INTERNATIONAL SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION RC 19 RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON POVERTY, SOCIAL POLICY Chicago, September 8-10 2005
INDIVIDUALISING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION – RECONSTITUTING YOUTH IN A RESTRUCTURED WELFARE STATE
Dr Rose Melville * Director, Social Policy Unit School of Social Work & Applied Human Sciences University of Queensland, Australia 4072 Email:
[email protected]
*This research project is funded by a University of Queensland grant (2004-2005). I wish to thank Dennis Gizas and Katrin Hausdorf for their research assistance work. © This is a work-in-progress paper and is not to be cited without the author’s permission.
INDIVIDUALISING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION – RECONSTITUTING YOUTH IN A RESTRUCTURED WELFARE STATE
ABSTRACT This paper challenges dominant academic and political discourses that young people are not interested in ‘politics’ or mainstream forms of political participation, in comparison to previous generations. The proponents of this view point to evidence of declining voter turn out and membership in mainstream political parties to support this contention. Overseas evidence does indicate that lack of trust and belief in politicians is increasing amongst all ages and socio-economic groups, and that that people are disengaging from institutional forms of political participation, especially young people. This research explores the views of young people in Australia (17 and 25 years) on 'political participation'. This includes the formal and traditional processes of influencing political decisions and policymaking and informal methods (fashion, popular culture, music, sub-cultures) of participation and their ability to influence policymaking on local and global issues. In this initial phase, I address two questions. 1) What is the nature and extent of political participation amongst young people? 2) How do young people define or understand as political participation? Data from an empirical study of (n=179) young people supports the argument that young people are not politically apathetic or disengaged. Young people are very concerned about a broad range of political issues, ranging from local-national-global concerns. However, their views about the efficacy of formal political processes were sharply polarised. Surprisingly the majority were supportive of democratic practices, such as voting, but expressed considerable levels of scepticism about its efficacy to influence policy decisions. In the paper, I critically examine existing theoretical perspectives and methodologies, and suggest alternate theoretical frameworks to further analysis of this issue. As this current study does not shed light on why some young people are disengaging from formal political processes in increasing numbers, it is time to take examine these issues from different theoretical perspectives. In particular, I examine the way neo-liberal doctrines with their emphasis on the individual as a selfgoverning person responsible for his or her own social, political and economic well-being might be implicated in changes in young people’s political participation. It is argued, that further research should examine the complex interplay between the public/private politics of young people living in a mass consumerist, globalised and highly individualised society. Keywords: young people, political participation, policymaking, individualising, disengagement, new forms of participation, neo-liberalism, political consumer, individualisation
2
INTRODUCTION Overseas evidence indicates that lack of trust and efficacy in politicians is increasing amongst all ages and socio-economic groups (Bouckact, 2003). A related observation is that young people are increasingly disengaging from active involvement in formal political participation is growing numbers. The evidence used to support this claim is based on the decline in the number of young people who register to vote, voter-turn out and membership of political parties or trade unions (Adsett & McKellar, 2002). In countries, such Britain and Canada there has been a significant decline in the number of young people voting. (Adsett & McKeller, 2002) For example, in Britain only 39% of young people aged 18-24 years who voted in the 2001 elections (O’Toole, Lister, Marsh, Jones & McDonash, 2003, p. 45). Similar observations were made by the popular press during the 2003 presidential election in the U.S., although the youth voter-turn out was higher in this election that the previous one.1 Not surprisingly, those most likely to withdraw from formal forms of political participation are young people experiencing suffer social exclusion due to high rates on unemployment, lack of education, social status and social skills (Bay & Blekesaume, 2002; Henn, M, Weinstein, M. & Wring, D; 2000). This trend is also evident in Australia (Civics Expert Group, 1993; McAlister, 1998) even though we have a compulsory electoral system.2 The Australian Electoral Commission has become so concerned at the decreasing number of young people aged 17-24 years of age registering to vote (82% compared to 95% of the general population), it has funded a 4-year study to examine the factors contributing to this phenomenon (Print, Saha & Edwards, 2004). This issue has attracted considerable attention from politicians, policymakers, academics and the media around the world. It is portrayed as a form of ‘civic or moral vacuum’ – that if not adequately addressed and reversed could lead to the collapse of western liberal democratic societies. Young people are implicated in these political discourses as constituting a unique policy problem’ in comparison to previous generations.3 Young people are portrayed as
1
The empirical evidence indicates that voter-turn out has been declining since World War II, but the decline has been accelerating during the past two decades in countries with voluntary electoral systems. 2 Voting in local, state and federal government elections has been compulsory since 1924, as is registering to vote. Failure to do so will incur a monetary fine. 3 Young people are constituted in the literature in ambivalent ways – on one hand, as [future] responsible political citizens, and on the other, as semi-dangerous threat to democracy – who have become ‘passive non-
3
possessing a ‘civic deficit syndrome’ and a ‘citizenship deficit syndrome’ that needs to be fixed with some degree of urgency. Various political and policy responses have been set up to stem the growing tied of disaffected young people around the world. These include the use of Youth Parliaments (House of Commons, 2005), youth forums and decision-making bodies (Marques, 999), and the use of NGOs and government sponsored roundtables. They are used in conjunction with civic courses, participation in voluntary organisations, and political pedagogic practices (McAlister, 1998; White, 1999) to rectify the perceived knowledge deficit young people have about political institutions; and thus propel them into becoming ‘active political citizens’. In Australia, recent youth policy initiatives have been selective, highly structured, characterised by top-down consultative and participatory processes (Prime Minister’s Roundtable) that do not address ways to maximise young people’s citizenship rights, 4 unequal structural location and agency (Bessant, 2004; 2003). They are viewed as having limited political value to young people and policy makers alike. The proposition that young people are disinterested and disengaging in political participation is highly contested in the literature. A number of writers, such as Vromen (2003, 2004) argue that they are not apolitical or apathetic about public policy concerns; young people are participating in different ways and methods compared to previous generations. One major critique of existing political science literature is that too much attention has focused on the way in which political disengagement is occurring in formal institutional contexts, employing a narrow definition of ‘political participation’. Much of the political science literature on young people’s political participation ignores insights derived from new social movement theory (Vromen, 2003). It addition, is argued in this paper that insufficient emphasis has been placed on exploring young people’s notions of ‘political participation’ – what it means to them and what form this might take in contemporary postindustrial welfare state societies. For example, there is little exploration of alternate forms of
citizens’ incapable of comprehending and exercising their civic responsibilities ( see, for example, Liebres & RIbak, 1992; Harrrison & Diecke, 2000; Metz, McLellan, Youniss, 2003, Wilson, 2000). 4 Bessant (2003) notes, that young people under 18 years of age are denied political citizenship, and cannot participate in formal political institutions.
