Considering the various theories on participation in democracy, I appreciated G.D.H. Cole’s approach that Pateman expanded upon, which extends participation in democratic life to arenas that aren’t always labeled as political, including the workplace or “Indsutry,” as well as the church, schools and other institutional arrangements. I think this understanding allows us to view democracy with a wider lens, encompassing a spectrum of citizen activity that isn’t necessarily governmental or related to voting. While voting is obviously a central component of civic participation, as well as the most egalitarian form of political capital, the kind of collective and social activity that Cole’s theory speaks to is another facet of national life that encourages interaction, deliberation and negotiation among citizens. These are other central components of living in a democracy, even if they do not always translate into electing our leaders.
Cole’s theory of democracy and citizen participation conveniently frames Brady, Verba, Schlozman’s findings about political participation, which provides the substantive content to questions about political disinterest. They show that participation is less likely among lower income brackets, which is not necessarily surprising. But brining in Cole’s theory, the absence of participation – whether a result of lack of resources or information – does not preclude these social groups from participation altogether. People are still taking part in democratic society by working or attending church, for instance. Devoting both time and money to learning about and taking an active stance in politics is a luxury that not all can afford, even if the price seems small and has diminished since the advent of the Internet and the widening availability of information.
In sum, I think we should take a wider view of what it means to be a citizen. Poor voter turn-out does not necessarily translate into complete apathy among citizens. Too soon do we assume that lower socio-economic groups are inactive and disinterested in politics when as Brady et. al show, their time, money and interests are more closely attached to other areas of public life, particularly the workplace.
Citizen Competence in American Democracy
I strongly agree with the assertion that we need to look beyond voter turnout when defining citizen involvement. Because voter turnout is so easy to keep track of, it is easy to refer to this data to benchmark citizenship. We have data on local and national elections, making it ever more appealing to rely on this data to compare and contrast differing levels of citizen involvement.
ReplyDeleteIn class we all agree to some extent that money is very, if not the most, influential resource in determining a person's level of political involvement. Should we not expect people to be proportionally involved in politics then, just as we look at collecting taxes? The bottom bracket of married couples pay an income tax rate of 10% while the top bracket pays an income tax rate of 35%. If the income tax rate was any higher than the 10% for the lowest bracket of individuals, these people would not be able to sustain a healthy life. If we look at political monetary contributions with this in mind, are we more accepting of the lack of participation among the less educated or lower income citizens? I'm not proposing any astounding conclusions from this, but I thought it was interesting in trying to consider a person actual ABILITY to participate. If money and time equal participation, a percentage of the population may never be equipped to participate at the level political advocates would prefer.