![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabbySo lately, I've noticed the contrast between people I choose to associate with and everyone else, or at least a random sampling of people who happen to be around. This isn't just a matter of all my friends being freaks—though that might very well be the case. It's also that, as wonderful as they are, the several thousand people I protested with in Ottawa aren't really a random sampling of the population. They were largely committed activist types, many of whom traveled from out of town because they either thought the protests were that important or because they thought it would actually be fun. Or both.
At any rate, it made me start puzzling over the concept of the "committed activist." While the "professional protester" slur is ludicrous, it is true that some people go to demonstrations regularly, and other people have never gone to a protest in their lives, even where an issue may directly affect them. Some people write a great deal of letters to the editor, or letters to their elected representatives, and most people don't. Voter turnout in Canada is relatively high but declining; in the U.S., just half of the population votes.
And worse? There are people who don't even follow politics. There are people who call themselves "apolitical" (or "moderate"), don't read the news, and find politics boring. If your response is: "Well, duh?" you probably know folks like this. They might vote, but I'm not sure I want them to.
Electoral participation is perhaps the least effective sort of political involvement, but it's the easiest indicator to quantify. These people quantified it. Among their findings:
This is what I'd expect. Certainly, there are "activists" in non-Western countries. There are people who devote their lives—often literally—to politics. But beyond that, you have a lot more people participating in street demonstrations. And, I suspect, a lot more people who are quite well-informed, even in countries where much of the population can't read.
Only in the West would one have the privilege to pretend that politics doesn't affect one's life, after all. Like so many other things, politics here is specialized, and political participation is concentrated; far fewer people are involved. The day-to-day grunt work that drives social change becomes the responsibility of a handful of mostly volunteers, who get burned out. The mass of people participate by marking an X on a piece of paper once every four years and seem befuddled by those who want more of a say.
Needless to say, this is not a terribly healthy situation. I'm interested to know your thoughts—and experiences with the apolitical—and what you think we can do to turn this ship around.
At any rate, it made me start puzzling over the concept of the "committed activist." While the "professional protester" slur is ludicrous, it is true that some people go to demonstrations regularly, and other people have never gone to a protest in their lives, even where an issue may directly affect them. Some people write a great deal of letters to the editor, or letters to their elected representatives, and most people don't. Voter turnout in Canada is relatively high but declining; in the U.S., just half of the population votes.
And worse? There are people who don't even follow politics. There are people who call themselves "apolitical" (or "moderate"), don't read the news, and find politics boring. If your response is: "Well, duh?" you probably know folks like this. They might vote, but I'm not sure I want them to.
Electoral participation is perhaps the least effective sort of political involvement, but it's the easiest indicator to quantify. These people quantified it. Among their findings:
High turnout is not solely the property of established democracies in the West. Of the top 10 countries in the 1990s only three were Western European democracies.
This is what I'd expect. Certainly, there are "activists" in non-Western countries. There are people who devote their lives—often literally—to politics. But beyond that, you have a lot more people participating in street demonstrations. And, I suspect, a lot more people who are quite well-informed, even in countries where much of the population can't read.
Only in the West would one have the privilege to pretend that politics doesn't affect one's life, after all. Like so many other things, politics here is specialized, and political participation is concentrated; far fewer people are involved. The day-to-day grunt work that drives social change becomes the responsibility of a handful of mostly volunteers, who get burned out. The mass of people participate by marking an X on a piece of paper once every four years and seem befuddled by those who want more of a say.
Needless to say, this is not a terribly healthy situation. I'm interested to know your thoughts—and experiences with the apolitical—and what you think we can do to turn this ship around.
