THE fl—flRPT HE

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
 65

CFkrticipation of the members of the society in matters related to politics has been a topic

of increased interest in recent years. A large number of studies on popular participation and non­
participation have been attempted since the publication of Meniam and Gosnell’s Non-Voting in
19241 and the series on citizenship edited by Meniam in the late twenties and early thirties.2

Political participation, which has been defined as “the involvement of individual at various
levels in the political system”3 ; “share in the selection of rulers and directly or indirectly, in the
formation and/or in the execution of public policies”,4and also “comprising all those activities that
one way or another, are intended to affect the working of and outcomes of the political system”1,

is a necessary ingredient of every political system. Hence active and effective participation of the
people has become essential for the existence and continuance of die political system.

It is, however, in a democracy that political participation assumes paramount importance.6

From the traditional theory to the more calculadve eighteenth-century view of democracy, in any
event, democracy implied and encouraged a high level of popular involvement. It is a system in
which actual power lies with the people who exercise it by participation in the creation,
maintenance and supervision of different structures within the system. The consent of die general
masses is the prime condition for the success of democratic political system. As participation is the
principal mode of granting or withdrawing consent, so without significant citizen involvement the
democratic process falls short of its goals.7 hi the modem age not only in democracies but also in

other forms of political systems participation of the people in political affairs has been given too
much importance. This is because the new world political culture is die political culture of
participation.8 So the totalitarian rulers today are also trying to secure the mass approval to justify

their arbitrary decisions.

MEANING:

Participation means ‘sharing in’ or ‘wrap oneself with’ every dimension of life, of culture
or of economy, our educational system, our political system, our decision-making process. But
there is less than a complete agreement among the scholars about the meaning of the concept
‘Political Participation’. The notion has been very narrowly viewed as those political activity of
private citizens or the roles played by the members of the society as private citizens.® Verba, Nie

and Kim had narrowed their definition to further extent. According to them political participation
refers to those legal activities of private citizens that is designed to affect governmental decision-
 66

making.10 Thus, the activities of governmental officials while determining governmental policy
within their respective agencies, the activities of political party officials, political candidates and
professional lobbyists are not to be included in political participation. This definition also refers
that the activity of the people in a private company may not be regarded as political participation.

hi the present study, the impression discussed above cannot be accepted. Here political
, participation includes to all the political activities of the members of the society whether it is
performed as private citizens or party officials or candidates or governmental officials or
professional lobbyists. The activity may be legal or illegal, it does not matter. Even a strike
designed to influence the government on any matter is political participation. Hence political
participation in a broader sense can be defined as “the involvement of members of the society in
the decision-making process of the system”,11 or taking part in the formulation, passage or
implementation of public policies.12

Political Attitudes and Behaviours:

One more contusion about the meaning of the concept ‘Political Participation’ is whether
the term includes psychological process leading to it or only the act as such. Recent research
findings in the West on ‘Political Participation’ emphasize that although psychological
involvement in politics and political activity are positively related, they can vaty independently.
Huntington and Nelson argue “knowledge about politics, interest in politics, feelings of political
competence and efficacy, perceptions of the relevance of politics, all these may often be closely
related to political action, but at other times they are not. Their study and measurement also
require techniques that differ significantly from those needed to study behaviour alone.”13

Therefore, the recent tendency in the West appears to treat objective political activity and
subjective political attitudes as separate variables. But variety of studies in the east and west also
included in their works the orientations, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes of the individual towards
participation in addition to the actual political behaviour.14 In a study, M.L. Goel has emphasized

that psychological or altitudinal variables like political information, attitudes towards political
recruitment, party preference, party evaluation and the feelings of civic competence have effected
political activity of the individual.15
 67

HISTORICAL GROWTH OF THE CONCEPT:

The earliest reference to political participation by citizens of a State are to be found in the
works of the ancient Greek political thinkers, Plato and Aristotle. In the Greek City-States and
Athenian democratic states, every adult male member of political society, except the aliens and
slaves, were allowed the right to vote, to hold political offices and many other facilities.
Citizenship of the state implied an active participation in die government Pericles declared in his
speech “We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs not as harmless but as a
useless character—.”16

When Aristotle in Book 3 of “The Politics” examines what elements go to determine the
nature of being a citizen, he explicitly identifies “participation in giving judgement”.17 He

visualises that the best state is one where there is broad participation, for participation in the
affairs of the state is essential for the development of human personality.

The history of political participation by citizens in the past can also be known from the
accounts of democracy of ancient Rome. Citizens’ participation in politics or engagement in the
services of the state was considered prestigious. But facilities for participation in the political
affairs were provided by the Roman emperors to die citizens of Rome city only.

In the 14th Centuiy, this concept gets adequate weightage in the writings of Marseleo of
Padua. He favours the doctrine of popular sovereignty and representative government.

