In the past, it was common for a ruler or emperor in a given polis to be associated with the predominant religion. Emperors were seduced by the popular notions of God to rule under his name. This method of gaining authority and power gradually faded. The rulers now had to rule the people instead of God. The historical shift led to a new idea: a polis’s government must be “of”, “for”, and “by” its people. The question then was: How is it possible to have a government that is only ruled by the people in a polis? The people of a city-state are they not disorderly and chaotic in nature, making it impossible to have an effective state? Isn’t it true that the irrational, barbarians of that era, when the discourse was forming, would have caused chaos and disorder if allowed to govern?
We are in an age of reason and therefore, these questions must be answered with rational arguments. There were arguments to create a contract social, and proposals to ‘civilize the barbarians’ by despotism prior to allowing them to join the government. The goal, then, was to limit public power in order to maintain social stability, but still retain the rule of and by people. After the liberal democratic idea had gained traction, the question arose: How would the people be able to participate in the political life of the polis once it was established? The answer to this question is the voting system. Does it matter how you participate? The rational-choice theorists responded in a negative way, saying that a person’s vote could not have impacted his/her outcome, and therefore consuming money for this purpose is a waste. This essay is not just about the importance of political participation for citizens in a democracy. It’s also about the factors and extents that are crucial to the success of a democracy. And it discusses how people can make their political participation a reality. The importance of political participation for citizens can be described in different ways. Downs Olson’s rational theorists have downplayed a role for political participation. They argue that because a vote has a very small chance of having an impact it is not a rational thing to do. However, despite Downs and Olson’s theories, people still voted and participated politically. This discrepancy was due to the fact that the theorists did not see the same gratification in voting or campaigning.
Schlozman Verba Brady argue in their research that there can be other rewards and benefits to political activism. Some rewards are social, like interacting with people to build rapport, feeling satisfied by participating in civic causes, or influencing policies. These rewards can also be an expression of socialization, satisfaction or empathy. Politics may not be just a means, but a goal in itself. The motivation to engage in politics remains, even though the success of goals is not always predictable. Hence, political participation is not universally valued. Individuals may, however, perceive it differently. People can have many different reasons for participating in politics.
Schlozman Verba Brady have collected data on political activists to find out what motivates them to take part. In their research, Schlozman, Verba, and Brady collect data from various political activists to know the reasons, motivations or incentives to participate. James Q. Wilson’s typologies have been used to describe motivations for participating in politics. Wilson offers four different types of motivations: selective material benefit, social satisfaction, civic pleasure, and a desire to influence collective policy. Researchers collected data on people’s career goals, their desire to pursue a career in politics, and networking with officials. In the typology of social gratifications some of the reasons people participate in politics are social interactions, meeting influential people, getting recognition from respectable peers and excitement. Selective civic gratifications include the perceptions of citizens duties, kindness towards hardworking peers, and improving their surroundings and country.
The third typology was collective outcomes. This included the opportunity to influence government policy. For this, the activists had developed very specific action plans and narratives. This study shows how people may have different reasons for participating in politics. A democratic institution is one way to participate in politics. It is ideal that democracy does not stop at elections and voting. The views of the citizens and the demand for transparency continue to be important long after elected officials are in office. There should be a fundamental right to transparency and information, as well as a right for people to have a say in decisions and to hold corrupt officials accountable.
Brian Wampler describes the political participation of people in his Latin America Case Study by describing three types accountability: vertical (or governmental), societal (or societal) and horizontal. Vertical accountability is the participation of citizens directly in government through, for example, elections. Horizontal responsibility refers to whistleblowing actions within or around the office. The societal accountability refers specifically to the pressures placed on public officeholders by civil societies organizations.
Wampler (2007), 86, uses three elements to illustrate these three forms. They are the PB delegates’ ability to take decisions based in transparent information and debates with the public (vertical), mass mobilisation and public discussions (societal) and legal enforcement (horizontal). A democratic institution that incorporates accountability and democratic decision-making can provide a great platform for political engagement. Citizens’ involvement in the governance process is important, but it can only go so far. Some forms of participation can be more effective than others. In some cases, greater participation by diverse narratives in the public can be detrimental to the efficiency and effective of government offices and institutions. In addition, these democratic institutions might also give room for political incorrect motives from interest groups like the majority suppressing minorities.
Wampler (2007, in discussing the case of Sao Paulo) notes that parallel decision-making can emasculate authority for the municipal office as well as technocrats. He also quotes a councilmember’s interview who states that “the votes are not informed votes”, therefore such decisions without a technical expert’s input might not succeed. Citizens should not engage in these types of participation. In this context, a better form of participation is one that allows citizens to express their concerns with democratic institutions such as PB via media and civil society organizations, while allowing the officials to make their own decisions on whether or not they accept the proposals. Justifications can be requested by citizens in the case where the proposal was rejected. The media and civil societies can help translate this kind of participation. It is a ‘better way’, because it does away with the role public offices have in maintaining social order.
Conclusion: The importance of participation in politics is different for each citizen. People may be motivated to engage in politics for different reasons. These reasons may be social, economic, civic, or related to the collective outcomes of policy. These institutions are also crucial in ensuring that democracy remains relevant. They do this by ensuring transparency, vertical and horizontal accountability and social accountability. The people’s power should not be unlimited, as this could lead to an ineffective public office and a threat to social order.
Comments are closed.