We shall examine some key theories of political participation, and then discuss the forms of participation in liberal democratic societies. But first, we will make some introductory remarks.

Tocqueville identified the tendency of the state to centralise power, and underlined the need for alternative civil and political associations to counter-balance and control this power. He argued that the willingness on behalf of citizens to participate fully in the governance of their own lives was central to a thriving civil society. Such participation was an expression of citizenship, and was crucial to engendering a shared political culture.

A definition of political participation is the active engagement by individuals and groups with the governmental processes that affect their lives. This encompasses both involvement in decision-making and acts of opposition. Acts of active engagement include conventional political participation (such as voting, standing for office and campaigning for a political party) and unconventional acts, which may be legitimate (such as signing a petition and attending a peaceful demonstration), or illegal (such as violent protest and refusing to pay taxes).

Several interesting trends have been identified concerning the political participation in liberal democracies:

• an increasingly informed and critical citizenry;
• a decline of trust in effectiveness of political elites and institutions;
• a decline in loyalty to traditional political parties;
• a drop in turnout rates in elections; and
• an increase in unconventional political participation.

There are three models of political participation.

Democratic elitists are primarily concerned with the problem of sustaining political stability; democracy is of secondary importance. They argue that enlightened leadership, sanctioned by minimal acts of participation by the masses, is the best way to maintain order.

Since the masses are generally ignorant and apathetic, extensive participation by them will necessarily undermine stability, and therefore undesirable. An over-active citizenry is likely to make ill-considered, short-termist and generally poor policy decisions. They are liable to be manipulated by ideologues bent upon the overthrow of the system, and are prone to shift dangerously between periods of apathy and manic activism. It is desirable for policy-making to be left to those who are intellectually suited to the task. A responsible elite can then neutralise the worst excesses of the masses through subtle manipulation. The art of governing is ‘giving the people not what they want, but what they will learn to want’.

Even if more extensive political participation was deemed desirable, it is argued to be impractical. Direct or participatory democracy requires millions of citizens to make all important decisions.

Yet, if the masses can not be trusted because they are so emotional and ignorant, why allow them to even to choose who governs? The argument against direct democracy is logically an argument against any kind of democracy. The commitment or elitists to democracy is weak: even representative democracy is conceded only on the grounds of expediency. This allows for the possibility that democracy could be dispensed with altogether, if another way could be found to pacify the masses’ demands. The attacks against the masses’ competence have often been made prior to extensions of participation rights to workers, women and minorities.

According to rational choice theorists, a lack of willingness to participate by the majority is a sign not of their ignorance, but of their rationality. The rational individual will ask itself, ‘What will I gain from the act of participation that I would not gain if I fail to act?’ The likely answer is ‘Nothing!’ This is the free-rider scenario where non-participation is the most rational option. The implication is that political movements will be led by those who personally gain from their involvement. Thus, for political elites participation is rational, because it gives them power and prestige. The mobilisation of other participants will depend upon convincing them that they will directly benefit from participating, and that any gains will outweigh the costs. This means that certain types of participation (such as voting in national elections) will be more easily undertaken because they are relatively costless, whereas canvassing for a political party will occupy many hours and incur some costs.

Yet, if individual self-interest is the only basis for political action, how can we explain the considerable time and effort citizens put into their membership of voluntary political associations? To be sure, without individuals taking their citizenship obligations seriously, the basis for our freedom within the political community will be eroded. It may be therefore be wholly rational to participate in politics. The challenge for rational choice theory is to ask how notions of rationality interact with other motivational forces.

Both democratic elitism and rational choice are instrumentalist theories: the former because political participation is a means to achieve a more important end of maintaining political authority; and the latter because participation is a tool used by individuals to further their interests. In contrast, participatory theories see political involvement as developmental: participation is more than a method of governing; it serves the wider purposes of cementing civil society together, and educating citizens in the art of governance.

