The Pitfalls of Tokenism
The danger of tokenism always lurks in efforts toward inclusion. Even with good intentions minority individuals may unintentionally be placed in positions where it seems no one is genuinely enthusiastic about their presence; they appear to be there primarily to meet a demand for representation and diversity from internal or external voices. Tokenism is harmful not only to those placed in such positions but can also easily create resistance to inclusion efforts in general and foster apathy among other minority individuals.
Despite Kamala Harris's rise through loyalty to the male-dominated party apparatus of the Democratic Party through , she was never meant to be anything more than a token for women and Black people in a seemingly influential yet powerless position as vice president, in an attempt to retain some of the popularity of Obama and Hillary Clinton. It was never intended for her to become the next Democratic presidential candidate; she was likely chosen because she was perceived as un charismatique to pose a threat in a primary election.
Harris was presented as a candidate for both Black individuals and women, but she did not reflect the mindset surrounding traditional power structures in American society, and her messaging was unclear when addressing women, African-Americans, and young activists.
On the other hand, Badenoch became the leader of the Conservatives due to a counting error in tactical voting aimed at eliminating a presumed stronger opponent, but the supporters of the favorite ended up voting out their own candidate. They likely viewed her as a suitable second choice and a way to challenge Labour, which has less diversity in its leadership.
In contrast, Obama's background in grassroots activism and his agenda for change secured him support among Black individuals, women, and minorities, which gave party leadership confidence in him.
Kamala and Kemi are not the first black women placed as tokens in political positions. They are often put in positions used to deliver controversial messages as many will remember Omarosa Newman from Trump's first administration, not to mention Condoleeza Rice as Bush junior's Security Adviser.
The unique aspect of Badenoch and Harris is that they, by chance or oversight, found themselves in positions of influence that they were never intended to occupy. This highlights the pitfalls of tokenism; without support from leadership and lacking enthusiasm from the minorities they are meant to appease, it reveals itself as a mere façade.
The verdict on Harris is clear: Black women voted for her out of fear of the alternative. However, she lost some Black men and many Latino men turned away from her, and she lost first-time voters. Young people on the left chose to stay home rather than fulfill their democratic duty, and despite their fears of Trump, they did not believe Harris could offer anything new.
Tokenism is a risk in any all work for diversity, inclusion and equity, if it does generate engagement at top-level and does not stem from the needs of minorities. When it inclusion does not become part of the culture, team-leaders as well as senior executives with minority backgrounds who are placed in positions to ensure diversity will lack the necessary trust within the organization.
Whether Badenoch's leadership will strengthen or weaken the Conservative Party remains to be seen, but so far she appears to be a token, lacking enthusiasm within the party and among minorities; she is definitely no Barack Obama.