Fluent Essays

Who participate in politics , Why and how ? What encourages or discourages polotical participation ?Describe the political participation in Nigeria Use the material below to write the Esasay ...General written assignment requirements:1. Length - at least 1 1/2 page-at max 2 1/2 pages2. Correct citation at the end and in the body of the text3. Font size: Times News Roman 12 pts.4. Spacing: 1,5 lines _11_21_pols500_l_8.pptx _milbrath_1.pdf _milbrath_2.pdf _dalton__participation.pdf _parry_moyser_participation.pdf himmelweit_voters.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview WAYS TO FOSTER POLITICAL PARTICIPATION POLS 500 People and Power: Political Sociology Dobrin Kanev, Associate Prof., PhD 2016-2017 Ways to foster political participation • Direct democracy instruments as complement to representative democracy • • • • Frequent referendums in a representative democracy Citizens’ initiatives / citizen initiated referendums Agenda initiatives Recall votes • Compulsory voting • E-voting • Electoral system change Frequent referendums? • 2016: –Year of referendums? –Revolt against elites? – People ‘get their country back’? – Rise of populism? Frequent referendums? • „Direct democracy strikes again!“ – April: Netherlands - to approve an EU-Ukraine free-trade and association agreement – June: Brexit – October: Colombia – peace agreement with FARC (50.2 на 49.8) – October: Hungary - 95\% reject quotas for the distribution of migrants in the EU, but the vote was invalid because turnout was 42.58\% – November: Bulgaria – December: Italy Frequent referendums? • 2016 – a record number of popular direct democracy votes across the world • A total of 26 countries have held national referendums • Significance of some of the votes Number of countries holding national direct democracy votes per year since 1900 Number of countries allowing specific types of direct democracy instruments at the national level by law since 1900 Frequent referendums? • The call for referendums reflects the crisis of conventional forms of political participation, in particular the principle of representation • To the extent frustration with parties, parliaments and other representative institutions grows, grows hope to direct democracy • Referendums are regarded as a remedy for the shortcomings of representative government • Are these hopes justified? Frequent referendums? • Can direct democracy be the remedy for the problems of representative democracy, without side effects, i.e. without threatening or deteriorating other important principles of democracy? • What could be the place of instruments of direct democracy in a representative and constitutional democracy? Frequent referendums? Pro: – Expanding opportunities for political participation – Popular sovereignty – directly, without intermediaries - no oligarchic parties‘, interest groups, parliaments – Greater legitimacy of decisions taken – Exercise of control over representative institutions (even the possibility of holding a referendum makes representatives not to stray too far from public opinion) – School for Democracy“ – More transparency Frequent referendums? Contra: • ‘Classical’ critique: – Risks of manipulation (demagogues) – Volatility and emotion in decision-making – Qualities and skills of political personalities – Weak executive – Tyranny of majority Frequent referendums? • Controversial examples in political history • On the one hand: – Napoleon III used a referendum to be declared emperor – Adolf Hitler used plebiscites in the Sudetenland and Austria to consolidate the Third Reich • On the other hand: – Switzerland Frequent referendums? Evidence • Do the ‘people’ really decide? – For the period 1971-2010 in Switzerland participation in referendums is 42.5\%, while in parliamentary elections - 47.8\% – In another referendum country Italy - 53\% participation in referendums, 87\% - parliamentary elections – Eventually participate only half of the people Frequent referendums? Evidence • „School for democracy“? – Evidence doesn’t prove it – Debates • None • Insufficient • On other issues Frequent referendums? Evidence – Control by representatives • Referendums are not initiated by the people, rather by individuals who come from either the political parties or NGOs, or interested business circles • Campaigns need resources - political, organizational, financial • The “people - dependent even on a greater degree • “Referendum capture” Frequent referendums? Evidence – Their results often lead to negative solutions • Especially where they relate to budget and tax issues • Negative consequences for public goods education, healthcare, employment • Privileging of private interests to the common interests Frequent referendums? Evidence • California - Ballot initiative, which can be initiated by each voter and requires a simple majority to pass • Adoption through referendum of Proposition 13 lowering property taxes by 57\%. Moreover it limits future increases as far