Supplement, Substitute or Stepping Stone? 11
Revised May 2003
Supplement, Substitute or Stepping Stone?:
Understanding the Electoral and Non-Electoral Participation
of Immigrants and Minorities
Erin Tolley
Metropolis Project
Presented in Workshop 4G
Sixth National Metropolis Conference
March 21-24, 2003
Edmonton, Alberta
Revised May 2003
Introduction[1]
Political participation is typically grouped into two broad categories: formal electoral participation, on the one hand, and informal, or non-electoral participation, on the other. Formal participation refers to activities undertaken in an electoral arena, including voting, running for office, and involvement in a political party. Informal participation refers to activities undertaken outside of the electoral realm, including involvement in a community organization or interest group, protesting, petitioning, and illegal strikes. While not universally accepted, and perhaps overly simplistic, this categorization does provide a framework for examining the multiple ways that individuals may participate. However, it has also resulted in electoral and non-electoral participation typically being examined independently. As a result, we know very little about the relationship, if any, between these types of participation, particularly with respect to immigrants and ethnic and racial minorities who have not been the primary subject of much of the literature on political participation.
The purpose of this paper is to add to this scant body of literature by proposing three possible relationships between electoral and non-electoral participation as a means of examining the participation of immigrants and ethnic and racial minorities. It begins with the premise that a model, even if incomplete or weak, can be used to great effect as a foundation for debate and analysis. Thus, this paper, and the relationships it proposes, is intended to provoke discussion and provide some avenues for thinking about the relationship between electoral and non-electoral participation.
The study of political participation has been heavily influenced by behaviouralism, [2] so the paper begins with a discussion of this approach, including an overview of its methods, and a discussion of its benefits and shortcomings. This is followed by a brief review of the literature on political participation to underscore the need for a better understanding of the relationship between electoral and non-electoral participation. A model for understanding the electoral and non-electoral participation of immigrants and minorities is then proposed. The paper concludes with a discussion of policy implications and suggestions for future research.
The Behavioural Approach
Behaviouralism, as the name implies, “is characterized by its concentration on the behaviour of political actors, and particularly on the formal and informal behaviour of individuals.”[3] In addition to its focus on individual behaviour, an emphasis on empirical data also distinguishes behaviouralism. As O’Neill and Everitt point out, behaviouralism is both a focus of inquiry (“what you study”) and a method of study (“how you study it”).[4] Subjects of inquiry falling under the behavioural umbrella include voting, social movements, political careers, representation, public opinion, values, and political culture. Its methods are both qualitative and quantitative and include surveys, content analysis, case studies, interviews, and observation. The behavioural approach focuses on individuals’ political actions and choices and on developing tools and models to explain these behaviours.
Behaviouralism, however, is not without its critics. The principle criticism is that with its emphasis on empirical findings and objective data, behavioural research can be used only to explain phenomenon (“what is”), but not to answer normative questions about (“what should be”). Critics have also argued that behavioural research, with its reliance on that which is quantifiable, tends toward the mundane and the trivial. Moreover, critics suggest that the “search for universal laws” can lead to over-simplification and generalization.
However, many of these criticisms were aimed at early behavioural research, which tended to be somewhat dogmatic in its empiricism and universalistic in its conclusions. More recent work has shown a recognition of the limits of behavioural research. For example, researchers have become more aware of the subjectivity of their findings and have shied away from universalistic claims. This shift, in tandem with a sense that general patterns and relationships must be adequately understood to appropriately tackle more normative questions has, to some extent, re-legitimized the study of political behaviour. Indeed, as Everitt and O’Neill note, looking at a large number of cases is necessary in order to discern broad patterns of participation and “make predictions beyond individual cases.”[5] In the case of political participation, an understanding of general patterns facilitates, for example, the identification of marginalization and under-representation, which is necessary in order to develop appropriate responses.
Putting Immigrants and Minorities Together and Then Setting Them Apart:
Useful Categorization or Harmful Differentiation?