The idea of political participation finds expression through the political philosophies of
John Locke and Rosseau in the late 17th and early 18th Century. These two political
philosophers’ view of social contract points to the theory of popular sovereignty, though united by
the prior rights of the individual.

John Stuart Mill puts the point precisely when he argued that the best kind of responsible
government is one - “in which public participation is as great as the general degree of
improvement of the community will,... Nothing less can be ultimately desirable than the admission
of all to a share in the sovereign power of the State,”18

The political philosophers like Kail Marx, Engles and Lenin visualised people’s
participation in politics on the basis of class. According to them the individuals in a ‘Socialist
 68

State’ will be ruled by the Communist Party which will be the ‘Vanguard of the Proletariat’. Mao
later suggested that the proletariat be replaced by the peasantry as the ‘Vanguard of the
Revolution’. Thus, communists envisage political participation in terms of class with the majority
represented by the working class or peasantry class dominating over die minority.

Direct participation of the people in the system of government was found in ‘Direct
Democracy’ which had been practiced in Switzerland. Till today, in some ‘Swiss Cantons’ open
air meetings in the field or public square of the Capital city have been held for election of public
officials and passing of laws.

Direct participation of the people in die local affairs were found in earlier times in America
and also in India. The towns and villages were made the units where the people of that area could
attend the meetings to solve their local problems. But owing to the conditions of modem living
this system was abolished in America though it is still continuing in India.

In countries like England, France, America and India there were a transition from
monarchy to democracy which had facilitated die increasing of people’s participation in politics.
In those countries there were revolutions against the centralization of powers in the hands of
monarchs. The Puritan Revolution in England, the French Revolution, die American War of
Independence and the Indian Freedom Movement were against the centralized forms of
government, arousing the political awareness of the people. The arousal affected people’s political
participation.

POLITICAL MEN AND WOMEN:

The members of human species live together and form society. They are social animals.
Society is more than a necessaiy environment, more than a soil in which they are nurtured. Their
relation to the social heritage is more intimate than that of the seed to the earth in which it grows.
They are bom to a society the process of which determines their heredity, and parts of which
becomes in time their inherent mental equipment - not merely an external possession.19 They
cannot dwell together without entering into relationships of influence. Whenever these
relationships become stable and repetitive, political systems exist20 But that does not mean that all

the human beings in the society participate in the politics of the society or in the political
institutions of the system. The members of die society who are involved in the affairs of the
 69

political system, either directly or indirectly, are called ‘participants’. The others, who need not
concern themselves with the politics of that society are considered ‘non-participants’.

Non-Participants :

A sizable number of members of the society are ‘non-participants’. They abstain

themselves from the politics of that society, need not participate in political life, not cherish the
political institutions and values of their society. A variety of terms are attributed to them such as
apathetic, cynical, alienated or anomic.

Apathy as conceived by Mill, “is the lack of political meaning in one’s life, the failure to
tiunk of personal interests in political terms, so that what happens in politics does not appear to be
related to personal troubles. Riesman extends that notion of apathy to include the politically
uninformed as well as politically uncommitted.”21 Thus, the apathy is characterised by the

individual’s passivity or abstention from political activity. It may be caused owing to alienation
which means “deep-seated and relatively enduring feelings or estrangement, rejection, negativism
and unhappiness with the political system or its salient features.”22 There are two referents of

political alienation. Firstly, alienation with respect to the regime, which is termed as ‘anomie’. The
anomic persons have no faith in the regime. According to them election and partisan activities are
meaningless. More anomic persons are found in a country which has sloughed off the old values
and adopted a new regime. Secondly, alienation with respect to the existing government and
leadership and/or the policies that they pursue, which is termed as ‘cynicism’, means the feeling of
distrust in the government and political leadership of the country.

There are some political theorists for whom apathy is a favourable sign. Their view is
restricted to the non-democratic systems. In those political systems apathy works as a defense
mechanism to the individuals. But in democratic system the position is quite different. It is
accepted that participation is essential for the existence and continuance of democracies. Thus, a
pertinent question arises : What are the factors that bring about this absence of political interest
and activity ?

Robert A. Dahl offers several fundamental reasons as to why people do not get involved
in politics.23 According to him people are less likely to share in the political activities (a) if they

attach a low value on the rewards expected from political involvement relative to the rewards
 70

expected from other kinds of activity; (b) if they think that there is no significant difference in the
alternatives before them and, consequently, that what they do won’t matter; (c) if they think that
what they do, won’t matter because they can’t significantly change the outcome anyway ; (d) if
they believe that the outcome will be relatively satisfactoiy to them without their involvement; (e)
if they feel that their knowledge is too limited for them to be effective ; and finally (f) the greater
the obstacles placed in their way, the less likely they are to become involved in politics.

