Representation is not just about who gets elected. It is also about who gets access to decision makers. Orly Siow, Ashlee Christoffersen and Ceri Fowler conducted research into the engagement between government ministers and NGOs. Their findings reveal striking inequalities in who gets access to political decision-makers 

In democratic systems, political representation is key for ensuring that marginalised voices and interests are heard. However, representation is not just about who is elected or appointed to positions of power. It is also about who gets access to decision makers. Our recent research sheds light on a critical but often overlooked aspect of representation: the engagement between government ministers and equality-focused non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Our findings reveal stark inequalities in who gets the ear of political elites, and which ministers engage with marginalised groups.

The power of political access 

NGOs play a crucial role in democracy. They advocate for the interests of marginalised communities, attempting to influence policy discussions, and shaping legislative agendas. Government ministers, as the most powerful political office-holders, have exceptional authority to drive change. Their engagement with NGOs is a vital avenue for ensuring that policies reflect the needs and interests of underrepresented groups. 

We analysed over 78,000 UK government ministerial meetings, spanning nearly a decade. We investigated which ministers met with equality-focused NGOs, and which types of NGOs gained access to ministers. Our findings show that political access is far from equitable. White men — who, naturally, make up the vast majority of ministers — were the least likely to engage with equality-focused NGOs. In contrast, minoritised women ministers — who are few and far between — were the most likely to engage with these organisations. These relationships hold even when we control for relevant individual and institutional factors.

Furthermore, while women’s organisations had significantly greater access to ministers than race-focused organisations, organisations led by and for intersectionally marginalised groups (such as minoritised women) had the least access of all. This is important because organisations led by and for intersectionally marginalised groups are best placed to advocate on their own behalf. 

Privileged ministers with little knowledge of marginalised groups are also least likely to engage with organisations that could help them represent such constituencies

The findings point to a disturbing reality: privileged ministers, who are the least knowledgeable about the experiences and interests of marginalised groups, are also the least likely to engage with organisations that could help them represent these constituencies. White women ministers were more likely than white men to engage with women’s NGOs. However, they disproportionately favoured organisations led by white women to the exclusion of race-focused organisations. Similarly, while racial justice organisations had some access, their reach was significantly limited compared with single-issue gender equality organisations. 

The crisis of representation 

We argue that this lack of engagement contributes to what Orly Siow describes as a 'crisis of representation'. Descriptive representation (having diverse individuals in political office) is certainly important. However, it does not automatically lead to substantive representation (the representation of groups’ interests and priorities). Powerful decision-makers must engage with organisations that can provide lived experience perspectives and articulate the needs of their communities. 

Diverse representation in political office does not automatically lead to the representation of those groups' interests and priorities

Our findings raise urgent questions about how governments shape policies, and whose voices are excluded from political discourse. If government leaders fail to engage with NGOs that represent the most marginalised communities, these communities are effectively silenced in the policymaking process. 

Towards more equitable democratic processes 

So, what can be done to address these disparities? We suggest that feminist political science must continue to advocate for institutional changes to ensure that ministers — regardless of their own identities — are incentivised or required to engage with a diverse range of NGOs — especially those who represent the most marginalised groups. This could include: 

• Mandating inclusive engagement: governments could introduce policies requiring ministers to meet with intersectional NGOs as part of their decision-making processes. 

• Supporting intersectional NGOs: increased funding and resources for organisations led by and for intersectionally marginalised groups would help level the playing field. 

• Transparency in engagement: public reporting on ministerial meetings with NGOs could help hold leaders accountable for engaging with diverse groups. 

Making marginalised voices heard 

Political access is a form of power. When certain groups are systematically excluded from engaging with government ministers, it erases their interests and perspectives from the policymaking process. Our research highlights the urgent need for institutional reforms that ensure intersectionally marginalised groups are not just represented in political office but are also granted meaningful access to decision-making processes. 

When certain groups are excluded from engaging with government ministers, it erases their interests from the policymaking process

If democracy is to be truly representative, every community — not just the most privileged — must have meaningful opportunities to participate.

How long will it take for political systems to ensure that the voices of the most marginalised are not just heard, but actively included in shaping the policies that govern their lives? 

No.27 in a Loop thread on Gendering Democracy. Look out for the 🌈 to read more in this series