Political Participation
Political participation by citizens is an essential element in the function of a democracy. Verba, Schlozman, and Brady define political participation as an “activity that has the intent or effect of influencing government action—either directly by affecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those policies.”[1] This definition includes activities such as voting, campaigning, contacting a government official, and protests. Democracy is dependent upon these actions, which allow the opinions of citizens to be heard. Because of the importance of political participation in maintaining a democratic nation, political scientists are particularly interested in explaining why some people choose to participate and why others choose not to.
Differences in participation have been examined from multiple angles: economic status, education, gender, and race are variables often used to explain different levels of participation. Race, in particular blacks and whites, has been studied extensively in the field because of the noticeable differences and because of the sudden increase of African-American mobilization in the 1960s. Political participation among Hispanic-Americans has also gained notice in recent years. When studying the level of participation among whites, African-Americans, and Hispanic-Americans, the question of why such distinct differences in political participation levels exist among the races must be asked.[2]
Political Participation by Race
Whites
Whites, who since the beginning of American history have dominated American politics, have never faced structural or legal barriers that minorities have encountered. The lack of barriers to political participation is reflected in the overall percentages of whites who engage in political activities. In a 1989 survey in which 85% of the respondents are white, whites dominated most of the modes of political participation: 88% of all voters identify themselves to be white, over 90% of respondents who have donated campaign money or have contacted a government official are white, and about three-quarters of respondents who have given time to a campaign or who have participated in a protest are white.[3]
The seemingly overrepresentation of whites in political participation leads to a closer examination of minority participation to explain why certain races are underrepresented and what factors can motivate more minorities to engage in political activities. White participation is usually studied in conjunction with minority participation rates.
African-Americans
African-American political participation has been studied extensively by political scientists because of the increased levels of participation in the 1960s and because of the question of whether or not blacks are actually underrepresented. In the Verba et al. survey, 10% of respondents identified themselves as black; in considering participation levels, African-Americans appear to be only slightly underrepresented: 9% of all voters are African-American, approximately 6% of respondents who have donated money to campaigns or have contacted government officials are black, and over 15% of respondents who have given time to a campaign or engaged in a protest are African-American.[4]
Because of the disparities between income and education levels of blacks and whites, conventional wisdom has often determined that African-Americans are the underrepresented group. Basic texts on political participation agree that Americans who are wealthy or well educated are much more likely to participate in political activities than those who are low-income and not well educated[5]; thus, socioeconomic factors have been considered a reason why African-Americans are overall less politically active.
Despite the socioeconomic differences between blacks and whites, there have been disagreements as to whether or not African-American participation levels are actually low. There are five competing theories on black participation: null-effects model, cultural inhibition model, isolation model, compensatory model, and ethnic community model.[6] These models differ in their prediction of participation levels of African-Americans and why they choose to participate or not participate.
The null-effects model uses the disparities between the socioeconomic factors of blacks and whites to predict that if these social and economic factors were controlled, there would be equal levels of participation between blacks and whites. Demographics such as gender, education, religion, and income level would all be controlled factors. The cultural inhibition model predicts that even if socioeconomic factors were controlled, blacks would still have a lower level of political participation because blacks and whites have inherently different cultural attitudes. This model explains that African-Americans are less likely than whites to hold attitudes that promote participation; hence, African-Americans participate at a lower level than whites. The isolation model also predicts that regardless of socioeconomic status, blacks will have a lower participation level than whites; however, this is caused by racial discrimination and structural barriers, not attitudinal blocks, that decrease black participation.
Models that predict an increase in African-American participation if socioeconomic factors are controlled are the compensatory and ethnic community models. The compensatory model suggests that black participation is enhanced because African-Americans attempt to compensate psychologically for their minority status by participating more than actively. The ethnic community model, on the other hand, attributes the higher participation level of blacks to a group consciousness that motivates them to strive for social changes that would benefit their racial group. Political scientists have tested and modified these models of African-American participation, particularly the ethnic community model.
The civil rights movement, which caused a proliferation of African-American organizations and social and political participation, surprised many of those in the field of political science and sociology because of the commonly held associations of low social status and low participation with blacks. Much of the research explaining the rise in African-American participation began in the 1960s. Anthony Orum (1966) suggested in his comparison of National Opinion Research Center (NORC) survey data of communities of low-income blacks in inner-city Detroit and low-income whites in inner-city Chicago that the relationship between social class and organizational participation is not as strong for blacks.[7] Lower-income blacks are far more likely than their white counterparts to belong to organizations, particularly those with political and religious affiliations. Not only are low-income blacks more likely to join associations, but they are also more likely than low-income whites to participate actively. Orum accounted for a higher level of participation in low-income blacks because of the compensation theory: voluntary associations are used as a substitute for family ties and structure. This study and others that examined the higher rate of participation for blacks controlling for socioeconomic factors such as Olsen (1970) provided a springboard for Verba and Nie’s Participation in America (1972), one of the more important findings related to black participation.[8] Controlling for socioeconomic status (SES), which include the factors of education, income and occupation, blacks participate more than whites. Verba and Nie, however, attributed the racial gap to group consciousness:
If blacks participate more than one would expect of a group with similar socioeconomic status (SES), the explanation may lie in the fact that they have, over time, developed an awareness of their own status as a deprived group, and this self-consciousness has led them to be more politically active than members of the society who have similar socioeconomic levels but do not share the group identity.[9]
In other words, Verba and Nie were suggesting the ethnic community model. Guterbock and London (1983) decided to test all the models of black participation in an attempt to reconcile disagreements in the field. Using the data collected by Verba and Nie, they created a typology based on political efficacy and trust to describe each model (e.g., low trust and low efficacy equates to the cultural inhibition model; low efficacy and high trust equates to the compensation model; low trust and high efficacy is equivalent to the ethnic community model; and high trust and high efficacy equates to normal participation).[10] Applying the survey results of political trust and efficacy to political participation and controlling for SES, Guterbock and London concluded that the ethnic community model received the most support from the data. The compensatory model received no evidence; naturally, there was no support for either the isolation or cultural inhibition model because blacks were no longer underrepresented when considering SES.[11]
More recent studies of African-American participation include Bobo and Gilliam (1990), who criticized the methodological and sociological basis of previous research. The studies by Orum, Verba and Nie, and Guterbock and London are all based on data from the 1960s, a period when African-Americans were actively struggling to be included in American politics and social life. Bobo and Gilliam examined the 1987 General Social Survey results and concluded that in areas where blacks held the position of power (i.e., the mayor’s seat), blacks tended to be more politically active than their white counterparts of equal socioeconomic status.[12] They suggest that all of the old models of black participation are out-of-date and that the field should focus on the effects of black empowerment, or the African-American presence in public offices. Black empowerment, Bobo and Gilliam argued, has a social psychological effect of African-Americans’ sense of political trust, efficacy, and knowledge, which in turn increase their likelihood to participate.[13]
Another area of interest in the study of African-American political participation is the black church. Black churches were a prominent institution in the civil rights movement and have been considered as an integral social, religious, and political fixture in the black community. This idea has sparked research on how black churches and religion affect African-American political participation.
