Final Report Summary - POLPART (How citizens try to influence politics and why. International comparisons of movement and party politics)
Polpart compares citizens’ engagement in movement politics and party politics in four ‘Full Democracies’ (the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and the U.K.) four ‘Flawed Democracies’ (Hungary, Romania, Brazil, and Argentina) , and Greece. A central tenet of this research is that sooner or later every citizen has issues that might get him/her involved in politics. This raises the question of which issues and what actions?
Comparison is the core of the project. It encompasses three subproject, each of which has a comparative design: comparisons of political participation over time and countries in global surveys; focus group discussions to understand the formation of political engagement and disengagement in the nine countries; survey experiments to quantify patterns of political participation in the same countries.
Negative evaluation of politics
The participants in the focus group discussions evaluate politics negative. We asked our respondents what comes to their mind first when thinking about politics. The response was amazingly negative. To be sure, these were gut-reactions, later in the discussions the evaluations became more nuanced, but the sentiment remained negative.
The negative evaluation of politics reflects also in high levels of political cynicism combined with low levels of political trust, especially among citizens of flawed democracies. Although citizens in full democracies are less negative, they still rate the political system in their country rather low.
Which issue do citizens care about? We showed our respondents a list of fifteen issues and asked them which three issues they deem the most pressing for their country. The most mentioned issue was health care in about equal numbers in full and flawed democracies. Unemployment, corruption, and poverty, are more a matter of flawed democracies. Almost any person who mentioned corruption as the most important issue, lives in a flawed democracy. Almost every person who mentions immigration lives in a full democracy. Pensions, terrorism, environment and climate change are issues of full democracies, while the political system is primarily an issue of flawed democracies.
Issues and actions
Why does the one respondent chose to vote for a party that addresses the issue s/he is aggrieved about, while the other joins a demonstration? Why does the one sign a petition, while the other contacts a politician and again another refrains from any action altogether? Part of the answer concerns the supply-side of political participation. We offered four forms of political participation: voting, contacting a politician, signing a petition, and taking part in a demonstration.
Citizens are more prepared to engaged in political action the more aggrieved they are. Full and flawed democracies are very similar in that respect. Importantly, anger makes people prepared to engage in movement politics rather than party politics across all issues. That is to say, that movement politics is influenced more by grievances than party politics. The strongest factor stimulating political participation is external efficacy. The more people feel that their participation in a specific activity makes a difference, the more they are willing to engage in that activity.
Trust in political institutions, political cynicism, and internal efficacy come with significantly different patterns of relationships with political engagement. Political cognitions reveal a fascinating pattern of relations. Trust or not, does not impact on someone’s political engagement, political cynicism and internal efficacy are each other’s opposite. Political cynicism stimulates low cost activities, while internal efficacy stimulates people’s willingness to participate in high cost activities.
Engagement in party politics in the past increases someone’s intention to participate in party politics in the future. The opposite pattern we observed with regard to movement politics. Citizens who in the past participated in movement politics, consistently revealed higher intentions to take part in movement politics in the future.
Comparison is the core of the project. It encompasses three subproject, each of which has a comparative design: comparisons of political participation over time and countries in global surveys; focus group discussions to understand the formation of political engagement and disengagement in the nine countries; survey experiments to quantify patterns of political participation in the same countries.
Negative evaluation of politics
The participants in the focus group discussions evaluate politics negative. We asked our respondents what comes to their mind first when thinking about politics. The response was amazingly negative. To be sure, these were gut-reactions, later in the discussions the evaluations became more nuanced, but the sentiment remained negative.
The negative evaluation of politics reflects also in high levels of political cynicism combined with low levels of political trust, especially among citizens of flawed democracies. Although citizens in full democracies are less negative, they still rate the political system in their country rather low.
Which issue do citizens care about? We showed our respondents a list of fifteen issues and asked them which three issues they deem the most pressing for their country. The most mentioned issue was health care in about equal numbers in full and flawed democracies. Unemployment, corruption, and poverty, are more a matter of flawed democracies. Almost any person who mentioned corruption as the most important issue, lives in a flawed democracy. Almost every person who mentions immigration lives in a full democracy. Pensions, terrorism, environment and climate change are issues of full democracies, while the political system is primarily an issue of flawed democracies.
Issues and actions
Why does the one respondent chose to vote for a party that addresses the issue s/he is aggrieved about, while the other joins a demonstration? Why does the one sign a petition, while the other contacts a politician and again another refrains from any action altogether? Part of the answer concerns the supply-side of political participation. We offered four forms of political participation: voting, contacting a politician, signing a petition, and taking part in a demonstration.
Citizens are more prepared to engaged in political action the more aggrieved they are. Full and flawed democracies are very similar in that respect. Importantly, anger makes people prepared to engage in movement politics rather than party politics across all issues. That is to say, that movement politics is influenced more by grievances than party politics. The strongest factor stimulating political participation is external efficacy. The more people feel that their participation in a specific activity makes a difference, the more they are willing to engage in that activity.
Trust in political institutions, political cynicism, and internal efficacy come with significantly different patterns of relationships with political engagement. Political cognitions reveal a fascinating pattern of relations. Trust or not, does not impact on someone’s political engagement, political cynicism and internal efficacy are each other’s opposite. Political cynicism stimulates low cost activities, while internal efficacy stimulates people’s willingness to participate in high cost activities.
Engagement in party politics in the past increases someone’s intention to participate in party politics in the future. The opposite pattern we observed with regard to movement politics. Citizens who in the past participated in movement politics, consistently revealed higher intentions to take part in movement politics in the future.