4
political expression through popular culture – the media, music, fashion, and sub cultures [political] consumer activism, and cultural theory. This paper provides an overview of the major debates about the nature of young people’s political participation. There is an extensive body of literature on young people and political participation found in a wide range of disciplines. The majority of the work is found in political science. Three major themes have been identified in the existing literature. These are reviewed briefly below, but it should be noted that they are not mutually exclusive and some themes overlap with each other. This is followed by a discussion of data from an exploratory survey of (n=179) Australian young people aged 17-25 years. In the following section, some alternate theoretical frameworks are explored. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of future research directions.5 YOUNG PEOPLE AND POLITICAL PARTICIPAITON – OVERVIEW OF DEBATES Two major themes run through the international literature about young people’s political participation in contemporary societies. Both bodies of literature juxtapose young people in different ways. In the traditional political science literature, young people are depicted as increasingly disengaged from participating in formal political institutions, such as voting, belonging to political parties and other forms of civic activity, such as voluntary organisations and volunteering. As noted above, young people are conceptualised as having a ‘civic deficit syndrome’ (Youness et al, 2002; Smart et al, 2000) or a ‘citizen deficit syndrome (Civics Expert Group, 1993; McAllister, 1998. The ‘civic deficit syndrome’ is conceptualised as the lack of knowledge and interest in political institutions (eg young people do not know the name of the Prime Minister of President of their country) and lack of skills development in democratic-political practice (eg through) participating in voluntary organisations, such as political parties or trade unions. The ‘citizen deficit syndrome’ is conceptualised as lack of interest in voting or other tradition forms of participation. The problem of older voters, disengaging is not problematised in the same way. A range of competing explanations attempt to explain this trend. They are not particularly convincing, as they rely on narrow interpretations of politics and political 5
A longer-term project will explore the influence of popular culture on young people’s political participation.
5
participation – one that does not account for the complexities of living in a globalised consumer society. In addition, they rely on traditional concept of ‘formal politics’ and ‘political participation and antiquated notions about youth as (future evolving citizens) and not as individuals within a society who have no political rights to electoral franchise until they reach the legal age to vote (Bessant, 2003; 2004). The infantilising of (children) and young people is embedded in notions derived from developmental psychology. Children and young people are portrayed as physically and mentally maturing along a continuum of growth as they emerge from the inactive and non-political child to the young person-citizen. Examples of this approach include the suggestion that young people are not adequately socialised into voting (Roker, Player & Coleman, 1999) and other forms of civic behaviour (Smart, Sanson, Da Silva & Roumbourou, 2000). Others writers, suggest this problem can be addressed through civic education (White, 1999; McAlister, 1998), and action learning in schools (Wilson, 2000) or from role models, such as parents (Youniss et al, 2002). This view of children and young people (as emerging but not complete adults) has been challenged within the policy (Cockburn, 2005) and research ethics literature (Alderson & Morrow, 2004; Lewis & Lindsay, 2000). It denies the agency of young people and their ability to understand and participate in a wide range of activities that impact on their lives. In contrast, to the conventional approach outlined above, some researchers have adopted a broader set of explanations. For example, Adset (2003) argues that that changing demographics (young people are numerically too small to make an electoral impact) and social conditions (less political attention is paid to young people’s concerns), explains the drop in voting amongst Canadian youth. Others, point to the role of the media, and its lack of serious attention given to political issues (Evans & Sternberg, 1999), compared to the influence of television shows such as ‘Big Brother’, Survivor, and the talent quest - Idol (British, U.S and Australian)6. British researchers have highlight structural barriers (such as poverty and unemployment), that militate against mainstream political participations (Henn, Weinstein & Wring, 2000). Yet, others suggest the deficits lie in young people themselves.
6
A prominent British politician recently blamed the state of voter apathy amongst young people on popular culture. He noted that hundreds of thousands of young people tuned into the British talent show Idol, where they actively participated in voting for their favourite contestant each week; yet very few are interest in viewing live Web casts of parliament via the Internet.