as for such a change two-thirds majority in both chambers is required • Result – The state almost ungovernable: financial mess, near bankruptcy, a sharp drop in the quality of public services, including its once leading education system Frequent referendums? Evidence • Swiss referendum 2014 – to introduce immigrant quotas into the constitution – One of the consequences would have been to limit the free movement of EU workers to Switzerland, a member of Schengen area • Two-year crisis EU – Switzerland • December 2016 – bill that gives priority to Swiss-based job seekers, but which avoids quotas on EU citizens Frequent referendums? Evidence • The referendum has become a weapon of populist parties • In June 2016 the European Council on Foreign Relations pointed out that now populist parties of 18 member states propose a total of 32 referendums on issues ranging from exit from EU membership to refugee quotas Frequent referendums? Evidence • Referendums reduce complexity to absurd simplicity – EU – Ukraine agreement – more than 2000 pages – The ‘leave process’ of UK from the EU is so complicated and complex that few could foresee all consequences • When we reduce a peace agreement, a trade treaty or EU membership to a single sentence, democratic debate gives way to the political noise Frequent referendums? Evidence • In Italy, the December 2016 referendum on parliamentary reform was so complicated that one Italian start-up offered classes on how to understand it for 154 USD per hour Frequent referendums? Evidence • Spread of misinformation • Todays demagogues – The British people were told there will be no economic price to pay for leaving – Voters were promised an advantageous trade deal with Europe, lower immigration, more money for NHS, other public goods and services – ‘Leave’ rejected every expert as part of a conspiracy of the haves against the have-nots Frequent referendums? Evidence • “The Remain problem was that Leave had better sellers “ • Should the answer to a question that turned the whole country and affect the welfare of all people depend on who is the better seller? • The referendum was the wrong tool to solve such an important issue Frequent referendums? Evidence • Referendums are binary and fixed – „yes“ or „no“ • They don’t leave room and scope for creative compromise needed to resolve political problems • The result of the referendum in the UK didn’t increase the legitimacy of politics • It did not bring together rather than separate the nations and communities in the country Frequent referendums? Evidence • Often the motives for initiating a referendum and voting in a referendum are other than the questions asked – Boris Johnson wanted to unseat and potentially replace PM Cameron – In Netherlands and Colombia – against the government in general Frequent referendums? • Conclusions: – Referendums look better in theory than in practice – The increasing use of referendums is not the best recipe for treating the deficiencies of representative democracy – On the contrary, referendums can make things worse and erode democracy Frequent referendums? • When could a referendum be useful? – Questions - important, explicit – Discussion - sufficient time and other resources – Not used as a party-political weapon“ – Better – not binding Citizens’ initiatives / citizen-initiated referendums • Allow the electorate to vote on a political, constitutional or legislative measure proposed by a number of citizens and not by a government, parliament or other political authority • Depending on the authorizing law, the result of an initiative vote may be legally binding or advisory Agenda initiatives • Procedures by which citizens can place a particular issue on the agenda of a parliament • Unlike the procedure for citizens’ initiatives, no popular vote takes place when an agenda initiative is brought forward Online petitions • On the Change.org website more than 1000 petitions are started in the US each day • Some are political – Asking members of the Electoral College to vote for Hillary Clinton as president instead of Donald Trump (4.9 million signatures) • Others not – Asking that ‘Star Wars: The Old Republic’ series be shown on Netflix (123 000 names) Online petitions • Most of the petitions did not produce the desired outcome • But they raise awareness Recall votes • Allow the electorate to vote in whether to end the term of office of an elected representative or official if enough signatures in support of a recall vote are collected • The outcome is always binding Compulsory voting? • The constitutional principle of freedom of choice includes the right not to participate in election Compulsory voting? • Worldwide – 26 states (13\%) with compulsory voting, 173 (85\%) - no • Europe – 90\% don’t have, about 10\% have • EU – 4 + 1 – Some countries have practiced compulsory voting but gave it up • • • • Netherlands 1917-1967 Switzerland – until 1974 Austria Italy – 1945-1993 (1993: Voting - right and duty, but no