The Institutional Representation of Parliament

Abstract

Recent theoretical reconceptualisations 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 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.

The value of ‘between-election’ political participation: Do parliamentary e-petitions matter to political elites?

“…Second, recent research has demonstrated the important role of parliamentary officials in embedding new forms of ‘non-electoral’ parliamentary engagement (e.g. Judge and Leston-Bandeira, 2018; Leston-Bandeira, 2016; see also Geddes, 2019). Accordingly, parliamentary officials were purposefully selected in accordance with their role, targeting officials who served as the ‘interface’ between the public and elected MPs.…”

Navigating three faces of decentred leadership in the UK Parliament

“…This is a fundamental tension in terms of how legislatures govern themselvesare legislatures simply products of the elected representatives or collective entities? Judge and Leston-Bandeira (2018) point out that the collective and corporate nature of the institution has been neglected by the elected representatives. Parliament, according to Kelso (2009) "struggles with its identity as a holistic institution," whereby MPs priorities do not include sustained strengthening of the institution.…”

The House Service: ‘Servants’ and ‘Stewards’

“…Public service is a key way through which members of the House Service interpret their role in parliaments (Geddes 2019 , p. 83). These actors have been identified as important actors who make claims on behalf of parliamentary democracy (Judge and Leston-Bandeira 2018 ) and are indeed its stewards. Most employees in the House Service have a proud identification with the House and felt fortunate to work amidst both the ceremony and the dailiness of the parliamentary process.…”

“…We know from political systems around the world that this may be particularly important for lower-income groups who have asymmetric access to information to hold their politicians accountable (Taylor-Robinson 2010 ). As mentioned, members of the House Service are custodians of parliament as ‘proactive institutional claims makers’ (Judge and Leston-Bandeira 2018 , pp. 164–165).…”