What Makes a Good Politician? Reassessing the Criteria Used for Political Recruitment

What makes a good candidate for electoral office? There is surprisingly little consensus in answering this question. For parties, it may be subjective criteria such as eloquence, intelligence, charisma, or networks (Hazan and Rahat 2010; Murray 2010). It may also be more democratically dubious criteria such as party loyalty, independent financial resources, or family ties. Political theorists debate the relative merits of descriptive, substantive, symbolic, surrogate, gyroscopic, or promissory representatives (Dovi 2002; Mansbridge 2003; Pitkin 1967; Przeworski et al 1999; Rehfeld 2010), while for many empiricists, the measures of candidate strength are levels of education and/or income (Baltrunaite et al 2012; Besley et al 2012; Franceschet and Piscopo 2012; Galasso and Nannicini 2011; Júlio and Tavares 2010; Verge 2011). For the public, in contrast, many of these criteria are not important: they simply want someone who can recognise, understand and defend their views and interests. With so many different interpretations of candidate quality, and with very few codified criteria for candidate selection (Hazan and Rahat 2010), it is difficult to prove conclusively whether party candidate selection procedures discriminate against women, either negatively or positively (for example, through the use of quotas). There is evidence, however, that the criteria currently used by parties are based on male norms that may disadvantage women (Bacchi 1996; Norris and Lovenduski 1995). Attributes more commonly held by women may be overlooked or undervalued (Franceschet et al 2012). Party selectors may not be aware of these biases and believe they are selecting the best available candidates, even when the outcome is the over-recruitment of men. Given that current candidate selection criteria are ill-defined, poorly specified, difficult to measure and discriminatory, this paper considers how to identify new criteria that are more objective, measurable, unbiased, and better suited to the requirements of representation.