6
One popular explanation asserts that young people are more materialist and individualist than previous generations (Inglehart, 1990). A second theme is that young people are not disengaging from traditional forms of political participation, they are re-engaging in different ways. Some writers, who advocate for a broader definition of young people’s political participation, do so in response to an internal conceptual and ideological debate within political science. This is based on a critiques of the limitations of existing measures and meaning of ‘political participation’ and ‘politics’ more generally. The argument proceeds from an ideological position that all ‘young people engage in ‘new arenas of politics’, in forms that are not treated seriously by traditional political science. This body of literature conceptualises young people quite differently. They are viewed as possessing an agency that involved a capacity to make decisions and take actions that shape the nature of their involvement in politics – albeit whether this takes place in traditional or alternative forms of political institutions (Vromen, 2003). Australian research conducted by Vromen (2003) has pushed the definitional boundaries of political participation further; she acknowledges that it requires further refinement. This research examined young people’s participation in a wide range of social, recreation, community and political organisations, to demonstrate the relevance of political participation such as sport, recreation, community and political organisations. Vromen (2003) developed a conceptual typology – consisting of four distinct forms of political participation (activist, communitarian, party and individualistic) displaying the diversity and depth of political involvement amongst young people 18-34 years of age. Newer forms of youth activism is taking place in cyberspace, but not to the level that many e-democracy advocates have predicted (Wellman & Haythornthwaite, 2002).7 Not surprisingly, there is a class, education and gender bias found in ITC forms of political participation. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds lack either access, or the inclination to take up ITC mediums of communication (Hudson, 2002; Perron, 2004). Some researchers, such as Micheletti & Stolle (2005) have been exploring the ways in which the 7
Two young people aged 24 years of age, recently launched a new political movement using a Website – www.getup.org.au to lobby against the increased power of the Federal Liberal government, who now control both the upper and lower houses of parliament. Politicians received 10,000 emails in one week – some senators have referred to this contact with their constituents in derogatory terms i.e. as ‘spam’.
7
market has become as important site for young people to participate and express their ‘politics’. Young people are able to challenge the power of transnationals by employing a combination of individual and collective forms of ‘political consumerism’. This form of political activity does not involve membership of groups, the rigidity and formalities associated with traditional politics, and so may be more appealing to some (but not all) young people. Contrary to common mythology propagated by the media, politicians and academic researchers (McAlister 1998), young people are not apathetic and disinterested in policy or political issues. Studies in Australia show young people are concerned about a range of issues such as Aboriginal reconciliations, global poverty, third world debt and the environment (Beresford & Phillips, 1997). In a similar vein, young people in involved in a large British panel study expressed strong interests in local and global social and political issues (Henn, Weinstein & Wring, 2000). This study found that young people find politics a boring and complex subject, that conventional politics offers young people very little, if anything, politics is not seen as relevant to their day-to-day lived experiences; and they are very sceptical of the ‘rent- seeking behaviour’ of politicians. According to Henn et al (2000), young people are not disengaging from politics; conventional politics is disengaging from them. They are more likely to be involved in informal than formal politics. A third theme revolves around critiques about the flawed assumptions, definitions and methodologies underpinning research on young people’s participation in formal political activities. Some writer’s argue that the current definitions of ‘politics’ and participation (O’Toole, Lister, Marsh, Jones & McDonagh, 2003) is too narrow, and does not adequately capture the range of political activities that young people engage in both inside and outside of traditional political institutions. Much of the data on young people’s political participation is based on conventional survey research that focuses on attitudes to conventional political institution and behaviours. O’Toole et al (2003) argue that different research methods (for example, in-depth interviews and focus groups) need to be used to capture the voice of young people, a claim supported by Vromen (2003). Smith (2000 cited in O’Toole et al, 2003:50), suggests that researchers need to focus on the way young people experience dayto-day political experiences – such as challenging racism and sexism in local communities, to gain a better understanding of more relevant forms of youth political participation. This
8
arena of ‘politics’ is overlooked and disparaged by main stream political science. It is argued that researches need to debunk the myths that young people are a homogenous group. Research on different groups of young people will reveal diversity in political practices, and help to dispel the myths that young people are apathetic and disinterested in politics. A fourth theme takes up theoretical concerns underpinning these debates. This body of literature challenges many of the assumptions underpinning liberal democratic theory, notions of citizenship (active and passive), community and civic engagement, and questions the way in which they are applied to young people (Bessant, 2004; Vromen, 2003; Lister, 1997). This is not explored in any detail in this paper. Following the work of Vromen (2003) and O’Toole et al (2002), the theoretical assumptions informing the empirical research is based on the notion that young people are interested in politics. This may include involvement in mainstream political institutions, or in alternative forms of political participation. However, in contrast to the ‘baby boomer generation’, they are less likely to be involved in social movement’s politics. Young people are more likely to be involved in an informal ‘politics’, a ‘politics’ influenced by various forms of popular culture. Their political beliefs and practices are likely to fall along a continuum of individualised to collective forms, and they will have limited involvement in formal political organisations. SURVEY OF YOUNG PEOPLE’S POLITICAL PARTICIPATION The research was designed to explore the nature of political participation amongst young people. The research focuses on attitudes and less on the behaviour of young people. An exploratory study was designed to explore two issues. Firstly, to examine the nature and extent of political participation amongst young people, and second, to find out how young people defined ‘political participation’. Several researchers have stressed the methodological limitations of surveys to elicit a wide range of information about the nature and beliefs associated with young people’s political activities (Vromen, 2003; O’Toole et al, 2003; Dunleavy, 1966). To overcome these limitations, the research design incorporated an anonymous survey and in-depth focus groups. The survey contained closed and opened ended questions to elicit information about attitudes and behaviours. The focus group questions were designed to elicit in-depth information. The survey was used as a scoping instrument for the focus groups, rather than the other way around.
