Deth (2016) Political Participation

What is Political Participation?
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

Jan W. van Deth
Subject: Political Behavior, Political Sociology Online Publication Date: Nov 2016
DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.68
Summary and Keywords
Vibrant democracies are characterized by a continuous expansion of the available forms

of participation. This expansion has confronted many researchers with the dilemma of
using either a dated conceptualization of participation excluding many new modes of
political action or stretching their concept to cover almost everything. Demarcation
problems are especially evident for many newer, “creative,” “personalized,” and
“individualized” modes of participation such as political consumption, street parties, or
guerrilla gardening, which basically concern nonpolitical activities used for political
purposes. Moreover, the use of Internet-based technologies for these activities
(“connective action”) makes it almost impossible to recognize political participation at
first sight. Because social, societal, and political developments in democratic societies
have made the search for a single encompassing definition of political participation
obsolete, an alternative approach is to integrate the core features of political
participation in a conceptual map. Five modes cover the whole range of political
participation systematically and efficiently, based on the locus (polity), targeting
(government area or community problems), and circumstance (context or motivations) of
these activities. While the rise of expressive modes of participation especially requires
the inclusion of contextual information or the aims and goals of participants, attention is
paid to the (dis)advantages of including these aspects as defining criteria for political
participation. In this way, the map offers a comprehensive answer to the question “what
is political participation” without excluding future participatory innovations that are the
hallmark of a vibrant democracy.
Keywords: democracy, participation, protest, voting, elections, collective action, citizens, Internet
Participation and Democracy
Page 1 of 18
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (politics.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited. Please see applicable Privacy Policy
and Legal Notice (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 17 April 2018

Political participation can be loosely defined as citizens’ activities affecting politics. Ever
since the famous funeral speech of Pericles (431 BC) politicians and scholars have
stressed the unique character of democracy by emphasizing the role of ordinary citizens
in political affairs. By now, the list of participatory activities has become virtually infinite
and includes actions such as voting, demonstrating, contacting public officials,
boycotting, attending party rallies, guerrilla gardening, posting blogs, volunteering,
joining flash mobs, signing petitions, buying fair-trade products, and even suicide
protests. Political participation is relevant for any political system, but it is an
indispensable feature of democracy: “Where few take part in decisions there is little
democracy; the more participation there is in decisions, the more democracy there
is” (Verba & Nie, 1972, p. 1). Thus, the extent and scope of political participation are
important—perhaps even decisive—criteria for assessing the quality of democracy.
The growing salience of government and politics for everyday life, the blurring of
distinctions between private and public spheres, the increasing competences and
resources (especially education) of citizens, and the availability of an abundance of
political information resulted in a continuous expansion of available forms of
participation. While the political nature of the activities is immediately clear for elections,
demonstrations, or letters-to-the-editor, this is much more ambiguous if we are dealing
with the purchase of sneakers manufactured under specific conditions, the secret
planting of public green spaces, or clicking “like” on the site of a group advocating the
protection of whales in the north Atlantic. The list of these last examples can be extended
simply—and with each additional form the problems of demarcating political participation
become more evident.
Apparently, almost every activity by some citizen somehow can be understood sometimes
as a form of political participation (van Deth, 2001). Yet particularly this expansion—or
fragmentation—has confronted many researchers with the dilemma of using either a
dated conceptualization excluding many new modes of political participation or stretching
their concept to cover almost everything. Demarcation problems are especially evident
for many newer, “creative,” “personalized” and “individualized” modes of participation
such as political consumption or street parties or guerrilla gardening, which basically
concern nonpolitical activities used for political purposes. Moreover, the use of Internet-
based technologies for these activities (“connective action”) has made it almost
impossible to recognize political participation at first sight.
The most important consequence of the waning analytical sharpness of the concept
political participation is that it significantly hinders the assessment of the quality of
democracy. Whereas a restricted definition of participation usually results in rather
pessimistic conclusions (for example, decreasing electoral turnout challenges the
legitimacy of representative democracy), broader approaches typically present less
alarming inferences (for example, rapidly spreading political consumerism shows that
ordinary people are very committed).1 More sophisticated approaches are based on clear
analytical distinctions between different forms of participation and call for a “second
transformation” of democracy (Cain et al., 2003). In fact, assessments of the quality of
Page 2 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

