We need to analyse two issues that divide political scientists to provide an answer.

i) Is political representation ?substantive? or ?descriptive? or both ? . Put crudely in the USA,the debate is often about ? who will better defend the interests of women and blacks between a Northeastern white male liberal and a Southern black female conservative ? Everybody knows the local equivalent of this question.

ii) Does gender make a ?substantive? difference ? Do more women Mps make a difference in policies and in legislative actions ?

● Descriptive or substantive representation ? Gender poses a problem to those studying political representation. It concerns the issue of what representation means.Political scientists distinguish two concepts of representation : representation as ?standing for? and as ?acting for?.The ?standing for? type of representation is associated with descriptive representation while the ?acting for? refers to substantive representation.

Substantive representation takes place when elected officials represent their constituents through the fulfilment of their political needs.Citizens are effectively represented when their representatives are chosen in a manner where there is congruence between the politicians? beliefs and the voters? views.What matters are the ideas of MPs rather their descriptive characteristics.The quality of representation depends more on attributes such as experience,training and knowledge rather than the extent to which MPs are physically similar to their constituents.Here the conception of representation is ethnic,race and gender blind.What counts is ?the politics of ideas?.

Other researchers make a case in defence of the politics of presence as they believe such representation is crucial if political institutions are to be considered as representative.In a society characterized by race,ethnic,and gender disparities,these cleavages are bound to affect political representation.While rejecting the view that only substantial representation matters,they do not advocate a politics of presence only.They instead argue for a theory of representation based ALSO on ?the politics of presence? compared to one based only on ?the politics of ideas?.Presence becomes a key element in the notion of representation.They contend that responding to gender issues and cultural diversity becomes a key test of representativeness in plural societies.Thus, policies of a Govt that is also descriptively representative has greater legitimacy,thus enhancing political stability and respect. However they do caution against taking the concept of descriptive representation too far.Thus ?there is no need for left-handed redheads of the world to unite in anger over their lack of representation? and they suggest that what is relevant is exclusion that occurs on politically relevant elements like women.They conclude that policies that enhance the participation, consultation and representation of women in public life play an important role in making Parliament more politically representative.

● Symbolic or critical mass representation ? Does women?s presence in Parliament make a difference in the political agenda ?.The empirical evidence is mixed. In earlier studies,there was not much evidence to suggest that descriptive representation makes a difference.They showed that women Mps represent first their respective parties,then the voters in their constituencies and finally their gender.These findings seem to validate the important point made by many political theorists that the primary function of representation is to represent the substantive interests of the represented.The studies show that political parties,rather than gender, matter to understand differences in values,attitudes and the legislative agenda.

However these findings may reflect the difficulties of investigating the impact of women?s presence because of the very small number of women Mps.When the inquiry has concerned many more women Parliamentarians,it found that female Mps do affect the political output.They promote legislations that enhance women?s status in society,focus their attention on matters like health care,family welfare,child care, education,equal pay,violence against women and policies for a better balance to work and family.Then,there are differences to perspectives on policy debates.Even if men and women agree that the same issues are significant, their perspectives differ.While they concur that employment issues are important,surveys show that women are more concerned about work and family life while men focus on pay,career prospects and benefits.As a result of these different issues and perspectives,women do make a ?substantive difference? and contribute to influence the public policy agenda.There are also gendered differences in the style of doing politics and in behaviour during debates.A study in New Zealand shows that women are less likely to make personal attacks against their colleagues.Male Mps are more prone than their female colleagues to interruptions during debates and to abuse of points of order.And they have a tendency to be more ?aggressive? in their language.

Such findings have led some political scientists to argue that women will have an impact on the political agenda and public policy once they attain a ?critical mass? in Parliament. This theory suggests that the nature of group interactions depend upon size and once a certain size is reached,there will be transformation in cultures,values and the legislative actions.As Clare Short, an ex-UK Minister, remarked:

?As more women come into Parliament,the culture will change,the agenda of politics will broaden and the institution itself will be transformed?.

The figure set for ?critical mass? is about 30 % of Parliament,which is also the threshold proposed by the UN in 1995 as the necessary minimum of women representatives needed for women to be fairly represented..

In the UK, after the 1997 elections,when the number of women Mps doubled to 18 %,the key question was whether women made a difference. Many female Labour Mps were sharply criticized as ?nothing more than lobby-fodder and were pilloried for adhering too much to party discipline?. These criticisms became vehement when benefits to single mothers were cut and Labour women Mps voted with their party.On the other hand,a study undertaken in New Zealand,where the share of women Mps rose from 4 % to 29 % over a 25 year period,reveals that women did make a substantive difference on issues like child care and parental leave as their size grew in Parliament.

This seems to support the critical mass theory.Symbolic women representation does not have much impact while a critical mass of women in Parliament can make substantial difference to policy priorities and the parliamentary agenda.