9
First Year University of Queensland students aged 17-25 years were chosen as a convenience sample for the initial stage of the project.8 Traditionally university students have been active politically, and would provide some insight into alternate forms of political participation. However, given the socio-economic bias in this sample, it is planned to extend the research to a young people from diverse backgrounds. This paper is based on an anonymous survey administered to approximately 600 students enrolled in political science, sociology and social work subjects during a weekly lecture. Over 200 undergraduate students completed the survey, of which 179 were aged between 17-25 years.9 The survey data was entered into SPSS for coding and analysis. The qualitative data was entered into NVivo and analysed thematically. FINDINGS This paper reports on the initial findings of the survey data. The survey included questions on demographic variables (age, ethnicity, religious affiliation, employment status, and social class), traditional forms of political participation, voting behaviour, and the efficacy of voting on political decisions. Students were asked to list five most important personal and political issues and to provide their own definition of what ‘political participation’ meant to them. These two questions were open-ended and not pre-coded. This discussion focuses on descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of the survey data. The demographic characteristics of this sample (Table 1 in Appendix) approximate those found in the general population for religion, age and ethnicity, and employment status (ABS Population and Housing Census, 2001). An interesting finding was the large number of participants who identified as working class as this is a Sandstone (prestigious) University in the Australian higher education sector. However, given the destruction of the youth labour market during the last two decades through economic restructuring and labour market deregulation, the large number of students in casual and part-time jobs, is less likely to reflect a life-cycle pattern of student employment, than the outcome of neo-liberal economic policies (Bessant and Watts, 2001). According to internal UQ demographic data, students
8
This age group fit within the current Australian Government definition of a young person (12-25 years). Students were asked to be involved in focus group discussions. Twelve students agreed to participate; however, only two students came to the meetings. They were interviewed individually. The data has provided valuable background information on young people’s notions about political participation. 9
10
from the SBS Faculty come from lower social economic groups, than the wider student population. In terms of political orientation, over half described themselves as progressive (26%) or moderate (31%). In contrast, 13% described themselves as traditional and 24% as ‘none’ with 6% as other. Other researchers (Henn et al, 2000) have also noted that a growing number of young people do not identify with political parties or any particular political orientation, which is used to support the claim that they are apathetic and disinterested in politics. The ‘civic deficit syndrome’ – political participation in formal organisations The main purpose of this study was to explore the meaning and nature of political participation amongst young people, whether this lay inside or outside convention practices, such as membership and involvement in political organisations. Given the emphasis on participation in formal organisations in the mainstream literature, participants were asked if they were currently (or had been) involved in voluntary work (or civil organisations). As noted earlier, this is seen as a valid measure of what can be referred to as the civic deficit syndrome. Conservative social capital theories, such as Putnam (2000) argue involvement in such organisations is a measure of declining levels of political participation, such as voting. In this sample, two thirds of the participants had undertaken some form of voluntary work (61%) and just around a third (40%) had not. To explore this issue, information was sought about length of time participants had been involved in voluntary activities and for which kinds of organisations. Table 2: Length of Voluntary work Length of time
%
1-6 months 7-12 months 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years 5-10 years > than 10 years
43 19 14 8 8 5 3 2
As Table 2 shows the majority of participants had volunteered for 1 year of less (62%), with the numbers tapering off after 2 years and a very small number (2%) involved long term. This suggests similar trends found in the general population in existing ABS data (Lyons & Fabiansson) and is not age or gender specific. However, on closer analysis of the
11
data (see Table 3 in Appendix 1), an interesting picture emerged about the kinds of organisations; participants most undertook voluntary work. Those most favoured were social and community/church services organisations– (including activities such as door knocks and fund raising activities). The data indicates limited involvement in formal political parties and other organisations. As with Vromen’s work (2003) the majority were involved in social, sporting, religious and internet chat rooms. Table 3 indicates few had active membership or involvement in mainstream or non-traditions political parties (Labour, Liberal or Green), a very small number had been members of political organisations (socialist alternative), or local/global social action groups, such as Amnesty International. This is interesting, given that participants expressed a strong interest in a wide range of local-national-global political and social issues. Vromen (2003) argues persuasively that involvement in a wide range of sport, cultural and community organisations are valid forms of contemporary ‘political involvement’ for young people, in contrast to those included in more traditional political science approaches. Writer, such as Hackett (1997 cited in Vromen, 2003:82) suggests ‘that these kinds of organisations should be seen as new arenas of political activity for young people’. In a similar view, Smith (2000 cited in O’Toole et al, 2003:59) argues that conventional analysis does not capture the nature of contemporary young people’s notions of political participation by dismissing the personal/political mediation of ‘informal politics’ that occurs in such sites. This was seen as an important aspect to take up in the focus groups. Young people – ‘not politically apathetic’ As noted above, a common assertion made in the political science literature is that young people are apathetic and lack interest in political issues. To examine this empirically, participants were asked to list five important personal and then, five most important political issues in the survey. This survey data indicated that young people are concerned about a wide range of political issues (Beresford & Phillips, 1997; Henn et al 2000, Park, 1998 Pirie & Worcester, 2000). However, O’Toole et al, (2003:52), argues that this could merely reflect young people’s knowledge about “current affairs”, rather than a genuine interest in politics or a measure of political participation. I disagree with this assertion. I think (along with Henn et al, 2000) it indicates that young people are ‘more tuned’ into political issues than previously assumed. Furthermore, when comparing the responses of young people to older
