Political Participation
2016 – it is another year of potential social change and transformation. In the Philippines, it is surely the most awaited year for this hope to transpire, for national development to beyond escalate, and for prosperity to soar up and flourish, all in the means of the forthcoming national elections. It is a venture, a risk that everyone is willing to take in the hopes of obtaining the possibility of progressive change and development. But up to what extent is everyone willing to achieve this potential transformation in the Philippine politics and governance?
Our contribution towards politics is classified by our extent and capacity we are willing ourselves to function, to succumb to or to influence change. This is known as political participation. Political participation is defined by Huntington and Nelson (1996) as “activity by private citizens designed to influence government decision-making”. Milbrath and Goel (1977) studied people’s participatory extent through classifying them into seven modes of political participation: apathetic inactives, passive supporters, contact specialists, communicators, party and campaign workers, community activists, and protesters.
First of all the modes includes apathetic inactives—the ones who do not perform any participatory activity at all. They are the ghosts of the political society, the ones who do not pay any attention on the mechanics and systems of politics itself even voting in elections. Another mode is comprised of the passive supporters. Unlike apathetic inactives, passive supporters are the ones who vote regularly in elections, just like any average citizen we see in the society. When put in a different light, passive supporters, as only known for its submissive quality, are more likely to only become the mass or the crowd where the result of change done by political actors is viewed upon. They often do only their duties and responsibilities: abiding to the laws, paying all taxes, observing national holidays, and evoke honor and pride concerning the country.
For politics to foster in a country, there has to be a bridge between the actors and the mass that would connect them together to work efficiently towards development. Contact specialists and communicators fit the title of being the bridge or mediator of the message to the society. Contact specialists are the ones who directly interact and contact officials on issues and problems dealing with the local and national aspect. Communicators, as another example of these mediators, are the ones who keep themselves informed about politics by engaging in political discussions not only in social media where they could spread their political advocacies or protest their messages to leaders, but also in everyday conversations where people converse their sentiments through their own understanding and individual experiences.
Politics would not be deemed politics if there are no actual players who will act upon the needs and wants of the society. The next mode, party and campaign workers, are the ones who are crucial in the enactment of development since they are the ones who facilitate and address issues related to governance and manage the system itself. They participate by attending meetings in any political organizations or events, joining and supporting a political party, or even serving themselves as a potential party candidate. Even others who are working behind are also classified as party and campaign workers, as they work for party candidates, persuade others how to vote, also attend meetings and conferences, and provide money to a party or a candidate.
Last remains the two modes recognized by its massive influence towards the political society: the community activists and protesters. These two modes have been regarded as the greatest impetus of change, the force that spreads awareness by their strong expression of their principles and convictions towards issues about governance and more of the political aspect. Community activists are the ones who want to resolve issues on a certain local area. They actively collaborate and form community organizations and groups with other people to contact officials on social issues. On the other hand, protesters, who tend to be more vocal and more insistent on their principles, come in masses as they join together in public street demonstrations and attend protest meetings, not if necessary, protest vigorously if the government does an act that is morally wrong or against to their stands and beliefs, and/or refusing to obey unjust laws.
In summary, these modes of political participation, classified by Milbrath and Goel, are markers of an individual’s capacity of political participation in affecting social change. In the upcoming national elections in 2016, along with acquiring the knowledge of these studies indicated, we are all given the choice to influence and shape the society by choosing wisely who to elect as our fair leaders and rightful leaders. If we only maximize our efforts and determination, we would be able to inflict the social change that we would have wanted to achieve for the betterment of the future. So to you, up to what extent are you allowing yourself to reach the outcome that you want?
References:
Huntington & Nelson, 1996, cited in Uhlaner 2004, 11078
coke-garfin-cruz. (April 2015). Retrieved November 22, 2015 from http://documents.mx/documents/pol-7-citizenship-and-suffrage.html