democracy and the chances for its “transformation” rely directly on the question as to
which forms of political behavior are considered to be specimen of political participation.
A mutual understanding of political participation, therefore, is not only a conditio sine
qua none for meaningful discussions about participation, but, more importantly, also for
every discourse on the merits and chances of democracy.
To find a comprehensive solution for these conceptual problems, neither the development
of all-encompassing nominal definitions nor deductive analyses of prevailing forms of
participation seem to be helpful. This article does not attempt to develop a single,
comprehensive definition of political participation, but follows an alternative and very
different strategy instead: The core features of political participation are integrated in a
conceptual map of political participation covering five distinct, clearly specified variants
of political participation (van Deth, 2014). These variants cover the whole range of political
participation systematically and efficiently, based on the locus (polity), targeting
(government area or community problems), and circumstance (context or motivations) of
these activities. Additionally, the conceptual map of political participation offered could
easily include future participatory innovations, which are the hallmark of a vibrant
democracy.
Expanding Participation
The main features of political participation are clear and undisputed. First, it is
understood as an activity (or action)—simply watching television or being interested in
politics does not constitute participation. Political participation, second, is voluntary and
not ordered by a ruling class or obliged under some law. Third, participation refers to
activities of people in their role as nonprofessionals or amateurs and not, say, as
politicians, civil servants, or lobbyists. Fourth, political participation concerns
government, politics, or the state in broad senses of these words and is neither restricted
to specific phases (such as parliamentary decision-making processes or executing laws),
nor to specific levels or areas (such as national elections or contacts with party officials).
Thus, any voluntary, nonprofessional activity concerning government, politics, or the state
is a specimen of political participation.
Various types of political behavior meeting these criteria can be easily identified: casting
a vote, signing a petition, or filing an objection all are plain examples of specific forms of
political participation. By increasing the level of abstraction, participation can be
understood as a latent concept (usually measured as a continuum) covering more than
one form of participation as specific manifestations. Several forms of participation
sharing some basic feature are called a mode or type of participation. For instance voting
and party activities can be depicted together as an electoral mode of participation. A
Page 3 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

repertoire of political participation unites all available forms—and, of course, also all
modes—of participation (cf. Tilly, 1995, pp. 41–48).
In the last five or six decades the repertoire of political participation expanded
continuously; that is, new forms of participation were constantly added to existing
activities. Since the scope of government activities and responsibilities also expanded in
many countries in the last decades, the domain of political participation grew
considerably. That is, political participation has become relevant in areas that would be
considered private, social, or economic only a few decades ago. Typically, empirical
political participation research follows expansions of the repertoire and the domain of
participation with some delay and with discussions about the nature of newly added
activities as forms of political participation. These developments can be easily traced with
the publication of a few landmark studies.
By the mid-twentieth century the rise of representative democracy and the struggle for
universal suffrage in many democracies resulted in a rather strict understanding of
political participation as election-related activities. Consequently, the seminal voting
studies of the 1940s and 1950s focused on forms of political participation such as voting,
campaigning, and party membership (Berelson et al., 1954). Contacts between citizens and
government officials were added to this repertoire and by the early 1960s political
participation was broadly understood as voting and other citizen activities in the context
of statutory political institutions (Campbell et al., 1960). Due to the growing relevance of
community politics, the repertoire of political participation gradually included direct
contacts between citizens, public officials, and politicians, as well as “communal
activities” relaxing the initial strong focus on election-related activities (Verba & Nie, 1972;
Verba et al., 1978). These activities became known as conventional or institutionalized
modes of participation.
Rapid social and political developments in the late 1960s and early 1970s encompassed
remarkable proliferations of citizens’ involvement, making clear that political
participation is not restricted to broadly accepted actions or institutionalized activities.
Dissent, disapproval, rejection, and provocation are evidently expressions of citizens’
interests and opinions and therefore should be included in the repertoire of democratic
political participation (Barnes et al., 1979). These newer forms of participation also
included many protest actions organized by upcoming “New Social Movements” initiated
by pacifist, ecological, squatters’ and women’s groups. Because these activities were not
in line with social norms of the early 1970s they were labelled unconventional modes of
participation, but also terms such as elite-challenging modes of participation (Inglehart,
1990), contentious politics (Tilly & Tarrow, 2006), or simply protest are widely used to
underline the fact that these activities present specific claims and usually reject existing
social and political arrangements.
After the risks of continuously growing government expenditures become visible in the
1980s, citizens’ civil engagement was strengthened as an attractive alternative for state
intervention. The disappearing borderline between political and nonpolitical spheres and
Page 4 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

the revival of Tocquevillean and communitarian approaches stimulated the next

expansion of the repertoire of political participation with civil activities, volunteering, and
social engagement in all kinds of voluntary associations. Especially the use of these
activities at the community level had been recognized as a mode of participation earlier
(Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba et al., 1978). Tocquevillean and communitarian argumentations,
however, emphasize that the quality of democracy is directly related to the existence of a
vibrant civil society (Putnam, 1993). Yet the question whether civil activities, volunteering,
and social engagement are specimens of political participation still is disputed, and the
idea obviously challenges the use of simple definitions of the concept. The disappearing
borderline between political and nonpolitical societal spheres also stimulated forms of
participation, that explicitly deny the need for organizations or organized actions.
Instead, a strong emphasis lies on the expression of moral and ethical standpoints in
actions that can be practiced by individual citizens alone. Important examples of such
modes of creative participation or individualized collective action are boycotts and
buycotts: citizens using their consumer power to achieve political goals (Micheletti, 2003;
Stolle & Micheletti, 2013).
The spread of Internet-based technologies facilitate these individualized actions by