The majority of individuals in liberal democracies are passive recipients of elite decisions, rather than citizens who actively shape politics. This is a dangerous state of affairs, because participation is a necessary pre-condition for our freedom. Instrumentalist theories can only lead to thin democracy, where democratic values are provisional, optional and conditional, and a means to exclusively individualistic and private ends.

Instead strong democracy is offered where politics is something done by, not to, citizens. This means strengthening local government, and extending democratic practice into the institutions of civil society, as well as increasing opportunities for the use of national referendums and citizen-led policy initiatives. In a strong democracy, participation is not merely the defence of an entrenched interest, but instead is a deliberative and public process that does not lay claim to any truth above what can be agreed consensually by its citizens.

By extending the responsibility for decisions to everyone, democracy gives each citizen a stake in society, and develops individuals’ political competence, thereby increasing the quality of decisions made. Direct democracy also fosters amongst citizens a sense of empathy for those with different interests, thus enhancing a shared political culture. Conflicts between social groups are resolved openly, rather than secretively by elites.

Political participation is seen as a good in itself; something that all individuals can play a part in and through which they develop not only their own political competence, but also forge the links that form civil society. Many of the normative arguments against participatory democracy are also arguments against democracy itself, and can be discounted if we believe that some form of democracy is desirable. It may also be possible to overcome the practical objections to direct democracy through innovations of information and computer technology (ICT) and new methods of citizen involvement (such as citizens’ juries or panels).

Participatory democracy theorists argue that democracy is not only an expression of individual autonomy, but is also relational. It involves compromise, tolerance of others and accommodation between conflicting views. Democracy is the best chance that we have of reconciling the increased diversity of civil society. Democracy is also the most secure way of converting power into authority, because it entails citizens giving their consent to decisions made in their name. Democracy values in equal measure the contribution of all members of civil society. It therefore requires that wherever possible decisions should be taken by citizens themselves. Theories that suggest democracy is merely a method of government that best preserves the status quo, or is more than the expression of narrow, pre-determined interests, seem hallow and uninspired in comparison.

There are two forms of political participation: conventional and contentious politics.

This refers to routine, institutional and regular forms of political action such as political parties and interest groups. There are several dimensions to this form of participation.

Usefully, there are seven types of participation:

• totally inactive;
• voting specialists – involved only in elections;
• parochial participants – concerned with personal issues only;
• communalists – interested limited to local issues;
• campaigners – participate in campaign activities such as to gather support for political candidate; and
• complete activists – engaged in all aspects of political life.

Studies suggest that 20-25% of the population are totally inactive, a similar figure for voting specialists and those engaged in community issues. 10-15% are complete activists.

Three reasons are suggested for why higher social classes participate more extensively and deeply in institutional politics than working classes;

• higher classes have a greater stake and interest in the political system;
• they possess a higher level of education; and
• parties and other political groups are ineffective, or fail, in mobilising citizens; they rather target the wealthiest citizens for reasons of their political donation and power.

Points 1 and 2 reflect the society-centred view of participation: i.e., people participate because of special social characteristics or resources they possess.

Point 3 reflect the polity-centred view of participation; i.e., parties and association are not passive, but aggressive and pro-active in mobilising the nature of political resources.

It is suggested that women and blacks are less active than men and whites. One reason could be that women and blacks are less represented in the public sphere and political circle, so that they feel that they have no interest in participating as they are marginalised and excluded from the political dialogue.

However, studies suggest that class is more significant in explaining the gender and ethnic differentials. In addition, that polity view of participation captures the way political institutions excludes them.

Democracies rely heavily on a strong civil society so that its members can express their views to the public officials. However, Putnam felt that in the US, democracy was in danger because the sense of civility and trust (i.e., social capital) was declining as reflected in the fall in church attendance and pursuit of leisure activities alone.

Yet, other social scientists found that the level of volunteerism had not declined, and that instead upper-middle classes stopped engaging in community-based civic associations, and were now networking in extra-local professional and trade associations as a way to promote themselves in their careers.

