Why Politics Is Failing Disabled People – And What To Do About It
Matt Warren of Universal Impact on an eye-opening new book which exposes the barriers preventing fairer, more inclusive representation.
An eye-opening new book exposes the barriers preventing fairer, more inclusive representation.
Matt Warren
“Change” may have been the promise that inspired Labour’s recent landslide UK general election win. But some things in politics remain stubbornly in place. Not least the ableist barriers that prevent politics from being truly accessible to and representative of disabled people.
How and why politics is failing disabled people – and what to do about it – are central themes of a new book by ISRF Fellow Elizabeth Evans, Professor of Politics at the University of Southampton, and Stefanie Reher, Reader in the School of Government & Public Policy at the University of Strathclyde.
Drawing on case studies and international data, their book flags the persistent obstacles to fairer representation, from disenfranchisement and inaccessible polling stations to party prejudice, and makes the case for more disabled politicians. It also proposes some potentially powerful solutions.
There’s clearly a long way to go.
“Disability did not feature prominently in the 2024 [UK] election,” says Evans. “Rare election moments when disability came to the fore included Steve Darling, a visually impaired Liberal Democrat, who was accused of ‘not really being blind’ by his opponents, and the deselection of former MP and Scottish Conservative candidate David Duguid on the grounds that he was judged too unwell to stand – something he denied.
“As far as we can tell, there are nine (self-identified) disabled politicians following the recent election – this is one less than the previous Parliament. There was no Access to Elected Office Fund available, which has been shown to be important to disabled candidates.
“In other words, there has been little progress on disability and political representation.”
Evans and Reher launched their book, Disability and Political Representation, at an ISRF event in June. They were joined for a panel discussion afterwards by Dr Sarabajaya Kumar, Associate Professor in Voluntary Sector Policy and Leadership at UCL, and Dr Alison Wilde, Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at Northumbria University.
Speaking at the event, Evans introduced their book as “a labour of love and friendship”.
The main argument is that disability and political representation really matters and that it’s actually a matter of life and death. When we think about the policies that governments pursue, when we think about the austerity agenda, when we think about the cuts to benefits, political representation… isn’t the only way of achieving change. And we know that there’s been amazing work done by the disability rights movement. But this is one important way in which change can come about.
Very often, when I tell people that I’m working on disability and political representation, they’ll sort of say, ‘Oh, yes, David Blunkett’, as though if David Blunkett can make it, if one person can make it, then that means that it’s accessible for everyone. And one thing that we were committed to in writing this book, was to try and systematically detail and analyse the experiences of disabled people, as they are marginalised as voters, as members of political parties, as election candidates within political parties, and even once they get elected, as well.
Elizabeth Evans, speaking at Barnard’s Inn Hall on 20th June 2024 - re-watch the event here.
Indeed, Evans and Reher argue that the very way we think about representation and who – and which bodies – can represent us is based on an ableist standpoint. And yet they claim it has been shown over and again that non-disabled politicians are unable adequately to represent disabled people’s interests.
“The good representation of disabled people really requires disabled representatives,” says Evans. “And we try to articulate this idea of experiential representation, the importance of lived experience to the process of political representation, the lived experience of being disabled in an ableist society.
“We know that disabled people are more likely to have tested and developed solutions to accessibility problems. We know that disabled people are more likely to have broader ranges of thinking about disability on their radar. And there may be new ways of doing politics.”
The book draws on interviews with over 80 former candidates and current elected representatives, members of disabled people’s organisations and survey data. The authors also analyse political texts, such as party manifestos, MPs’ speeches, early day motions and written questions.
One challenge was how to measure disability and identify disabled people. To do this, Evans and Reher relied on people self-identifying as disabled. And while they acknowledge that disabled people have a vast variety of different experiences, they argue that they do constitute a “politically relevant social group” because of the way ableist society defines, stigmatises and discriminates against them.
Take voting. Article 29 of the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) stipulates that disabled people should be able to “ effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others” and that “voting procedures, facilities and materials are appropriate, accessible and easy to understand and use”.
But Evans and Reher reveal that this isn’t always the case – even in advanced democracies, such as the US, UK and Germany. Polling stations, polling cards, registration and information, for example, too often remain inaccessible for some – preventing some disabled people from engaging with the political process.
And then there are the political parties themselves, which also place obstacles in the way of disabled people. This can even start at the point of first contact – with access to party websites, which may lack appropriate accessibility tools and functions.
Interviewees also told Evans and Reher that parties don’t always meet in accessible venues and that the expectation that candidates must go out and campaign by “knocking on doors” leads to discrimination against disabled candidates.
“One woman we spoke with said that she was told that disability ‘doesn’t look good on the doorstep’,” says Evans.
See also: Elizabeth Evans on ‘Disability & Political Representation’ for Issue 26 of the ISRF Bulletin.
Even those selected to run for elected office face significant barriers – particularly disabled women.
“To put yourself forward as a candidate, you might have to travel around the country trying to find a seat, you might need to take time off work, you might need to pay for additional costs,” says Evans. And these factors frequently prevent disabled people from running.
Some of those Evans and Reher interviewed even spoke of how they were told “to keep quiet about being disabled”.
The Access to Elected Office Fund, which was set up by the UK government to help disabled candidates pay the additional disability-related costs they faced to run their campaign and was followed by the EnAble Fund, another interim solution, was not in place for the latest, July election either. This was despite the fact that the National Disability Strategy promised to build on these previous mechanisms “to support those seeking to become candidates”.
But all this is at odds with how voters feel about disabled representatives. “We found that voters perceive disabled candidates as more compassionate, more honest and more hardworking,” says Reher. They didn’t see them as any less competent and valued their lived experience.
The book also investigates the extent to which disabled people’s views, interests and preferences are represented in policymaking across Europe. Using survey data from 25 European countries, Evans and Reher found that disabled people, on average, “actually do hold different political preferences. They tend to be, on average, more left wing, more pro redistribution, and more Eurosceptic”.
“But what we also found was that across Europe, on average, government positions are further away from the preferences, the positions of disabled people, than those of non disabled people,” says Reher.
In short, disabled people just aren’t being included and listened to.
So what can we do about it?
One solution that came up during their research was job-sharing for politicians. This wouldn’t only make politics more accessible for disabled people, but also for all those with caring responsibilities.
“The House of Commons and political parties also need to be recording data on the number of disabled members and disabled candidates in the same way that they’re expected to report this data with regard to gender,” says Evans. “This will help bring it up the political agenda… We’re obviously also in favour of reintroducing the Access to Elected Office Fund, in favour of introducing accessibility audits for political parties to be held to greater account when it comes to the treatment of disabled members.”
“We conducted a lot of the research during the pandemic and there were a lot of hybrid and virtual events,” Reher adds. “We found that a lot of the disabled people we talked to found that that was extremely helpful in terms of engaging with political parties, but also for members of parliament to be able to participate better…
“But… we’ve very quickly seen a return to normal, and to having in person events. And we’re very happy that we could hold this event in a hybrid way today…”
Disability and Political Representation unveils the persistent discrimination and inequality that still afflicts politics. But it also maps a way forward – and argues for urgent reform.
After all, in Evans’ words, this is a “matter of life and death”.