offering opportunities to express ideas, demands, and frustrations that are instantly
accessible to everyone at practically no costs. Furthermore, these technologies make
typical political associations even more superfluous. Using the Internet as a mode of
participation in itself—and not just a modern way to mobilize participants—is covered by
the label connective action (Bennett & Segerberg, 2013).
The continuous expansion of the repertoire of political participation is matched by a

similar expansion in empirical research. Survey-based studies, however, cannot simply
expand the list of questionnaire items because only relatively small parts of the
populations are involved in most forms of participation. And standardized techniques do
not cover newly arising forms in their early stages. Analyses of media coverage of
political events appear more adequate for detecting the rise and spread of new forms of
participation and usually report long lists of protests, riots, stunts, street actions, and the
like (see Ortiz et al., 2013). Interviewing activists also offers opportunities for tracing new
forms of political behavior and is widely used in research on party members (see van
Haute & Gauja, 2015) and on social movements (see Klandermans et al., 2014). The
enormous amount of data on the Internet is still rather difficult to explore empirically due
to restrictive policies of providers and the conceptual complications of distinguishing
between communication, mobilization, and participation (see Cantijoch et al., 2014).
Thus, the recent expansions of the repertoire of political participation in democratic

societies seem to be based on a shift in the nature of involvement. Older modes of
political participation are specific activities devised and used to influence political
processes: casting a vote, joining a demonstration, or supporting a candidate are all
examples of such activities. As such, refusals to buy a specific brand of coffee,
volunteering in a hospital, being a member of a sports club, or posting a blog on whales
are not specimens of political participation, but nonpolitical activities that can be used for
Page 5 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

political purposes. These activities need not require some organization or coordinated
action. Surely, to be effective a large number of people should behave in a similar way,
but they can all act individually, separately, and with distinct aims and motivations.
Furthermore, the Internet reduces organizational costs of participation to practically nil,
which enables all kind of concerns and aims to be mobilized that would not have been
articulated before. As a consequence of this “profusion of self-actualizing, digitally
mediated DIY politics” (Bennett, 2012, p. 12), almost everybody can choose to be politically
active about anything at any moment in time. In this way, the recent expansions of the
repertoire of political participation differ clearly from previous enlargements. By now
almost every conceivable nonprivate activity can be understood as a form of political
participation when a political context is evident or political goals are manifest. If—in
specific circumstances—the purchase of coffee or volunteering in a hospital can be just as
well specimen of political participation as going to the polls or signing a petition against
government policies, how, then, do we recognize a form of participation if we see one?
Expanding the Concept of Participation2

Political participation has been defined in many ways (Brady, 1998; Conge, 1988; Fox, 2013;
van Deth, 2001) ranging from rather restrictive understandings as “those activities by
private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at influencing the selection of
governmental personnel and/or the actions they take” (Verba & Nie, 1972, p. 2) to very
broad approaches referring to political participation as “a categorical term for citizen
power” (Arnstein, 1969, p. 216) or to all activities aiming to influence existing power
structures. As these examples show, increasing the level of abstraction allow us to cover
new forms of participation easily—at the price of losing analytical rigor and empirical
precision. Neither the search for common aspects among available (nominal) definitions
of political participations, nor the enumeration of various forms of participations seems to
result in an encompassing conceptualization of political participation. A more pragmatic
approach is needed based on the identification of indispensable requirements for some
phenomenon to be recognized as a specimen of political participation. In other words, the
initial question “what is political participation” is converted into a practical task: how to
recognize a mode of participation when you see one?
A fresh approach can be based on the development of an operational definition of political

participation specifying the exact properties that are required to determine its existence.
In his seminal work on taxonomies and classifications, Hempel (1965) pointed out to two
general requirements for operational definitions. First, an operational definition should
provide “objective criteria by means of which any scientific investigator can decide, for
any particular case, whether the term does or does not apply” (Hempel, 1965, p. 141). By
pointing to, for instance, voluntariness or government directedness in definitions of
political participation, such criteria are already widely used in exactly this way. What is
needed is a systematically developed set of decision rules to answer the question whether
Page 6 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

we depict a specific phenomenon as political participation. Second, Hempel not only

stated that these decision rules have to be unambiguous, he stressed that they have to be
efficient by placing them in a hierarchical order. In a hierarchically ordered classification
each subgroup is “defined by the specification of necessary and sufficient conditions of
membership” (Hempel, 1965, p. 138). Following this recommendation for political
participation we need to develop a minimalist definition of the concept before more
complex variants are considered.3 The advantage of this smallest set of decision rules is
that we can deal with unproblematic cases easily: because no sophisticated arguments
are required to recognize voting or contacting a politician as specimen of political
participation we should focus on properties which might bring community work,
boycotting products, or blogging under the same label.
Suppose we have some phenomenon for which we want to know whether the term
political participation does or does not apply. This question can be answered for any
phenomenon by going through various steps, each representing a decision rule in a
hierarchical scheme. If a certain property is available we move on to the next property—if
a property is not found, the phenomenon under consideration is not a specimen of
political participation. Figure 1 presents an overview of the decision rules proposed,
which each can be answered by confirming or rejecting the availability of a property with
“yes” or “no,” respectively. The eight rules to define political participation can be briefly
summarized in the following way:
Rule 1: Is it an activity
or action?
Nominal definitions of
participation all start
with references to
behavioral aspects;
participation requires
an activity or action.
Being interested in
Click to view larger politics or watching
Figure 1. A Conceptual Map of Political Participation newscasts is not
sufficient.
Yet stressing the behavioral nature of any phenomenon eventually to be labelled as a

