Explain and critique barriers to political participation in contemporary societies.

Introduction The basis for political participation is the belief that it is crucial in the political process. This makes it key to democracy because participation confers legitimacy on choice of leaders and how decisions are made (Campbell et al., 1960). As a form of behaviour, political participation aims to influence government policies through such acts as basic as voting or more composite actions such as participating in public meetings (Verba and Nie, 1972; Verba et al., 199 5). Participation has gained ascendency in the last decade or two and has featured prominently in the discussion of not only politicians but also policy makers and practitioners. There has also been an explosion in the literature on participation (White, 1996; Jochum, 2003; Cornwall, 2008). The interest in participation also spans across continents (Dunn, 2007). Despite sustained interest from several quarters, participation as a term is contested and there is no single universally accepted use of the term as reflected in the varied ways it is used by authors. In this essay, the meaning of participation is first explored and its various forms and usage. The subject of participation has been discussed under several categories that include political, social and individual. However, in this essay, consideration is given mainly to political participation. This mainly refers to the extent and the level to which individuals partake in democratic processes such as voting. However, it should be noted that despite the differences in the broad categories under which participation is often discussed, the distinction between them is often not clear as there are areas of interaction whereby

participation is usually discussed under several categories. in the conclusion. some recommendations are given on how to overcome barriers to participation through various types of empowerment. On the other hand. even in advanced democracies there are significant obstacles to individual/community participa tion in the political process. several barriers to political participation are discussed and they range from economic to social and ideological/cultural. the barriers to active political participation will be critically discussed to understand why they obtain and how they are perpetuated . Understanding Political Participation As indicated in the introduction. Also. For instance. the collective and daily activities of individual actors such as membership to a certain group/organization are studied to understand the nature of their engagement. individual participation is used to refer to everyday association and decisions of individuals as it relates to the way they live their lives and the nature of the society they live in. 1996. under the theme of social participation. Even though barriers to political participation exist more in emerging democracies. 2005). The wide range of actions through which people are able to build up and express their opinions on issues that relate to how their society is governed and their activities in shaping the decisions that affect their lives is what is referred to as political participation (Weitz- .some activities straddle individual. Secondly. In all. Finally. Ginsborg. social and political types of participation (Melucci. an overview of the previous discussion is given and the reasons why barriers to political participation exist are critically analysed.

p. Marx and Habermas have all extensively discussed the relationship between the individual and the state/government. Despite the ascendency of participation in policy circles.e. Similarly. is couched on the ability of people to free ly associate in their daily ordinary lives (Tocqueville. This primarily involves the ability of people to make a significant input in the processes of formal politics such as the freedom to join a political party. Writing on American democracy. how citizens relate to the structures and institutions of governance) is not new but has been the subject of philosophical debate and questioning. it could also embrace the people s ability to organize into groups or organizations to achieve specific goals.Shapiro and Winters. 2000 [1835 -1840]). According to Gilchrist (2004. However. anthropological research shows that community-type organisation is a feature of all human societies and studies of humans and other higher primates suggest that we share an inherent sociability. the notion itself (i. a willingness to connect and cooperate. . such as Aristotle. In addition to that. political participation could further comprise of community p articipation whereby communities are directly involved in the developing and implementing policies that affect them. campaign and stand for elections. This goes beyond simple consultation to considerable involvement in decision -making and thus shared responsibility for problem solving . Western thinkers over time. de Tocqueville argued that the very survival of democracy and by implication civilisation. 1). 2008) . there is a rich history of participation in political philosophy.

it is argued. social participation in the UK is said to have its origins in two broad traditions: informal self-help and solidarity and mutual aid (Gilchrist. participation has a long history in many fields that include health. 1995). there was a steady rise in the influence communities had on politics and greater emphasis on equality. Similarly. 2007. several alternative participatory activities have existed alongside more formal government structures at all levels in the UK. proponents of the idea of widespread involvement of decision m aking maintain that it can serve to reform public service and make it better oriented to the needs of the people rather than big government . Thus. 1983. Several reasons are advanced for participation by its advocates. Warburton. Generally. some have further argued that social cohesion is strengthened through participation as the people rally around a common goal to improve and empower their communities (Blake et al. 1998) . 2004). Beesley and Littlechild 1983. 2009) . individuals ar e more closely involved in the political process and play a major role in deciding how the society is run and hence influence the key decisions affecting their lives. participation is seen to confer or reinforce legitimacy as well as ensure that democratic institutions and structures are transparent and accountable (Creasy. Foot. In addition to the above. For long times in its history. housing and environmental planning among others (Davidson and MacEwen. economic development.In the UK for instance. 2008. it developed and shifted roles and focus with the introduction of programmes meant to tackle poverty in the 1960s through to the 1980s (Taylor. Equally. 2009) . Subsequently. Cornwall.. The first of these reasons is the point that through participation.. 2008) . The advent of sustainable development in the 1990s created spaces for participating in various forms of action on issues from global poverty to climate change (Brodie et al.

