Political Figures of Authority: Representation of Identity yet Conflicting Policy

Political Figures of Authority: Representation of Identity yet Conflicting Policy

written by Vivika Sahajpal

photography by Vivika Sahajpal

Figures of political authority, however underlyingly, have influence over our lives and they are individuals that we inadvertently put our trust in to act in our interest and serve the population that put them in power. In turn, these figures of authority have the ability to act as role models and aspirational individuals, but whether they always do so is a different matter. Either way, their reach across the population is undeniable, including their impact on society’s view of marginalised communities. Impact’s Vivika Sahajpal reports.

Adding their identity into the mix adds a whole new level of political discourse, psychological investment and frankly, emotion, from the public, into the mix too. The question is: to what extent do we, and should we, let political representation of marginalised identities in power have an impact on the way we, as voters, feel about their politics and policies before and after elections?

Political representation of previously, and currently, marginalised groups is undoubtedly important for more reasons than one, starting with marginalisation itself. If individuals in a society are pushed to the periphery, purely due to aspects of their identity, it can give those communities a negative perception regarding what the society they are a part of will allow them to achieve and where their society views them as belonging.

Naturally, this can be incredibly harmful, not only personally to the people in those communities but also to the representation of minorities in voting and other forms of political participation. Seeing individuals who share their characteristics in positions of political authority is one of the things that can contribute to undoing this harm and encouraging fair representation across our varied political systems.

Secondly, speaking from my experiences as a woman of colour, the moment when Rishi Sunak, as a person of colour, was announced as Prime Minister was one of pride and hope. A feeling that changed as he began to act in his role but a feeling that was there initially, nonetheless. In a society and a system where there are often underlying feelings of discomfort due to identity, it can feel like a turning point when a member of one of these communities pioneers a new area; whether that should influence political opinion or not, its significance to members of that community is very much present.

Another aspect to consider is the positive implications for the overall population and system that come to the surface when members of a marginalised or minority group are able to either be voted in or rise up the ranks to a position of high power. Of course, in an ideal world, this would not be a great feat or achievement but in a society with our history, it absolutely is. This is made evident by the lack of fair representation we still have in political authorities making it an even greater achievement when it does happen.

However, it’s a double-sided coin and the fact that a politician might be representing a marginalised group is not the entirety of that individual. It is important to acknowledge that similarly to any member of the public, politicians are a complex combination of characteristics that cannot be reduced to their protected ones.

The level of relatability that voters can feel to a politician due to shared protected characteristics can be dangerous if they allow it to balance out negative opinions they have of them or use it to ignore the potential issues with their political stances. Following in that stead, the first female Prime Minister and first Prime Minister of colour are perfect examples to explore this. Margaret Thatcher was an influential yet highly disputed figure throughout her time holding the position. As the first female Prime Minister, the step she took by becoming Prime Minister was a significant one; however, she resented the constant association made between her and her gender in the discourse surrounding her political prowess. She has also often been criticised for abandoning her early messages that promoted women ‘combining marriage and a career’ in favour of her message supposedly even discouraging women from following her lead in this area.

Rishi Sunak had different circumstances for his appointment as Prime Minister. Amid the government crisis, he was elected unopposed following Truss’s resignation. Despite the unusual circumstances of his election, it is still to be noted that, as a person of colour, he climbed the political ladder and reached a point that meant he was in a position to be elected. However, his stances on a range of issues from refugees to strike action have had a wide range of reactions from the many demographics of our population, many of these being negative.

On the one hand, Thatcher supported bills to legalise abortion and to decriminalise male homosexuality yet on the other her polarising economics and controversial housing and industry-based policies caused outrage and hostility throughout the population with many of them actively being criticised for negatively impacting women. So where do her achievements as a woman fit into this and where do they fit into her legacy and the destructive marks she left on this country?

Similarly, Sunak has been widely applauded for his hand in the Windsor Framework and the recent AI safety summit. However, he’s also been massively criticised for his dismissive and problematic attitude and actions surrounding a range of issues from climate change to transgender rights to his handling of immigration and refugee policy. The latter of these, naturally negatively affects people of colour amongst others. So how should we view Sunak’s identity in the context of the policies and bills he’s promoting when some conflict with the interests of the community that identifies with him and others conflict with the interests of other marginalised groups?

Some might say it is a matter of ignoring protected characteristics altogether when it comes to political figures. Others might prioritise the importance of representation above all else. Perhaps, instead, it is a matter of attempting to separate the protected characteristics of a politician from their politics whilst still acknowledging both.

There is a nuanced balance to be struck between firstly, appreciating and recognising when a member of a marginalised group has managed to achieve something that systems of oppression have often barred them from throughout history; and secondly, understanding that the role of political figures is rooted in their policy, not their identity and most importantly, not letting either cloud the clarity of the other.