For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/researchtimes.php#8

Political participation has long been thought to be a key sign of a healthy democracy.[1] In fact a participatory public is crucial for democratic responsiveness and is seen as an intrinsic democratic good.[2] Without extensive public engagement, a democracy lacks vitality, the legitimacy of the political order is problematic and the promise of political life remains unfulfilled.[3] Political participation refers to those voluntary activities by which members of a society share in the selection of ruler and directly or indirectly, in the formation of public policy.[4] Political participation means not only exercising the right to vote, but also power sharing, co-decision making, co-policy making at all levels of governance of the state. [5] Although exercising voting right during election is one of the important political activities of the people, the variety of acts undertaken by citizens to influence politics is actually much more diverse. It means that political participation is multidimensional. It can include basic acts such as voting as well as more complex actions such as protest, writing to elected officials, or attending public meetings and providing public input.[6] Of all the electoral activities, voting remains by far the most frequent form of activity in a representative democracy. It is the simplest and least demanding political activity, which does not require much information, initiative and motivation, as do most other political activities. It uses a majority of citizens, and is considered to be a direct method of influencing political process.[7] However, a genuinely participatory culture involves far more than simply periodic casting of votes.[8] The question of what factors influences the voting participation of the citizens has been of keen interest in the literature for a great many years. One of the most common generalisations regarding participation in politics is that levels of socio-economic status affect citizen’s involvement in politics. Socioeconomic status of the voters is the most important key to understanding politics in a democratic state.[9] Generally, participation tends to be higher among better educated, members of higher occupational and income groups, middle aged, dominant ethnic and religious groups, people with political family background, settled residents, urban dwellers and members of voluntary associations.[10] This is because higher status individuals are more likely to experience social settings that are informationally richer on many subjects (e.g., politics), than those of lower status, making them more likely to acquire participation-enabling knowledge and civic skill.[11] It is also possible that having an interest in politics may also be a good indicator of who will or will not participate in politics. Citizens’ interest in politics is one of the most significant norms from the perspective of democracy, because it is a critical precondition to mobilize civic and political participation.[12] Political interest mainly refers to people’s interests in politics related issues, from political news to political events, organisations, and many more aspects. Studies on political participation have found that a person’s interest in politics contributes to the likelihood that he or she will be involved in the political process. For instance, attempts to encourage political participation often have significantly greater effects on individuals who are politically interested.[13] Political interest as psychological involvement in politics and public affairs often leads to more active political participation.[14] It is generally observed that there may be a reciprocal relationship between political interest and participation. As Brady, et al. (1995) observes, political interest is likely to be a consequence as well as a cause of political activity.[15]

Verba & Nie in the first major study on political participation defined it as “those activities by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at influencing the selection of governmental personnel and/or the actions they take”.[16]  Political participation is the principal means by which consent is granted or withdrawn in a democracy and rulers are made accountable to the ruled . It denotes citizen’s ability to negotiate with governing bodies through voting, contesting as candidates, campaigning for themselves and others candidacy, occupying political office and/or lobbying individually or collectively. Thus, political participation refers to activity that is designed to have an impact on governmental decision making and actions. It denotes citizen’s ability to negotiate with governing bodies through voting, contesting as candidates, campaigning for themselves and others candidacy, occupying political office and/or lobbying individually or collectively. Although voter turnout remains the activity most readily associated with the study of political participation, the variety of acts undertaken by citizens to influence politics is actually much more diverse and can include, for example, participation in campaign activities, discussing politics with others, being a member of a political party,etc. Verba and Nie (1972) believe there are four fundamental ways that people can participate in politics to influence the government: voting, campaigning, contacting politicians and communal activity. While voting is perhaps the most fundamental and most direct form of political participation in any democratic society, it is not the only way to influence the governing body. There are many factors that influence the nature of political participation. One approach at examining the factors that affect political participation is the role of socio-economic status (SES). Studies using this approach have found a significant relationship between high socioeconomic status and high political participation. Those with higher socio-economic status turn out at proportionately higher rates than those with lower socio-economic attributes (Verba and Nie, 1972). On the contrary, those with less education, those with lower status occupations, those who have smaller incomes are more likely to be among the non-voters, and those with more education, higher status jobs and incomes are more likely to be active in politics. Those with higher socio-economic status are also more likely to engage in political activities beyond voting (Hirlinger, 1992).The common explanation of this tendency is that political participation generally requires political resources and that those with higher socio-economic status can more readily afford such investment (Petterson & Rose, 1995). In electoral research, political interest is a commonly used variable to explain political behavior.[20]  It is commonly defined as "citizens' willingness to pay attention to politics at the expense of other endeavors" (Lupia & Philpot, 2005). Political interest has also been defined as ‘the degree to which politics arouse a citizen's curiosity’.[21]  Researchers find that citizens who are interested in politics – who follow politics, who care about what happens, who are concerned with who wins and loses – are more likely to be politically active.[22]  Political scientists have found it to be one of the most consistent predictors of various forms of political participation, such as voting, contacting public officials and protesting (Verba,Burns & Schlozman,1997). Vedlitz and Veblen (1980) analyzed the relationship between political interest and political participation, and found they are positively related in a proportional way.