One glaring effect of this is that these people continue to live on the fringes of democracy and society and in poverty. 2006. an increasing number of citizens in emerging democracies and economies are disappointed and disillusioned (Kuchta-Helbling. Beetham et al. some have argued that an evidence of exclusion from the political process is evidenced in the exclusion of entrepreneurs who are engaged low-income. Popay et al.. These citizens feel that democracy and market based economy have not brought them the expected benefits. it is actually inextricably linked to the general issue of social justice (Brannan et al. 1997. 2008) . 2000) . 2007) . As a result. This is in addition to macroeconomic stability and economic growth. Barriers to Political Participation A Critical Assessment The lives of millions of peoples across the globe have been improved and enriched due to the transition to democracy. low-growth business activities outside the formal economy. These gains notwithstanding. 2004). Finally. this is especially true in the nascent democracies of developing countries. For instance.. So participation not only increases the efficacy of citizens as well as the effectiveness of public services. The trend towards democracy means that political participation has significantly increased in these countries.. some of the benefits of political participation are said to include psychological/personal rewards such as satisfaction which in turn increase political efficacy that results from the individual s increased feeling of self-worth (Barnes and Shardlow. political participation has not been automatic as millions of people are still excluded from decision making processes and democratic processes particularly in emerging democracies.(Leadbeater.

According to the New Politics Network. elections are considered as important but only as the first step towards political participation. entrepreneurs often face crucial obstacles that include onerous rules and regulations as well as bureaucratic and corrupt government officials and agencies. in the UK. These transaction costs of conducting business in the formal sector are said to include the following.There are several barriers to political participation as already highlighted above and this is often regardless of democratic elections. unclear or complicated government laws and regulations. Another key barrier to political participation is social exclusion which leads to disengagement. 2005). complicated tax systems and infrastructural deficits (Ibid. Transaction costs mainly result due to poor information flow and the unpredictability of business frameworks resulting from weak and poorly designed institutions.). Research shows that democratic participation is falling and political influence is polarising according to class and wealth (IPPR. The . the most significant barrier to political participation is social exclusion and the reason for voter apathy fr om this group of people is the belief that voting does not s ignificantly alter their lives (Johnson. Victims of deprivation are often the most politically alienated whose voices are often stifled turner (Turner. Thus. One barrier to political participation is said to be the unfavourable cost of carrying out business in the formal economy which in turn endangers fragile democratic and economic transitions. This means that disenfranchisement is closely tied to social exclusion and this directly hinders political participation. difficulty in hiring employees and acquiring loans. 2004). the difficulty in obtaining business licence or acquiring land titles/leases. Some have therefore argued that political participation can be fostered through effective policies that aid social excluded people and disadvantaged groups. As a result. insufficient information flow. 2002).

. The core criteria for people s participation include the following: has anything happened. The key factors encouraging participation are outline in table 1 below. It emerges that relevant as socio-economic status is to participation. this does not apply only to voting as socially excluded people fail to participate in wider democratic processes. Incidentally. 2002). education.reason for this is that when an individual feels unable to exert any influenc e over the most basic elements of their live housing. has it been worth the money and have they carried on talking to the public (Ibid)? . individuals from socially excluded groups have had all agency removed (Lawrence-Pietroni. In short. other factors influencing political participation include a feeling of relevance. 2001) . direct invitation to participate and a perception by the people that their opinions matter. Related to the above is the fact that political participation presupposes certain minimal skills which automatically means that not everyone has the competency and/or confidence to participate (Lowndes et al. food asking them to vote becomes meaningless.

2005) In addition to the above. In many countries.Table 1: Factors promoting participation CLEAR Source: (Johnson. membership to a minority ethnic group is a significant barrier to political participation. Discrimination for instance continues to hinder political participation in many emerging democracies. Thus. language. It has been found out in some countries like India (the Dalits) that the level of participation of minorities is limited even in instances where they have been elected into offices due to a combination of practices that . discriminatory rules and physical threats can all combine to limit participation by minorities. a related barrier to political participation involves socio-cultural obstacles.

