Analysing The Effects Of Voting Apathy In Democracy Politics Essay

Analysing The make Of Voting Apathy In Democracy Politics EssayWhat is lethargy and does it curseen our land? During the course of this investigation, I argue that unrivaleds understanding of stolidity is dependent entirely upon ones interpretation of the border state. Beginning with an explanation of the ship canal in which immobility is apparent at bottom politics, I then sample to address its ca adopts, concluding that feelings of disconnection and disenchantment with political parties, along with hearty status and education, are the principal(prenominal)(prenominal) determinants of political date. After doing this, I hit the books elitist and participatory attitudes towards democracy, finding the concept of impassibility within both schools of model to be radic eachy different.The phenomenon of apathy within politics is usually seen to be expressed through with(predicate) a lack of betrothal during options, a chastening to engage in discussion and kick the bucketure to contri onlye to matters of local significance. It is ofttimes measured by examining electoral widening. Since the middle of the ordinal century humankindy established liberal democracies throw experient declining electoral lodge. Indeed, during the 2001 general election, the UK experienced its lowest level of turnout since the introduction of universal suffrage1. This mail has also been experienced throughout much of the Western world. As hay (2007) suggests, populistic dusts of g everyplacenment clearly require some form of amour in order to appear legitimate, with turnout rates having now travel low enough to give considerable cause for concern2. protrude 1 (p.11) re resigns the average turnout during European and American elections since 1945, whilst figure 2 (p.12) dis turn of so fartss the maximum and minimum levels of turnout over a similar period. As the figures show, to experience turnout of below 50% in any election raises many hesitancys about the health of a democracy and the legitimacy of electoral effects. How can a governance which margin calls to represent the people be seen as legitimate if much than half of those eligible to vote did not do so? Political apathy as represented through non-voting would see to have created a crisis of legitimacy. However, to concentrate on electoral participation as the only measure of a healthy democracy is to ignore the many other measurements which characterise a antiauthoritarian state, such as main course to free elections, liberty of speech, or the independence of the judiciary. The way in which one views the significance of participation depends entirely upon which democratic theory is constitute more convincing, and is an issue which is addressed in greater detail later.So why have participation rates declined so dramatically over new-fashioned decades? The Power Inquiry, a 2006 study into political disengagement within the UK, found the most significant factors to be a sentiment amongst voters that their views are entirely ignored by politicians and that their opinions are not taken sufficiently into reckon by the process of political decision-making3, along with the widely held belief that the main political parties are too similar in character and lacking(p) firm beliefs. Further to this, it was discovered that a lack of understanding or companionship of political debate and the workings of democracy also potpourri magnitude non-participation4.A growing hunch of politicians and of politics in general within Western universes has also fostered apathetic sentiment. Within Britain especially, this corrosive cynicism5has been fuelled by decades of come alive and political scandals, corrupt practices and abuse of the parliamentary system. Indeed, the 2010 British Social Attitudes value found severe distrust of politicians had risen from only 11% in 1987 to 40% today6. It is perhaps no coincidence that declining participation has occurred during a period where distrust of politicians has risen.Social status and education also play significant utilizations in determining political participation. Lower class identifiers have historically felt less inclined to participate, either electorally, through chat with peers, or through membership of an organisation. The link is confirmed by Beeghley (1986), who provides info suggesting a positive correlation between income and participation7. However, Hillygus (2005) finds that it is education which plays the determinative role as a determinant of future political participation8. She suggests that in the majority of analyses, education remains the strongest determinant of participation even when measured against other socio-economic factors such as class, gender or hunt down9. Figure 3 (p.13) demonstrates the relationship between verbal SAT lots (US) and expected future levels of political participation, whilst figure 4 (p.14) shows the pattern repeated, but concerning v oting only.We have outlined some possible causes of apathy, finding that non-participation has increase dramatically over recent decades. besides is this phenomenon h fortifyful to democracy? As touched upon earlier, the answer to this question depends entirely upon how one understands the core of the term democracy.The elitist theory of democracy, centred on a faith in the merits of congresswoman democracy, is grow in the belief that an enlightened few should control public policy- elitist theorists regard that the pluralityes are too uneducated or un raiseed to physical exercise judgement. Indeed, Bachrach (1980) states that the elite is enlightened, thus its policy is bound to be the public interest10. Rather than concentrating upon participatory opportunities to assess the health of a democracy, elitists view accession to elections and the responsiveness of those elected as the key measure of a democracy11. All that is required to validate an electoral result is at least some degree of participation (voting). A degree of apathy is to be welcomed, as it is assumed that those who do vote are those with enough knowledge to do so. Elitist theorists such as Schumpeter argue against the classical conception of mass participation, believing that many decisions of fateful importance are of a nature that makes it unrealizable for the public to experiment with them12. Matters of national importance, then, are better resolved by elites. Direct participation is not necessary, or desirable, from the public. A central job of the elitist school is the belief that some measure of apathy within a society actually helps strengthen democracy by stabilising the system of elitist rule. Bachrach (1980) provides a succinct critique of elitist thinking regarding apathythe ordinary man still plays a role in the system since he has the freedom to vote, to bring pressure upon political elites, and to attempt himself to rise to an elite position. But by and large he does, a nd is expected to, remain relatively hands-off in fact the health of the system depends upon it. For if he becomes too vigorouspolitical equilibrium is thrown out of balance13.Berelson, Lazarsfeld McPhee (1954) add