mention of compulstory) Compulsory voting? • Belgium: Introduced in 1892 in the constitution. There are sanctions in the form of fines (which rarely happens). Participation is high - around 90\%. • Luxembourg: Non-participation - fines from 100 to 250 euros, in relapse - up to € 1,000. Participation is high - around 90\% Compulsory voting? • Greece: introduced in 1975 in order to increase the activity. Presidential Decree determine the sanctions (which at one point could be denial of a passport, even imprisonment for up to one year). Usually not required. In 2000 have been removed. Participation is not particularly high: • EP election 2014: 59.9\% • Parliamentary election 1/2015: 63.1\% • Parliamentary election 9/2015: 56.56\% Compulsory voting? • Cyprus: From 1960. Explanation + fines. Participation is not especially high. • Parliamentary election 2011: 78.7\% • EP election 2014: 43.97\% • Bulgaria 2016 Compulsory voting? • Effects: – – – – – – – More legitimate? Populist vote? Opportunistic vote? “Blindly“ vote? Vote in defiance? Invalid ballots Expenses? E-voting? • Potential to increase turnout • Voting less costly and more convenient for individuals • But: The problem of low turnout is less likely to be a result of the high cost of voting than of a general dissatisfaction with politics • Technological innovations should not be conceived as a miraculous solution E-voting? • Parade example - Estonia, which has fully implemented e-voting – 1.2 million citizens – Parliamentary election 2015: 30.5\% of participating voters chose to vote online • Switzerland – In 2015, 14 cantons offered Internet-voting in either cantonal and/or federal elections • More importantly is, however, which countries have not adopted electronic voting and why? E-voting? • UK: – In 2005, after numerous pilot projects, it was concluded that electronic voting systems are expensive, do not lead to higher turnout and can not be adequately checked. – Conclusion: More reliable are voting ballots. E-voting? • Germany: – In 2009, electronic voting was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. – According to the constitution, all elections should be public, i. e. all important steps in the voting process, incl. voting and counting, should be open and transparent to the public. – Voting should not require special knowledge. E-voting? • Netherlands – After being used in over twenty years, electronic voting was abolished in 2008 and elections returned to the voting ballots. – Experts demonstrated that the system used under certain circumstances could threaten the secrecy of the vote. – Dependence on producers and certification agencies. E-voting? • Ireland – Between 2005 and 2009 the authorities invested over 60 million euros in e-voting systems, but concluded that the system is unreliable and requires additional costly modifications to be able to use – High costs + lack of confidence = refusal in 2009 of electronic voting. – Since no decision was taken to destroy unused equipment, the state continues to pay the storage costs. E-voting? • Norway – Internet voting trials in the 2011 local elections and 2013 parliamentary elections – No increase in the overall voter turnout – Significant problems with security – The authorities cancelled the project in 2014, citing security concerns and the conclusion, that, contrary to expectations, the new system has not improved turnout. E-voting: Shortcomings • The citizens assurance that their vote remains secret • Lack of adequate technical skills as regards voters and election officials • Lack of transparency when voters cannot be sure whether their votes are correctly counted and stored • The danger of interference by someone else in proximity to a voter (at home or at work) during the process of Internet voting in order to control the vote through intimidation, fraud, forcing to vote selling, etc. • Digital divide E-voting: Shortcomings • Possibility of system attack or breakdown, or connection failure • Complexity with the correct identification of the voter • Prevention of multiple voting • Complexity with a recount of votes by the demand of candidates • The initial investment associated with the development of the system, security procedures, trials, promotion, voter education campaigns, etc. is substantial • Equating the act of voting to other banal activities may disapprove voting of its meaningful character E-voting: Shortcomings • Targets of cyberattacks/hacking – Washington D.C. Internet voting pilot project 2010: Hackers were able to change votes and reveal secret ballots without detection from officials – Parisian mayoral primaries: Easy to breach the allegedly strict security of the vote several times using different names E-voting: Shortcomings • Researchers from the University of Michigan replicated in a laboratory environment the Estonian system – Vulnerable against attacks: taking over voters’ PCs to cast fake votes; hacking into the vote-counting servers to install software that