specimen of political participation does not avoid all ambiguities. Specific abstentions of
activities—for instance boycotting certain products, staying away from the ballot box,
refusing to donate money—are, strictly speaking, not instances of activities or actions.
Nonetheless, many people “regard their own decision not to participate in formal politics
as itself a highly political act” (Hay, 2007, p. 26). Only in case abstentions are used in
similar ways as activities should these “activities” also be treated as a satisfactory
Page 7 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

fulfillment of this first rule’s requirement. That is, only refusing to buy truly obtainable
products, staying at home on an actual election day, or refusing to pay charges are
accepted as specimens of relevant “activities” here.
Rule 2: Is the activity voluntary?
In a democracy political participation should not be a consequence of force,

pressure, or threats, but be optional and based on free will.
Because examining a person’s free will is highly problematic in empirical research, a

negative formulation emphasizing the absence of observable coercion—including
unreasonable high costs—seems to be more practical. Examples of such coercions are,
first of all, legal obligations or mandatory tasks, but also economic or social extortions.
However, paying taxes, sitting in a traffic jam, or appearing in court are all examples of
involuntary acts with (potentially) political consequences that should be excluded from
the concept of political participation. However, this rule does not exclude “compulsory
voting” from the concept of political participation. Contrary to what the term suggests,
actually casting a vote cannot be mandatory in any system guaranteeing secret elections
(a main feature of democracy). In some countries citizens are obliged to report to the
polling station on election day, but no democracy enforces actual voting.
Rule 3: Is the activity conducted by nonprofessionals?
Most definitions explicitly refer to citizens in order to differentiate the relevant

behavior from the activities of politicians, civil servants, office-bearers, public
officers, journalists, and professional delegates, advisors, appointees, lobbyists,
and the like.
Essential as the accomplishments of these functionaries and officials might be for the
political system, using the concept of political participation in those instances would
stretch the range of relevant behavior to cover conceptually and functionally very
different phenomena. The same applies to commercial activities. Therefore, the term
“citizen” is explicitly incorporated into many definitions of political participation to
underline the nonprofessional, nonpaid, amateur nature of activities (Stoker, 2006, ch. 9).
Some authors use the term “citizen participation” to avoid any misunderstanding
(Callahan, 2007).
Rule 4: Is the activity located in the sphere of government/state/politics?
The adjective “political” is a crucial part of any conceptualization of political

participation.
Circular definitions are widely available and easy recognizable by the inclusion of terms
such as “politics,” “political system,” “public policy,” or “policy process” in the explicans.
Somewhat more informative are references to “government,” “government agencies,” or
“public representatives and officials.” Although “politics,” “government,” or “democracy”
are essentially contested concepts (Gallie, 1956), no conceptualization of political
Page 8 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

participation can avoid the question whether the activities considered are located in the
political sector of society; that is, the sector directed by government under the
jurisdiction of state power. Since we want to arrive at a minimalist definition of political
participation first, this rule should be based on the most straightforward condition
available. The institutional architecture of the political system (“polity”) seems to fulfill
this requirement.
These four decision rules already suffice to reach a minimalist definition of political
participation. By focusing on the locus (or arena) of participation—rather than on
outcomes, outputs, contexts, actors, intentions, etc.—as the defining characteristic, all
nonprofessional, voluntary activities located in the sphere of government/state/politics
are specimens of political participation (what I will label as Political Participation-I).
These modes of participation include activities such as casting a vote (both in elections
and referendums), submitting a petition, or supporting a party or candidate, but also
being active in forums such as “participatory budgeting.” Frequently used terms for
activities meeting the four requirements of the minimalist definition are the above-
mentioned “conventional,” “institutional,” or “elite-directing” modes of political
participation.
A minimal definition of participation obviously is not sufficient to cover citizens’ activities.

