Abstract
ABSTRACT How and when is indigenous political representation institutionalised? This paper contends that such institutionalization occurs when there is philosophical agreement of the need to do so across actors. It develops Discursive Institutionalization in concert with the Narrative Policy Framework to demonstrate DI’s philosophical contestations as structuring both the deployment of NPF’s policy narrative strategies and their effectiveness. Comparing the indigenous representation proposals of Australia’s Voice to Parliament and Singapore’s Group Representation Constituencies, the article illustrates how they are relied upon by actors in “compound” and “simple” polities to obfuscate and convey, respectively, the policy narratives that act upon prospects for greater representation. Drawing on parliamentary Hansard records, public statements by policymakers, and cabinet papers, it addresses the narrative construction affecting the real-world policy problem of indigenous and minority representation. It concludes that examining national narratives and the coterminous macro-level paradigms using the NPF and relating it to DI as an “institutionalism” explaining change offers a compelling explanation for policy stasis/advancements in representation policies.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.