of parliamentary insti-
tutions come under sustained critical questioning.
The choice of the three legislatures in our sample enables an examination of the sym-
bolic and institutional claims made by parliaments in distinctly different political, socio-
cultural and constitutional contexts. The UK parliament is a historical institution
embedded within an established demos defined by the boundaries of the UK state, yet
confronted by claims of democratic deficiencies and assertions of pluri-national identi-
ties. The Scottish parliament is a relatively newly created institution at sub-state level
reflecting a distinctive political national identity and afforded a blank slate in its approach
to institutional structures and organisation. The European Parliament (EP) is an evolv-
ing, and expanding, purportedly sui generis, supra-state representative institution with
multiple-demoi and no discernible coherent European political identity.
Our analysis is informed by qualitative data drawn from interviews with key parlia-
mentary actors in each of the three parliaments. In total, 39 interviews were conducted, as
part of a broader project, with parliamentary officials and parliamentarians (12 from
Holyrood, 16 from Westminster and 11 from the EP – see Appendix 1 for a list of of the
key parliamentary interviewees quoted in this article). All interviewees were selected
through a purposive sample approach, according to the role they performed within the
legislature in relation to institutional management and the delivery of public engagement
services. The interviews were conducted, with a condition of anonymity, between
November 2010 and January 2013. Other supporting data were derived from official par-
liamentary documents, parliamentary debates and publicly available documents relating
to architectural design and public engagement strategies of each parliament.
The ‘Representative Turn’, the ‘Constructivist Turn’ and
the Neglect of Institutional Representation
A ‘representative turn’ has become increasingly noticeable in the study of democratic
politics in recent years. Or, more particularly, analysts and theorists of democracy have
To continue reading
Request your trial