Beware of broadstancing: Minoritised politicians broadening their electoral appeal by distancing themselves from their ascribed in-group

Many observers of politics will recognise cases of minoritised politicians distancing themselves from their in-group. This is often received as a surprising exception to the assumed rule that minoritised politicians will stand for the interests of their ascribed in-group members. I argue that this phenomenon is not an exception, but instead, the rule in most electoral contexts. Drawing on research based on gender, ethnic, racial, religious and sexual diversity in politics, I introduce the term broadstancing to describe when minoritised politicians broaden their electoral appeal by distancing themselves from their ascribed in-group. I map the distinct dynamics that cause broadstancing across various electoral contexts. Instead of understanding broadstancing as a surprising phenomenon, I conceptualise it as a logical dynamic that leverages the onlooker’s initial surprise to reinforce political inequalities. Broadstancing veils policies that reduce equality, it legitimises narratives and practices that would otherwise attract (more) criticism, and softens the tone of exclusionary practices. I argue that the public needs to understand this logic of representation to safeguard the healthy functioning of democracy.