NAME: AKOMA NMESOMA CLASS: S.S.

2A SUBJECT: CIVIC EDUCATION

THE STUDY OF POLITICAL APATHY IS THE ANSWER TO POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND MORAL DECADENCE IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM Political apathy is the gap between the government and the citizens of a nation with regards to their attitude on what rules and criteria the nation is running. It can also be defined as the public and/or individual indifference towards political events and movements. The problem of apathetic political participation can be conceptualized as both a cause and an effect of many of the critiques of democratic politics. Democratic practice is commonly understood as an adversarial process characterized by competition, conflict, and power struggles among elected representatives. The form of representative democracy is often connected to a notion of citizen political participation that primarily includes voting in elections. In its present form, however, representative democracy often leads to decisions for the many being made by a few that inadvertently !or not" under#represent minority !race, class, gender, etc." interests. $thers, however, attribute lac% of participation in political life to apathetic citizenry. In his overview of the shortcomings of representative processes in liberal democracies, De &reiff argues liberal democracies have led to apathetic citizenry fostered by some sense of trust in elected representation and a belief in our present system's egalitarian rhetoric. (liasoph's long#term ethnography of a few slices of )merican culture illustrates how political apathy is produced in everyday life over the course of conversations, interactions, and in the bac%stage of life. *er findings suggest that a social norm e+ists that impedes political discourse in ways that censor such discussion in non# political and political spaces. Perhaps such norms get internalized in a manner that de# legitimizes political opinions to such a degree that individuals censor themselves even in situations where political discussion is encouraged, believing they, as lower class citizens, are not authorized to have such discussions. In contrast to the individuals who choose not to participate because of their attitudes or perceived efficacy towards current politics, there, are others who have tried to participate, but have become disillusioned in their efforts. Despite the increasing quantities of public discourse, studies show that satisfaction with public discussion is low, indicating that many citizens feel as if these public opportunities are essentially a waste of time, claiming that there is not enough listening and response to concerns.,-, ./0. Thus, lac% of public participation could partially be attributed, not to apathy or preconceived attitudes, but rather to individual frustration with ineffective public discussion structures and processes that do not encourage dialogic communication and leave citizens with the impression !and possible reality" that they are not being heard.
.

1learly, the problem of political participation can not be traced to one or even a few variables. *owever, an adequate understanding of the difficulty cannot be attained by considering individual variables alone. 2hile factors such as individual's perceived collective efficacy, adaptive responses, attitudes, identities, and frustration demonstrate one dimension of lac% of political participation, they do not account for constraints located in the political structures themselves that reflect the role that the system plays in creating the conditions of individual constraints, inhibiting opportunities, or equitable chances for all interests to be integrated in public discourse. 3tructural constraints consist of any structure that may inhibit access to public discourse opportunities or may systematically distort communication in ways that privilege certain interests, voices, and meanings over others. 3uch structures or systems result in marginalizing minority or alternative perspectives in ways that prevent equal representation. The distortion of fair and equal representation processes through the communicative event itself is e+plained by Deetz !.--4"5 1ommunication difficulties arise from communication practices that preclude value debate and conflict, that substitute images and imaginary relations for self#presentation and truth claims, that arbitrarily limit access to communication channels and forums, and that then lead to decisions based on arbitrary authority relations. 3uch communication problems have been attributed to the communication structures that function as a part of the political and economic system and preempt negotiation, discussion, and decision ma%ing about political issues, often in ways that benefit those who already possess most of the resources. 3imilarly, 6orester argues that the following questions should be investigated in order to identify politically debilitating discourses that are indicative of systematically distorted communication5 .. )re particular groups, specifically the ones defined along racial, economic, or se+ual lines e+cluded systematically from decisions that affect their lives7 4. Is the political or moral illusion that science and technology can solve the problem, through professionals and e+perts, perpetuated7 8. Is political argument, participation, and mobilization regarding a broad range of policy options and alternatives systematically restricted because they would pose inconveniences to the e+isting patterns of ownership, wealth, and power7 ,.40 )sserting that the political#economic system is often to blame for inequities in resources, opportunities for participation, and non#representative policy ma%ing structures, 6orrester is also arguing for changes in communicative structures that would serve as a corrective for structural enablers of inequity, in hopes that chances for more holistic, fair, and deliberative decisions would be increased.