12
age groups, a significant number of the population show no interest in translating their political opinions or views into political practice or activities, apart from ‘voting’. Yet, young people are problematised for not doing so. Personal– public blend In the survey, the participants were asked to list five important personal issues. The five most frequently mentioned were family, friends, education, environment and health. The responses ranged from family, friends, university, personal time and fitness, to a whole host of national and global social, economic and political issues – environmental sustainability, international poverty and homelessness, war in Iraq, taxes, defence, water and environment to name a few. What is more interesting, is that there was very little difference between what young people saw as ‘personal’ as opposed to ‘political’ issues. Thematic analysis reveals a close merger and overlap between the two – personal and political than has been reported in previous research. Furthermore, the majority of students listed global political, social and economic issues amongst their five most important personal concerns. Four major clusters of responses were evident in this data. These include personal issues; personal/social issues; personal/global issues and global issues. Political issues –local/national/global nexus Once again, when asked to list five important issues, the majority of young people cited democracy and political participation. The themes in the data revolved around four sub-themes. These included critiques of democracy, politicians, political values, political institutions, and the ‘apathetic’ public. However, these critiques did not translate into lack of support for existing forms of political participation such as voting. In a subsequent question, the majority of participants expressed strong support for the democratic system, voting and its efficacy. In addition, to democracy a wide range of local/national/global issues was cited. These spanned social, political, environmental and economic issues: immigration, refugees, Iraq war, the environment, and deaths in custody, rights-based discourses, environmental matters, education, economic and health concerns, globalisation, peace, humanitarian aid, law and justice issues, social inequality and public services. The data indicates a very strong overlap between local and global political concerns. In a highly globalised world, this is not surprising.
13
The responses also included a strong ‘rights based discourse’ and ‘ideals-valuestatements’, such as equality, imagination, femininity, inequality, future vision, ‘growth of the selfish being’, well being of others, and social reform. Richard Eckersley’s (1999) futures vision study found that ‘young people tend to see the future in negative terms, or at least not getting qualitatively better. When asked to describe their preferred future, young people dream of a society with less emphasis on individualism, material wealth and competition, and more on community and family, the environment and cooperation’ (p 73). Efficacy of formal political processes – ‘voting’ The survey asked young people if they had ever voted in any elections at local, state and federal government elections. My rationale for including it in this survey was to test out the trends evident it the decline in young Australians registering to vote, and therefore not voting at elections (Print et al, 2005). The majority (80.4%) were registered to vote and round 50% had voted in elections at the three levels of government. On its own, this is not a very useful measure of political participation. Therefore, in the survey participants were asked to comment on whether they thought that voting influenced political decisions. These results were quite surprising, but are similar to those of Henn et al (2000). Over half the students (55.3%) felt that voting was influenced politics, and a surprisingly high number of students felt it was very influential (15.1%). In contrast, 26.3% felt that voting was only slightly influential, and 3.4% felt it had no influence on political decisions, etc. Henn at al (2000:3) found that first time voters are sceptical of political parties, professional politicians, and political parties, but they were also strongly committed to the democratic processes.’ This issue was explored in more detail in the survey. Participants were asked to state why they thought voting did or did not influence politics. The qualitative data reveals highly polarised responses between the participants. The majority (70%) who felt voting influenced politics emphasised their trust in the efficacy of formal institutional political practices and democracy. Several quotations illustrate these themes. It makes politicians accountable and thereby shapes public policy through political pressure (forces them to address major needs of people By providing a democratic element to politics, it allows common people to have a say or even a chance to have a say in the political protection of our country The answer is obvious! Voting = politics
14
Without compulsory voting there is not true representation for democratic outcomes – without compulsory voting extremist elements of Australian society have too much influence.
However, even amongst those who strongly supported the view that voting influenced politics – there was a high level of cynicism. Participants frequently qualified their responses as shown below. Because politicians want to be re-elected, so they try to do what voters want. They are going to tell people the good things they’re going to do (what people want to hear) to get more votes. Your vote gets your opinion out there, and if people feel the same like you do, things might change, or not, whatever.
About one-third of young people did not think voting influenced politics or political decisions. The most predominate theme amongst this group of disaffected young voters, was a deep sense of powerlessness to affect the electoral system. They stressed the inability of ‘one vote’ to influence political decisions. My vote [one vote] never wins
The group of disaffected voters (30%) expressed strong opinions and sentiments about the futility of voting and the lack of efficacy in current democratic institutions and process. The powerfulness of individuals to influence the political system was attributed to corruption, pre-determined outcomes, big business, the church, outdated political institutions, voter apathy and rigidity of the system, as illustrate by the comments below. Because [shit] is going to happen whether we like it or not, what the government wants will happen whether we like it or not. Because common people do not have enough say in politics.
Several of the disaffected group, made specific reference to deep feelings of disenchantment amongst young people about the capacity of formal political processes to meet their needs. Many politicians are more concerned with themselves and are superficial about the issues that affect the real world. Political parties will not care what youth think and do not change their tactics after voting.
Efficacy of alternate forms of political participation Following on from this, participants were asked whether other forms of action, (apart from voting) influenced politics and political decisions. The majority (86%) indicated that it
15
did. Most of these responses contained traditional notions of the kinds of interest groups and political action that could try to influence political decisions. These included traditional forms of political protest and action eg lobbying, petitions, rallies and protests, demonstrations, media. Some mentioned ‘riots’, propaganda, international pressure, international NGOs, terrorist attacks, mass murder, and a few mentioned non-traditional forms, such as music, street theatre, fashion and popular culture.10 Young people’s definition of political participation – ‘active not passive citizen’ A major methodological flaw of survey research on young people is that is uses predetermined definitions of ‘political participation’, that do not elicit what it may mean to young people (O’Toole et al, 2003). So in this survey, participants were asked to define in their own words what ‘political participation’ meant to them. The majority of students emphasised being active (voting), being aware (through media) of issues, keeping informed, and knowledgeable about events/issues, and discussing political issues. A small number of participants define political participation as involvement in pressure groups, political parties or some other form of community organisation. The responses indicate an action-orientation, in the sense of being ‘aware and informed about political issues, but not a form of political participation that involves membership in parties or taking political action. There is insufficient data in this study to claim that the majority of young people indicate what has been labelled as a more ‘individualised’ pattern of political participation, in contrast to traditional notions imposed by political scientists. In fact, only 18% of people in survey research agree with the type of political participation listed by academics (parry et al, 1992 cited in O’Toole et al, 2003:47). DISCUSSION The debate about whether young people are engaged or not in traditional politics is an important issue for many reasons. Obviously, for a liberal democracy to survive, it needs to ensure that all citizens feel they have a future investment in any society, and that they have the opportunity to access the resources and goods to meet their needs and expectations. What we do know is that young people around the world are disengaging from the formal political processes in growing numbers. The results of this study indicate that around 30% of
10
This is going to be explored in more detail in the focus groups.
16
young people are disenchanted with the current political system. ‘What we do not know is why they are disengaging from it’ (O’Toole et al, 2003:50). In the wider policy context, the renewed government interest in the level and nature of young people’s political participation is taking place in a political, economic and economic landscape dominated by doctrines of new public management and associated restructuring of the welfare state. This has significantly changed the nature of post-liberal democracy and democratic participation in post-welfare societies. Notions of collective human and social rights no longer grant citizens a legitimate political identity, or space to make claims on the state for assistance or care. The shape and extent of this revising of postwelfare state institutional arrangements is not fully evident. A number of writers (Giroux, 2003; Pirie & Worcester, 2000) have speculated that the reason for young people’s disengagement is due to the individualist nature of neo-liberal society and the retreat of the welfare state. There is concern that a generational shift is emerging about the nature of welfare state support given to politically salient groups in the future. In an era of baby boomers’ and rapidly ageing populations’ in post-welfare states – states that have rolled back support for many groups including young people. It is argued that they may increasingly less investment in a society that ignores and pathologises their identities, life styles and political views or interests. Let alone a society that has abandoned them to market forces and limited support in favour of global economic and political agendas (Giroux, 2003). Giroux’s (2003) argument is a compelling one. He suggests that young people have been sidelined as global imperatives of war and terrorism have taken over domestic and international political agendas. Massive funds are going into this effort. New political rhetoric and policy agendas have developed that reposition young people in highly negative ways. They no longer are a policy priority for state funds. In fact, he argues they are no longer seen as the ‘future’ generation, as in the past when young people were seen as an important group to invest in. There is ample evidence to show that young people have been one of the main targets of state welfare cuts in the area of education and employment. Following on from this is the concern that young people will internalise and express neoliberal beliefs about the ‘active and consumer citizen’. Young people hear that political message and there is no doubt they are responding. However, little effort has been made to
17
investigate whether there is any relationship between the declining level of young people’s political participation and the neo-liberalism pervading society. O’Toole et al (2003) is highly critical of the attempt to portray young people as politically ‘individualist’ or ‘politically disengaged’ on two grounds. The first objection is based on criticisms about the limitations in the methodologies used in current research that defines political participation and apathy or levels of political activism in highly conventional terms. Therefore, there is limited evidence to support such a proposition. The second objection concerns arguments about the role of the state in young people’s lives. O’Toole et al (2003:5) suggest that these have been over-stated. The state is not withdrawing from young people’s lives. In fact, it is becoming more coercive and intrusive and still provides youth with a large number of education and employment programs. I disagree with those who wish to discount the utility of neo-liberalism to explain the disengagement and individualising responses that some researchers have noted amongst young people (Pirie & Worcester, 2000, Park, 1998). We do know that doctrines of New Public Management and associated restructuring of the welfare state have changed the nature of post-liberal democracy and democratic participation in post-welfare state societies. Political analysts have outlined the way in which political institutions and practices in the public sphere and the civil sphere have been narrowed by neo-liberalism (Bardioulle, 2000). In Australia, we have seen a shift to more executive forms of governance (Fenna, 1998) with an accompanying reduction in extra-parliamentary forms of democracy (Sawer, 2001; Melville & Perkins, 2003). Neo-liberal political discourses systematically discredit notions of collective human and social rights in favour of individual rights and obligations to care for oneself through the marketplace. The implementation of these policies by governments around the world has garnered considerable electoral support. However, there is very little literature that investigates the impact neo-liberal ideologies are having on the political beliefs and practices of young people. This may provide some insight into the range of factors contributing to the decline in traditional forms of political participation amongst young people. Theoretically, the broad framework of government/governmentality developed by Foucault (1991) and refined by other writers (Dean, 1999, Rose, 1996, 1999) may provide a different lens to examine young people’s declining political engagement in post-welfare state
