What is Political Participation?

Political participation was first conceptualized within the context of research into political systems and democracy. One of the forefathers of modern political science and

sociology, Seymour Martin Lipset, defined political systems as systems allowing political actors to exercise power and influence over the political process without challenging or overthrowing the system itself (Lipset, 1960, p. 45). Robert Dahl, another important early political scientist, similarly noted that “a political system is any persistent pattern of human relationships that involves, to a significant extent, power, rule, or authority”

(Dahl, 1963, p. 3).

Although neither of these early definitions of political systems use the phrase “political participation” outright, both suggest a need for people to be involved in the system. Dahl references “human relationships” that involve exercises of power and authority as a key part of his definition, and Lipset similarly refers to political actors exercising power within

the system (Dahl, 1963, p. 3; Lipset, 1960, p. 45). It is these human interactions within the political system, often involving power and authority, that have come to be defined as political participation. Unfortunately, these early definitions do not discuss how power and authority are distributed in a society, nor do they address how actors actually

exercise their power and authority.

The distribution of power and authority in a political system is crucial to the study of politics. Political systems are differentiated by how broadly power and authority are distributed in a society (Mesquita & Smith, 2011; Verba & Nie, 1972). When a few people hold political power and authority, a country is autocratic, whereas a broad distribution of power and authority makes a country democratic (Collier & Levitsky, 2013; Mesquita & Smith, 2011; Schmitter & Karl, 1991). Democracies require

widespread political participation from citizens who hold political actors accountable by participating in free and fair elections (Barro, 1999; Dahl, 2005; Schmitter & Karl, 1991).

The failure of early researchers to differentiate between systems with different distributions of power and authority when discussing political participation limits the applicability of their definitions.

As other researchers built upon the work of Lipset, Dahl, and others, they began differentiating between political elites and non-elites when discussing political participation. The focus shifted from political systems down to the level of private individuals and how they interact with political leaders and decision-makers (Milbrath &

Goel, 1977; Muller, 1977; Verba & Nie, 1972). For several years, voting was the main focus of political participation research and little interest was given to other types of political activities (Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980, p. 1). Although voting and elections remain central foci of modern-day research into autocracies and democratization (Diamond, 2006; Gandhi & Lust-Okar, 2009; Lindberg, 2006), research into political participation in stable democracies has expanded to recognize activities like protesting, donating to campaigns, and writing letters to elected officials (Milbrath & Goel, 1977, pp.

12–16; Muller, 1977; Verba, Schlozman, Brady, & Nie, 1993).

In Participation in America, Sidney Verba and Norman Nie recognize the expanding concept of political participation by defining political participation as “those legal activities by private citizens which are more or less directly aimed at influencing the selection of governmental personnel and/or the actions they take” (Verba & Nie, 1972).

According to Verba and Nie, participation is not just limited to the selection of political elites but also includes activities aimed to influence elite decision-making. Two

additional parts of this definition merit further discussion. First, political participation is done by private citizens. By using the phrase “private citizens,” Verba and Nie highlight the distinction between political elites, who hold power and authority in the government, and non-elites, who are average people unable to change policy directly. Verba and Nie suggest that political participation is the activity of non-elites as they seek to influence the actions of elites, who hold the actual power to change policies. Second, this

definition stipulates that political participation is only made up of legal activities. The use of the word “legal” limits the application of this definition of political participation, as the same action can be legal in one country and illegal in another. Does that mean, for example, that campaigning for an opposition party or candidate is political participation in the US but not in a single-party state where opposition parties are outlawed? What if an activity that was previously legal is made illegal? Does that activity cease to be a form of political participation?

To address the questions left by Verba and Nie’s definition, Lester Milbrath and Madan Goel put forth their own definition of political participation, defining participation as

“those actions of private citizens by which they seek to influence or to support

government and politics” (Milbrath & Goel, 1977). This definition is quite similar to the definition from Verba and Nie, but it does not stipulate that the actions must be legal. By providing a more general definition for political participation, Milbrath and Goel allow a wider range of activities to be considered political participation. Although their definition is still widely accepted, significant changes to the political participation landscape brought on by advances in information and communication technologies have necessitated an updated conceptualization of political participation.

Current research is further expanding the concept of political participation and re-branding it as civic engagement. Civic engagement as a concept is broader than political participation and goes beyond activities that directly influence political elites (Germen Janmaat, 2008). Political participation is now thought of as activities aimed at directly influencing political elites, while civic engagement includes political participation and also encompasses a range of activities that are important to attitude and value formation (Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004; Ekman & Amnå, 2012; Galston, 2004; Mitra

et al., 2016). Activities considered a part of civic engagement include participating in civil society organizations, volunteering in the community, or engaging in political discussions with friends (Ekman & Amnå, 2012; Mitra et al., 2016).