Review: The Concept of Political Participation: Toward a Definition

Reviewed Work(s): Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies by

Samuel H. Barnes and Max Kaase; Access to Power: Politics and the Urban Poor in
Developing Nations by Joan M. Nelson; Political Participation in Latin America: Volume 1,
Citizen and State by John H. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson; Political Participation in
Latin America: Volume 2, Politics and the Poor by Mitchell A. Seligson and John H. Booth
Review by: Patrick J. Conge
Source: Comparative Politics, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jan., 1988), pp. 241-249
Published by: Comparative Politics, Ph.D. Programs in Political Science, City University of
New York
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/421669
Accessed: 09-04-2018 21:43 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Comparative Politics, Ph.D. Programs in Political Science, City University of New

York is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative
Politics

This content downloaded from 132.248.228.237 on Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:43:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Review Article

The Concept of Political Participation

Toward a Definition

Patrick J. Conge

Samuel H. Barnes, Max Kaase et al., Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Weste
Democracies, Beverly Hills, Sage, 1979.

Joan M. Nelson, Access to Power: Politics and the Urban Poor in Developing Nati
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1979.

John H. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Political Participation in Latin Ame
Volume 1, Citizen and State, New York, Holmes and Meier, 1978.

Mitchell A. Seligson and John H. Booth, eds., Political Participation in Latin America:
Volume 2, Politics and the Poor, New York, Holmes and Meier, 1979.

Students of comparative politics have yet to agree on a definition of political participation.

Arguments over the meaning of the term center upon six major issues.

(1) Active versus Passive Forms: Should political participation be defined in terms of action-
voting, campaigning for a political party-or should it include passive forms-a feeling of
patriotism, an awareness of political issues?

(2) Aggressive versus Nonaggressive Behavior: Should a definition of political participation

embrace civil disobedience and political violence, or should it be limited to more
"conventional" activities?

(3) Structural versus Nonstructural Objects: Should efforts to change or maintain the form of
government be included in the definition of political participation, or should the definition be
limited to efforts to change or maintain governmental authorities and/or their decisions?

(4) Governmental versus Nongovernmental Aims: Should political participation be limited to

behavior directed toward governmental authorities, policies, and/or institutions, or should it
include phenomena outside the realm of government?

(5) Mobilized versus Voluntary Actions: Should behavior sponsored and guided by the
government to enhance its welfare be called political participation, or should the term be
confined to behavior initiated by citizens in pursuit of their interests?

241

This content downloaded from 132.248.228.237 on Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:43:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Comparative Politics January 1988

(6) Intended versus Unintended Outcomes: Should behavior that has an unintended consequence
for a government be defined as political participation?

In their seminal work, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social

Equality, Verba and Nie define political participation as behavior designed to affect the
choice of governmental personnel and/or policies.' They exclude passive forms, civil
disobedience and political violence, efforts to change or maintain the form of government,
behavior outside the sphere of government, behavior mobilized by the government, and
unintended political outcomes.
Many students of comparative politics have considered this definition too narrow and have
sought a broader conceptualization of the term. The books discussed here are representative
of these efforts to modify the definition by including one or more of the phenomena Verba
and Nie chose to ignore. I seek to improve upon these efforts by satisfying two competing
requirements: (1) generality: the definition must be broad enough to encompass a range of
behavior in a variety of cultural settings; and (2) precision: the definition must be limited in
scope, that is, some behavior must be excluded in order to enhance explanatory power.2
On the one hand, the quest for precision has led to definitions of political participation
that are narrow, reflecting a limited range of activities. The criticism directed at Verba and
Nie demonstrates one unfortunate consequence of this quest, namely, the tendency to
arbitrarily limit a term to behavior which accords with one's immediate research interest. On
the other hand, the quest for generality has resulted in a tendency to stretch the concept. The
task is to find the middle ground between these two extremes.

Verba and Nie omit civil disobedience and political violence from their definition of political
participation. These omissions have been widely criticized.3 In Political Action: Mass
Participation in Five Western Democracies, Barnes, Kaase, and their colleagues focus on
political protest and violence in Austria, Great Britain, the Netherlands, the United States,
and West Germany. Through surveys conducted in 1974, they, first, examine
"conventional" activities of respondents in each country-reading about politics, discussion
of politics, contact with public officials, work for a party or candidate, and other activity
related to the electoral process--and, second, describe the attitudes of interviewees toward
civil disobedience and political violence. Of particular interest to Barnes, Kaase et al. is
what they term "protest potential," that is, "the individual propensity to engage in
unconventional forms of political behavior as a means of political redress, namely . . . the
use of such tactics as petitions, demonstrations, boycotts, rent or tax strikes, unofficial
industrial strikes, occupation of buildings, blocking of traffic, damage to property, and
personal violence."4
They define political participation as "all voluntary activities by individual citizens
intended to influence either directly or indirectly political choices at various levels of the
political system."5 It is their contention that a conceptualization of political participation
must include protest and violence to present an adequate view of politics in the United States
and western Europe.
Their study is divided into five parts. First, Kaase and Marsh describe the survey
employed, indicate the potential for political protest and violence in the five industrialized
states, and examine relations between these activities and acts related to the electoral

