Inclusion and diversity, long-standing pillars in politics, are core to many party policies worldwide. But, embracing these values in societal policies differs from implementing them within political organisations themselves. From candidate lists to boards and committees – how to ensure inclusion without tokenism? Is tokenism ever beneficial, or is it invariably detrimental? Here’s the answer.
The fine line between diversity and tokenism
Vice-President of the United States Kamala Harris’ appointment sparked widespread debate on tokenism. Was her selection for Joe Biden’s presidential ticket influenced by her being a woman, a woman of colour, or her political ideologies? Or was it a combination of these factors? And if so, is it necessarily a bad thing?
Merriam-Webster defines tokenism as merely a symbolic effort. However, symbolic efforts can be meaningful in societies just beginning their journey towards inclusivity. Consider candidate selection processes. Parties use various methods, but often, candidates are chosen for their identity–be it theirLGBTIQ+ status, nationality, or socio-economic background–as much as for their political stance. When such candidates are given a genuine platform, this approach, while seemingly tokenistic, becomes critical for parties championing inclusivity.
A personal journey through political representation
My personal journey corroborates this. As a Russian-speaking Armenian in Latvia, I was once a ‘token’ candidate for a liberal party in the 2019 European parliament election. Even before the time of Russia’s full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Latvian politics had a clear Latvian-Russian (speaker) divide, so for a party that wanted to address and unite all nationalities based on ideas and values it was essential to have candidates of different nationalities on the list. Among 16 candidates, three were non-ethnic Latvians. Our ethnic backgrounds weren’t our campaign focus, but our presence on the list signalled our party’s commitment to diversity. The election results, however, were unkind – we faced the most rejections. I plummeted from fourth to last place.
Were we token candidates? Yes. Was the experience traumatic for us? Absolutely. But was it a wrong decision for the party? Decidedly not. Data from 2017 to 2021 shows a decreasing trend in voter rejection of diverse candidates. Change is slow, but persistent efforts are reshaping perceptions and norms, proving the value of patience in transforming voting behaviour.
The European context: progress and challenges
In Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, this conversation is vital. Tokenism can disrupt ingrained discriminatory norms, but it requires more than symbolic gestures. Parties must ensure equal resources and support for all candidates, regardless of their token status. This necessitates strong leadership and fair internal processes. Leaders must champion diversity, and systems must guarantee equal opportunities.
In sum, while tokenism has its pitfalls, it can also be a stepping stone towards genuine inclusivity and diversity. The challenge lies in evolving from mere symbolism to authentic representation, effecting a meaningful change in both voter behaviour and societal norms.
