Political Recruitment Beyond Elections: An Exploration of the Linkage Between Patronage, Democracy, and Diversity in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Flowing out of wider debates regarding representative democracy, the diversity of political institutions has gained salience. Normatively, it is suggested that it is simply unfair for white, middle‐aged males to dominate decision‐making structures. Instead it has been argued that representative diversity can enhance the legitimacy of political institutions and processes, whilst improving the quality and inclusivity of policy‐making. Although most of these arguments have been applied to elected institutions and their bureaucracies, they are also germane in the context of appointments to the boards of public bodies, as the work of these bodies and the decisions made by their board members impacts upon the everyday lives of citizens. Drawing upon original research conducted in the UK, this article argues that the capacity of political actors to make appointments to public boards offers an as yet unrealized democratic potential by offering more opportunities for social engagement and participation in public governance.

The watchdogs of ‘Washminster’ – parliamentary scrutiny of executive patronage in the UK

“…Under the Coalition, the proportion of women being newly appointed to public bodies has risen from 36.4% in 2010 to 41.1% in 201441.1% in (OCPA, 2014). Yet previous research (Flinders, Matthews and Eason, 2012) has underlined a range of constraints on, and barriers to, greater diversity in public life, specifically the way in which the at times tribal culture of Westminster politics can be daunting to those not imbued with such norms. Indeed, OCPA's latest statistics reveals that in relation to the most senior chair appointments (i.e.…”

Encouraging civil servants to be frank and fearless: Merit recruitment and employee voice

“…This way he can reward the faithful and the friend’ (Collins , p. 197). In such circumstances the underlying motivations behind the appointment of individuals may reflect what has been described as ‘patronage as governance’ rather than ‘patronage as corruption’ (Flinders et al ).…”

Between patronage and good governance: Organizational arrangements in (local) public appointment processes

“…For example, appointments may create more alignment between political and administrative structures (e.g., Aberbach and Rockman, 1998), contribute to energizing the civil service structure (Peters and Pierre, 2004: 11), allow for attracting talents and broadening governing knowledge (Flinders, 2012). They could also offer possibilities for appointing people who reflect societal characteristics (e.g., Flinders et al, 2012;Naff, 2001; Van der Walt and Ingley, 2003), or involve sections of the community with little interest in conventional adversarial party politics, but with interest in undertaking a less partisan role in public life (Flinders et al, 2011).…”

“…They could also offer possibilities for appointing people who reflect societal characteristics (e.g. Flinders et al., 2012; Naff, 2001; Van der Walt and Ingley, 2003), or involve sections of the community with little interest in conventional adversarial party politics but with interest in undertaking a less partisan role in public life (Flinders et al., 2011).…”

“…In this article, we aim to contribute to closing this gap. Specifically, we follow the work of Flinders (2009; 2012), Flinders and Matthews (2010), Flinders et al (2011;2012), which highlighted some conditions that can allow appointments to be used as a tool of good governance rather than a tool of ‘pork barrel’ politics, ‘which is based on the exploitation of government funds to garner support in specific electoral constituencies’ (Flinders et al., 2012: 513).…”