Although early overviews of political participation research simply excluded “the politics
of nongovernmental organizations” from the object of study (Milbrath, 1965, p. 1), in any
vibrant democracy new modes of political participation are introduced outside the regular
government/state/politics sphere continuously and explicitly challenge the status quo.
Hay points out forms of political participation, which “take place outside of the
governmental arena, yet respond to concerns that are formally recognized politically and
on which there may well be active legislative or diplomatic agendas” (Hay, 2007, p. 75). In
case the activity concerned is not located in the sphere of government/state/politics (rule
4) a further rule is required to cover those activities:
Rule 5: Is the activity targeted at the sphere of government/state/politics?
Activities that are not located in the government/state/politics arena can be

considered as modes of political participation if they are targeted at that sphere.
Many of these modes are used to attract public attention to issues that either have not
been perceived as problematic or have not been recognized as problems requiring
governmental/state involvement so far. Certainly in the initial stage of their application
these modes intend to challenge the conventional understanding of the scope and nature
of politics and the domain of government in a society. Labels such as “contentious
politics” (Tilly & Tarrow, 2006) or “elite-challenging politics” (Inglehart, 1990, pp. 338–340)
underline the conflicting nature of these activities. Although the actions usually aim at
expanding the understanding of politics and government, they are also used to limit state
Page 9 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

intervention (for instance when workers blockade streets to stop the deregulation of labor
conditions).
If the objectives of the activities indeed include politics or the addressees are located in
government or the state, then this is a second main type of political participation
(Political Participation-II). The decisive point is that this feature refers to the targets of
the activities considered and not to the aims or intentions of activists. Targeted political
activities are covered by, for example, the Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive
definition of “peaceful demonstrations” as “any peaceful gathering of more than 100
people for the primary purpose of displaying or voicing their opposition to government
policies or authorities” (Banks, 2009, as cited by Teorell, 2010, p. 168). This definition
shows clearly how the targets of the activities can be depicted without relying on the
goals or intentions of the people involved.
Government and state agencies are not the only targets of political activities, and
scholars of participation have stressed the relevance of communal activities and
voluntary associations frequently (Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba et al., 1978; Verba et al., 1995).
Contemporary discussions about political participation and civic engagement indicate
that participation seems to be increasingly focused “on problem solving and helping
others” (Zukin et al., 2006, p. 7). This conceptualization is too broad to produce a useful
definition of political participation. Yet problem solving or helping others certainly can be
accepted as modes of political participation if clearly private or nonpublic activities are
excluded. To attain the adjective “political” for problem-solving and helping others, these
activities should be aimed at shared problems, which usually, but not necessarily, mean
that community problems are at the center. Hay brings this conceptualization to the
point: “… actions might be deemed political only in so far as they either arise out of
situations of collective choice or are likely to have collective consequences, at whatever
point these consequences arise” (2007, p. 70). This solution seems more pragmatic than
opening the debate on the essentially contested nature (Gallie, 1956) of concepts such as
“politics,” “government,” or “democracy” once again. To deny the adjective “political” to
attempts to solve collective or community problems would imply a restriction to
government- and state-centered definitions of political participation, and—what is much
more problematic—to an exclusion of activities by people who explicitly reject some
borderline between “politics” and “society.” For that reason, these activities are
distinguished from other modes of participation, but not eliminated from the broader
conceptualization of political participation:
Rule 6: Is the activity aimed at solving collective or community problems?
Nonprofessional, voluntary activities that are not located in or targeted at the

sphere of government/state/politics can be considered as modes of political
participation if they are aimed at solving collective or community problems.
Page 10 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

Notice that it is the character of the problem dealt with that has to be collective or
shared, not the organizational aspects of the activities undertaken. Especially newer
forms of participation are labelled as “individualized collective action” to underline this
distinction (Micheletti, 2003, p. 28; van Deth, 2010).
If this last condition is met, a second variant of a targeted definition of political

participation is arrived at, now aimed at solving collective or community problems
(Political Participation-III). Examples of activities belonging to this category are
citizens’ initiatives or neighborhood committees. As with the government/politics/state-
targeted definition, no references to aims or intentions of participants have to be
considered for this second variant. Especially authors working in the field of civil society
and social capital favor the depiction of activities aimed at solving collective or
community problems as modes of political participation. Macedo and his collaborators
define “civic engagement” as “any activity, individual or collective, devoted to influencing
the collective life of the polity” (Macedo et al., 2005, p. 6; emphasis original)—a rather
broad definition that perfectly matches the two types of targeted definitions of political
participation (Political Participation-I and -II).
The expansion of the minimum definition with targeted definitions, however, still does not
exhaust all citizens’ activities in a democracy. In case any one of the last three conditions
(rules 4, 5, and 6) is not met we are apparently dealing with some voluntary,
nonprofessional activity that is neither located in nor targeted at government/state/
politics or at solving common problems. Such nonpolitical activities still can be used for
political purposes and so become specimens of political participation. Especially newer,
“creative,” “expressive,” “personalized,” and “individualized” modes of participation seem
to fit this category. An important aspect of these newer modes of political participation is
that they typically “… refer not to ‘politics’ as a noun, but to the ‘political’ as an adjective,
describing the motivations of actors wherever such motivations might be displayed” (Hay,
2007, p. 63). The depiction of political participation as “responsibility taking” underlines
the ethical and moral connotations attached to these new forms (Stolle & Micheletti, 2013,
pp. 34–35).
An initial way to find out whether an apparently nonpolitical activity is used for political
purposes is to consider the specific context of the activity:4 camping or staging a play are,
as such, not political activities, but they can easily become so if they are done at the gates
of Downing Street or in front of the European Central Bank (Theocharis, 2015). In a similar
way, a picture on the Web of people showing their backs might be a student gag, but it
can be recognized as a form of political participation when the accompanying hashtag is
not #partydance but #nonazis. Before we reach the border of our conceptual map, then,
the circumstances of the activities have to be considered:
Rule 7: Is the activity placed in a political context?
Page 11 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

A voluntary, nonprofessional activity that does not meet any of the rules 4, 5, or 6
is a nonpolitical activity that can be recognized as a form of political participation
if it takes place in a political context (Political Participation-IV).
Circumstantial evidence of this kind is derived from the surrounding, environment,

background, or setting of these nonpolitical activities—not from the aims or intentions of
the participants, although these participants might underline the political nature of their
activities by contributing to the context of their actions.
A second way to trace political purposes of nonpolitical activities is to rely on explicit

expressions of the person involved: buying a brand of coffee is, as such, not a political
activity. However, this can easily become a political activity if the shopper explicitly
expresses his intention that this purchase should be understood as an utterance against
import regulations. Many definitions of political participation include explicit references
to goals or intentions and embrace references to activities that “intend” or are “aimed at”
influencing government policies or the selection of its personnel. Undoubtedly, political
participation is usually initiated and guided by the wish to have some impact on existing
arrangements (cf. Milbrath, 1965; Schlozman et al., 2012). The question, therefore, is not
whether teleological aspects can or should be included in conceptualizations of political
participation after we have dealt with minimalist, targeted, and contextual definitions—
the question is how to include such aspects in our understanding of political participation
consistently. After applying the first seven rules no general answer to this questions is
required. The introduction of subjective aspects is only required when we reach
nonpolitical activities at the endpoint of our set of decision-making rules:
Rule 8: Is the activity used to express political aims and intentions?
Any activity that fulfills the first three rules—activity, voluntariness,

nonprofessionally—but is not located in the political arena, is not aimed at either
political actors or collective problems, and is not placed in a political context can
be depicted as a form of political participation if the activity is used to express
political aims and intentions by the participants.
For example, Micheletti stresses that “political consumerism is politics when people
knowingly target market actors to express their opinions on justice, fairness, or
noneconomic issues that concern personal and family well-being” (2003, p. 14).
Depending on the aims and intentions of the participants, applying rule 8 results in a
second variant of a circumstantial definition of political participation based on expressed
intentions (Political Participation-V). This type covers all voluntary, nonpolitical
activities by citizens used to express their political aims and intentions, but which do not
fit into one of the previous four types of participation. With these activities we have
obviously reached the final borderline of a conceptual map of political participation.
Notice, however, that intentions or aims of participants are only considered at the very
last stage: only if none of the other potential features of participation is available are
explicit expressions considered. Obviously, these intentions and aims are usually highly
Page 12 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

interesting aspects of political phenomena, but we do not need them to depict most forms
of political participation. Ockham’s razor should be used whenever possible. By
organizing the crucial criteria hierarchically (see the order of the five gray decision
lozenges in Figure 1), concluding whether a feature is available becomes increasingly
complicated. Positively formulated this means that phenomena such as casting a vote,
contacting a politician, or organizing a budget forum can be identified as forms of
political participation straightforwardly. Only after these uncomplicated forms are dealt
with are more difficult criteria considered.
Principally, there is no reason to restrict the application of rule 8 to activities that could
not be categorized under the minimalist, targeted, or contextual definitions. Although the
intentions and aims of the people involved are not necessary for defining the first four
types of participation, that does not exclude teleological aspects for further refinements
of these concepts. Following the distinctions proposed by Hay (2007, pp. 74–75) each type
of political participation can be divided into “political” or “nonpolitical” activities
depending on whether the activists are primarily motivated by political or by nonpolitical
aims or intentions, respectively. For example, people can attend a demonstration as an
opportunity to find a partner for the rest of the weekend or they can cast a vote to help
some acquaintance get elected. Downs famously excluded casting a vote for party B
instead of the preferred party A from his concept of “rational behavior” if for some voter
“preventing his wife’s tantrums is more important to him than having A win instead of
B” (1957, p. 7). By using this argument, for instance, for modes of participation covered
by the minimalist definition, we arrive at the two variants of voting by the Downsian
citizen: a politically motivated form for those who base their vote for Party A on their
political preferences, and a nonpolitical form for those who prefer Party A, but vote for B
to avoid further conflicts at home. Although these last forms of nonpolitical participation
provide an interesting case for the study of participation and democracy (van Deth, 2014,
pp. 359–360), they do not establish a distinct variant of political participation and are
therefore not included in Figure 1.
Conclusions
What is political participation? Due to the rapid expansion of political activities over the
last few decades and the spread of expressive modes this question has become
increasingly difficult to answer and has resulted in many disputes in this area. Are civic
engagement or political consumerism types of political participation? Are intentions
required to define political participation? What is gained by distinguishing between
“politics” and “the political”? Is online “clictivism” participation? Et cetera. Basically
these debates concern terminological matters confused by an apparently strong faith in
nominal definitions. Instead of starting another round of these discussions, this chapter
developed a set of decision rules that offer, as Hempel suggested, “objective criteria” for
deciding whether the term political participation applies to some phenomenon. In this
Page 13 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

