What factors account for differing levels of political participation?
What factors account for differing levels of political participation?
There are many different factors that account for political participation, some are institutional such as a countries political framework (say the electoral system) and some are social such as ones involvement in civil society for example, voluntary organizations.
Theoretical approaches also differ in their accounts as to what makes one participate in the political process. Where as the instrumental approach sees political participation as a means to an end, such as the defence or advancement of an individual or group (or the fight against tyranny) the developmental approach suggests that people feel a social responsibility or duty to do so.1 Although these approaches tell us why some do participate in the political process they do not fully explain why others do not.
Axford, (2002) defines political participation as, "the examination of both activity and non-activity and the reasons underlying both".2
Therefore, it could be that the sociological approach is more useful as it sees the function of resources as a crucial influence. These resources may be ones background including education or class that in-turn gives an individual the means to participate. The rational or economic approach which suggests that self interest motivates people to be politically active is also "useful in the explanation of the engagement and non-engagement of people in the political process...[even if] it offers a very stark, some would say bleak, view of human motivation".3
There is no exclusive definition to this study and "our understanding of political participation is set deliberately broad to try to capture a fair representation of the numerous ways in which ordinary citizens seek to influence the policy-making process".4 Therefore this essay will not just spin out institutional factors or conventional approaches to this study but will also look into individual attributes and social factors such as the importance of civic engagement (that is increasingly being studied) as an explanation into the differing levels of political participation. Overlapping both the formal and informal factors.
The authors of Political Participation and Democracy in Britain, (1992) suggest that the study of political participation consists of,
"taking part in the processes of information, passage and implementation of public polices. It is concerned with action by citizens which is aimed at influencing decisions taken by public representatives and officials. This may be action that tries to shape the attitudes of decision-makers...or action in protest at the outcomes of a decision."5
However this only "pushes students of politics to examine those activities designed to influence governmental policy"6 and not actions aimed at influencing civil society as "traditionally, studies of political participation understood strictly as action were mainly concerned with electoral activities, particularly voting".7 However for some people the "the decision not to take any action could be a matter of rational calculation"!8
Therefore, the classification of different types of political activity such as the distinction between conventional and unconventional, is problematic9 and can only be attempted if we have some insight into the question of where politics ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
However this only "pushes students of politics to examine those activities designed to influence governmental policy"6 and not actions aimed at influencing civil society as "traditionally, studies of political participation understood strictly as action were mainly concerned with electoral activities, particularly voting".7 However for some people the "the decision not to take any action could be a matter of rational calculation"!8
Therefore, the classification of different types of political activity such as the distinction between conventional and unconventional, is problematic9 and can only be attempted if we have some insight into the question of where politics and in-turn political participation-begins and ends. For example, is talking in the pub about taxes being too high some kind of political activity? In a dictatorship it certainly would be!
It is understood that individual activism varies considerably. "In his book The Conceptions and Theories of Modern Democracy (1993), Anthony Birch lists what he understands is the main conventional types of political participation".10 These included, voting behavior, active memberships of a political party, taking part in demonstrations or strikes, various forms of community action and so on.11 However there are more sophisticated classifications in the book, Political participation and democracy in Britain (1992) that discuss the path-braking work of studies that identify 'modes' of political participation and a super-scale that draws distinction "between electoral and non-electoral and conventional and non-conventional"12 participation.
The questions that follow are who are the activists? and "why are some individuals high on some, or even all, of the ladders of participation whilst others seem anchored firmly at the bottom?"13
When looking at factors that constrain or promote participation we must look at the function of 'resources'. Having resources can mean that an individual has martial wealth, good education and skill and/or membership to organised groups that in-turn put them in a better position to participate in the political process.14 Research evidence has suggested that more education tends to mean more participation however different educational terms has made it hard for this evidence to be carried out cross-culturally.
This issue of resources is backed by the sociological approach that suggests that certain people develop 'civic attitudes'-though their family background and personal environment, which predispose them to participate politically. "Civic attitudes include an interest in, and knowledge of, politics, a sense of political effectiveness an also a feeling that there is an obligation to participate".15 These civic attitudes are more likely to emerge among the upper class who are generally better educated and financially secure enough to invest time, energy and money into such organisations. However although this approach dose explain why some take part in the political process whilst others do not, it dose not account for individual influences.
