The Elements of Political Engagement in Britain - Case Study Example

POLITICAL DISENGAGEMENT IN BRITAIN: THE ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES This paper examines the elements of political engagement in Britain and its related structures and processes. It commences by evaluating the fundamental concept of political engagement and its opposite, political disengagement. The paper critiques the nature of political engagement in the UK and it identifies that there is a high degree of political disengagement because the political communication system is styled on a Cold-war model and people do not feel connected to it. Also, politics is influenced more by politicians’ choices, lobby groups and other powerful entities. Finally, the constitution is styled in a way that politicians often make choices that are detrimental to public trust. The study concludes that political parties are mainly responsible for political disengagement in the UK. However, they are not the sole agents of political disengagement. The political stakeholders like the media perpetrate a rigid tradition that does not encourage engagement. It is also identified that stakeholder-oriented actions like horizontal programmes are more appropriate to ignite and sustain higher levels of political engagement. . Contents Abstract 2 Introduction 4 Political Engagement 4 Nature of Political Disengagement in Britain 5 Critique of Measures for Promoting Engagement 7 Conclusion 9 Bibliography 11 Introduction The voter turnout in the UK has been reducing over the past seven decades. Statistics indicate that voter turnout in Britain fell from 83.9% in 1950 to as little as 59.4% in 2001 (Parliament, 2014). The turnout for the 2010 election stood at a mere 65.1% (Parliament, 2014). This shows that there has been a decline in the level of interest that people have in the political affairs of the United States. However, voter turnout is not always an indicator of political disengagement (Ballinger, 2012). Although democracy thrives on numbers, there are various factors like the media and other stakeholders that define the levels of engagement. The Director of the Hansard Society stated that “voting levels are a manifestation of the bigger problem of disengagement across the board” (Parliament, 2015, p. 3). In the same report, it was identified that political disengagement is strongly linked to the political process and its failures. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether the political parties are to be blamed for political disengagement in Britain or not. In order to achieve this end, the scope of the paper will cover a critical and thorough review of the British political process in relation to political disengagement and its causes. Based on this, the paper will assess the role of political parties in the entire political engagement and disengagement process. Political Engagement Political engagement is defined as “individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern through active involvement in the political process of a nation” (Whitely, 2012, p. 7). This implies that political engagement is about the actions of people in the society to assist in different forms in the political process of a nation. A simpler definition of political engagement asserts that it is a set of rights and duties that involve formally organised civic and political processes like voting or joining a political party (Demetriou, 2013). This means that political engagement in the most part, is limited to involvement in the formal processes that are recognised as means of influencing the system of governance. To this end, political engagement is different from other means of demanding change like rioting and other approaches that may be considered unorthodox or unconventional. However, there are other means of influencing the official and formal structure like media engagement which might not be formal, but a recognised system of inducing change (Colby, et al., 2014). There are other entities like religious and minority groupings that may not be actively representative in government, but are given various informal avenues to participate in governance (Colby, et al., 2014). Hence, connection to such entities also provides the impetus for political engagement. This therefore brings to bear the fact that there is political engagement in the formal sense and the informal sense. Political disengagement is not merely an opposite of political engagement. It is an alienation of groups of people from participating in anything related to the formal and informal political process (Bessant, 2014). It is a person’s sense of estrangement and/or negative will concerning participation in the political process and this culminates in a form of apathy and boycott of the political engagement process (Baker, 2013). Nature of Political Disengagement in Britain In the most recent political audit of the Hansard Society, it came to light that the British public are getting hardening public attitudes towards mainstream politics (Fox, 2012). Meg Russell on the other hand argues that the problem is because modern politics in Britain has failed to adapt to the changes in a 21st Century society (Russell, 2005). This is because there were structure sin the British political arena that were shaped by the elements and aspects of the Cold War and its related interactions. Hence, they are based on the bipolar political order whereby aggression traits of the previous generation are put ahead of the liberal views of today’s world. Thus, the main feature of Britain’s democracy is that it is ran by a media and political structure that is based on the previous era. And Meg Russell suggests that there must be an inquest into this, so that the political arena could be changed to fit the needs and expectations of people in this