18
societies; current forms and beliefs about participation; and to suggest what form it might take in the future. A major tenant of neoliberal doctrines embedded in New Public Management] is an emphasis on the role of the individual as a self-governing person responsible for their own social, political and economical well-being. A major proposition in the broader research project is that the process of individualising and individualisation is having a direct impact on young people’s views and forms of political participation. There is clearly a need to explore any empirical evidence and theoretical insights available to support such an argument. The empirical evidence suggests that young people have been disengaging from traditional forms of political participation over a long period. Therefore, it may not be possible to simply point to any one causal factor associated with this complex phenomenon. FUTURE RESEARCH A major tenant of neoliberal doctrines embedded in New Public Management] is an emphasis on the role of the individual as a self-governing person responsible for their own social, political and economical well-being. It would not be surprising then, that young people’s political practices reflect these ideologies in post-industrial western societies. A major proposition in the broader research project is that the process of individualising and individualisation is having a direct impact on young people’s views and forms of political participation. There is clearly a need to explore any empirical evidence and theoretical insights available to support such an argument. This research is exploratory and cannot be used to generalise findings to wider groups of young people. Further research needs be undertaken on different groups of young people. This research needs to ask broader questions about the way in which young people define and experience ‘political participation’ in contemporary society, as well as how they understand and use the limited ‘public space’ available to them. It is also important given the amount of mass consumption in our society, to examine the roles young people play in ‘political consumerism’ (Micheletti & Stolle, 2005), as well as other forms political expression derived from popular culture to gain a better understanding of the complexity and range of young people’s political participation. , there is very little empirical work done on alternate forms of political expression – and more importantly, the ways in which
19
participation is expressed through various forms of popular culture – the media, music, fashion and sub-cultures or groups. CONCLUSION Countries around the world, including Australia, report that young people are disengaging from traditional forms of political participation. This paper has provided a review of some of the major debates found in the literature. They tend to be polarised. Some argue that there is clear empirical evidence to support the above contentions. Others suggest that young people are politically engaged, but express their participation in different ways. This paper reports on an exploratory study that investigated the extent and meaning of political participation in young people aged 17-25 years. This exploratory study demonstrates that young people are not disengaged from traditional forms of political institutions, as some would suggest, or that they are apathetic. In fact, quite the opposite picture emerges. The majority of young people in this study (70%) take voting seriously and believe that it influences political decisions. The findings also reveal that young people are concerned and aware of a wide range of social, political, economic, environmental and international issues. They define political participation in very broad ‘active terms’ – being aware, being informed and taking part in a range of activities, but not joining or belonging to traditional forms of political organisations, such as political parties or trade unions. They may not be conceptualised as ‘active’ citizens in the traditional liberal democratic viewpoint, but they do demonstrate an ‘engagement’ with politics in a wider sense. However, there is still no satisfactory explanation to offer for why 30% of young people (30%) in this study are less engaged with the political system, let alone how to capture their own meaning of ‘political participation’. Finally, it is argued in this paper that future research should take into account the neoliberal character of contemporary social, political and economic arrangements, to ascertain the extent to which it is shaping individualised forms of political participation and identity amongst young people. Current research tends to suggest an eclectic mixture of individual and collective forms of political participation amongst young people, but one wonders how long that can be sustained in the contemporary policy environment.
20
REFERENCES Adset, M. (2003) ‘Change in Political Era and Demographic Weight as Explanations of Youth ‘Disenfranchisement’ in Federal Elections in Canada, 1965-2000’, Journal of Youth Studies, 6(3): 247-264. Adsett, M. & McKellar, C. J. (2002) ‘An Analysis of the Crisis of Political Participation among Canadian Youth’, International Sociological Association Conference, Brisbane, Australia (ISI). Alderson, P. & Morrow, V. (2004) Ethics, social research and Consulting with children and young people, Bardardo’s, Essex. Australian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing: Basic Community Profile, Catalogue Number 2001:0, Canberra. Bardouille, N. (2000). “The transformation of governance paradigms and modalities”, Round Table, 353:81-106, London. Jan. Bay, A-H., & Blekesaume, M. (2002) ‘Youth Unemployment and Political Marginalisation’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 11 (2):132-139. Beresford, Q. & Phillips, H. (1997) ‘Spectators in Australian Politics: Young Voters’ Interest in Politics and Political Issues’, Youth Studies Australia, 16(4): 11-16. Bessant, J. (2004) ‘Mixed Messages: Youth Participation and Democratic Practice’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 39(2): 387-404. Bessant, J. & Watts. R. (2002) Sociology Australia, Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards. Bessant, J. (2003) ‘Youth Participation: a new mode of government’ Policy Studies, 24(2): 87-100. Bouckact, G. (2003) ‘Public Service Performance and Trust in Government: The Problem of Causality’, International Journal of Public Administration, 26 (3): 239-251. Civic Experts Group (1993) Whereas the People…Civics and Citizenship Education. Canberra, AGPS. Cockburn, T. (2005) ‘Children’s Participation in Social Policy: Inclusion, Chimera or Authencity?’, Social Policy and Society, 4(2): 109-119. Dean, M. (1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society, Sage: London. Dunleavy, P. (1996) ‘Political Behaviour: Institutional and Experiential Approaches’, in A New Handbook of Political Science, Eds R. Goodwin & H. Klingemann. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Eckersley, R. (1999) ‘Dreams and expectations: young people’s expected and preferred futures and their significance for education’, Futures, 31:73-90. Evans, V. & Sternberg, J. (1999). ‘Young People, Politics and Television Current Affairs in Australia’, Journal of Australian Studies, Dec. Finkel, S. E., & Ernst, H. R. (2005) ‘Civic Education in Post-Apartheid South Africa: Alternate Paths to the Development of Political Knowledge and Democratic Values’, Political Psychology, 26(3):333-364. Foucault, M.(1991). ‘Governmentality’, in G. Burchell., C. Gordon., & P. Miller (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, London: Harvester Wheatsfeaf, 87-104. Giroux, H. A. (2003) The Abandoned Generation: Democracy Beyond the Culture of Fear, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Henn, M, Weinstein, M., & Wring, D. (2000) ‘A Generation Apart: Youth and Political Participation in Britain Today’, Paper for the Political Studies Association-UK 50th Conference, 10-13 April, London. 21
House of Commons (2005) ‘Youth Parliaments and young people’s participation in politics’, Parliamentary Education Unit Pupil Parliaments, SNPC-00823, 10 March 2005. Hudson, J. (2002) ‘Digitising the structure of government: the UK’s information government agenda’, Policy & Politics, 30(4): 265-290. Liebes, T. & Ribak, R. (1992) ‘The Contribution of Family Culture to Political Participation, Political Outlook, and Its Production’, Communication Research, 19(5):618-641. Lewis, A. & Lindsay, G. (2000) Researching Children’s Perspectives, Open University Press, Buckingham. Lister, R. (1997) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives, Macmillan, London. Lyons, M. & Fabiansson, ‘Is volunteering declining in Australia?’, Australian Journal of Volunteering, 3(2): 15-21. Marques, E.C. (1999) ‘Youth Involvement in Policy-Making: Lessons from Ontario School Boards’, Policy Brief No, 5, July, Institute on Governance, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. McAllister, I. (1998) ‘Civic Education and Political Knowledge in Australia’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 33(1): 7-23. Melville, R. & Perkins, R. (2003) `Changing Roles of Community-Sector Bodies in a Neo-Liberal Policy Environment in Australia, An ARC Funded Study (2000-2002): Final Report’, ISCCI, Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong,
Meltz, E., McLellan, J., Youniss, J. (2003) ‘Types of Voluntary Service and Adolescent’s Civic Development’, Journal of Adolescent Research, 18(2):188-203. Micheletti, M. & Stolle, D. (2005) ‘The market as an arena for transnational politics’ [online] http://ya.ssrc.org/transnational/Micheletti_Stolle/pf [accessed 19/07/05]. Park, A. (1998) Young People’s Social Attitudes 1998: Full Report of Research Activities and Results, London. Perron, D. (2004) Globalization and Social Change: People and Places in a Divided World, Routledge (Taylor Group, London. Pirie, M. & Worcester, R. M. (2000) The Big-Turn off: Attitudes of Young People to Government, Citizenship and Community, London. Print, M., Saha, L. & Edwards, K. (2004) ‘Report 1: Enrolment and Voting’, Youth Electoral Study, Centre for Research and Teaching in Civics, University of Sydney. Putman, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster, New York. Roker, D., Player, K., Coleman, J. (1999) ‘Young People’s Voluntary and Campaigning Activities as Sources of Political Education’, Oxford Review of Education, 25(1-2): 185-198. Rose, N. (1996) ‘Governing “advanced” liberal democracies’ in A. Barry., Osborne, T. & Rose, N. (eds). Foucault and Political Reason: liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government,Uni of Chicago: Chicago, p 37-64. Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Smart, D., Sanson, A. Da Silva, L. & Toumbourou, J. (2000) ‘The development of Civic mindedness’, Family Matters, 57(Spring/Summer: 4-9. Sawer, M. (2002) ‘Governing for the mainstream: Implications for Community Representation’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1):39-49. Smith, N. (2000) ‘Negotiating Transitions to Citizenship’, Paper presented at the ESRC Conference, Youth Research 2000, University of Keele.
22
Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best, V., McLaughlin, M., & Silbereisen, R. (2002) ‘Youth Civic Engagement in the Twentieth-First Century’, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(1): 121-148. Vromen, A. (2004) ‘Three political myths about young people’ Drawing Board, 4(3). Vromen, A. (2003) ‘Traversing time and gender: Australian young people’s participation’, Journal of Youth Studies, 6(6): 277-294. Wellman, B. & Haythornthwaite, C. (2002) (Eds) The Internet in everyday life Oxford, UK ; Blackwell Pub. Malden, MA. White, P. (1999) ‘Political Education in the Early Years: the place of civic virtues’, Oxford Review of Education, 25(1-2): 59-70. Wilson, S. (2000) ‘Schooling for Democracy’, Youth Studies Australia, 19(2): 25-31.
23
Appendix 1 Table 1: Demographic of the sample Measure Age * 17-20 21-25 Sex Male Female Year of study 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year Ancestry identification Australian & UK Europe South & North East Asia Americas Aboriginal & Torres Islander Other Religious affiliation Christian Hindu Judaism Islam Other Not religious Currently employed Employed Unemployed Employment status < Full time Part-time Casual Permanent Other Social Class association > Working Working – middle and upper Middle Professional & upper middle
Table 3: Membership of various organisations
%
Organisation Trade union Yes No Professional trade association Yes No Sporting club Yes No Environmental organisation Yes No Political party/organisation Yes No Social/cultural club Yes No Religious/church organisation Yes No Internet chat room Yes No Book club Yes No
77 23 23 77 71 13 13 3 48 9 8 3 .6 31 56 .6 .6 .6 8 32 91 11
% 15 85
3 97 29 72
6 94
14 86
27 73
19 81
17 83
6 21 73 1 2
2 98
12 31 37 20
24
