Political Participation - Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Political Participation - Essay...

Description

Political Particiaption – Essay Intro In this essay I will explore (QU.). Background – In 1995, Sidney Verba et al. described P.P. as citizen activities intended to influence state structures, authorities & the making of collectively binding decisions & allocation of public goods via voting & protesting. Trends of p.p. can be viewed at via both micro & macro determinants. I will make appropriate use of both evidence & references to support my points. [Summary of main points (for & against)].

Main Points Traditional forms of P.P. - The most obvious & easily-accessible way to p.p. has always been to turnout to vote. The trends of voter turnout & other forms of P.P. in the UK will be discussed later but the differences between various developed countries, deemed democratic, can vary widely. For example, Wolfinger & Rosenstone found in 1980 that countries w/automatic registration have a 10% > in turnout over those countries which don’t. Furthermore, countries w/compulsory voting always have a higher turnout than those that do not – although there is scepticism whether this reflects a fair & democratic result if those who would otherwise wish not to vote, have to do so. This, along w/the electorate feeling that there are either too many options or none which they believe will make a positive impact, could over time result in a great deal of voter apathy amongst the electorate. It is also worth noting that regardless of the time period that p.p. is usually a costly undertaking & rarely occurs spontaneously (Garner et al., 2012).

Macro determinants of P.P. – At a macro-level (how population-wide norms affect how they p.p.) in 2014, Daniele Caramani found that there is a strong link between regime type & p.p. If someone resides within in a democratic nation (most of the Western first-world) there exists a wider range of participatory acts like elections for legis. & exec. office through universal suffrage & institutions to protect the civil & political rights of their citizens. However, in a harshly repressive regime, opportunities for p.p. are significantly more restricted, where at times any political coordination of actors is simply thwarted & imposed upon. This leads only those who feel motivated or safe to p.p. Micro determinants of P.P. – At a micro-level (how an individual’s characteristics & personal traits affect how they p.p.) in 1966, Berelson et al. found that, firstly, there are strong sociological approaches to p.p. For instance, the > a person’s socio-economic status is (composed of factors such as financial wealth & education) then the >likely they are to p.p. This means that the > affluent in society, w/>cognitive capabilities & disposable time tend to p.p.> than those w/< resources. It was also found that, secondly, there is an attached psychological approach to p.p. For instance, a long-standing psychological attachment to a party > the likelihood to vote for that party as well. It is worth noting, however, that since party ID has < in recent years this has led to an > in salience of political context (Heath, 2007). The 3rd & final micro determinant worth mentioning is the rational choice of the electorate. This relies on the point that an individual always votes rationally & that they may feel some amount of social responsibility - for if everyone abstained you might run into ‘social chaos’. This determinant would assume that the electorate would value living in a democracy & t.f. care which party wins any said election. However, this assumes naively that irrational tools such as party ID & how your family have voted have no effect on a voter.

Trends of P.P - The ability to p.p. is at the very core of a country/state’s democratic justification. The principal & most central theme in current & contemporary studies on P.P., in almost all developed democracies, is the declining levels of participation in political parties & elections over the last decade & even longer. Academics examining trends in not only national, but local politics, have pointed to a predominantly striking decline in local party activism & local election turnout. For example, in the UK from the 40’s-90’s voter turnout was averaged at >75%, whereas in the 21 st century voter turnout has rarely reached>2/3. In 2016, Oliver Heath found that working class voting levels especially have decreased (a 5% diff. in class turnout in ’64 to 19% in ’10). Voter age can also indicate turnout for young people are < likely to vote because they are >mobile & so have more demands on their time (Franklin, 2004). It was also found that if you don’t vote in your 1st election then you’re < likely to carry on voting.

New forms of P.P. – The view of P.P. in the past was usually limited to conservative forms of involvement - specifically those focused w/the means of representative democracy; like electoral voting & standing for office or campaigning. But w/the rise in what is referred to as ‘direct action’ in politics during the 60s & 70s, in a sense, forced political scientists to take notice of & recognise those so called ‘non-conventional’ forms of P.P., for example, the signing of petitions, taking part in protests & demonstrations or partaking in civil disobedience (Wilks-Heeg & Clayton 2005). These forms of P.P. are normally not isolated activities, but collective actions via social movements, interests groups & political parties.

Conclusion In this essay I have (QU.). Turnout in the post-war period has declined marginally due to sociodemographic change & increased voter apathy while this has aligned w/the less conventional forms of P.P. becoming more common. Micro & Macro determinants of P.P. are linked – it tends that the more democratic a nation that one lives in then there will likely be more opportunities & a greater response to p.p. These determinants display that only those who feel motivated or safe to p.p. can do so & only the more affluent societies will actively provide the resources to stimulate p.p. State position on topic....