It may seem to be beyond argument that political participation is a key objective of democratic institutions, yet there is room for legitimate disagreement about the extent to which the health of a pluralist policy can be judged by the extent to which citizens actually take part in activities such as voting, attending political meetings, joining political parties and making
donations to them, discussing politics with their neighbours, and so forth.
Ensuring Opportunities for Political Participation
Citizens should, at the very least, not be prevented from participating in politics if they wish to do so.
There should be no artificial barriers denying voting rights to any group of citizens; hence the moral objections to the former South African system of apartheid, which limited the civil rights of non-whites. Citizenship should
not unreasonably be denied to members of unfavoured ethnic groups. The restrictions on citizenship for ethnic Russians in some of the newly independent Baltic countries are a controversial example of such denial. Another possible example is the barrier against the naturalization of foreign 'guest workers' of long standing in Germany.
Apart from civil rights, citizens should not be denied the chance to join political parties. A landmark case before the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Democratic Party organizations in the (then) racially segregated Southern states of the U.S.A. were not entitled to prevent blacks from participating in the primary elections run by these party organizations.
Encouraging Compulsory Political Participation
According to one approach, it is so desirable and important for ordinary citizens to take an active part in political life that the state should encourage, and even oblige them to do so.
For example, some countries consider that it is vital to ensure that a high proportion of eligible voters cast their ballots. Accordingly, they make voting compulsory (as in Australia). An alternative device to encourage a high turnout is the rule (as in Finland) that permits voters to cast their ballots before polling day at any post office. This means that voters who are planning to be away from their homes on the official polling day (perhaps travelling abroad on business or on vacation) are able to vote without inconvenience.
In a number of countries (Cambodia and Namibia, for example), there is a tendered vote system. This allows voters who are away from their place of registration on election day to cast their vote at any polling station in another town or region.
Other 'active measures' to encourage participation include publicly-sponsored advertising campaigns to promote electoral registration, tax relief and matching grants for donations to political parties, state aid to political parties for 'political education' activities, etc. See also Tax Concessions and Matching Grants.
Limiting the Importance of Political Participation
It may be argued that, provided the system of laws and regulations permits citizens to participate in politics, they should not be encouraged or obliged to do so. Two separate lines of argument support this conclusion.
First, the objective of political participation needs to be balanced against other equally important objectives, particularly that of avoiding fraud, see Guiding Principles. If voters are required to identify themselves by showing a passport or some other form of official identity document, this may deter some of them from coming out to vote. But if there is no such requirement, then it will be easier to impersonate another voter. The objectives of ease of access to the polling booth, and of avoiding electoral fraud, are mutually contradictory.
Second, it is open to question whether the democratic ideal consists of a copy of the Agora of ancient Athens, or the town meetings held in some parts of New England (the northeastern states of the United States). According to this model, ordinary citizens take an active part in debates about the day-to-day
affairs of government.
Not only is this form of direct democracy impractical in most modern circumstances, it may be argued that it is not necessarily desirable. If citizens wish to stay at home watching football on television rather than attending political meetings, what is wrong with that? According to one valid approach, a mature democracy is not necessarily one where there is frenetic political argument. The decision to abstain from voting, and from otherwise taking part in political activities, may reflect a voter's rational
judgement that his future is safe in the hands of whichever candidate emerges as winner. What is important is the voter's reserve power to oust a government at a future election, should it seem necessary to do this.
In some circumstances, abstention may represent a positive act of protest. One experienced observer of elections in Africa reports that in parts of the continent, where multi-party democracy is a new concept, voters sometimes express disapproval of the government of the day not by voting for an opposing political party, but by refraining from voting altogether.
To give a comparison that illustrates this point, the low electoral turnout in the United States is, according to one interpretation, not proof of the poverty of politics but of stability. By contrast, the active (some would say over-active) political debates in a country such as Chile may be viewed as undesirable; they are possibly a sign of a fragile political culture and of the
fear of political violence.
Draft Only