would alter the final count Electoral system change? Electoral system change? Electoral system change? • UKIP required more than 100 times as many votes for its lone elected MP than the Conservatives did for each of theirs Electoral system change? Electoral system change? • The Conservatives would have won 75 fewer seats but would still have been the largest party in the Commons. Labour too would have taken fewer seats. • The SNPs dramatic increase in seats of 50 would have been curtailed to 25. • But UKIP, the Lib Dems and the Greens would have fared much better. • UKIP would have been a force to be reckoned with in the Commons with 83 seats. UK elections 2019 Darren Hughes, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society: “Something is very clearly wrong.” “Westminster’s voting system is warping our politics beyond recognition and we’re all paying the price. “Under proportional voting systems, seats would more closely match votes, and we could end the scourge of millions feeling unrepresented and ignored.” More than 860,000 people voted for the Greens and over 640,000 cast their ballots for the Brexit Party. But the Greens will only have one MP, while Frage’s party did not win a single seat.” UK elections 2019 Election analysis also shows more than half of voters backed pro-referendum parties at the polls. Nearly 52 per cent supported parties in favour of a second referendum, compared with 47 per cent who supported Brexit-backing parties, such as the Tories, the DUP and Mr Farage’s outfit. 2019: How would the results have looked if we used the same system and constituencies as EU Parliament elections? Electoral Systems: Evaluation Criteria • Representation (all significant groups; fairly) • Concentration and efficiency (election not as a reflection of present interests, but as formation of political will) - number of parties; stable majorities • Participation • Simplicity • Legitimacy I f SO?:AL STJD:3S 1 L;::HARY, | ex. O, J . 0X1 2ilL POLITICAL PARTICIPATION How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? lESTER W. MILBRATH State University of Nevi^ York at Buffalo SOCIAL STUI LlBf AS. W|Uktf5GTON SQUARE. OXFORD. Rand M9NaIly College Publishing Company/Chicago 41 4 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION centration on this objective means that other considerations must be slighted. Exhaustive evaluations of methods and of the quality of evidence are not possible i n the text. Rather than report the findings of any given study i n f u l l detail and i n a single location i n the text, findings are brought i n to support points i n the natural progression of discussion. Since studies are cited many times, only author and date of publication are given i n the text and footnotes, b u t f u l l citations can be found i n the bibliography. T h e book is not a bibliographic essay on political participation, and the author makes no pretense that every relevant citation is given for each proposition. H e has attempted, however, to be comprehensive i n reporting e m p i r i c a l l y supported propositions about political participation. I n the text, propositions are distinguished by level of confidence. Those i n italics are propositions for w h i c h there is some evidence, b u t of w h i c h the author is not as confident as he is of those propositions i n bold-face type. I n the latter case, there is generally more than one study i n support of the proposition. CONCEPTUAL PROBLEfAS OF POUTICAL PARTICIPATION T H E F I R S T T A S K is to find a way to t h i n k about political participation. Participation must be defined; variables relating to i t must be specified; and the subject must be b o u n d ed so that i t is kept to manageable size. A model to facilitate t h i n k i n g about participation is sketched later i n the chapter. Clarity i n social science research is facilitated by specif y i n g a level of analysis. T h e distinction is usually made bet w e e n macro and micro levels. I n social science, the macro level refers to large social units such as a nation, or political system, or organization. T h e micro level refers to i n d i v i d u a l s and their behavior. M i c r o and m a c r o are comparative rather than absolute terms, however, and i n other sciences may have a different specific meaning. I n biology, for examp l e , m a c r o means unusually large and m i c r o means u n usually small. A l t h o u g h the emphasis i n this book is on micro political behavior, some attention is given to macro characteristics as w e l l . T h e behavior of the t w o systems is often interrelated; i n d i v i d u a l (micro) p o l i t i c a l behavior affects the behavior of the larger p o l i t i c a l system (macro); macro characteristics, i n t u r n , affect micro behavior. T h e l e v e l of i n q u i r y adopted by the analyst is d e t e r m i n e d partially by the kinds of questions he wishes to ask. T h e question, H o w ... Purchase answer to see full attachment