242

This content downloaded from 132.248.228.237 on Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:43:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Patrick J. Conge

process. Second, Inglehart and Klingemann examine relations among an individual's

ideology, values, and willingness to engage in political protest. Third, Barnes, Farah, and
Heunks question whether respondents are more inclined to protest if they are dissatisfied,
either personally (for example with the material side of their lives) or politically (for
example with the government's handling of the public agenda). Fourth, Jennings, Allerbeck,
and Rosenmayr deal with the relation between age (based on parent-child analyses) and the
propensity to engage in protest activity. Finally, Kaase and Barnes discuss the future of civil
disobedience and political violence in democratic politics.
The authors show that a substantial number of citizens in the survey are tolerant of
political protest and violence. Further, those who are most tolerant tend to be highly
educated, efficacious, and active in conventional ways. It is also shown that tolerance of
political protest and violence is especially pronounced among the young. The high potential
for protest in these countries is tied to changes in political culture; that is, the boundaries of
acceptable and unacceptable political action are changing in western democracies as a result
of shifts in political values.
In Access to Power: Politics and the Urban Poor in Developing Nations, Nelson
investigates the character of urban poverty in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, considers the
impact of cityward migration on urban political life, and examines the means by which the
urban poor protect or advance their political interests. Like Barnes, Kaase et al., Nelson
includes illegal and violent action in her conception of political participation. Though she
acknowledges that such activity is important to analyses of urban politics in the developing
world, she is mainly concerned with nonviolent patterns of participation by the urban poor in
these areas. The heart of her book is four chapters describing these modes of behavior.
One pattern involves action by the urban poor to please, placate, show respect for, or win
benefits from a patron (examples include religious leaders and employers) or an urban
political machine. A second pattern involves action taken on the basis of ethnic ties. This
includes voting for coethnics, demonstrating or lobbying in support of policies affecting the
group as a whole, and pressuring ethnic elites to intervene with government agencies on
behalf of the poorer strata within an ethnic group. A third pattern involves collective action
conducted through special interest associations (examples include neighborhood improve-
ment committees, occupation-based associations, and other groups formed specifically to
advance their members' shared concerns). The final pattern involves political participation
by the urban poor that is generated by populist, Marxist, or reformist parties.
While these four categories do not exhaust the possibilities, "many, perhaps most, of the
efforts of poor urbanites to influence the authorities with respect to their particular problems
can be analyzed in terms of these patterns. "6 The author draws upon other scholarly research
devoted to urban politics, literature provided by government agencies, and statistics
compiled by international organizations to demonstrate how each of these patterns differs
with respect to leadership, goals, tactics, and duration.
Nelson's definition of political participation-- "action by private citizens intended to
influence the actions or the composition of national or local governments"--is broader than
Verba and Nie's in several important respects.7 First, as noted previously, it includes illegal
and violent actions intended to influence the government. Second, attention can be focused
on the form of government. Nelson characterizes participation through patrons, action taken
on the basis of ethnic ties, and participation through special interest groups as "mostly small

243

This content downloaded from 132.248.228.237 on Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:43:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Comparative Politics January 1988

