Demonstrations as a Form of Non-Institutionalised Political Participation: The Relationship with Institutional Trust and Political Regime Risks (Based on Data from the European Social Survey, 2020–2022)

Мұқаба

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Аннотация

Recently there has been a decline in citizens’ participation in elections and party membership — forms of political activity that are institutionalized and deeply rooted in the political system. They are being replaced by such forms as participation in demonstrations, strikes, boycotts and signing petitions, which, with them being institutionalized to a lesser degree, allow citizens to influence political decisions while maintaining their distance from the political system. Trust in political institutions is considered essential for political participation because it creates a positive attitude towards the political system and prevents alienation from politics in its institutionalised forms. However, political mistrust promotes critical perceptions of political elites, which can lead to increased non-institutionalised political participation. At the same time, researchers have noted the influence on political participation not only of individual-level variables, but also of country-level characteristics — the specifics of the political system within which political participation is realised. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether lack of trust is a prerequisite for or a barrier to political participation and how the characteristics of a country’s political regime are related to political participation, using the example of participation in demonstrations. The results of the European Social Survey and V-Dem data analysis demonstrate that participation in public demonstrations is negatively related to trust in political institutions. In addition, two characteristics of the political regime are found to be associated with participation in demonstrations — in countries with greater access to justice and higher levels of physical violence, citizens are more likely to participate in the form of political activity that this article is looking into.

Авторлар туралы

Polina Guseva

HSE University

Email: pguseva@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2340-4230
SPIN-код: 6566-9600
ResearcherId: O-1051-2016
Research Assistant, Postgraduate Student, International Laboratory for Social Integration Research; Lecturer, Faculty of Social Sciences Moscow, Russia