way, the question “what is political participation” is converted into the more pragmatic
question: how would you recognize a form of political participation when you saw one?
Answering this last question allows for the methodical identification of any phenomenon
as a specimen of political participation and for a systematic distinction between various
types of participation.
The advantages of using an operational definition, however, come with a price: instead of
obtaining a single, overarching definition of political participation we end up with a set of
different variants. Because the continuous expansion of the repertoire of political
participation and especially the rise of expressive forms implies the use of nonpolitical
activities in political circumstances, these newer forms of participation could be covered
by a single definition only if such a conceptualization, quite literally, covered everything
(van Deth, 2001). Yet social, societal, and political developments in democratic societies
have made the search for a single encompassing definition of political participation
obsolete. In order to secure analytical clarity and empirical feasibility, the conceptual
map developed here results in the depiction of a set of clear-cut modes of political
participation. Together, these broad variants and distinct modes cover the whole range of
forms of political participation systematically and efficiently: a minimalist definition is
developed first and four additional variants are based only on the availability of
indispensable additional features. More aspects can be taken into account—legality,
legitimacy, effectiveness, nonviolence, Internet use, etc.—but they are not necessary for
the conceptualization of political participation. Furthermore, the five variants offer a
comprehensive conceptualization of political participation without excluding future
innovations that are the hallmark of a vibrant democracy.
More than a century ago Max Weber (1949) discussed concept formation in a rapidly
changing world. Scientific progress, he argued, has it origin in the “constant tension”
between “the intellectual apparatus which the past has developed” and the “new
knowledge which we can and desire to wrest from reality” (Weber, 1949, p. 105, emphasis
original). The continuous expansion of the repertoire of political participation
undoubtedly has boosted the “tensions” between scholars relying on clear-cut definitions
of political participation but missing new developments in their analyses on the one hand,
and those who are primarily interested in new developments but lack a clear
conceptualization of their main object on the other. Weber considered such developments
as unavoidable and stressed that “concept-construction depends on the setting of the
problem” (1949, p. 105). In participation research this “setting” consists of the
(functioning of) democratic societies. The conceptualization of political participation,
then, should be continuously attuned to changes in democratic societies: if the repertoire
of political participation expands continuously, only a corresponding expansion of the
concept of political participation will allow us to satisfy the “desire to wrest” more
knowledge “from reality” about the way democracy functions.
References
Page 14 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute

of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Barnes, S. H., Kaase, M., et al. (1979). Political action: Mass participation in five Western
democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social

media, and changing patterns of participation. The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and
the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion
formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boarini, R., & Díaz, M. (2015). Cast a ballot or protest in the street: Did our grandfathers
do more of both? OECD Statistics Working Papers, 2015/02. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Brady, H. E. (1998). “Political participation.” In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S.

Wrightsman, (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 737–801). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Cain, B. E., Dalton, R. J., & Scarrow, S. E. (Eds.). (2003). Democracy transformed?
Expanding political opportunities in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal

of Public Administration, 30(11), 1179–1196.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter.
New York: John W. Wiley & Sons.
Cantijoch, M., Gibson, R., & Ward, S. (Eds.). (2014). Analyzing social media data and web
networks. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in
comparative research. World Politics, 49, 430–451.
Conge, P. J. (1988). The concept of political participation: Toward a definition.

Comparative Politics, 20(2), 241–249.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Fox, S. (2013). Is it time to update the definition of political participation?

Political participation in Britain: The decline and revival of civic culture.
Parliamentary Affairs, 67(2), 495–505.
Page 15 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian

Society, 56, 167–198.
Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy
of science. New York: Free Press.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Klandermans, B., van Stekelenburg, J., Damen, M.-L., van Troost, D., & van Leeuwen, A.
(2014). Mobilization without organization: The case of unaffiliated demonstrators.
European Sociological Review, 30(6), 702–716.
Macedo, S., et al. (2005). Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen
participation and what we can do about it. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism and

collective action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Milbrath, L. W. (1965). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in
politics. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Ortiz, I., Burke, S. L., Berrada, M., & Cortes, H. (2013). World protests 2006–2013. New
York: Initiative for Policy Dialogue and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: Unequal
political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Stoker, G. (2006). Why politics matter: Making democracy work. Houndmills, U.K.:
Palgrave.
Stolle, D., & Micheletti, M. (2013). Political consumerism: Global responsibility in action.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Theocharis, Y. (2015). “Is digitally networked participation a form of political

participation?” In T. Poguntke et al. (Eds.), Citizenship and democracy in an era of crisis
(pp. 189–205). Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
Teorell, J. (2010). Determinants of democratization: Explaining regime change in the

world, 1972–2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Page 16 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

Tilly, C. (1995). Popular contention in Great Britain 1758–1834. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2006). Contentious politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Deth, J. W. (2001). “Studying political participation: Towards a theory of

everything?”. Joint Sessions of Workshops of the European Consortium for Political
Research (Grenoble).
van Deth, J. W. (2010). Is creative participation good for democracy? In M. Micheletti& A.

