Democratic participation
Editorial
Kaieteur News
January 29, 2007
We have not had detailed analyses of the last general elections but based on the number of eligible voters on the list and the number that actually voted, it appears that a large number of citizens did not exercise their democratic prerogative to vote.
There is some danger if this trend were to continue: decisions at the highest level would be made by the few for the many thus under-representing the interests of those who do not vote. Political theorists argue that democratic participation involves two mutually recursive components: the political structure or culture that can enable or constrain participation and the individual who possesses the ability and responsibility to ensure their political voice is included in political arenas.
While these two dimensions of public participation are theoretically impossible to speak of as separate phenomenon, any project that attempts to encourage public political participation should consider both aspects in its design and implementation. All researchers agree that in Guyana , voting has been dominated by ethnic interests to such an extent that the results of some general elections have been dubbed “ethnic censuses”.
It would be interesting to discover whether the non-voters were evenly distributed between the several groups or whether they were concentrated in one group. Empirical evidence suggests that representative democracy often leads to decisions that reflect middle class, rather than lower class interests, a finding that is often attributed to the fact that there is greater middle class political participation than lower class participation. This is true even in our ethnically divided society.
While it has been extensively documented that socially and economically disadvantaged groups have lower political participation rates than middle or upper class groups, there are a plethora of theories that attempt to explain why. Most, however, agree that “economic disadvantage impedes equal participation in the making of culture, in public spheres, and in everyday life.” Research in the field of social psychology has specifically investigated the relationship between socio-economic status and efficacy, finding a strong, positive correlation between such status and perceived efficacy to contribute to the betterment of societal conditions.
One researcher asserts that many poor people hold the belief that the world is essentially just in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result if they were to realise otherwise, in spite of the fact that, for them, there is no direct relationship between effort and economic success.
Such a process can distort the interests of the poor and create what Marx and others have referred to as “false consciousness”. Such a consciousness can have the effect of normalising inequities and reducing the possibility that conflicts of interest will arise from the awareness of unequal or unfair distribution of resources, opportunities, representation, and participation in political decisions.
Others attribute lack of participation in political life to apathetic citizenry. One researcher suggests that political apathy is produced in everyday life over the course of conversations, interactions, and in the “backstage” of life. Her findings suggest that a social norm exists that impedes political discourse in ways that censor such discussion in non-political and political spaces. Perhaps such norms get internalised in a manner that de-legitimises political opinions to such a degree that individuals censor themselves even in situations where political discussion is encouraged, believing that they, as lower class citizens, are not authorised to have such discussions. Her thesis would be proven if research showed that most of our non-voters were from poorer strata of our society. In contrast to the individuals who chose not to participate because of their attitudes or perceived efficacy towards current politics, there are others who have tried to participate, but have become disillusioned in their efforts.
Despite the increasing quantities of public discourse, studies show that satisfaction with public discussion is low, indicating that many citizens feel as if these public opportunities are essentially a waste of time, claiming that there is not enough listening and response to concerns.
Thus, lack of public participation could partially be attributed, not to apathy or preconceived attitudes, but rather to individual frustration with ineffective public discussion structures and processes that do not encourage dialogic communication and leave citizens with the impression (and possible reality) that they are not being heard.