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Ахременко А.С., Бродовская Е.В. Влияние новых информационно-коммуникационных технологий на гражданский и политический активизм: «линии напряжения» дискуссионного поля // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2021. № 6. С. 4–27. doi: 10.14515/monitoring.2021.6.2111 EDN: EPFRSY
  2. Мухаметов Р. Почему граждане доверяют правительству? Истоки политического доверия в современной России // Социологическое обозрение. 2023. Т. 22. № 3. С. 196–218. doi: 10.17323/1728-192x-2023-3-196-218 EDN: RKLLDA
  3. Almond G.A., Verba S. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015. 561 p. Accessed 26.12.2023. URL: https://books.google.ru/books?hl=ru&lr=&id=YwXWC gAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=The+civic+culture:+Political+attitudes+and+democracy+in+five+nations&ots=-_7-iJOVXJ&sig=IVVlJUKbR9fR_W21LtdebtLOr-Q&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20civic%20culture%3A%20Political%20attitudes%20and%20democracy%20in%20 five%20nations&f=false
  4. Armingeon K., Schädel L. Social Inequality in Political Participation: The Dark Sides of Individualization. West European Politics. 2015. Vol. 38. No. 1. P. 1–27. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2014.929341
  5. Benson M., Rochon T.R. Interpersonal Trust and the Magnitude of Protest: A Micro and Macro Level Approach. Comparative Political Studies. 2004. Vol. 37. No. 4. P. 435–457. doi: 10.1177/0010414003262900
  6. Besley J.C. The Role of Entertainment Television and Its Interactions with Individual Values in Explaining Political Participation. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 2006. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 41–63. doi: 10.1177/1081180X06286702
  7. Bimber B., Cunill M.C., Copeland L., Gibson R. Digital Media and Political Participation: The Moderating Role of Political Interest across Acts and over Time. Social Science Computer Review. 2015. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 21–42. doi: 10.1177/0894439314526559
  8. Blais A., Rubenson D. The Source of Turnout Decline: New Values or New Contexts? Comparative Political Studies. 2013. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 95–117. doi: 10.1177/0010414012453032
  9. Borbáth E., Gessler T. Different Worlds of Contention? Protest in Northwestern, Southern and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Political Research. 2020. Vol. 59. No. 4. P. 910–935. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12379
  10. Bozogáňová M., Výrost J. Social and Psychological Factors of Political Participation According to Recent European Social Survey Data. Intersections. East European Journal of Society and Politics. 2019. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 116–130. DOI: 0.17356/ieejsp.v5i3.488
  11. Brisman A. The Violence of Silence: Some Reflections on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making, And Access to Justice in Matters Concerning the Environment. Crime, Law and Social Change. 2013. Vol. 59. P. 291–303. doi: 10.1007/s10611-013-9416-3
  12. Carey S.C. The Dynamic Relationship Between Protest and Repression. Political Research Quarterly. 2006. Vol. 59. No. 1. P. 1–11. doi: 10.1177/106591290605900101
  13. Cheng E.W., Chung H.F., Cheng H.W. Life Satisfaction and the Conventionality of Political Participation: The Moderation Effect of PostMaterialist Value Orientation. International Political Science Review. 2023. Vol. 44. No. 2. P. 157–177. doi: 10.1177/01925121211006567
  14. Chen Y.H., Paolino P., Mason T.D. Who Protests and Why: Hierarchical Government Trust and Protest Participation in China. Journal of East Asian Studies. 2021. Vol. 21. No. 3. P. 499–513. doi: 10.1017/jea.2021.26
  15. Christiani L., Shoub K. Can Light Contact with the Police Motivate Political Participation? Evidence from Traffic Stops. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics. 2022. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 385–405. doi: 10.1017/rep.2022.18
  16. Cichocka A., Górska P., Jost J.T., Sutton R.M., Bilewicz M. What Inverted U Can Do for Your Country: A Curvilinear Relationship Between Confidence in the Social System and Political Engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2018. Vol. 115. No. 5. P. 883–902. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000168
  17. Cichowski R.A. Courts, Rights, and Democratic Participation. Comparative Political Studies. 2006. Vol. 39. No. 1. P. 50–75. doi: 10.1177/0010414005283217
  18. Coffé H., Bolzendahl C. Same Game, Different Rules? Gender Differences in Political Participation. Sex Roles. 2010. Vol. 62. No. 5–6. P. 318–333. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9729-y
  19. Copeland L. Value Change and Political Action: Postmaterialism, Political Consumerism, and Political Participation. American Politics Research. 2014. Vol. 42. No. 2. P. 257–282. doi: 10.1177/1532673X13494235
  20. Coppedge M., et al. “V-Dem Codebook v13”. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. Gothenburg University of Gothenburg, V-Dem Institute, 2023. 454 p. Accessed 21.11.2024. URL: https://v-dem.net/documents/24/codebook_v13.pdf
  21. Dim E.E., Asomah J.Y. Socio-Demographic Predictors of Political Participation Among Women in Nigeria: Insights from Afrobarometer 2015 Data. Journal of International Women’s Studies. 2019. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 91–105. Accessed 27.12.2023. URL: https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol20/iss2/7/
  22. Grasso M. Young People’s Political Participation in Europe in Times of Crisis. Young People Re-Generating Politics in Times of Crises. Ed. by S. Pickard, J. Bessant. Springer, 2018. P. 179–196. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-58250-4_10
  23. Gaidyte T., Muis J. Examining Political Participation in Lithuania: The Direct and Mediated Effects of Social Trust. Baltic Journal of Political Science. 2019. Vol. 2019. No. 9–10. P. 41–71. doi: 10.15388/BJPS.2019.9-10.8
  24. Hooghe M., Marien S. A Comparative Analysis of the Relation between Political Trust and Forms of Political Participation in Europe. European Societies. 2013. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 131–152. doi: 10.1080/14616696.2012.692807
  25. Hooghe M., Quintelier E. Political Participation in European Countries: The Effect of Authoritarian Rule, Corruption, Lack of Good Governance and Economic Downturn. Comparative European Politics. 2014. No. 12. P. 209–232. doi: 10.1057/cep.2013.3