It refers to riots, rallies, mobs, marches and revolutions. There are several dimensions to this form of political participation.

a) There are some similarities between conventional and contentious forms of participation:

• well-administered coordinated by organisations;
• regular and scheduled activities;
• well-educated and most respected members of the society participate.

However, there are important differences since both forms of participation treat themselves, and are treated by the established authorities and institutions of the society in radically different ways:

• contentious politics operates outside the normal institutional political boundaries; and
• participants feel that regular institutional channels have failed.

Interestingly, once particular kinds of contentious politics become institutionalised and legitimate, they become conventional forms of political participation.

Some scholars argue that ‘new’ social movements (such as radical feminist groups, environmental organisations, peace movements, and ethnic nationalist causes based on politics of recognition and identity politics) difference from older and earlier kinds of social movements (based on issues of distribution of resources and access to political power – i.e., politics of distribution):

• new social movements are more concerned with the nature of participants and their lives rather than accomplishing specific political ends;
• they provide a home and a ‘refuge’ for participants and a basis for their identity; and
• they assert and sustain ‘collective identity’ for their participants through rituals, symbols, events, gatherings, etc.

There are four explanations for the origins of contentious politics:

This model of contention views contentious politics as part of the on-going range of political activities in a specific society. It draws attention to the political structures in which contentious politics arises, and traces the historical conditions and settings in which it occurs. The model suggests how opportunities emerge for new groups to challenge and to contend with existing authorities.

Social scientists argue that broader cultural environment of the social movements are relevant. There are two approaches:

• Cultural frames – these are scripts that social movements use to define themselves. Frames provide a way of making full sense of the world.
• Information and Technology – these have become important for modern forms of contention and protest, since activists use them (e.g., the internet and emails) to communicate with each other and outsiders to alter the nature of power and power relations. However, authorities posses a greater capacity for at out-playing social movements in the war of information and for public attention.

Personal connections and ties (such as family, friends and acquaintances), a diverse array of organisations and networks of informal groups (such as church organisations and ethnic groups) are crucial to explaining why contentious politics starts up and is successful in recruiting participants – i.e., the mobilisation and development of the contentious groups.

This theory stresses personal grievance and social breakdown (i.e., psychological factors) in society during famines, economic crises and wars for protest events and contention, rather than on political opportunities and resources in the larger society. An example of this would be during famine

There is come evidence that some groups (such as green movements) that begin as contentious political organisations become part of the regular assembly of politics. In effect, the change in the movement organisations can be identified as goals transformation, shifting from changing societal values and beliefs to organisational maintenance and increase in the concentration of power.

There are three points worth noting about social movements:

• A movement’s transformation of goals is likely to happen because of its competition with other organisations within the same movement.
• A movement that has lost its original dynamic quality is likely to turn conservative, as suggested in Michel’s ‘iron law of oligarchy’.
• A movement whose ideology strongly recommends distrust of societal and political authorities is likely to produce factions and splits among its members.

There are two approaches to the study of social movements:

• The hearts and minds approach – this suggests that movements can be better construed as an unorganised mass of people.
• The resource mobilisation approach – this depicts movements as part of the panoply of organisations in modern society, many of which are funded and become part of the regular institutions of modern society. This perspective draws attention to the social movement organisations rather than simply movements of people, emphasising how groups and organisations of people mobilise resources to challenge the political authorities.

Interestingly, as the number of contentious actions and organisations flourish, there is a tendency for authorities to attempt to institutionalise contention through such methods as co-opting (e.g., part of regular politics, say government) and adopting their agenda (e.g., green or migration agendas).

In emerging democracies, protest and contentious political forms, such as rallies and dissenting electoral challengers, have become part of the routine and regular display of politics, moving away from the marginal and radical expression and into more orderly and regular part of the rules of the political game.

Some social scientists have suggested that there are two conditions for the success of contentious politics:

• violence and other forms of disruptions, such as boycotts and strikes, bring success to challenging groups; and
• better organised movements have a higher rate of success as they have a formal list of members, and greater acceptance of hierarchical authority and centralised power.

The debate continues whether disruption will achieve success more than a strong internal organisation.