generation. Concerning politicians, Russell states that politicians allow single interest groups to shape their ideas and ideologies. And based on this, they have a false impression that they can control the markets and dictate their will, however, it might be time for them to rather view the trends of individual needs and adjust their activities to meet these goals and ends. Stoker becomes specific in his submissions and states that there are some elements of politics that today’s British national expects. This is at par with what is defined as normal amongst the political elite and power-holders in Britain. These new ways of political expression involves sporadic, issue-specific, abrupt, occasionally extremely provocative and regular interaction with the citizens (Stoker, 2006). These are things that the traditional politician considers to be unacceptable elements and aspects of the British political system. Hence, these persons run affairs and members of the public do not really tend to be interested in them. This has caused some kind of boycott and apathy in the entire political framework because many people do not get what they expect and as such, they tend to become alienated from the political structures. Professional politicians, lobbyists, journalists and powerful academic and research institutions tend to set the agenda and they define the entire political process throughout Britain (Bang, 2009). However, “... we need a politics that allows citizens to have a say in what is important to them.” (Stoker, 2006, p. 15). This means that there are some interest groups that are shaping and defining the British political terrain. And this is causing people who cannot cope with them to become disengaged and distant from the entire political process. Critique of Measures for Promoting Engagement One of the arguments towards promoting political engagement is to institute compulsory voting. This is meant to ensure that voting levels are increased and there are many people who are forced to find out about politics (Lever, 2010). The implication is that people will be forced to participate and since a law requires voting, all people will have to do one thing or the other in relation to the political process and system. This approach has been instituted in a country like Australia where a lot of young people are actively participating in politics on various fronts. This literally eliminates the concept of “elective dictatorship” where a few people choose the leader and this is imposed on an entire nation (Lever, 2010). In spite of this approach, there are some people who state that forcing a person to vote does not really mean forcing people to participate in the political process (Pattie & Johnston, 2007). This is because participation in politics goes beyond just voting. It is about information exchange and getting the authorities to do what is required of them, as opposed to what the politicians want to do. Politics is about the ability of people to fix their lives and that is what the political machinery should be made to achieve (McHugh, 2006). This implies that the people will want to get the political stakeholders to listen to them and they should be made to feel that they are being heard as this is the only way political engagement can be seen to be authentic. On the basis of examining contemporary issues, it is stated by some authorities that some decisions and choices of the British governments in recent times relating to the choices of politicians and where their main motives are. A case in point is the issue of the Blair-led administration where Britain joined a coalition with America to fight in a war in Iraq in 2003 that most British nationals objected to (Kennedy, 2007). This implies that most British nationals think that irrespective of who they vote for, politicians will have their way to do whatever they deem fit and will not listen to the people. Therefore, the issue of building trust involves more than just taking information from people, but finding ways through which the government might be kept in check and how the government will democratize its actions and processes at all levels (Putnam, 2001). This is because the power structures of the UK allow politicians to take unilateral decisions and this gives room for abuse of power by the incumbent (Weir & Beetham, 1999). The British public legal structure and the de facto constitution allows politicians to have their say on some issues where their discretion is required. Hence, there is a reason for the dissatisfaction of people because they know that whatever they do, they are still not going to make any change in the decisions and choices of the politicians in power. Recounting the levels of demonstrations and oppositions that came up before the 2003 Iraqi invasion in Britain that could not change the decision to invade the country, it can be stated that the British political system is patriarchal. And until this is changed, political engagement will be difficult to achieve. Whiteley goes on to argue that some of these decisions ought to be considered as necessary evils. He cites the example of drinking and driving and the rules relating to fines and conviction for these offences. These are not pleasant decisions, but the politicians have to make such laws to protect the broader interest of the community and they are almost always bound to be seen negatively by some members of the society (Whiteley, 2012). Therefore, following the masses and not really doing what ought to be done is one thing that no government can afford to do as this will culminate in a lawless and chaotic society. In attempts to build trusts and restore connection to the people, governments are being encouraged to set up horizontal programmes that encourage community and stakeholder involvement in affairs (Hilton & McKay, 