Those who fail to participate are not properly represented. Government is thereby deprived of its broadest possible assessment, and of the benefit of whatever these non participants have learned from their experience. In a democracy, participation is power. Rulers can therefore afford to ignore the needs and interests of non participants.
By neglecting to avail themselves of the reinforcements contingent upon participation, the apathetic are further discouraged from bothering to formulate political opinions and demands. Ignorance thus accumulates, and the general level of political vitality and vigilance declines. In practice, it will typically be the poor and the socially deprived who are most likely to be unrepresented, those who most need to be represented.
Widespread apathy increases the chances that government will be dominated by men who are unresponsive, self-aggrandising, and unscrupulous; participation, on the other hand, reminds those who govern that they must attend to their duties and serve the electorate.
Whenever apathy prevails, it becomes more difficult to organise and maintain a political opposition, an essential ingredient of the defense against tyranny and the abuse of political power. Even if the opinions of the non participants are presently ill-informed, there is no better way to improve the quality of their judgment than by the experience of participation.
In the course of participating, one is impelled to acquire the knowledge needed for sound judgment, to become aware of one’s best interests, to learn how the system works, and what principles and beliefs it values. Voters looking for guidance are prompted to seek out information, to discuss politics with others, and so on.
Therefore, participation not only stimulates political learning but also heightens responsibility, deepens awareness, and increases one’s sense of political effectiveness. Apathy is a symptom as well as a cause of weakness in the system. It signifies a failure to involve all members of the society in their own governance, a failure to inspire interest and loyalty.
Such failures may be dangerous to democracy, for whenever a large number of people exist outside the normal channels of politics, and are unable to share in the decisions that shape their lives, the political atmosphere becomes potentially explosive.
The cogency of some of the foregoing arguments on both sides of the issue indicates that the relationship of participation to democracy cannot be understood simplistically. To claim that more participation is always preferable is to blind oneself to the possible disadvantages of enlarging participation under certain circumstances.
To contend, on the other side, that any increase in participation will invariably serve to enshrine mediocrity, and to debase the quality of political life is to ignore the powerful considerations for giving everyone who wants it a role in the collective decision process.
Most of the disputants, fortunately, would be unwilling to press their arguments to these extremes. Nothing is to be gained by converting participation into either a fetish or a taboo. It seems plain enough that in itself it is neither good nor bad, but that it takes its character from the social and political contexts in which it occurs, as well as from the motivations of the participants.
Both participation and apathy, then, are complex phenomena which resist easy characterisation and analysis, not only for the reasons just given but also because many of their correlates are still unknown.
Although much has been learned in a relatively short time, the relationship between participation and its social, psychological, and political correlates, is far from being understood in a systematic way. The explorations that need to be undertaken might be much more useful if both participation and its correlates were broken down into their principal components, so that the influence process, whatever the direction of its flow, might be understood more dynamically.
Once identified, these components need to be systematically explored in different social contexts and across cultures to determine their relative explanatory power under varying combinations of forces.
Political participation will refer to those voluntary activities by which members of a society share in the selection of rulers and, directly or indirectly, in the formation of public policy. The term “apathy” will refer to a state of withdrawal from, or indifference to, such activities. These activities typically include voting, seeking information, discussing and proselytising, attending meetings, contributing financially, and communicating with representatives.
Participation is an ingredient of every policy, large or small. Whether the society is an oligarchy or a democracy, someone must make political decisions and appoint, uphold, and remove leaders. Those who fail to participate, whether out of neglect or exclusion, are likely to enjoy less power than other men. Although not all who participate possess effective power, those who do not participate cannot exercise or share power.
The right to participate is an essential element of democratic government, inseparable from such other attributes of democracy as consent, accountability, majority rule, equality, and popular sovereignty.
Indeed, the growth of democratic government is in part measured by the extension of the suffrage and the correlative rights to hold office and to associate for political purposes.
Whereas traditional monarchies restrict power and participation largely to the nobility and their agents, democracies have in principle transformed these prerogatives in to rights enjoyed by everyone.
This expansion of participation was partly stimulated by the desire to give meaning and force to the principles of consent, accountability, and political opposition. Participation is the principal means by which consent is granted or withdrawn in a democracy and rulers are made accountable to the ruled.
Since men can be equal and free only if they share in the determination of their own affairs, participation has been viewed as a means for realising these democratic objectives as well.
We have to think about defence against tyranny, and extremism as use, as a means of collective wisdom. Participation promote stability and order, giving everyone the opportunity to express their interests which should secure the greatest good for the greatest number. The community would be able to gain by drawing upon the skills and talents of the largest possible number of people.
There are benefits ennobling people by giving them a sense of their own dignity and value, alerts both rulers and ruled to their duties and responsibilities and broadens political understanding. No one can be excluded because of their caste, race, religion, poverty etc.
Greater emphasis is needed to eradicate participation of the modern mass dictatorship both communist and fascist who are a very bad influence likens to a very bad company. They cannot be allowed to wield influence over policy or the selection of rulers, and use propaganda.
Participation appears to be a complex phenomenon that depends on a great many political values and beliefs. Very often it is the wealthy or privileged who gains a foothold on the political ladder while the poor and disadvantaged are left out. It is the uneducated who managed to form undesirable parties such as the nationalists, or fascists.
While those with superior education acquire first hand knowledge of, and to influence politics by greater access to political leaders, and to the sources of political decision making. Some politicians mostly with good upbringing goes through other general constructs of a more dynamic nature (e.g., power, influence, motives, pressures, drives), ends up greedy and selfish and pathetic with an inept government.
Man’s political activity to his need for power, competition, achievement, affiliation, aggression, money, prestige, status, recognition, approval, manipulation, sympathy, responsibility, in short, to virtually every need that impels human behavior.
Making an example of myself that while I am well educated, but not had superior education, have been too poor to become a politician and genuinely wants to put things right politically. Whatever the social class differences we have in political and cultural contexts has powerful inequalities.
Despite these qualifications, one can actually influence participation. Thus, education offers high and reliable correlations with participation, partly because it helps to develop a sense of civic duty, political competence, interest, and responsibility, as well as personality characteristics of self-confidence, dominance, and articulateness.
The schools themselves can serve as settings in which the skills of participation are acquired: one learns to join organisations, fulfill duties, participate in meetings, discuss broad social questions, and organise to achieve group goals.
Finally, the more educated are better able to transmit their political interest and knowledge to their children and, hence, to perpetuate the relationship between education and participation without aggressive and paranoid politics.
They have to show social conscience and concern and affirmative attitudes toward mankind. Schools are already learning about the global climate change and going green in recycling and gardening. Issues and ideology are areas that shape participation in modern societies. The greater ideological cleavage between parties increases participation.
That way we can depoliticise if we pass on to our future generation the elements of good politics. The awareness would greatly help balance politics. The findings on democracy have to be alert, informed and wise citizenry while being realistic and practicable.
It will shape the nature and quality of democracy a society enjoys. The good influence process could be systematically enjoyed to such an extent.
No comments:
Post a Comment