From a qualitative study made before 1954 at Ithaca, New Yoik by Morris Rosenburg,24

the major factors which appeared to contribute to political apathy are :

1. the threatening consequences of political activity - (a) threats to interpersonal harmony,

(b) threats to occupational success, (c) threats to ego-deflation;

2. the futility of political activity - (a) futility based on the sense of personal inadequacy,
(b) die unmanageability of political forces, (c) the foregone conclusion, (d) the gap between ideal
and reality; and

3. the absence of spurs to interest and participation - (a) the subject matter of politics is
often not psychologically compelling, (b) absence of non-instrumental gratifications, (c) political
results meet few direct and urgent needs, (d) people often lack a personal thrust to action.

After a study on four nations De Palma Giuseppe has suggested the following causes of
political apathy - “Modernization and social complexities limit participation ; they give rise to new
sources of social and political marginality; they enforce stratification in political participation.”29

According to S.M. Lipset non-participation in political activities can be inputted to the

following causes :

1. “Non-voters and those less interested in political matters are much more intolerant and
xenophobic than those who vote and have political interests.”

2. “As Genevieve Knupfer, an American psychiatrist, has pointed out in her revealing
‘Portrait of the Underdog’, economic undeiprivilege is psychological underprivilige : habits of
submission, little access to resources of information, lack of verbal facility - appear to produce a
 71

lack of self-confidence which increases the unwillingness of low-status persons to participate in

many phases of our predominantly middle-class culture.”

3. Those occupations which are most isolated in every sense, from contact with the World

outside their own group also cause apathy and convert the workers to the supports of

communism.

4. “Isolation, a punishing childhood, economic and occupational insecurities and a lack of

sophistication are conducive to withdrawal, or even apathy, and to strong mobilization of hostility.

In ‘normal’ periods, apathy is most frequent among such individuals, but they can be activated by
a crisis, especially if it is accompanied by strong millennial appeals.”26

Participants :

Many political scientists (Aristotle included) take it for granted that man is naturally a
political animal. But only a minority of adults in each and every society are showing interests in
political matters, are concerned and informed about politics, and are active in public affairs. The

reasons are such, as Milbraih writes, that the persons who have shown some interest can turn to
political behaviour only when their needs can be satisfied somewhat routinely or readily.27 The

basic needs, which are genetic to every human being, include (1) substantive needs and (2)
instrumental needs.28 Substantive needs include (a) the physical safety ; (b) the social-affectional

needs for love: for getting, being, and staying together (including the need for perpetuating the

species) ; (c) the self-esteem or dignity needs for achieving a sense of one’s distinct and worthy

individual existence ; (d) the self-actualization needs for finding and pursuing those activities that

are most suited to each individual’s unique innate potential, as this potential develops in a complex
environment offering a wide range of activity choices.29 The second set of needs, the instrumental

needs, are also regarded as innate. They include (a) the need for security, (b) the need for
knowledge and (c) the need for power.30 Generally after the gratification of all such needs or

some of them one individual has shown his interest in participation.

All these individuals who actively indulge in politics are not, however, equally involved.

They differ on the basis of the levels of their participation. Hence political participation occurs in

various forms.
 72

FORMS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION:

Political participation denotes a series of political activities of the individuals. Milbrath in

the first edition of his book has put premium on the conventional concept of political participation
in the West It included the activities like voting, campaigning, discussing politics, attending
political meetings, convincing another person to vote in a particular way, distributing party
literature, contributing money to campaigns and contacting officials and other activities of this
nature.31 He brings these activities under the following three categories : “(1) gladiatorial; (2)
transitional ; and (3) spectatorial ,”32 Viewing the later developments he had broadened his

outlook on the concept of political participation. The Buffalo Survey of 1968 conceived political
participation as made up of three major dimensions ; (a) Conventional Political Participation
includes such activities as talking politics, joining political party, taking active part in a campaign,
being a candidate for public office etc. ; (b) Communications of Protest and Support includes
sending support or protest messages to political leaders, inform others in one’s community about
politics etc.; and (c) Unconventional Political Participation includes rioting and demonstrating.33
The last dimension is regarded as “aggressive political participation” by Muller.34

According to Woodward and Roper, the political activities are “(1) voting at the polls, (2)
supporting possible pressure groups by being a member of them, (3) personalty communicating
directly with legislators, (4) participating in political party activity and thus acquiring a claim on
legislators and (5) engaging in habitual dissemination of political opinion through word-of-mouth
communications to other citizens.”35

Powell describes “voting turnout is only one form of participation in the political process.
Citizens also participate through discussion of issues, efforts to mobilize others, election
campaigns, involvement in groups that by to influence policy choices, and direct contacts with
incumbent officials.”36