In this paper, an “immigrant” is understood to be a person who has been granted the right by immigration authorities to live permanently in Canada.[6] “Ethnic minority” is used here to refer to “non-Native, non-British, non-French immigrants and their descendents.”[7] “Racial minority,” or “visible minority,” refers to individuals who are “non-white” in colour.[8] Much of the literature on minorities in Canada, and particularly the literature related to participation, focuses on ethnic and racial minorities, although this is changing. For example, September 11th drew attention to religious minorities, and Muslims in particular, and researchers are looking increasingly at the role of religiosity[9] and faith-based exclusion in their analyses.[10] However, data on the participation of religious minorities in electoral and non-electoral activities is still extremely limited. This is not surprising given that most research on participation has focused primarily on formal electoral participation, an arena from which religious minorities have largely been absent.[11]
This paper concentrates on immigrants and racial and ethnic minorities. The use of labels, such as “immigrant” or “minority,” implies that there is uniformity or homogeneity within these populations. This is certainly not the case. Not only do immigrants come to Canada from diverse nations, cultures and demographics,[12] but newcomers’ individual identities are themselves increasingly heterogeneous.[13] Labels, such as “immigrant” or “minority” are not employed to deny pluralism, but only to reduce cumbersome, qualified descriptions.
In addition, the grouping of immigrants with racial and ethnic minorities is not intended to imply that the experiences of individuals within these groups are identical. Research has revealed variations in the political behaviour of immigrants,[14] ethnic minorities,[15] and racial (or “visible”) minorities.[16] However, immigrants and minorities may also face a number of common challenges, including discrimination, language difficulties or limited access to political networks. Examining their experiences in tandem can reveal points of commonality.[17]
Similarly, separating immigrants and minorities from native-born “mainstream” Canadians is not intended to differentiate between the value of the participation of these groups. Although such differentiation and valuation were central to many early studies of ethnicity and politics, which were premised on the understanding that immigrants are less involved in politics than native-born Canadians, recent research has suggested that the participation of immigrants and native-born Canadians in mass politics (particularly voting) does not differ significantly.[18] While recognizing this, most analyses isolate the experiences of marginalized groups – immigrants, minorities, and women, for example – from the experiences of others as a means of identifying patterns and developing targeted responses.
A Possible Model: Supplement, Substitute or Stepping Stone
Based on the findings of existing research on participation, particularly among marginalized groups including women, youth and, to a lesser extent, immigrants and ethnic and racial minorities, this paper begins with the premise that there is some relationship between electoral and non-electoral participation, [19] and it proposes three possible relationships. Critics may point out that it is too simplistic to slot the behaviour of diverse individuals into a model, which cannot possibly capture the complexity of political behaviour. However, the proposing of models permits us to test relationships, discard false assumptions and discern trends. Where a body of research is just beginning to emerge, as is the case here, models are an important exploratory tool and a device for encouraging discussion, reflection, and analysis.
Supplement
Non-electoral activities may also supplement, or complement, electoral activities in that those who participate do so in both the electoral and non-electoral arenas. For example, in their research following the 2000 federal election, Blais et al. noted that youth who participate in formal processes, such as voting, appear also to be likely to participate in informal processes, such as interest group involvement or protesting.[20] Research on ethnic minorities has also hinted at some form of supplementation. For example, in her study of the relationship between ethnic community leaders and voter mobilization in Montreal, Lapp found that “ethnic communities are places where civic duty and political engagement are taught and reinforced. In short, they appear to be important agents of political socialization.”[21] Further, in a forthcoming report by the Political Participation Research Network, Neyda Long, in her report on Halifax, notes that many elected officials were involved in community activities prior to holding elected office and continue with these activities even after being elected.[22]
Substitute
Conversely, non-electoral participation may be used as a substitute for electoral participation. Verba and Nie note that political behaviour is based on a calculus of the most effective means for influencing outcomes.[23] If electoral avenues are seen as ineffective, individuals may consciously choose non-electoral action.[24] Newman and Tanguay posit that the number of organized interest groups has grown, in part, because of “the increasing ineffectiveness of mainstream political parties, along with the growing hostility among voters towards politicians.”[25] Blais et al. suggest, however, that the substitution of non-electoral action for electoral action will likely be localized among the educated because higher levels of education make individuals “more capable of autonomous political action.”[26] Autonomy renders reliance on political parties and formal avenues of participation as mediators of involvement to be less necessary.