  26. Inglehart R. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. 453 p.
  27. Kaase M. Interpersonal Trust, Political Trust and Non‐Institutionalised Political Participation in Western Europe. West European Politics. 1999. Vol. 22. No. 3. P. 1–21. doi: 10.1080/01402389908425313
  28. Karp J.A., Banducci, S.A. When Politics Is Not Just a Man’s Game: Women’s Representation and Political Engagement. Electoral Studies. 2008. Vol. 27. No. 1. P. 105–115. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2007.11.009
  29. Kitanova M. Youth Political Participation in the EU: Evidence from a CrossNational Analysis. Journal of Youth Studies. 2020. Vol. 23. No. 7. P. 819–836. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2019.1636951
  30. Koc P. Measuring Non-Electoral Political Participation: Bi-Factor Model as a Tool to Extract Dimensions. Social Indicators Research. 2021. Vol. 156. No. 1. P. 271–287. doi: 10.1007/s11205-021-02637-3
  31. Kołczyńska M. Micro- and Macro- Level Determinants of Participation in Demonstrations: An Analysis of Cross-National Survey Data Harmonized ExPost. Methods, Data, Analyses. 2020. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 91–126. doi: 10.12758/mda.2019.07
  32. Kriesi H., Oana I.E. Protest in Unlikely Times: Dynamics of Collective Mobilization in Europe During the COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of European Public Policy. 2023. Vol. 30. No. 4. P. 740–765. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2022.2140819
  33. Li Y., Marsh D. New Forms of Political Participation: Searching for Expert Citizens and Everyday Makers. British Journal of Political Science. 2008. Vol. 38. No. 2. P. 247–272. doi: 10.1017/S0007123408000136
  34. Norris P. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 263 p. Accessed 26.12.2023. URL: https://books.google.ru/books?hl=ru&lr=&id=wfNPdyiwbYQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Digital+divide:+Civic+engagement,+information+poverty,+and+the+Internet+worldwide&ots=gCbK8ilXeM&sig=qbrnqB6hUtZxivo03_RvoLyZmJo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Digital%20divide%3A%20Civic%20engagement%2C%20 information%20poverty%2C%20and%20the%20Internet%20worldwide&f=false
  35. Marien S., Hooghe M., Quintelier E. Inequalities in Non-Institutionalised Forms of Political Participation: A Multi-Level Analysis of 25 Countries. Political Studies. 2010. Vol. 58. No. 1. P. 187–213. doi: 10.1111/j.14679248.2009.00801.x
  36. Min S.J. From the Digital Divide to the Democratic Divide: Internet Skills, Political Interest, and the Second-Level Digital Divide in Political Internet Use. Journal of Information Technology and Politics. 2010. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 22–35. doi: 10.1080/19331680903109402
  37. Ouattara E., Steenvoorden E. The Elusive Effect of Political Trust on Participation: Participatory Resource or (Dis)incentive? Political Studies. 2023. P. 1–19. doi: 10.1177/00323217231194820
  38. Putnam R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. N.-Y.: Simon and Schuster, 2001. 546 p. doi: 10.1145/358916.361990
  39. Rosanvallon P., Goldhammer A. Counter-democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 348 p. Accessed 26.12.2023. URL: https://books.google.ru/books?hl=ru&lr=&id=9kCQt5ldSnMC&oi=fnd&pg=PT7&dq=Counter-democracy:+Politics+in+an+age+of+distrust&ots=Fd5HT9zh1F&sig=i7G3QMI8Bm9mYjoJGUx3tEoDVR8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Counter-democracy%3A%20Politics%20in%20an%20age%20of%20distrust&f=false
  40. Sabucedo J.M., et al. Comparing Protests and Demonstrators in Times of Austerity: Regular and Occasional Protesters in Universalistic and Particularistic Mobilisations. Social Movement Studies. 2017. Vol. 16. No. 6. P. 704–720. doi: 10.1080/14742837.2017.1338940
  41. Sika N. Contentious Activism and Political Trust in Non-Democratic Regimes: Evidence from the MENA. Democratization. 2020. Vol. 27. No. 8. P. 1515–1532. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2020.1813113
  42. Solt F. Does Economic Inequality Depress Electoral Participation? Testing the Schattschneider Hypothesis. Political Behavior. 2010. Vol. 32. No. 2. P. 285–301. doi: 10.1007/s11109-010-9106-0
  43. Stockemer D. What Drives Unconventional Political Participation? A Two Level Study. The Social Science Journal. 2014. Vol. 51. No. 2. P. 201–211. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2013.10.012
  44. Stolle D., Hooghe M. Shifting Inequalities: Patterns of Exclusion and Inclusion in Emerging Forms of Political Participation. European Societies. 2011. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 119–142. doi: 10.1080/14616696.2010.523476
  45. Schwartz-Tayri T.M. The Willingness of Social Work Students to Engage in Policy Practice: The Role of Personality Traits and Political Participation Predictors. The British Journal of Social Work. 2021. Vol. 51. No. 7. P. 2381–2398. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcaa065
  46. Theocharis Y. The Influence of Postmaterialist Orientations on Young British People’s Offline and Online Political Participation. Representation. 2011. Vol. 47. No. 4. P. 435–455. doi: 10.1080/00344893.2011.611160
  47. Van Stekelenburg J., Klandermans B. In Politics We Trust… Or Not? Trusting and Distrusting Demonstrators Compared. Political Psychology. 2018. Vol. 39. No. 4. P. 775–792. doi: 10.1111/pops.12464
  48. Van’t Riet J., Van Stekelenburg A. The Effects of Political Incivility on Political Trust and Political Participation: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research. Human Communication Research. 2022. Vol. 48. No. 2. P. 203–229. doi: 10.1093/hcr/hqab022
  49. Weiss J. Disengaged or Raising Voices? An Analysis of the Relationship between Individual Risk Perception and Non-Institutionalised Political Participation. Acta Politica. 2024. Vol. 59. No. 2. P. 439–457. doi: 10.1057/s41269-02300301-x
  50. Weiss J. What is Youth Political Participation? Literature Review on Youth Political Participation and Political Attitudes. Frontiers in Political Science. 2020. Vol. 2. P. 1–13. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2020.00001

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML


Creative Commons License
Бұл мақала лицензия бойынша қолжетімді Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».