Political Science For Dummies. Marcus A. Stadelmann

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ in civic organizations such as charities and religious organizations or just volunteering and helping members of the community. The U.S. scored highest in this category, with Great Britain coming in second. In West Germany and Italy, civic competence was low, most people believing that it was the government’s obligation to help the needy. In Mexico, civic competence was high at the local level but almost nonexistent at the national level.

       Trust: This category refers to whether people trust the government to do what is right. While Americans and the British had a high level of trust in their government, West Germans and Italians did not. Mexicans, on the other hand, showed trust in the local government but not the national government.

      Based on results from these questions, Almond and Verba categorized cultures in the five countries they studied and came up with not just one civic culture but three political cultures they found in each country. Furthermore, each country had a mix of the three cultures. See more on this in the next section.

      Finding three political cultures

      The three cultures Almond and Verba found in each of the five countries are parochial political culture, subject political culture, and participant political culture.

      Parochial political culture

      In a parochial political culture, people don’t care very much about their national government. They don’t have a lot of information on it, have no attachment to it, and make no demands on it. In other words, people expect nothing from their national government and want it to leave them alone. They don’t like or dislike it and don’t participate in national politics.

      At the same time, the parochial population is very close to their local form of government. In Mexico, for example, the people were familiar with their small city government structures, knew their mayors, and participated in local elections. They felt close to the locality and supported it.

      Parochial cultures can still be found in remote parts of the U.S., such as rural West Virginia, and in tribal societies, such as Afghanistan and some African countries.

      Subject political culture

      In a subject political culture, citizens tend to have a high level of political information. They’re familiar with many important issues of the day and know how to participate in the political process. However, they feel powerless and believe that their opinions don’t matter. In other words, they lack political efficacy. Further, they don’t have an attachment to the political system and don’t express any positive emotions toward it. They just expect benefits from government. As long as the government delivers the goods, subjects tend be passive and accept the political system in place. However, as soon as government is unable to deliver the goods anymore, they can easily turn against it and demand a change of government or the political system itself.

Good examples of countries where the majority of the population are/were subjects are the Soviet Union or present-day China. Citizens in both countries are/were well informed and expected the political structure to deliver benefits to them.

      Participant political culture

      In a participant political culture, political scientists find the true democratic citizens. They understand how the political process works and they’re interested in the issues of the day. When they vote, they base their vote on knowledge of issues and candidate stances on issues. For this reason, they can hold their government accountable, and if they dislike what they see, they can replace it. Participants are further proud and supportive of their political system. They believe that they hold political power and can influence policy making. In other words, they believe that they have political efficacy. Finally, participants are active at all levels of politics; they don’t just vote but also volunteer for civic organizations. They’re not afraid to discuss politics at the dinner table and with friends. Participants are truly the backbone of a democracy.

      

Political efficacy refers to people feeling that they have some input in decision-making. In other words, they don’t feel powerless.

      Needing three political cultures to sustain democracy

      Instead of picking one of three political cultures discussed in the previous section, Almond and Verba claim that a country needs a mix of all three cultures to sustain democracy. A pure parochial society wouldn’t exist very long. Keep in mind that parochials feel no love or loyalty to a national government, instead focusing purely on the local level. If a whole nation consisted of people who don’t like the nation or the government in charge, it would collapse.

      At the same time, a nation full of subjects would result in the collapse of democracy, too. If every citizen was just a follower who would obediently abide by government rules, government could soon turn authoritarian. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, for example, consisted of pure subject cultures, with citizens blindly obeying government decisions.

      Now what about a pure participant society? Could you imagine if every American citizen was a pure political animal? What would happen to the system if more than 150 million people were active in politics and demanded benefits from government? According to Almond and Verba, this would result in a system overload. Government couldn’t deal with that many demands, and people in turn would take action against government if they didn’t get what they asked for.

For this reason, Almond and Verba advocate for a mix of the three cultures. Every democracy has to have all three cultures to survive in the long run. A democracy needs people who just don’t care about politics, have no knowledge of what’s going on, and don’t participate (parochials). At the same time, government often has to make controversial decisions for the good of the country, such as increasing taxes to pay off government debt or fund new programs. In this scenario, a democracy needs subjects who will complain bitterly about these decisions but won’t take any action against government.

      Finally, participants are needed to hold the government accountable. Whenever government makes a decision, it needs to know that its citizens will hold it accountable for these decisions. Almond and Verba refer to this as anticipated reaction. Government and its leaders make decisions based on how they believe people will react to their decisions. Often no reaction will come, but a rational leader believes that it will, and so policy is made, which is acceptable to most people.

      

In the last few decades, fewer and fewer people have been voting in democracies. This has concerned many, but the concept of anticipated reaction comes to the rescue. Anticipated reaction refers to political leaders assuming that the people will react to their policies and, if objecting, will organize into political parties or join interest groups and, most important, will participate in voting. Therefore, every rational politician will do his best to represent the people. It’s out of fear of people becoming upset and holding political elites accountable that politicians attempt to do their best to represent people. Recent examples of people organizing because they were upset with government decisions include the Tea Party movement as a reaction to Obamacare in the U.S. and the creation of new populist parties in Europe, such as the Alternative for Germany as a reaction to mass migration from the Middle East and Africa.

Working on Political Socialization

      Political Socialization is the process of how people acquire their СКАЧАТЬ