As peoples wants and needs are varied, the economic theory of participation suggests that "people act in very strict instrumental terms and assess the value of public involvement in terms of the likelihood of achieving their objective".16 Thus, the civic orientation seems far less important compared to ones direct interest and particular 'issues' and needs. In-turn this implies that the poorer of society lack resources and power to achieve their objective making them feel participating is a waste of time!
However it could be the case that those who are of lower status should be more active as they would surly have more 'issues', making their needs greater and participation stronger? However this pattern has been argued too simple as the cost of time would be overridden by the outcome.17
In recent years a debate has emerged that suggests that there has been a decline in civic activity. Consequently Robert Putnam (2001) argues that this decline of civic activity has resulted in a decline in the rate and quality of political participation18 with the main consequence being the decline of trust-an important ingredient of political stability.19 These damaging effects are said to have lead to lower electoral turnouts, political activism and civic engagement in the United States.
Putnam also argues that the influence of television ha also accounting for a change in the levels of participation. Unfortunately there have been many criticisms to his work however in response it has left the study of political participation something to think about- "is the United States-or anywhere else becoming a 'nation of spectators'?"20 Or is civic life-participation ok?
"One of the main determinates of political participation is the legal framework in any given state".21 Voting in elections provides a good example, as they are heavily regulated and all countries place restrictions as to who can and can't vote. In-turn electoral law, as we have seen in the past (for example, with women not having the vote) places constraints that can influence political participation.
Some writers have suggested a greater consequence has emerged from electoral law. Raising "deeper structural questions about the reasons for participation and non-participation.22 Which include social constraints such class, religion, gender or ethnicity and dominate cultural norms such as, white middle class male! For example "feminists would argue that patriarchal belief systems devalue the public role of women who are treated predominantly as chid-rearers".23
"By examining electoral data, we can construct a picture of mass political participation and change in a country".24 However we must be careful when looking at one-party states as the figures are more then likely to be misleading and tell us nothing about its political stability. Electoral data has revealed evidence of a decline in turnouts in some nations however it has been difficult to determine the meaning of these declines resulting in the crisis of participation thus, remaining unproven.25
In the book, Party and Participation in Britain's Elections (1986) Mugham has constructed a model that consists of three factors that account for differing levels of participation. These factors are headed by terms; long term, middle term and short term. This model is useful as it covers institutional factors, the economic situation and any immediate stimuli that could motivate one into participation. Suggesting that political "participation takes on a multi-dimensional appearance".26
This essay has only given a summary of just a few of the factors that could account for the differing levels of political participation. It has concentrated on social factors including the power of resources and has recognized the importance of institutional constraints and economic influences.
The importance in the study of political participation is understanding what motivates people to participate in the political process. In doing this political scientists can then raise valuable questions, if or when we are faced with a crisis in participation or perhaps a crisis of democracy.27
Bibliography
Axford al el. (2002), An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Parry at el. (1992), Political participation and democracy in Britain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, Justin, (oct.02), Political Science Methods; Rational Choice, lecture note 6
Justin Fisher, Political Science Methods; Rational Choice, (Lecture note 6 October 02)
2 Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P 121
3 Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P 144
4 Geraint Parry at el. Political participation and democracy in Britain (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992) P 39
5 Geraint Parry at el. Political participation and democracy in Britain (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992) P 16
6Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P 123
7Geraint Parry at el. Political participation and democracy in Britain (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992) P 40
8Geraint Parry at el. Political participation and democracy in Britain (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992) P 8
9 Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P 122
0Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P 123
1Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P 123
2Geraint Parry at el. Political participation and democracy in Britain (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992) P 61
3 Geraint Parry at el. Political participation and democracy in Britain (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992) P 61
4 Geraint Parry at el. Political participation and democracy in Britain (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992) P 64
5 Geraint Parry at el. Political participation and democracy in Britain (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992) P 10
6 Geraint Parry at el. Political participation and democracy in Britain (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992) P 10
7 Geraint Parry at el. Political participation and democracy in Britain (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992) P 11
8 Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P134
9 Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P135
20 Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P143
21Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P147
22 Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P150
23 Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P150
24 Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P152
25 Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P157
26 Geraint Parry at el. Political participation and democracy in Britain (Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992) P 17
27 Axford at el. An Introduction to Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002) P156
2