Agger and Ostrom in their study of political participation in a small community have
included diverse forms of behaviour in the participation index. These activities included voting,
discussing public questions, associating with officials and public employees, attending meetings
concerned with community affairs, belonging to organizations and associations, and taking an
‘active part’ on some public issue or problem.37
 73

According to Huntington and Nelson political participation takes many different forms
such as, (a) electoral activity includes voting, campaign, contribution, working in an election,
proselytizing on behalf of candidates, or any other action designed to affect the outcomes of the
electoral process, (b) lobbying includes individuals or group efforts to contact government
officials and political leaders with a view to influencing their decisions on issue that affect a
i,

significant number of people, (c) organizational activity involves participation as a member or

officer in an organization that has as its primary and explicit goal for influencing decision-making
process of the government, (d) contacting is an individual action directed to government officials
and normally designed to produce benefits for only a single person or a very small number of
people, and (e) violence?*

VARIABLES OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION :

. Political participation appears to be a complex phenomenon that depends upon a number

of variables of different relative weights. It varies from country to country, from era to era, from
one type of people in a society to another. Milbrath holds that it differs in relation to four major
factors : (i) the extent to which the individual receives political stimuli; (ii) the individual’s social
characteristics ; (iii) the individual’s personal characteristics ; and (iv) the political setting or
environment in which the individual finds himself.39

Too many variables thus work behind political participation, which, however, may be
brought under some broad categories like (1) the social, (2) fire psychological, (3) the economic,
and (4) the political.

1. The Social Variables :

Some of the findings in the study of political behaviour concern the association between
political participation and various social characteristics such as education, occupation, income,
sex, age, mobility, religion, race, group influence, urban-rural background, social involvement,
length of residence in the community, caste, and so on.

(a) Education : The relevance of education to political participation is obvious, partly

because it helps to develop one’s sense of civic duty, political competence, interest and
responsibility and also self-confidence and articulateness. The educational institutions enables one
 74

to learn the process to join in an organization, fulfil duties, participate in meetings, discuss broad
social issues etc. The educated persons are able to transmit their political interests and knowledge
to their children. Thus, those with higher education are more likely to participate. This is
confirmed for : United States, Finland, Mexico, Britain, France and Italy. In Norway the
relationship holds for voting but not for gladiatorial activities.40 hi India, the more educated are

more likely to discuss politics with friends, neighbours and colleagues and also to participate in
activities which seek to influence decisions, but are less likely to turn out at the polls or to attend
public meetings and rallies than the less educated.41

Yet the findings of the research scholars are not consistent on the relationship between
education and income and political participation. Difference in income may lead to different
degrees of political participation though there is similar level of educational attainment.42 But

participation differs more in case of persons with the same income but different levels of
educational attainment than in case of those with different income but the same educational
attainment.43
v
(b) Occupation : Persons holding higher occupation generally are better educated and the
nature of their occupation provokes them to know the political environment. Thus, they are more
active in politics than the persons having lower occupations. In India, persons in the professions
are about the most active on all measures of participation except on voting, while the farmers turn
out at the polls in higher numbers.44 Political participation can be low among the persons holding

higher occupation if the nature of occupation provides less leisure or causes much anxiety in the
spheres ofjob to the members of the occupation.

(c) Income : Persons comprising higher income group get more leisure, less anxiety and
wider opportunities and greater prosperity which are calorific enough for them to participate more
vigorously in politics. But a rise in income has not a uniformly proportionate effect on political
participation.43 Still a rise in the income at the personal level always helps for a growth in the

political participation of the individual. That does not mean that a high income at the national level
may always reveal a high degree of political participation.44 Goel finds that in India, the turnout
rates at the polls are the same among all income groups, and the turnout tends to decrease as the
level of education increases.47
 75

(d) Caste, Race, Religion : Factors like caste, race and religion provide motivation for
participation in appropriate situation. Negroes participate less forcefully than Whites in United -
States, and Jews participate more vigorously than Catholics, who, in turn, are more active than
Protestants and this is confirmed for : United States, France, and Belgium.48 In India, the turnout

rates do not vary significantly among major religious groups or between upper castes and lower
castes. However, members of the lower castes are less likely to tty to influence decisions than the
members of the upper castes.45*

(e) Social Status : ‘Higher class persons are more likely to participate in politics than the
lower class persons’.” This high social status as consisting of a number of social attributes -
education, occupation, income, caste, race, religion - “is strongly but variably associated with high
turnout, high information, conservatism, higher than average rates of political involvement and a
high sense of political efficacy, and such high-status people are placed in a milieu of extensive
political stimulation.”51 In addition, low-status groups are less apt to participate in formal
organizations, do not buy magazines and books regularly, possess less information and knowledge
on public affairs, and so on. All these attributes are related to non-democratic attributes.32
/