in scale, modest in objectives, and sporadic in duration."8 These activities are also
considered to be conservative and "within the system;" that is, changes in governmental
decisions, not changes in the form of government, are sought through these modes of
behavior. In contrast, she recognizes that parties can generate larger-scale, more aggressive,
and more sustained participation on the part of the urban poor. Though changes in
governmental decisions are commonly sought through this mode of behavior as well, it can,
on rare occasions, be aimed at much larger issues, namely, change(s) in the constitution or
the overthrow of governments.
Third, the definition includes political action by the urban poor which is mobilized or
manipulated by others. To Nelson, most political participation by the poor "is at least partly
prompted and more or less successfully guided by elites or middle-class groups."9 The
exception is special interest groups. Participation in these associations is both voluntary and
representative of efforts by some low income urbanites to deal directly with government
authorities on issues that concern them as urban poor. Nelson justifies her decision to
include behavior sponsored or manipulated by others in the definition of political
participation by pointing out that the boundary between activity undertaken voluntarily and
activity resulting from manipulation is often indistinct. "Much political participation
combines an element of manipulation by others with some degree of independent choice and
judgment. This is particularly true with respect to the poor, dependent, and insecure."' 0
Moreover, while participation by the poor through patrons, within ethnic groups, through
special interest groups, or through parties allows the poor to bring a modicum of pressure on
the government, it also permits "governments to communicate and bargain with the poor; to
threaten them; to exercise loose or tight control; and to coopt the most vigorous and
ambitious among the poor. Control and cooption can be channeled through patrons and
brokers, from higher to lower strata within ethnic groups, through special-interest
associations, and through parties." For the poor, then, access to government "carries with it
accessibility to manipulation.""'
In the two volumes of Political Participation in Latin America, the editors Booth and
Seligson argue for an even broader conception of political participation, defining it as
"behavior influencing or attempting to influence the distribution of public goods."'2 One
important facet of this definition is their notion of public goods. The term public goods is
commonly used to refer to roads, schools, health centers, and other services provided by
governments and, once supplied, more or less open to all members of society. According to
Booth and Seligson, the provision of public goods is not limited to governments.

Analysts often overlook . . . that communities, too, (e.g., villages, neighborhoods) supply
public goods, even though they may lack formal governments. Small towns and villages often
provide themselves such public goods as roads, bridges, community centers, schools, and
irrigation systems, through the collective expenditure of such resources as money, labor, and
materials donated by residents. 13

In short, activity within a neighborhood to provide public services-services the government

cannot or will not supply--constitutes political participation.
Perhaps an example or two will help clarify this discussion. Nelson argues that activity
must be focused on the government to be viewed as political participation. Hence, she

244

This content downloaded from 132.248.228.237 on Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:43:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Patrick J. Conge

"excludes collective actions by members of one group of citizens vis-a-vis another, such as
strikes by labor against management," from her conceptualization of the term, as well as
"cooperative action among neighbors to create or improve shared facilities."'4 For Nelson,
the political implications of such acts are immaterial. She excludes them because they are
primarily directed toward targets other than governments, for example the attempts of
workers to win demands through strike action aimed at the management of private
companies.
Booth and Seligson, by contrast, include strikes in their definition of political
participation. The decision to include these actions is justified by characterizing the legal
right to strike as a public good.

In many Latin American nations, governments have systematically denied certain sectors of the
work force (especially rural labor) the right to strike. In other instances, even though a certain
sector may have the legal right, their strike petitions (pliegos) have been consistently found to be
technically imperfect, also resulting in denials. . . . Under such circumstances, a worker's
joining a strike necessarily involves attempting to influence the distribution of a public good.
15

Booth and Seligson also include cooperative action among neighbors to create and
distribute public goods. Their rationale is similar to the one used for including strikes by
labor against management.

In Latin America one finds paved, all-weather roads concentrated around or between major
metropolitan areas, while rural zones commonly have rutted and bumpy trails, which the rain
often makes impassable. Efforts by rural residents to rectify such a problem (. . . by building or
improving the roads themselves) exemplify an attempt to influence the distribution of public
goods, the type of action that we consider political participation.'6

Much of the analysis contained in the two volumes of Political Participation in Latin
America rests upon the definition advanced by Booth and Seligson (the volumes consist of
data-based articles on various aspects of political participation in Peru, Uruguay, Costa
Rica, Mexico, and other Latin American countries, as well as conceptual pieces dealing with
political participation in the Latin American context). The editors extend the concept to
embrace unintended political outcomes, behavior outside the realm of government, behavior
mobilized by the government, efforts to change or maintain the structure of government, and
political violence. Several of the contributors, however, differ with the editors on one or
more of these points. "

At the outset, I disaggregated the concept of political participation into six major issues
(twelve component parts). These are:

(1) Active and (2) Passive Forms

(3) Aggressive and (4) Nonaggressive Behavior

(5) Structural and (6) Nonstructural Objects

(7) Governmental and (8) Nongovernmental Aims

245

This content downloaded from 132.248.228.237 on Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:43:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Comparative Politics January 1988