Church membership and involvement are integral in mobilizing African-Americans. Tate’s (1991) analysis of the black voter turnout in 1984 and 1988 presidential elections revealed that variables such as socioeconomic status cannot fully account for black turnout variations; instead, involvement in black churches elicited a stronger and more positive effect on political participation.[14] Tate (1993) showed the consistent positive effect of politically active black churches on African-American participation through organizational resources.[15] Harris (1994) examined the overall political mobilization effect of religion and applied the idea to black churches. Black churches provide both cognitive-emotional resources that give church-goers a greater incentive to participate (e.g., internal religiosity promotes a greater sense of efficacy through religious inspiration and promotes a greater interest in morally-charged political issues) and organizational resource that ease the mobilization process (e.g., politically active churches inform church-goers when to vote and decrease the cost of voting)[16], an idea he developed from Wald (1987).[17] Using the 1984 Black Election Study voter turnout results, Calhoun-Brown (1996) refined the idea of black churches increasing the level of African-American participation: church attendance itself among blacks was not an accurate predictor of political participation; however, involvement at a politically active church was a strong indicator of voting in the 1984 election.[18] One of the most recent studies on religion and African-American participation is Alex-Assensoh and Assensoh’s (2001) work on how inner-cities affect church-going and participation in the black community.[19] In examining the data from a telephone survey of poverty neighborhoods in Columbus, Ohio, they found that in an inner-city context the perception of social isolation was a negative effect on church attendance and political participation more so than the poverty rate was an effect. They concluded that the African-American church was an institution of political importance despite the negative influences in the inner-city.[20] All the research on black churches in recent years have underscored the institution as an essential part of mobilizing African-Americans, who because of their lower socioeconomic status are often expected to have lower levels of participation.
Hispanic-Americans
Another group with a traditionally lower socioeconomic status is Hispanic-Americans. As a minority group, Hispanics have not received much attention in the past but with the growing population of Hispanics in America, they are deserving of more attention. Between 1980 and 1990, the Latino population, which coalesces Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and other Hispanic groups, grew by 53% and had reached 22.4 million.[21]
Verba et al. (1995) measured the political participation of three racial groups: whites, blacks, and Latinos. Among the respondents, 6% considered themselves to be Hispanic or Latino. Their participatory levels are not reflective of their percentage in the sample: less than 3% of the voters and those who have donated campaign money or contacted government officials are Hispanic; approximately 4% of respondents who have given time to campaigns and engaged in protest activities identify themselves to be Latino.[22] Political participation among Hispanic-Americans is considered low; however, the American Hispanic population is largely an immigrant population and controlling for non-citizens may level the rate of participation. Moore (1985) cites a 1982 U.S. Bureau of Census report in which Hispanic voter participation not including non-citizens brings the Hispanic participation up to that of black participation.[23] Garcia and Arce (1988) reviewed data from the 1979 National Chicano Survey, which surveyed people of Mexican descent. They concluded that Chicano participation in 1979 was slightly up from the early 1970s but that the low rate of participation in 1979 can be attributed to the fact that about one-third of Mexican-Americans are not citizens.[24] Verba et al. (1995), using their own survey data, estimated that Latino-Americans engage in an average of 1.2 political activities (e.g., voting, campaigning, protesting). Holding citizenship constant, they found that the mean number of political acts went up only slightly to 1.4, which is still lower than 2.1 political acts, the population mean.[25]
Another explanation of the low turnout of Hispanic-Americans is that unlike the solidarity blacks feel in the ethnic community model, Hispanics are not capable of such strong group consciousness because the group Hispanic-American encompasses too many distinct groups. The term Hispanic-American is used to describe people with origins in Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Central and Latin America, the Caribbean, and many other Spanish-speaking areas in the Americas. Each subgroup is distinct and represents a different history from all the other subgroups, which is the result of the varying historical contexts in which each Hispanic subgroup was incorporated in the United States. For example, Puerto Ricans came to the United States as citizens who are eligible for welfare benefits and who settled initially in New York; Cubans, on the other hand, arrived as refugees in a wave in the 1960s and settled in Miami—the Puerto Ricans and Cubans have very different experiences assimilating in America.[26] The distinct historical contexts that separate each Hispanic subgroup prevent the larger Hispanic group from unifying like the African-Americans.