As a matter of fact. For instance. in many cases. In 1979. Notwithstanding these. women cannot take up leadership roles even if they wanted to due to the burden of family responsibilities and cultural expectations (Onubogu. the convention seeks to promote gender equality and ensure equal access to. the UN adopted the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). the perception of women as home makers and not political actors. the Batwa community in Central Africa cannot be fully engaged in the democratic process (such as voting) as many of them do not have their births registered and hence cannot vote or stand for election (MRG. Several factors and constraints limit the participation of women in the political process. 2009) . For instance. Signed by more than 170 countries. 2002). it has been observed that as a result of the caste system women Dalit local politicians are often either forced to sit on the floor in council sessions or wash off their chairs at the end of the meeting (Manjula Pradeep in MRG.degrade and exclude them from decision making. There has been a sustained campaign in these areas to bring about electoral reform and empower minorities to exercise their franchise. and opportunitie s in political and public life (Bylesjo and Ballington. The rights provided for in the convention include the rights to vote and be considered eligible to stand for elections. women face considerable barriers to political participation in many countries around the world. 2003) . The barrier discussed above is often related to another major obstacle to pol itical participation. 2009). cultural and traditional values. This excludes many minorities from ta king part in the political process. Another major example of discrimination that has attracted attention is that against women. . extreme poverty. It is often the result of inhibiting political structure.

A related barrier with regards women s participation is a perception of their role as being primarily as those of housewives.In a study of barriers to women s participation in the political processes in Indonesia. a situation worsened by the fact that party structures and hierarchies are male dominated. Sometimes the barrier to participation is not external but ascribabl e to the unwillingness of women themselves to participate in the political process. A research found out that most women in Indonesia consider this to be an important factor. Due to the gendered nature of the political process and parties. This means that women are seldom regarded as political actors and it is within this framework that the political parties themselves operate. ideological and psychological) these factors mean that women cannot fully participate in governance. This of course aggravated by the glaring absence of systems and structures that support women and ensure their participation and . This restricts the participation of women in the political process. women are often disregarded and issues relevant to them treated with levity. Categorized under three broad catego ries (political. Political barriers to women s participation include inadequate/poor support from political parties which makes it difficul t for men take up roles and participate in the democratic process. such as proportional systems. Related to the political barrier to women s participation is an underlining ideological and psychological factor. socio-economic. This unwillingness is usually due to security and safety fears as physical violence that often characterize party meetings and conventions. Women in Indonesia have argued that in order to improve political participation. there is a need for change in legislation to bring about systems that are favourable to women. several factors were identified to hinder participation.

However. that professional opinion is superior to that informed by local experience. it is suggested that participation structures should be better protected and the process of decision making made more transparent and accountable. it was found out that there are cultural barriers to political participation. barriers to political participation also obtain even in developed countries. Firstly. it is widely assumed and for some time now. A related problem is what has been described as the participation catch whereby the fact that a . some councillors are averse to participation and dislike the idea of greater involvement and leadership roles for community members. Even where efforts are being made to foster political participation. In a study of the UK. A related problem to political participation especially at the community level has to do with the problem of legitimacy where doubt is cast on the authority of community members selected to represent their communities on boards that make decisions. it has been found out that this is not universal as explained by three factors. Such ambiguity often undermines the ability of community activists to represent their communities.also by the fact that women are often not organized enough to mobili ze and promote their cause. Thus government officers and elected officials face the difficult task of promoting participation to people and communities who find it irrelevant. The unwillingness to rely on local opinion is in part due to delays and previous experiences in which they were said to have failed. 2008) . To improve legitimacy. On the other hand. sometimes. For instance. political participation is perceived to be a threat to their position by government officials. This especially the case where they think that government programmes bypass them and instead run directly with communities (Morris.