(9) Mobilized and (10) Voluntary Actions

(11) Intended and (12) Unintended Outcomes

I will now attempt to put the pieces of the puzzle together and formulate a definition of the
concept. This effort is guided by the dual requirements of generality and precision.
The first requirement is met by a comprehensive definition of political participation, that
is, one that incorporates all twelve components. Such a definition might be formulated as
follows. Political participation is any action (or inaction) of an individual or a collectivity of
individuals which intentionally or unintentionally opposes or supports, changes or maintains
some feature(s) of a government or community.
Three aspects of this definition warrant further comment. First, action can be verbal or
written. Second, inaction refers to passive forms. These involve (a) political attitudes and
sentiments, such as feelings of patriotism, political alienation, apathy, and indifference, and
(b) political awareness, such as attention to politics in the media. Third, both action and
inaction can be (a) related or unrelated to the electoral process, (b) aggressive or
nonaggressive in nature, (c) directed toward structural or nonstructural objects, (d) related to
phenomena outside the sphere of government, and (e) mobilized or voluntary (for example,
the communication of various orientations toward aggressive and/or nonaggressive actions
by political authorities is "mobilized inaction").
The foregoing conceptualization of political participation would certainly meet the
requirement of generality. However, it is so broad as to be virtually meaningless and
incapable of any concrete application. To meet the requirement of precision, then, we must
engage in a process of elimination.
First, we should eliminate political attitudes and sentiments from a conceptualization of
political participation. Though no generally accepted definition of the term is available,
something of a consensus has emerged in the literature: what attitudes or sentiments really
concern are political culture and socialization, not participation. A focus upon these
phenomena may explain why individuals do or do not participate, but they do not account for
what is meant by the term political participation.
Second, we should eliminate political awareness. This differs from Barnes, Kaase, and
their colleagues who include reading about politics in newspapers. Awareness of the
political process does not entail being involved, either psychologically or overtly, in that
process. At most, awareness is a precondition for political participation. Thus, political
participation is active; nonparticipation is passive or inactive.
Third, we should restrict the term "aggressive behavior" to violent acts. For most writers
on political participation, including those discussed in this essay, the term has a much
broader connotation that includes both violent actions and what is variously defined as
illegal, unconventional, or unorthodox behavior. What may be "illegal," "unconventional,"
or "unorthodox" activity in one place or time may not be so in another (for example,
demonstrations and strikes). This problem is particularly acute in cross-cultural research.
Fourth, we should think of political participation as activity opposing or supporting state
structures, authorities, and/or decisions regarding the allocation of public goods. These
structures, authorities, and/or decisions can be either national or local in scope and location.
The focus on state structures allows the definition to embrace varying degrees of violent

246

This content downloaded from 132.248.228.237 on Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:43:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Patrick J. Conge

actions up to and including revolution and civil war. Restricting the term to conflicts over
policies and authorities would neglect such important phenomena. It would be illogical to
include acts by which people oppose existing state structures yet exclude acts by which they
support them. Hence, activity in support of state structures is also included.
Fifth, if activity is not focused upon national or local state structures, authorities, and/or
allocative decisions regarding public goods, then it is not political participation. This
contrasts with the view of Booth and Seligson. Thus, for example, I regard community
behavior-taking part in neighborhood projects, belonging to neighborhood associations-
that is not focused upon these aspects of the state as something else, perhaps "social
participation." The basis for my decision is as follows: (1) politics involve relations of
power and authority; (2) the key players in relations of power and authority are the
governments of states; (3) politics involve the governments of states; hence political
participation involves behavior within the realm of government.
Sixth, we should call all behavior opposing or supporting state structures, authorities,
and/or allocative decisions regarding public goods political participation whether it is
sponsored by the government or initiated by the people. I do not distinguish between the
two. Perhaps, as Nelson contends, it is more helpful to think of mobilized and voluntary
activity as elements that enter to a "greater or lesser degree into much political
participation."18 Adams, a contributor to Political Participation in Latin America, regards
the degree to which behavior is autonomous or controlled by the government as an empirical
question. When we go to vote, he asks, to what degree are we conforming to the desires of
the government? "The same question must be asked when we join a mass movement or
when we go to a community meeting."'9
Seventh, in contrast to the writers discussed here, we should detach intentions and
outcomes from the definition of political participation. Political participation should be
restricted to the acts themselves; it should not encompass the intentions of individual
participants or the outcomes of their actions. Intentions may explain why people participate
(without accounting for what political participation is), while outcomes (whether intended or
unintended) explain the consequences of political participation (again without accounting for
its nature). The aims of individual participants and the consequences of their actions are
empirical questions and should not be defined away by including them in a definition of the
concept.20
Political participation, then, may be defined as individual or collective action at the
national or local level that supports or opposes state structures, authorities, and/or decisions
regarding allocation of public goods. Three aspects of the definition should be emphasized.
First, the action can be verbal or written. Second, it can be violent or nonviolent. Third, it
can be of any intensity.