0 Urban-Rural Residence : People residing in an urban area are more exposed to mass
media and education which expand their horizon of outlook. In addition, they are more aware of
political issues. Thus, the degree of political participation of the urban dwellers is higher than that
of the rural people. It is confirmed for United States, Finland, Britain, Norway, Denmark and
Sweden. This relationship does not hold water in Japan. In India, surprisingly, however, urban
residents are some-what less likely to turnout at the polls than rural residents.53

(g) Age and Marital Status : Participation gradually ripens with age, but declines in the
fifties or sixties. It is confirmed for United States, Britain, France, and India. Environmental
causes, genetic causes and individual decision-making processes are the causes behind the
differences in behaviour with age.54 Rates of political participation tend to be low among the

youth of the society owing to the primacy of such non-political concerns as obtaining of
education, finding a mate and establishing a career. In addition, they are politically inexperienced
and often lack the skills and the knowledge about politics than makes political participation both
easier and more meaningful.55 The middle-aged persons are more inclined towards political
 76

participation. Among older persons, declining family income, poor health and increasing disability
undoubtedly lead to a drop in the rates of political participation.36

Married people participate more in politics than the unmarried ones. Marriage provides a
stable social existence, prevents mobility and entangles the persons with the community veiy
strongly which helps the married persons to participate more in politics.37 The most apathetic

group are the young unmarried citizens, which is confirmed for United States, Finland, Norway
and Britain. Among the married, the persons with no children participate more than the others. It
is confirmed for United States.

(h) Sex : As compared with men, women are significantly less involved in politics. It is
confirmed for United States, Britain, Italy, France, Germany, Mexico, Sweden, Norway, Japan
and India. Women are dependent, less informed about politics, conservative and politically less
competent. Sex difference, on political participation tend to be sharper in the rural areas than in
the cities and the lower the level of education, the greater the difference between male and female
participation rates.38 Only in the electoral politics there is a direct public competition between men
and women. When women run for public offices, they are not particularly disadvantaged by their
sex. Relying on the same information or perceptions and weighing them in the same fashion as
men do, women can seek political offices.39 Other scholars argue that women and men differ in
how they calculate the costs and benefits of running for political office.60

(i) Residence : A person residing within a community for short period is less active in
politics than those living for a longer period. It is confirmed for United States, Finland, Britain
and India. This is true of gladiatorial activities. A new comer to a community finds it difficult to
adjust himself with the people of that community. He is not normally allowed to hold a public or a
party office. The longer period a person resides in a community the more he is exposed to the
political life of the community.

0) Geographical Mobility: Mobility is likely to suggest an individual to ‘cross-pressures’,

and conflict due to ‘cross-pressure’ tends to produce ‘apathy’, withdrawal, hence non-voting.61
Persons those with low or medium mobility report a higher turnout rate than those who had never
traveled anywhere or those who, had traveled extensively.62
 77

(k) Mass Media Exposure : Political participation is more among the persons who are
more exposed to media. “Mass media exposure is curvilinearly related to voter turnout; that is,

persons who are sometimes exposed to media or those who are frequently exposed to media.

Mass media exposure has greater impact on the behaviour of the less educated persons
than on the behaviour of the highly educated persons.63

(l) Social Involvement : The degree of political participation of the persons who are
members of the voluntary association(s) is very high because of the influences of articulateness,
awareness of self-interests and greater exposure to the agencies of socialisation. It is confirmed for
United States, Britain, France and West Germany. Group memberships may ‘puli’ in contrary
ways and this tends to be associated with withdrawal from political activity.

2. Psychological Variables:

Men participate politically because political participation tends to meet their psychological
needs of overcoming their loneliness. When an individual becomes alone he wants the association
of others and this can be possible when he will take the plea of politics. “Common political beliefs
play the groundwork for sharing equivalent emotions or of anger, sympathy and distress ;
common activities creates bonds of friendship. Politics may offer to the lonely men new
opportunities for association with others - the excuse may be politics, the need may be fear of
isolation.”64

Similarly, one of the fundamental psychological traits of man is that he is a gregarious

animal; he wants to understand the meaning of his environment and the politics forming a part of
it He becomes politically involved because he is keen on deriving meaning from the political
environment he is living in.

Political participation helps the individual in easing out his intra-psychic tensions. A
conflict of one’s impulses on the one hand and one’s mental control mechanisms on the other
leads to these psychological tensions. The external forces that are working behind the generation
of those tensions may come from familial sphere or social sphere. Political participation provides
some effective channels for expressing one’s conflict so that the tensions may be subdued. By
 78

engaging an individual in political activities it provides him a new life style whereby he can get out

of the vortex of his psychic conflict

Men are always psychologically motivated by a kind of power-seeking. It . is pleasing for a

person to feel, that he is powerful, that he can dominate, and that his father was wrong in calling

him a failure. Jhis longing leads people to be politically involved.

A research scholar may come across certain difficulties while studying the psychological

factors of political participation. First, it is difficult to answer the question that whether an
individual’s active participation in politics is motivated by his psychological needs or political

participation is determined the satisfaction which he derives from political activities. Secondly, by
studying a person’s behavioural responses one can determine the psychological traits. In case of

verbal responses some error may come in the process of study because of certain factors like, the

respondent lying, inappropriate question, respondents having blinkers on with socially approved
responses, eliciting answers totally non-existent from what they say.6S Thirdly, die ‘basic’

personality traits like mental depression, manifest anxiety, intolerance of ambiguity, rigidity, guilt

etc. are to be differentiated from socially acquired or socially learned personality traits such as
sense of efficacy, sense of civic responsibility, sociability, sense of alienation and authoritarianism.

The first category traits influence the participation behaviour of the people less effectively than the
second categoiy traits.

3. Economic Variables:

‘Men seek to advance their economic or material well-being—through political means’."

Again, it is the men who already have economic resources are most likely to participate.47 People

in possession of economic resources are interested in its preservation and this interest motivates

them to gain political power or at least some control qver the decision-making process of the
government.

4. Political Variables:

Political environment influences the degree of political participation of the individual.

Political participation is affected by the size, remoteness and complexity of modem political

systems. If the size of the country is too large, if the mechineries of political communication do
 79

not properly function, if the pre-conditions determined by the law of that land for the participants
restrict wider sections of the citizens, people develop a sense of apathy which affects the rate of
their political participation. These pre-conditions may include such factors as age, sex, nationality,
literacy level, educational qualification, residence requirement, mental-equilibrium, ethnic
background, absentee voting and the like. That docs not mean that those who are not given the
right to participate by the legal enactment of the land, cannot find any other way to take part in
politics. For the right of franchise may join in various forms of political activities like campaign,
political agitation etc. In recent years students below the age of eighteen are participating in
politics more and more though they are not enjoying the right to vote. The frequency of elections,
the number of offices to be filled, the length of the ballot paper and the necessity of observing and
making decisions in the election at the local, state and national level may make the people non­
participants in politics. If the election rules are simple and voting arrangements are not
unnecessarily cumbersome, people will take part more in elections. In the newly independent
states like India, the government encourage the people to take part in politics. The more inefficient
the government is, the low is die participation level in politics of the people. That does not mean
that the degree of political participation is higher if the government is efficient. Overconfidence in
the ability of the government may make people apathetic. Political issues may adversely affect the
rate of political participation of the individual, hi the election following the death of the former
Prime Minister Mrs.Indira Gandhi people participated more vigorously in voting. Similarly, crisis
in national and international politics sharpens the impulses of the individual to participate in
politics.

The countries where universal suffrage is permitted, the political parties can influence the
participation of the people in politics. The wishes of the people arc generally conveyed to the
government by the political parties. Sometimes people are emotionally attached to the political
parties. Political parties encourage the people to participate in politics by supplying them
information about the political world as well as the technicalities involved in different forms of
participation.

They contact and register voters, select party nominees, organize campaign activities in
favour of the party candidates and try to influence the electorate during elections to vote for the
party. The percentage of people’s participation in politics depend upon certain assumptions : first,
the presence of strong and organized political parties competing in a realistic manner for political
 80

offices. Secondly, the longer period the political parties are competing for political offices.
Thirdly, the existence of political parties which is based on clear-cut ideologies. Fourthly, the
procedures adopted for party campaigns. It has been proved that even the most apathetic people
are found participating in different modes influenced by the party campaigns. However, the
research scholars have found different impact of these assumptions on political participation in
different countries. The first three assumptions can improve the turn-out rates in voting. But they
have very little impact on other forms of political participation.

MOTIVES:

It may be undoubtedly said that one’s motive also determines one’s political activity in the
society. These motives may be classified into five categories, such as, deferential, solidary,
expressive, instrumental and civic. The political activity of people are sometimes influenced by
some other persons for whom they have deep respect These political actors not only have strong
identifications with these influences but also have a desire to be influenced by them. For
example, in the rural areas of less developed countries, the people often participate in voting for a
particular candidate because of their deference to their traditional leaders.

Sometimes the individual is motivated by a desire to affirm his solidarity and loyalty to his
larger social group, to participate in politics in a particular way. This type of political participation
is regarded as ‘solidarity participation’. Some members of the society are loyal to their village,
clan, tribe, ethnic or religious community and social class and will show the type of political
participation which is typical to the members of these social group.

For the achievement of concrete goals or in anticipation of some kind of material gain
people do participate in politics.68 This type of ‘instrumental participation’ is directed according to

the inducements to which the individual responds. Such incentives may be individual such as cash
payments and patronage etc., communal such as rewards in the form of public works or schools
for the entire community, and sectoral which includes policy commitments or legislation involving
welfare programmes. On the otherhand, individual takes part in politics for some immediate
satisfaction or a mere release of feelings. This nature of political participation is called as
‘expressive participation’. In actual practice, however, instrumental participation is often mixed up
with expressive participation.
 81

Participation in political affairs of the society has also been seen as a civic duty. The
individuals particularly in a democratic polity participate in their political system as they regard it
as a sense of moral obligation or duty to participate.

After a conceptual analysis of the notion ‘Political Participation’ and its various facets the
study merits a probe into the institutional framework of Panchayati Raj System in Orissa which
facilitates the members of the society to participate in different politico-developmental structures
in rural areas of Orissa.
 82

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Charles E. Merriam and Harold F. Gosnell, Non-Voting, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1924).
2. Charles E. Merriam , The Making of Citizens; A Comparative Study of the Methods of Civic
Training, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931).
3. M. Rush and P. Althoff, Introduction to Political Sociology, (London: Thomas Nelson, 1971),
p,14.
4. S.E. Finer, “Groups and Political Participation” in Parry Geraint et al (eds.), Participation in
Politics, (Manchester: The University Press, 1972), p.59. Also see S. Verba, N.H. Nie and Jae-on
Kim, Participation and Political Equality-a-seven-nation Comparison , (Cambridge: The
University Press, 1978), p.46.
5. M.L. Goel and D.H. Smith, “Political Activities” in D.H. Smith et al (eds.), Participation in Social
and Political Activities, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980), p.76.
6. Supra., Chapter-I, pp.2-3.
7. See G.B. Powell (Jr.), Contemporary Democracies; Participation, Stability and Violance, (USA :
Harvard University Press, 1982), p.12,
8. See G. Almond and S. Verba, The Civic Culture : Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five
Nations, (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1965), p.12.
9. See L.W. Milbrath, Political Participation, (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1977), p,2. See also S.P.
Huntington and J.M. Nelson, No Easy Choice: Political Participation in Developing Countries,
(Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1976), pp.4-7.
10 . S. Verba, N.H. Nie and Jae-on Kim, n.4, p.46.
11. G.A Almond and G.B. Powell (Jr.), Comparative Politics : A Development Approach , [New
Delhi: American Publishing Co.(P) Ltd., 1966], p.314.
12. Parry Geraint, “The Idea of Political Participation” in Parry Geraint et al(eds.), n.4, p.5.
13. S.P. Huntington and J.M. Nelson, n.9, p.5.
14. See L.W. Milbrath, n.9, Chapter 3 for an early summary of such research ; and see S. Verba et al,
The Modes of Democratic Participation : A Cross-National Comparison, (California: Sage
Publications, 1977), pp. 75-79, for the specification on models using attitudes and antecedents to
political participation.
13. See for detail, M.L. Goel, Political Participation in a Developing Nation : India, (Bombay: Asia
Publishing House, 1974), Part-in, pp. 129-194.
16 . Pericles as quoted by Baldev Krishna in his unpublished doctoral thesis, “Political Participation in
India : A Case Study of 1971 and 1977 General Election”, (New Delhi: JNU, 1986).
17. Dauglas Wass, Government and the Governed : BBC Rath Lectures, (London : Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1984), p. 103.
18. Ibid., p. 106.
19 . R.M. Maclver and C.H. Page, Society, (London : MacMillan and Co., 1955), pp.46-47.
 83