Whereas these barriers obtain more in emerging democracies. they are not restricted to these countries as developed countries with more advance democracies also grapple with obstacles to community and political participation. education. they are involved and are therefore see as atypical or dismissed as the usual suspects (Morris. the nature of political participation was explained and a brief historical background of its rise and spread was given with the UK as an example. a growing . livelihood and social sectors (Count Us In. There is also a feeling of helplessness on the part of disabled people influence decision-making and bring about change. the barriers to political participation were critically discussed to show how they vary within different contexts.community member is actively engaged in decision making brands them as unrepresentative precisely because. However. Similarly. many people are sceptical of participation due to the fact that it is often regarded as mere talkshops with no potential for results. Yet. people with disability can be further empowered thereby making their voices heard and improving their access to health. Hence. Subsequently. On the other hand. there is a significant barrier in budget which often limits what outside proposals can be incorporated no matter how valid. Conclusion A Critique of Barriers to Political Participation In the previous sections. even where the drive for participation is genuine. much the literature reviewed so far tend to assume that political participation is automatic and not necessarily requiring any external impetus or mobilization. through political participation. 2008). Another significant barrier to political participation is disability where those concerned abstain from the political process due to the perception that those in power do not take seriously their concerns and challenges. 2007). unlike their peers.

political parties and activists to convince citizens on the value of participation (Jordan and Maloney. (Jenkins. Some of the steps to community mobilization are indicated below: Figure 1: Four steps of community mobilization . religious or professional leaning. In a model developed by Leighley (1995) called the mobilization model. p. 1993) . participation does not result randomly but largely depends on the ability of groups. Thus. 1983. 532) argues that mobilization is the process by which a group secures collective control over the resources needed for collective a ction . 1997). Similarly. there appears to be an essential relationship between mobilization and involvement in social life which encourages people to be more involved in politics or activism (Rosenstone and Hansen. participation is said to be the result of certain cues and opportunities that are structured by the people s environment. Thus.body of evidence points to the contrary as participation seems to be the result of mobilization and not some random self -direction (Verba and Nie. 1972) . Some of the most popular sources of mobilization include groups with political.

Achieving political participation and removing barriers to it therefore depend on the collective actions of individuals. interest groups. Rather. in societies where such incentives are minimal or non-existent. p. In conclusion therefore. 1993. 161) . As a result. participation is often possible only when citizens are mobilized or receive incentives to do so (Crow. Thus. the relationship between membership of individual and religious organizations has been amply proved (Verba et al. rather than the random and spontaneous process that it is assumed to be. it has been found out that few people spontaneously take an active part in public affairs. Thus. political participation becomes difficult. drawing from the rational choice theory. the international community and civil society groups. desirable as participation is. 2009).. the barriers to its full actualization can only removed when democratic structures are put in place that encourage political mobilization and this in turn depends on the willingness of elected officials to provide incentives for participation and make themselves open to input from citizens. . 1995). and activists persuade them to get involved (Rosenstone and Hansen. governments.For instance. political parties. they participate when politicians.

KUCHTA-HELBLING. A. MILLER.ids. Institute for Volunteering Research.uk/logolink. York.. P. 9(2). Wembley. Paper presented at the The World Movement for Democracy . & BALLINGTON. S. H. P. Creative Print Group. 993-1008. BLICK. (2005) The Politics of Everyday Life: Making Choices. 149. London. Demos. DAVIDSON. Involve. C. G. (2009) Citizen Involvement in Local Governance. A. E. A. (1983) Urban: The Livable City. New York. C. BRODIE. DIAMOND. C. (2003) Social capital: beyond the theory. J. A. (1997) From Passive Recipient to Active Citizen: Participation in Mental Health User Groups. JENKINS. GINSBORG.. Brazil. São Paulo. M. GIDLEY. MAYO. Manchester University Press. PAINE. (2006) Active Citizenship and Effective Public Services and Programmes: How Can We Know What Really Works? Urban Studies. & MACEWEN. (1960) The American Voter. (2008) Power and Participation in Modern Britain: a literature review for Democratic Audit. (2007) Champions of Participation: Engaging citizens in local governance (Accessed) 28 . J. S. BRANNAN. BYLESJO.ac. C. A. (2008) Community Engagement and Community Cohesion. A. MARGETTS. 527-553. CAMPBELL. . (1983) Privatization: Principles. CORNWALL. 43(5/6). A response to the World Conservation Strategy. JORDAN. G. BLAKE. COUNT US IN (2007) Removing Barriers to Political Participation. (1997) The Protest Business?: Mobilizing Campaign Groups. & STOKER. P. (2009) Responsive Public Officials and Engaged Citizens: Myth or Reality? A Case Study of Water Rights Policy in Colorado. & WARBURTON. & WEIR. COWLING. D. LAWRENCE-PIETRONI. Sweden. K. A. London.. (2005) Social exclusion and political engagement . NISSEN. D. (Ed. Kogan Page. Yale University Press.. London. M. CREASY. (2008) Democratising engagement what the UK can learn from international experience. J.Research report. A. Changing Lives. Journal of Mental Health. E. Bristol. 6(3). Annual Review of Sociology. V. W. & LITTLECHILD . M. M. C. SHUKRA. London.. FOOT. GILCHRIST. P. & YARNIT. NCVO. New York. JOCHUM. CONVERSE. IPPR (2004) The state of the nation: an audit of injustice in the UK.. N. Public Organization Review. J. York. B. John Wiley & Sons. Stockholm. BEESLEY. E. November 2010. W. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. A. IN CREASY.. (2000) Barriers to Participation: The Informal Sector in Emerging Democracies . 289-300. BEETHAM. V. G. S. J. IPPR. New Politics Network. (2003) Strengthening Women s Political Participation in Indonesia... FOOT. (1983) Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements.. Problems and Priorities. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (Ed. JOCHUM. & SHARDLOW. (2007) Introduction: Participation at the Core. M. D.) Participation Nation: reconnecting citizens to the public realm.) Perspectives on social exclusion. J. Accessibility Directorate of Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. & MALONEY. E. DUNN. JOHNSON. London..Bibliography BARNES. IN WHITE. World Wildlife Fund UK: The Conservation and Development Programme for the UK. JOHN.. (2009) Understanding participation: A literature review. (2001) The state of powerlessness. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. A.. Ontario. 1-21. London. www. The Electoral Commission. Policy Press. E. New York. E. D. & STOKES. S.. 119-138.Second Global Assembly: Confronting Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century. T. (2004) The well connected community: a networking approach to community development. CROW. Lloyds Bank Review. 9.