Verba and Nie define political participation as behavior designed to affect the choice of
governmental personnel and/or policies. They exclude passive forms, civil disobedience and
political violence, efforts to change or maintain the structure of government, behavior
outside the sphere of government, behavior mobilized by the government, and unintended
political outcomes. The authors discussed in this essay attempt to broaden the concept by
including one or more of these phenomena. For example, Barnes, Kaase, and their
colleagues extend the concept to include civil disobedience and political violence. Nelson

247

This content downloaded from 132.248.228.237 on Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:43:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Comparative Politics January 1988

adds efforts to change or maintain the form of government and behavior mobilized by the
government. Booth and Seligson extend the concept still further by incorporating behavior
outside the sphere of government and unintended political outcomes.
It is time to call a halt to such extensions of the concept. Taken together, these efforts
incorporate practically all the phenomena neglected by Verba and Nie. This is a mistake.
The concept of political participation has been so greatly inflated as a result that it risks
becoming indeterminate. Thus, I propose a more restricted definition. Of the definitions
reviewed here, Nelson's is most similar to mine. I argue that behavior outside the realm of
government is best excluded from a definition of the concept. The same can be said for all
passive forms. Further, I argue that neither the intentions of participants nor the outcomes of
their actions are necessary attributes of political participation.
Definitions of concepts are important because our analyses flow from them. While the
meaning of political participation cannot be so general as to include practically everything,
neither can it be so narrow as to ignore the richness of political behavior. It is hoped that this
paper will at least provide a common ground for further discussion of the meaning of
political participation.

NOTES

I would like to thank Gwenn Okruhlik and John Higley for their constructive criticisms and suggestions.
1. Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equalit
York: Harper and Row, 1972), pp. 2-3.
2. It is important that we know what political participation is not. Otherwise it applies to everything by def
The theoretical and empirical problems associated with indeterminate concepts are discussed in Giovann
"Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics," American Political Science Review, 64 (December 1970)
3. Among their critics are Jerrold G. Rusk, "Political Participation in America: A Review Essay," Am
Political Science Review, 70 (June 1976), 584-85, and William R. Schonfeld, "The Meaning of Dem
Participation," World Politics, 28 (October 1975), 143-45.
4. Alan Marsh and Max Kaase, "Measuring Political Action," in Samuel H. Barnes, Max Kaase et al.,
Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1979), p. 59.
5. Max Kaase and Alan Marsh, "Political Action: A Theoretical Perspective," in Barnes, Kaase et al., p.
6. Joan M. Nelson, Access to Power: Politics and the Urban Poor in Developing Nations (Princeton: P
University Press, 1979), p. 9.
7. Ibid., p. 8. This definition was originally advanced in Samuel P. Huntington and Joan M. Nelson, N
Choice: Political Participation in Developing Countries (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 19
4-7.

8. Nelson, p. 394.
9. Ibid., p. 168.
10. Ibid., p. 165.
11. Ibid., pp. 395-96.
12. John A. Booth and Mitchell A. Seligson, "Images of Political Participation in Latin America," in John A. Booth
and Mitchell A. Seligson, eds., Political Participation in Latin America: Volume 1, Citizen and State (New Yor
Holmes and Meier, 1978), p. 6.
13. Ibid.
14. Nelson, p. 8.
15. Booth and Seligson, p. 8.
16. Ibid., p. 7.
17. One example is Richard Newbold Adams, "The Structure of Participation: A Commentary," in Mitchell A.
Seligson and John A. Booth, eds., Political Participation in Latin America: Volume 2, Politics and the Poor (New
York: Holmes and Meier, 1979). Adams questions the significance of behavior having no effect on the government.
Other examples are Shepard Forman, "The Significance of Participation: Peasants in the Politics of Brazil," in volume
2; and Lawrence A. Scaff and Edward J. Williams, "Participation and the Primacy of Politics in Developmental
Theory," and Sandra L. Woy, "Infrastructure of Participation in Peru: SINAMOS," in volume 1. These authors

248

This content downloaded from 132.248.228.237 on Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:43:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Patrick J. Conge

variously question the inclusion of unintended political outcomes, behavior having no effect on the government, and
behavior mobilized by the government.
18. Nelson, p. 169. See also Huntington and Nelson, pp. 7-10.
19. Adams, p. 17.
20. Intentions raise additional theoretical and methodological concerns. For example, intentions can change during
the course of the participatory act. How, then, do we classify behavior that may be perceived as political at one time,
but not at another?

249

This content downloaded from 132.248.228.237 on Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:43:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms