Why and with what consequences for political participation in western democracies have the people become 'critical citizens' (Norris)

Page of

Why and with what consequences for political participation in western democracies have the people become 'critical citizens' (Norris)?

The 20th century was a time of a great ideological struggle that encapsulated the world in a scale of wars never seen before; from the World War's of the first half century to the bitterly long stand off of the Cold War in the latter half. In these battles of the mind, democracy was surrounded from both sides of the ideological spectrum from the extreme right of Nazi National Socialism to the extreme left of the Communist Soviet Union. Democracy emerged victorious against the extreme right by the first half of the century and finally as the people of Germany rose up in defiance and tore down the Berlin wall, so began the fall of Communism. The new western order of democracy, that arose from these ashes, was established on the fundamental values of “freedom, equality and justice”. There, although in an idealist context, should now stand a democracy which can fulfil the wishes of the citizen, in reality however, apathy of the people prevails for 'them' (the state, the system and the government), so culminating in the birth of the Critical Citizen.

The emergence of a Critical Citizen, assuming that this concept is legitimate, is fundamentally due to the peoples apathy for 'them'. The origins for this apathy, and therefore the concept of a Critical Citizen, can be sourced directly from the foundations of democracy. To understand how this concept can be ultimately sourced from democracy is to understand, as stated by Abraham Lincoln in The Gettysburg Address, that in a liberal democracy the government is 'of the people, by the people, for the people'. It is also established that rule is direct or representative in democracies, and so the nations citizens have an equal share in deciding the judgement of the government and so the fate of the nation. It can be seen that to have a rational political judgement which takes into consideration the pros and cons of each of the candidate's, the party's and their policy's, and also to take into account the beneficial and detrimental effects these would have on the electorate; would assume some form of education in order to perceive the outcomes. It can therefore be distinguished from this that “education is a precondition of democracy”. If democracy assumes that the voters be educated then the establishment of the welfare state and more importantly state education would benefit and progressively increase the amount of politically minded individuals in each generation. From this I can surmise that the greater the education of the populous; the greater the demands on the government. As to say that those who were previously inclined to stay clear of the political arena now have the educational means to improve their social standing, and so they have more to gain or lose dependant on the policies of the government, furthermore would place added pressure onto the government for policies that would suit their individual needs. This added pressure would in turn constitute some of the apathy that the people hold towards the ruling body, due to the policies of the government not always favouring their individual situation; although this is not the only factor which contributes to this feeling.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The other contributing factors towards the apathy and confidence in the government can be vast; although in the framework of western democracies, there are a few that are recurring. In all national governments scandal, corruption, sleaze, bribery and spin constitute part of this decrease in political confidence. Another factor of national government is the view of elitism, where the people are unrepresented in positions of power; and these positions are usually held by “well-educated, middle-class, middle-aged, white men”. This elitism factor also contributes to the under representation of peoples views; where those in power do not have the same individual views, experience or knowledge of the electorate they represent. The remaining occurring factors are also resultant of the problem of representation; where the electorate feels that there is no progress happening on a larger scale; either in their local area, nationally or even internationally, for example building of new affordable housing or tackling global warming. In some cases the policies or actions of the government are not what they promised when running for election or are against the popular rational view of the people, for example, the Invasion of Iraq or the country's membership in the European Union. These factors overtime increase the apathy of the people and “it is commonly assumed that eroding faith in government has discouraged conventional political participation”.

Conventional political participation focuses around the Milbrath and Goel classification model of citizens, in which a pyramid framework represents a hierarchical status of involvement, in the format of the participants in Roman games. The pinnacle of the pyramid, which is the smallest portion of citizens, shows the 'Gladiators' which are those “who fight the political battle”. The next portion of the pyramid represents the 'Spectators'; those “who observe the contest but rarely participate beyond voting”6, this is usually the majority of the population. The 'Apathetics' are those “who are unengaged in formal politics”7; this group is the bottom portion of the pyramid and these citizens are usually those in minority groups such as prisoners, asylum seekers and small ethnic communities. This view of conventional participation shows the proportions involved, although there has been a slow decrease in electoral turnout with successive generations; compared with that of post-war conventional participation; which this classification is incapable of modelling. This decline can be shown in the figures for two American presidential elections; where the voter turnout was in

“1960 at 65.4 per cent before falling to 48.8 per cent in 1996, its lowest level in seven decades (Gans 1997; Texeira 1992)”8.

This can therefore prove that there is a decline in, at least, conventional political participation among the citizens of a western democracy. This is one of the major consequences of people becoming Critical Citizens.

In retrospect however this is a consequence to conventional political participation, and so

“the drop in voting turnout has not been accompanied by a general decrease in political activism, indeed Americans have become more engaged”9.

If this is then the case political participation must be viewed as “multi-dimensional”10 in which there must also exist another element; that of unconventional participation. This element can encompass any citizen, can involve any activity and does not have to adhere to borders. As the participation in conventional activity has its varying degrees of participants, so does that of the unconventional. The most common of these being the signing of a petition, for which usually is a single cause petition and one that tries to persuade the view of policy, by the support which it has accumulated in the form of signatures. Demonstrations, rallies, protesting and striking are other forms of the unconventional, although these can in themselves vary; from social movements like the 'Not in our name!' anti war movement which saw support in the majority of western democratic capital cities; to the 'Fathers for Justice' campaigning which saw British fathers fighting for their rights, and usually scaling buildings and drawing in media coverage to promote their campaign. The other major form of unconventional political participation is the membership to cause groups. These cause groups can exist in two forms; one being formal and centrally organised and the other being an informal dispersed union of people with a similar view on an issue. The formal group usually takes its shape in the form of a pressure or an interest group; which participants take a membership and volunteer, donate or campaign towards the issue. The informal on the other hand can exist as a loose network of participants; for example the British 'protest against fuel prices', where drivers blockaded the petrol stations in order to protest against hiking fuel bills. These types of participation have evolved either due to the alienation of the citizens by the government or by the lack of and incompetence of government to represent the views of the citizens; and so turning them away from conventional means to these unconventional ones, which results in the creation and growth of Critical Citizens.

On the other hand however in the latest American presidential election the voter turn out was “64.1 per cent”11, and as I have stated previously the voter turn out for the 1996 presidential election was 48.8 per cent. There is a clear and visible difference in the electoral turn outs, and this data does not fit with the trend of successive decline in political participation. This could be an anomaly result in this trend, although it could hypothetically be resultant from either; a stage where confidence has diminished in a government and so citizens vote on mass for change or the lines between conventional and unconventional have blurred; and being a citizen and a Critical Citizen are the same. The result of the latter would invoke an on mass electoral turn out, as a consequence though an instalment of the political equilibrium would follow once confidence in 'them' has returned.

'Why' have people become Critical Citizens can be explored in the problems of alienation and representation; where the basic foundation of 'why' is due to the confidence in 'them'. The consequences of 'why' have been the creation of Norris's Critical Citizen; and in turn impacts upon conventional political participation of that citizen. The re-establishment of mass confidence in the ruling body; could be perceived when the majority of citizens become Critical Citizens and therefore have the influence and majority vote to reshape the politically landscape of that nation.

Bibliography:

Book:

Norris, Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, (Oxford 1999)

Hague and Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, (Palgrave 7th Edition)

Inoguchi, Newman and Keane, The Changing Nature of Democracy, (UN 1998)

Holden, Global Democracy: Key Debates, (Routledge 2000)

Pichler and Wallace, Studies in Public Policy 433, (Aberdeen 2007)

McLean and McMillan, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, (Oxford 2003)

Barnes, Newman and Sullivan, Power, Participation and Political Renewal: Case Studies in Public Participation, (Bristol 2007)

Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics, (Palgrave 2000)

Online:

Professor Puolimatka, Democracy, Education and the Critical Citizen, Philosophy of Education 1996 <www.ed.uiuc.edu>

Comcast.net News <www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20081105/Election.Rdp/>

Professor Puolimatka, Democracy, Education and the Critical Citizen, Philosophy of Education 1996 <>

Hague and Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, (Palgrave 7th Edition)

Norris, Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, (Oxford 1999)

/6/7 Hague and Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, (Palgrave 7th Edition)

8 Norris, Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, (Oxford 1999)

9 /10 Norris, Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, (Oxford 1999)

11 Comcast.net News <www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20081105/Election.Rdp/>

Why and with what consequences for political participation in western democracies have the people become 'critical citizens' (Norris)

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Using a minimum of three political thinkers describe how they define citize...

What, in De Tocqueville's View, are the Virtues and What are the Vices of D...

What is Political Equality?

Why Should We Value Democracy?