Governments are always based on "quotas": representing the relative power of the various political clans within the ruling party. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
If that is true, it only makes it worse for her -and that may be Starvid's meaning:
When someone is appointed as an ethnic quota (or gender, or age), he will be expected to act as such. That is, as a token.
Yade was appointed as the token black. Not just to the government but to all of her previous political positions (OK, as the token pretty young woman as well, UMP being very short of them). In that respect, ANY show of actual personality was always going to be seen as out of character. Ability would be frowned upon as well. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Tokenism or quotas may not be ideal, but if the persons appointed are in fact competent, there's much less of a problem, and people will get used to having government members of different genders, ethnicity, etc. But if the competent token is expected to behave as just a token, competence isn't even a requisite.
(This said, Rama Yade has acted out a fair amount...)
For all of the nonsense talked about democracy, realpolitik is about both national and personal prestige. The EU has been undermining this by not being a nation state, and by not having a single charismatic leader. This disturbs the upper levels of power because it seems unnatural to them.
One of the quieter European successes has been an occasional fondness for politicians who are colourless and bland, but also informed and relatively competent.
This compares favourably with the strutting machismo and overwhelming charisma that's usually expected of leaders, in lieu of expertise, insight, experience, or relevant qualifications.
Democracy isn't possible until politics moves beyond style and focusses on substance.
In the meantime, tokenism is a form of trophy politics - the token politician is owned by their leader, which is why they're expected to behave.
I don't see the tokenism as the problem - because it's the model for most politics. Tokenism shows it up and makes it more obvious. But it's no different in principle to NuLab's history of top-down dictatorship, where cabinet ministers were expected to do PR for No 10's decisions, and not indulge in free thinking.
Likewise for the other minions of Sarkozy, Burlesconi, Bush, Reagan, Thatcher, and all of our usual favourites.
I disagree. She could fully well have been appointed as a competent minister (although she was rather light in my view -but then so were several other ministers).
The problem is not that she was appointed being an attractive black woman. It was that, from her very first step into politics, she was appointed AS a pretty black woman. Her abilities or lack thereof never even made it into the equation. Therefore, she was not expected to act like her opinions mattered.
On the other hand, you could have a pretty black womand appointed as minister because she is competent. In that case you would expect her to speak her mind, but not to have her picture appear regularly in fashion magazines, because the good looks would only be a coincidence. Of course, for that you would need to have a different person in the Elysée palace. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