M. Department of Health. G. Political Research Quarterly. SIMPSON. Experience and Process. MacMillan Publishing Company.. London. Chicago. & STOKER. & BRADY. (2002) Voter turnout. B. K.. National Community Forum. LOWNDES. (1996) Challenging Codes: Collective action in the information age. J. A.. H. Earthscan. E.) Community and Sustainable Development: Participation in the Future. (Accessed) 28 November 2010. 6-15. (1996) Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation. (1972) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. IN CRAIG. S. E. Cambridge. U. Demos. C. MILTON.. D. New York. poverty and disconnection from the political process .. WARBURTON. London. WHITE. London. D. G. P. (2008) Political participation and quality of life. & MAYO. M. Commonwealth Secretariat. Zed Books. (2007) Community Engagement in Initiatives Addressing the Wider Social Determinants of Health: A Rapid Review of Evidence on Impact. MA. J. M. J. SCHLOZMAN. TOCQUEVILLE. MRG (2009) Discrimination still a barrier to effective political participation for minorities and indigenous peoples. TAYLOR. VERBA. B. KOWARZIK.. & POVALL. http://www. (2002) Political participation and locality effects: the impact of social capital and mobilisation. MELUCCI. & HANSEN. S.) Community Empowerment: A reader in participation and development. Manchester. (2004) Personalisation through participation: a new script for public services . N. POPAY. WHITEHEAD. M. & NIE. 48(1). (2000 [1835-1840]) Democracy in America. C. in Disengaged and disinterested: deliberations on voter apathy.. IN WARBURTON. (1993) Mobilization. University of Manchester.LEADBEATER. (1995) Attitudes. (Ed. D. D. (Eds. LEIGHLEY. WEITZ-SHAPIRO. R. University of Chicago Press. M. (1995) Community work and the state: the changing context of UK practice.. (2002) Strategies to Overcome Barriers Preventing Women's Equal Participation in Leadership and Decision-Making. Development in Practice. E. MORRIS. 6(1). VERBA. V. ATTREE. Research Department Working Papers. Harvard University Press. L. and Democracy in America. (1995) Voice and Equality in American Politics. S. Cambridge. R. Participation. ROSENSTONE.org/?lid=9504. & WINTERS. PRATCHETT. S. (1998) A passionate dialogue: community and sustainable development. 638.. (2008) Removing the barriers to community participation. HORNBY. Chicago University Press. ONUBOGU. A. . L.-B. TURNER. Chicago. S.minorityrights. 181-209. London. FRENCH. S. New Politics Network (Winter). Opportunities and Incentives: A Field Essay on Political Participation. J. N. J. H. Cambridge University Press.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful