LITERATURE REVIEW
2.17 THEORETICAL MODELS OF PARTICIPATION
2.17.2 Civic Voluntarism Model
The civic voluntarism model is all about the resources the person has which motivates him or her to participate in politics. When a person is wealthier, has a higher status occupation and is more highly educated than the average citizen, they will participate more (Whitely, 2012: 48).
The model is based on the study of participation in America conducted by Verba and Nie (1972: 269) which concluded the status of a person such as the occupation, level of education
39
and income can determine how that person participate in politics. The following quotation explains civic voluntarism model of participation clearer:
“We focus on three factors to account for political activity. We suggested earlier that one helpful way to understand the three factors is to invert the usual question and ask instead why people do not become political activists. Three answers come to mind: because they can’t;
because they want to; or because nobody asked. In other words people may be inactive because they lack resources, because they lack psychological engagement with politics, or because they are outside of the recruitment networks that bring people into politics”
When an individual has the ability and is willing to process political information, that individual is likely to participate in politics (Clarke, Sanders, Stewart, Whiteley, 2004;
Dalton, 2005; Norris, 2000).
With civic voluntarism model, education is a measure of resources. Citizens become more effective when it comes to community development issues compared to other uneducated citizens (Whiteley, 2005: 12). Those who are educated become more confident in themselves, become more efficient which improves their participation in politics (Whiteley, 2005: 12).
Also, education encourages them to join any political party of their choice and sometimes participate in that political party’s activities. In addition, when individuals have spare time, maybe because they are working part time, they can become more active in politics (Whiteley, 2010). Family income, social status and leisure time have been other resources that facilitate individual involvement in politics. When there is a lack of these resources, it may become a challenge for an individual to participate in politics. The model also talks about participation in public affairs such as being a volunteer, going to church as some of the things which motivates individuals to participate in politics.
Individuals’ participation tendencies may be driven by mobilisation. People living in a close- knit community might be willing to participate when requested by other community members than individuals coming from communities with less social connections (Whiteley, 2005).
This is more like an elite driven process. People who participate in politics are sometimes those who are contacted by partisan elites than those who have not been contacted at all (Rosenstone and Hansen, 1995).
40 2.17.3 Social Capital Model
According to Whiteley (2010), people who are likely to participate using the social capital model are people with strong networks and have relationships with people they can trust within their societies. There has been no agreement in terms of the meaning of social capital but most of the writers have agreed that trust is the main indicator (Fukuyama, 1995; Putman, 1993; Brehm and Rahn, 1997; Van Deth, Marraffi, Newton, Whiteley, 1999). According to Putman (2000: 19) social capital is all about means of exchange in different networks of people with mutual interests and who can rely on each other.
Coleman (1990) under social capital introduced ‘credit slips’ of responsibilities and means of exchange which involves people who trust each other to solve their problems. As trust is important with social capital, individuals work with people who are not their family or community members and sometimes had little interaction with each other before (Whiteley, 2005). Trust encourages individuals to participate as there is an expectation that that would bring benefits (Whiteley, 2005). It is essential for individual to involve themselves in any community activities as that can build some level of trust.
Putman (2000) and Whiteley (1999) argue that the interaction of individuals who are working voluntarily can produce personal trust and social capital. A number of studies have revealed that organisations lead to political participation as it provides a platform and encourages political discussions (Eliasoph, 1998), attentiveness to mutual interests (Fung, 2003), emotional commitment and understanding of politics (Verba et al., 1995), and mobilisation on the matters of interest to citizens (Barber, 1984, Walker, 2008). A person who is a member of any organisation might be attracted to join other social groups outside his or her normal one (Liu et al, 1998), and political parties recruit people from local organisations according to some studies (Brady, Scholzman and Verba, 1999; Verba et al., 1995). A number of networks can be linked to more chances for support and resources (Prasad, Naidu, Ehrhardt, Winkel, Murthy, 2011).
Putman (2000) also introduced two forms of social capital which are ‘bonding’ and
‘bridging’. Bonding social capital is all about relations of people of the identical group; with strong connections which prevents people from outside from joining and limit freedom to group members. He continues to say that this kind of social capital strengthens community differences between individuals which is not supported by close-knit societies (Putman,
41
2000). This form of social capital is regarded as exclusive as it allows those who are accepted to bond with each other. Nonetheless, McKenzie (2008) conducted a study which focused on undesirable things about bonding social capital which revealed that the intention is not about linking people to certain organisations.
Bridging social capital refers to diverse groups that incorporate variation which is likely to stimulate weak connections. Bridging social capital is where communities can benefit because of the heterogeneous groups that it connects, be it racial, class or ideology (McKenzie, 2008: 26). Bridging could be seen as inclusive as everybody who is interested in joining the network could be welcomed by the group. Putman came up with these two types of social capital only for comparison purposes and both can have positive social effects.
There is an increased investment in political capital when there is an arrangement of political interchange and a good relationship between political actors (Nee and Opper, 2010: 2107).
When there is social exchange because of trust and responsibilities, politicians would do something for a citizen with the hope that that individual would return the favour in future (Nee and Opper, 2010: 2107). Some political writers have encourage that for good governance, civil society must be involved again (Putman et al., 1993), provide local services by being accountable, and community unification (Fuchs, Shapiro, and Minnite, 2001).
In a study that was conducted by Orr (1999), on urban politics and school reform, he discusses issues of ethnic and racial social capital in the USA. This occurs where people of the same racial background trusted each other more rather than having ties or associations with white or black relations. He argues that when social capital is limited to people of one ethnic group, assistance would come from those members only not from outside (Orr, 1999).
Education is also seen as an important resource and, as an input and an outcome in this model. There are indications which suggest that highly educated individuals are trustworthy and therefore find it easy to trust (Pattie, Seyd, and Whiteley, 2004). Education seems to relate to trust, which may promote community connections and social collaboration within groups, which leads to participation (Whiteley, 2005). The contradiction is that in developed countries with more resources, there has been a fall in terms of electoral participation irrespective of their investment in education (Whiteley, 2005). This change is not limited to electoral participation, government departments and political parties have been affected by
42
the decline in trust (Dalton, 2004). Whiteley (2010) argues that individuals who become active participants in their political parties have trust in government and other individuals. In a study conducted by Whiteley (2010), it was concluded that there has been a decline when it comes to active political party participation and individuals becoming members in some democratic countries. Political parties are becoming more professional and sometimes ignore their volunteers who at the end of the day have to deal with more control from those political parties (Whiteley, 2010).
Putman (2000) remarks about how social life and social capital has been affected by television watching in recent years. In his book ‘Bowling Alone’ he claims that American citizens are bowling alone (Putman, 2000) which means that they have become individualistic in a sense that they do not value the need for interacting with each other anymore. In a recent study that was conducted on women entrepreneurs in India by Prasad, Naidu, Ehrhardt, Winkel, Murthy (2011), it was discovered that a family-run business system might result in limited network connects which may affect women’s business skills to fully develop. However, family support is more of a ‘coping resource’ that can assist a women business’s emotional security (Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk, 1996). The next part focuses on gender in order to understand why men and women behave differently when it comes to politics.