S. McFarland (Eds.), Creative participation: Responsibility-taking in the political world
(pp. 146–170). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
van Deth, J. W. (2014). A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica,

49(3), 349–367.
van Haute, E., & Gauja, A. (Eds.). (2015). Party members and activists. London:
Routledge.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social
equality. New York: Harper & Row.
Verba, S., Nie, N. H., & Kim, J.-O. (1978). Participation and political equality: A seven-
nation comparison. New York: University of Chicago Press.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism
in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weber, M. (1949). “Objectivity” in social science and social policy. In E. A. Shils& H. A.

Finch (Eds.), Max Weber on the methodology of the social sciences (pp. 50–112). Glencoe,
IL: Free Press.
Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new
engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Notes:
(1.) A typical example of such ambivalent conclusions of empirical analyses is: “while
manifest, formal and extra-parliamentary political participation are declining …, it might
still be possible that this analysis is missing other important forms of political
participation” (Boarini & Díaz, 2015, p. 28). Unless these “other important forms” are
taken into account, nothing can be concluded about the quality of democracy.
(2.) This section contains a modified version of my “Conceptual Map of Political

Participation” published earlier (van Deth, 2014). I am very grateful to the many helpful
Page 17 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

comments provided by the participants of the PartiRep-Workshop on this proposal (see

http://www.partirep.eu/event/6th-partirep-day-workshop-%E2%80%9Cconceptualizing-
political-participation%E2%80%9D).
(3.) Definitions are “minimal” if they “deliberatively focus on the smallest possible
number of attributes that are still seen as producing a viable standard” (Collier &
Levitsky, 1997, p. 433).
(4.) I am indebted to Yannis Theocharis for drawing my attention to this variant of

political participation and for his suggestion to add an additional rule to the initial map
(see also Theocharis, 2015).
Jan W. van Deth
Department of Political Sociology, University of Mannheim
Page 18 of 18
date: 17 April 2018

Deth (2016) Political Participation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Deth (2016) Political Participation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

What is Political Participation?

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

Summary and Keywords

Vibrant democracies are characterized by a continuous expansion of the available forms

Participation and Democracy

date: 17 April 2018

date: 17 April 2018

date: 17 April 2018

date: 17 April 2018

the revival of Tocquevillean and communitarian approaches stimulated the next

The spread of Internet-based technologies facilitate these individualized actions by

The continuous expansion of the repertoire of political participation is matched by a

Thus, the recent expansions of the repertoire of political participation in democratic

date: 17 April 2018

Expanding the Concept of Participation2

A fresh approach can be based on the development of an operational definition of political

date: 17 April 2018

we depict a specific phenomenon as political participation. Second, Hempel not only

Yet stressing the behavioral nature of any phenomenon eventually to be labelled as a

date: 17 April 2018

Rule 2: Is the activity voluntary?

In a democracy political participation should not be a consequence of force,

Because examining a person’s free will is highly problematic in empirical research, a

Rule 3: Is the activity conducted by nonprofessionals?

Most definitions explicitly refer to citizens in order to differentiate the relevant

Rule 4: Is the activity located in the sphere of government/state/politics?

The adjective “political” is a crucial part of any conceptualization of political

date: 17 April 2018

A minimal definition of participation obviously is not sufficient to cover citizens’ activities.

Rule 5: Is the activity targeted at the sphere of government/state/politics?

Activities that are not located in the government/state/politics arena can be

date: 17 April 2018

Rule 6: Is the activity aimed at solving collective or community problems?

Nonprofessional, voluntary activities that are not located in or targeted at the

date: 17 April 2018

If this last condition is met, a second variant of a targeted definition of political

Rule 7: Is the activity placed in a political context?

date: 17 April 2018

Circumstantial evidence of this kind is derived from the surrounding, environment,

A second way to trace political purposes of nonpolitical activities is to rely on explicit

Rule 8: Is the activity used to express political aims and intentions?

Any activity that fulfills the first three rules—activity, voluntariness,

date: 17 April 2018

date: 17 April 2018

date: 17 April 2018

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute

Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social

Brady, H. E. (1998). “Political participation.” In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S.

Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal

Conge, P. J. (1988). The concept of political participation: Toward a definition.

Fox, S. (2013). Is it time to update the definition of political participation?

date: 17 April 2018

Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian

Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism and

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy.

Theocharis, Y. (2015). “Is digitally networked participation a form of political

Teorell, J. (2010). Determinants of democratization: Explaining regime change in the

date: 17 April 2018

van Deth, J. W. (2001). “Studying political participation: Towards a theory of

van Deth, J. W. (2010). Is creative participation good for democracy? In M. Micheletti& A.

van Deth, J. W. (2014). A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica,

Weber, M. (1949). “Objectivity” in social science and social policy. In E. A. Shils& H. A.