Non-electoral avenues may also be used by marginalized groups because their numerical under-representation in elected bodies means these are the only avenues available. Bauböck, for example, points to the reliance on Muslim community leaders to denounce the September 11th terrorist attacks and highlight the distinction between Muslims in Canada and the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks. This was likely, in part, because very few Muslims hold seats in elected governments. Although this is an example of how non-electoral action can serve as a substitute for electoral action, Bauböck notes that formal participation is an “essential precondition” for ensuring that democratic values are shared and defended, particularly in pluralistic societies.[27]
Stepping Stone
The stepping stone thesis proposes that individuals use community involvement and school board and municipal government experience as avenues for entering electoral politics at “higher” levels of government. In effect, involvement in “lower” levels of government, or through less formal modes of participation, is used as a training ground for participation in formal, electoral politics or at higher levels of government. This thesis is stated most prevalently in the research on women in politics,[28] but findings have been mixed, with some studies confirming the thesis and others refuting it.[29] In their interviews with ethnic minority politicians, however, Sayers and Jetha found evidence of a stepping stone relationship.[30] It is plausible that the social capital and networks generated within ethnic, racial and immigrant communities are stronger than the social capital and networks created in the “women’s community,” which is arguably less tangible and tight-knit. It is worth investigating whether the networks and social capital of immigrant and minority communities can be, or are, used to propel one of “their own” into electoral politics.
Policy Implications and Future Research
Understanding the relationship between electoral and non-electoral participation will assist in developing appropriate policy responses and directing future research. This section outlines some of the policy implications and future research that could stem from the proposed model.
The bulk of research on political participation focuses on formal participation, which creates the perception that power and influence can be derived only through electoral avenues. The toolkit for increasing the political influence of immigrants and minorities is likely much larger than this literature suggests, and examining the relationship between electoral and non-electoral participation will facilitate the selection of appropriate policy levers to strengthen the quality and quantity of political participation in Canada.[31] This will permit the development of responses, including initiatives to capitalize on existing patterns of participation.
For example, if non-electoral activities are a stepping stone and serve as a “training ground” for participation in formal electoral processes, policy responses should focus on capacity-building within community organizations or on developing means for transferring non-electoral experience to electoral participation. A video has been developed by “Femmes, Politique et Démocratie” and includes advice from politically successful women for those who are interested in entering the electoral arena.[32] A similar initiative, aimed at potential candidates from other minority groups, could be developed using a video, web-based, or workshop format.
If electoral and non-electoral activities supplement one another and participators participate no matter what the arena, policy-makers should focus on initiatives to encourage these relationships. Consultation processes that bring together community activists and elected officials, or programs that encourage those who are active at the community level to participate in the electoral arena, might promote such linkages. For example, the Ontario Federation of Labour compiled an on-the-job canvass kit aimed at mobilizing women to speak with other women about important issues in the upcoming provincial election and securing their commitment to get involved and to vote. The kit recommends that women capitalize on non-electoral networks, including unions and community associations, to increase women’s presence and participation in the electoral process.[33]
If immigrants and minorities substitute non-electoral activities for electoral involvement, initiatives will be needed to address the decline in participatory opportunities and social capital that results from such substitution. Research would also be needed determine the reasons for the substitution and ensure appropriate responses. For example, is substitution a conscious choice? If so, is it producing satisfactory outcomes? If not, why has such substitution occurred?