20 . R. A Dahl, Modern Political Analysis, (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., 1991), p.95.
21. M.E. Olsen, Power in Societies, (New York : The MacMillan Co., 1970), p.287.
22 . L.W. Milbrath, n.9, p.62.
23. R. A Dahl, n.20, pp.98-101.
24. M. Rosenberg, “Some Determinants of Political Apathy” in the edited book of Heinz Eulau et al,
Political Behaviour, (New Delhi: Amerind Publishing Co., Pvt. Ltd., 1972), pp. 160-168.
25. De Palma Giuseppe, Apathy and Participation : Mass Politics in Western Societies, (New York :
The Free-Press, 1970), pp.200-201.
26. S.M. Lipset, Political Man, (New Delhi: Arnold Hainemann, 1959), pp. 111-112 and 121-122.
27. L.W. Milbrath, n.9, pp.25-27.
18. Mames C. Devis, “Roots of Political Behaviour” in M.G. Hermann (ed.), Political Sociology, (San
Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publications, 1986), p.49.
29 . Abraham Maslow, “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Psychological Review, 50 : 370-396,1943.
30 . M.C. Devis, n.28, p.52.
31 . See S. Verba'et al, n.4.
32 . See L.W. Milbrath, n.9.
33. See Evert F. Cataldo, Richard F. Johnson and Lyman A Kellstedt, “The Urban Poor and
Community Action in Buffalo”, (A Paper prepared for deliver at the Annual Meeting of the
Midnight Political Science Association, Chicago, May 2,1968).
34 . See E.N. Muller, Aggressive Political Participation, (N. J. Pinceton : The University Press, 1979).
33. J.L. Woodword and E. Roper, “Political Activity of American Citizens”, in H. Eulau et al(eds.),
n.24, p.133.
36. G.B.Powell(Jr.),n.7,p.l3.
37. E.R. Agger and V. Ostrom, “Political Participation in a Small Community”, in H. Eulau et al(eds.),
n.24, p. 138.
38 . S.P. Huntington and J.M. Nelson, n.9, pp.12-13.
39. See L.W. Milbrth, n.9.
40 . P.E. Dowse and J. A Hughes, Political Sociology, (London : John Willey, 1972), p.297.
41. M.L. Goel, n.15, p.212.
42. G.M. Connelly and H.M. Field, “The Non-Voter : Who he is, What he thinks”, Public Opinion
Quarterly, 1944, p. 179.
43. A researech finding of J.M. Foskett, “Social Structure and Social Participation”, American
Sociological Review, 20(1955), p.434.
44 . M.L. Goel, n.15, p.213.
45. This is the finding of a study of the voting pattern of American income groups made by A Combell,
C. Gurin and W.E. Miller, The Voter Decides, (Evanston III: Row, Peterson, 1954).
46 . R E. Lane, Political Life, (Glencoe, Inc : The Free Press, 1961), p.329.
 84

47. M.L. Goel,n. 15, p.213.

48 . P.E. Dowse and J.A Hughes, n.40, p.293.
49. ML. Goel, n. 15, pp.214-215.
so. L. W. Milbrath and M.L. Goel, Political Participation, (Chicago : Rand McNally, 1965),p. 116.
51. P.E. Dowse and J.A Hughes, n.40, p.293.
52. M. Komarovsky, “The Voluntary Associations of Urban Dwellers”, American Sociological Review,
11, 686-698 (1946) ; See H. Hymen and P. Sweatley, “Some Reasons Why Information Campaign
Fail”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 11 (1947); See also S.M. Lipset, n.26, p.l 12.
53. M.L. Goel, n. 15, p.212.
54. J.E. Birren and W.R. Cunningham, “Research on Psychology of Aging : Principles, Concepts and
Theories”, in James E.Birren and K.W. Schaie(eds.), Handbook ofthe Psychology ofAging, (New
York : VenNastrand Reinhold, 1985), pp.12-13.
53. John M. Strate, C.J. Parrish, C.D. Elder and Coit Ford ID, “Life Span Civic Development and
Voting Participation”, American Political Science Review, Vol.83, No. 2, June, 1989 (443-
464), p.443.
36 . Neal E. Culter, “Demographic, Social-Psychological and Political Factors in the Politics of Aging :
A Foundation For Research in ‘Political Geography’”, American Political Science Review, 1977,
71:1011-25 ; See also L. Edinger, Politics of the Aged : Orientations in Major Liberal
Democracies, (New York : Columbia University Brookdale Centre on Aging and Adult Human
Development, 1983) - discuss the political implications of aging population in Western
Democracies.
37. A study made in Stavanger, a city of Norway in 1957. For detail see S.M. Lepset, n.26, p.212.
58. M.L. Goel, n.15, p.214.
39. T. Bledsoe and M. Herring, “Victims of Circumstances : Women in Pursuit of Political Office”,
American Political Science Review,Vo\. 84,No. 1,March 1990(Research Notes) (213-223),pp.213-
214.
60 . V. Sapiro, “Private Costs of Public Commitments or Public Costs of Private Commitments : Family
Roles vs. Political Ambition”, American Journal ofPolitical Science, 2 : 265-79,1982.
61. The term “Cross-pressure” is discussed in detail by P.F. Lazarsfeld, B. Berelson and H. Gaudat,
The People’s Choice, (New York : Duell Sloen and Pearce, 1964).
62 . M.L. Goel, n.15, p.l26.
33. Ibid., p. 125.
64. R.E. Lane, n.46, p.l08.
63. P.E. Dowse and J.A Hughes, n.40, p.305.
66. Ibid., p.291.
67. F. Lendenfeld, “Economic Interest and Political Involvement”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 28, 1964
. (104-111).
68 . R.A Dahl, n.20, pp. 105-110,

* ifc ■*