to this by suggesting that low participation rates help established political parties (elites), by preventing the fragmentation of votes towards smaller parties, which would otherwise gain popularity as a result of greater participation. Additionally, low interest provides manoeuvring room for political shifts necessary for a complex society in a period of rapid change14. Underpinning this is the belief that all societies will inevitably come to be prevail by small minorities, even those which have experienced proletarian alteration (such as the post-revolutionary Soviet Union). As Michels would have it, society cannot exist without a dominant or political class15. Further to this, Dye Zeigler (2009) believe that a strong democracy does not depend upon mass partici pation, stating that the mickle tend to hold antidemocratic beliefs. They contend that an increase in participation would spelunk democracy16, claiming it to be the irony of democracy that democratic ideals survive because the bulk are generally apathetic and inactiveall that is necessary is that they fail to commit themselves actively to antidemocratic movements17. Elitists, then, see apathy as essential as a means of shoring up their dominant position over the flock they for sure do not see it as a threat to our democracy.Contrary to the position of the elitists, participatory democrats champion the concept of cipher democracy as opposed to the representative system present in liberal democracies today. They see existing institutional structures as being knowing to discourage mass participation, wishing instead to foster a fleck whereby citizens actively attend meetings, deliberate, discuss and participate in the executive arm of government and the employment. For partic ipatory democrats, The process of taking part becomes integral to democracythe decisive test of a democracy is its capacity to encourage its population to play an active role in its government18. This is clearly in stark contrast to the elitist understanding of democracy, which views any form of direct involvement by citizens, with the exception of voting, as unnecessary and potentially dangerous.Pateman (1970) believes that it is a lack of participatory institutions which prevents political engagement in a representative system. Citing empirical studies, she argues that political efficacy and an increased willingness to participate are best fostered through direct participation at a local or workplace level, arguing that the experience of participation in some way leaves the item-by-item better psychologically equipped to undertake further participation in the future19. Bowler Donovan (2002) confirm this link, by suggesting that American states which make use of direct citizen i nitiatives help to increase the efficacy of their populations20. groom (1984) and Pitkin Shumer (1982) see the main component of a strong democracy as active participation by citizens rather than through a reliance on representatives2122. Barber argues that citizens should be free to make political decisions not necessarily at every level and in every instance23, but very much enough and in areas where significant issues which may affect them are to be considered. He advocates the creation of institutions designed to facilitate a civic participation, with the aim of fostering discussion, deliberation and eventually the formation of legislation the process of which he refers to as common work. He goes on to suggest that under the present form of liberal democracy, voters do not participate in the presidential term of a country at all the act of voting scarce serving as a method by which to select non-homogeneous elites. It is only once masses start deliberating, acting, sharin g, and contributing, they cease to become masses and become citizens. Only then do they participate24. It is evident that apathy is certainly not a desirable feature within the participatory democrat interpretation of democracy. Any amount of apathy within a commandment would create a situation whereby those who did actively participate would find themselves adequate a form of elite- those unwilling to contribute simply pass their business to another, trusting them to make the right decisions. Evidently, this is not much better than the representative status quo. Apathy, then, is a symptom of a weak democracy, as the role of participation is paramount to its success.But should participation be defined as active involvement by the public, as participatory democrats argue, or is the dim-witted act of voting enough? If participation is taken as meaning direct citizen involvement, then apathy is certainly a threat to legitimacy. If democracy is government by the people, how can a re sult hope to be considered legitimate in a situation where less than fifty portion of a population express an opinion? If however the elitist approach is followed and participation is limited to voting only, then to a degree the public does thence take part in the democratic process via the choosing of the elites which are to bequeath them. It is through the act of voting during elections that a government can claim legitimacy. As long as there is some degree of participation, this is all that matters. As such, apathy should not be seen as a threat to the legitimacy of a result. Clearly, the gulf between elitists and participatory democrats is vast. They hold diametrically opposed ideas as to the consequence of apathy within a democratic society.As we have seen, the phenomenon of apathy within democracies is a highly litigious subject perhaps essentially contested25. We have found that apathy presents itself within democratic societies most significantly in the form of non-part icipation, noting that turnout rates have declined dramatically since their peak in the middle of the twentieth century. Weve looked at the causes of apathy, discovering that social status and education along with a cynicism and distrust of politicians and the sense of remoteness and disconnection from the legislative process also potently contribute to apathetic sentiment within a population.In regards to whether or not apathy threatens democracy, it is possible to conclude both ways by differentiating between both representative and participatory democracy. Representative democracy is modify by the existence of apathy and relies upon it to maintain political stability. Conversely, direct or participatory democracy is threatened by apathy, as it requires widespread fundamental interaction from the public. Because elitist theorists are describing the present state of liberal democracies, it is hard to conclude that apathy can be seen as a threat to the legitimacy of government a party still wins, regardless of turnout. It is only once democracy is viewed in terms of public participation that the issue of apathy becomes a threat, undermining the very meaning of the word. In short, apathy threatens the concept of direct democracy, but it doesnt threaten the existing system of representative democracy, it merely strengthens it. The answer to this question depends solely upon which theory of democracy one finds more convincing.