2011). This is opposed to the vertical programs in which things are imposed upon the members of the society through decisions that are taken by the political authorities, influenced by various lobby groups and pressure groups. Conclusion The study shows that there is evidence that political disengagement in Britain is going on. This is shown by the low levels of voter turnout in major elections and the power structure of Britain’s political system that shows clear signs of distrust amongst the citizenry. The political parties bear a large share of the blame for this high level of political disengagement in Britain. However, they are not the only ones responsible for the situation, since there are many other significant factors that have caused this situation. The political parties are just a central component in a political process that has inherent problems that have caused voters to be literally dissatisfied with politics in Britain. First of all, the political process is being ran by old authoritative systems that are based on assumptions that were put forth in the era of the Cold War. And this includes a vertical system of governance where the government took decisions and imposed it on the people. Thus, events like the war in Iraq and others were imposed on the people and this makes people think that whatever they do, they cannot change the political process, so they do not bother to partake in political affairs. It is also observed from the study that there are major stakeholders who play significant roles in causing the detrimental situations that causes people to become dissatisfied and hence boycott the entire political process. This includes journalists and the media who go along the lines of informing people of things in a way that they cannot really achieve. Today’s British citizen expects new ways of communication that are sporadic, issue-specific and dynamic. However, the system of following analogue communication models leads to major problems and issues that makes it undesirable to engage in the political process. Lobbyists and other powerful members of society like research entities amongst others, tend to influence the political process disproportionately, and hence, the political system is full of occurrences and systems that are predetermined. Thus, the ordinary member of the society feels he is left out and cannot make a significant impact even if he tries. Therefore, there is a general trend towards disengagement and the lack of participation. The political structures of Britain are generally tilted towards giving the ruling government immense and uncontrollable powers. This includes the fact that there are numerous gaps that gives these authorities the right to do things as they please. And with the stress from third parties and corporate organisations, the UK’s political system is one that does not encourage participation. In order to deal with this, there have be numerous measures that have been put in place. For instance, there have been stakeholder-oriented programs that have worked successfully in promoting political engagement. This is because they are ran on the basis of involving stakeholders and members of the public. Through this, people feel they are being given direct assistance by the political system and they respond by participating in the decision making process and making choices in elections that prove to be positive to the democratic structures and democratic systems. Bibliography Baker, B., 2013. Escape from Domination in Africa: Political Disengagement & Its Consequences. Johannesburg: AWP. Ballinger, C., 2012. Democracy and Voting. 2nd ed. London: Hansard Society. Bang, H., 2009. Political community: The blind spot of modern democratic decision-making. British Politics, Volume 4, pp. 100-116. Bessant, J., 2014. Democracy Bytes: New Media, New Politics and Generational Change. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T. & Corngold, J., 2014. Educating for Democracy: Preparing Undergraduates for Responsible Political. 2nd ed. London: Wiley. Demetriou, K. N., 2013. Democracy in Transition: Political Participation in the European Union. London: Springer. Fox, R., 2012. Disgruntled, Disillusioned and Disengaged: Public Attitudes to Politics in Britain Today. Parliamentary Affairs, 65(4), pp. 877-887. Hilton, M. & McKay, J., 2011. How we got to the Big Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kennedy, C., 2007. Britain after Blair: The Issue of Trust. British Politics, Volume 2, pp. 435-40. Lever, A., 2010. Compulsory Voting: A Critical Perspective. British Journal of Political Science, pp. 1-19. McHugh, G., 2006. Wanting to be Heard But Not Wanting to Act? Addressing Political Disengagement. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(3), pp. 546-552. Parliament, U., 2014. Voter Engagement in the UK. [Online] Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/voter-engagement-in-the-uk [Accessed 28 February 2015]. Parliament, U., 2015. 3 Reasons for Low Voter Engagement. [Online] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/232/23205.htm [Accessed 28 February 2015]. Pattie, C. & Johnston, R., 2007. Power to the People through "Real Power" and "True Democracy". Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 60, pp. 253-278. Putnam, R., 2001. Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Russell, M., 2005. Must Politics Disappoint?. Fabian Society. Stoker, G., 2006. Explaining political disenchantment: Finding pathways to Democratic Renewal. Political Quarterly, 77(2), pp. 84-194. Weir, S. & Beetham, D., 1999. Political Power and Democratic Control in Britain. London: Routledge. Whiteley, P., 2012. Are Britons Getting More Dishonest?. Essex: Essex University. Whitely, P., 2012. Political Participation in Britain. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Read More