The data used in this paper is based on an ICSSR-IMPRESS project titled ‘Political Participation in Nagaland: The Gender Debate’, 2019. The sample for the study is drawn using the systematic random sampling technique. For the study, 10 Assembly Constituencies has been selected using the Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) sampling method. From each selected Assembly Constituency, 3 (three) polling stations has been selected using the Systematic Random Sampling (SRS) technique. As it is practically not possible to make direct observation of every individual in the population, a representative sample has been drawn using the Systematic Random Sampling (SRS) technique. In order to generate the target sample for the study, the study sample has been drawn from the most updated electoral rolls of the selected polling stations (2018). The primary data was sourced through structured questionnaire of selected respondents on the basis of an interview schedule which facilitated collection of data unavailable from any other source and also facilitated collection of information required to answer specific research questions. Interviews were conducted face-to-face by trained Field Investigators and the methodology employed resulted in a response rate of 702 respondents.

Political participation comes in many forms, ranging from voting, running for political office, party membership, participation in campaign activities, etc. To an ordinary citizen, however, voting is the most common, simplest, and least costly form of participation in electoral politics, although it has profound implications for the political system.[23] It clothes the authority of the rulers with legitimacy and sustains the democratic political system. Through voting, people decide who shall govern.[24] Voter turnout not only indicates how much interest the electorate has in the election but it also reveals the electorate’s degree of psychological attachment to political affairs.[25] This activity of political participation is undertaken by the majority of adults. In case of women, this is the most common type of mode of political participation.[26]

Voting is no doubt one of the most traditional and basic forms of political participation in a representative democracy. However, a genuinely participatory political culture involves far more than simply the periodic casting of votes. Compared with voting, a greater intensity of participation is possible. Some of these activities are campaign activities, party membership, and attending election meetings. These are electoral activities that take place not just at the time of election but also in between elections in which people may engage. These forms of electoral activities may offer greater opportunity for personal influence or involvement. In the present study, the following forms of electoral activities have been included as indices to measure the degree of participation in electoral activities:

1.     Voting

2.     Taking part in campaign activities

3.     Attending election meetings

4.     Membership in political party

The positive influence of political interest on political participation is one of the most consistent findings of participation research.[27] Political interest is “typically the most powerful predictor of political behaviors that make democracy work.” [28] The more citizens are interested in politics, the more they are likely to vote. Political interest is motivational in nature, and it is a catalyst for political participation.[29] It therefore becomes pertinent to focus analysis on the relationship between political participation and political interest.

Table 1 shows that among those who have voted 50 per cent had some interest in politics whereas 44 per cent of the voters had no interest in politics. Only 5 per cent of the voters indicated having a great deal of interest in politics. Among those who have attended election meetings/rallies majority (65 %) of them had some interest in politics followed by 26 per cent with no interest in politics and only 7 per cent indicated having great interest in politics. Among participants who had taken part in campaign activities 56 per cent had some interest in politics followed by 37 per cent with no interest in politics and only 5 per cent of them had great deal of interest in politics. Finally majority of people who are members of political parties has some interest in politics (68 %) followed by those with great deal of interest in politics (22 %) and only 9 per cent of them indicated having no interest in politics respectively. From the above result the study does not seem to support the proposition that having an interest in politics does lead to an increase in political participation at least for the respondents in the study. However, having an interest in politics appears to stimulate a growth in party membership.

A variety of explanations have been advanced to account for differences in political interest. Prior research has shown that a number of demographic variables have correlation with political interest. These variables are further supplemented by media exposure of the respondents. The first variable that has been included in order to see how much of an effect it might have on the level of political interest of respondents is age. It is expected that age will have a positive effect on political interest with older respondents showing more interest than the younger ones. Education is also expected to have an impact on political interest. Education helps in developing a sense of civic obligation, which creates interest in politics.[30] Thus, education is expected to be strongly and positively related to respondent’s level of political interest. And finally gender is expected to have an impact on respondent’s interest in politics.

Table 2 shows that men have more interest in politics than women. Majority of men has some interest in politics while majority of women has no interest in politics. Kristi Andersen, notes that “it has been widely argued – and demonstrated empirically – that the political socialization of women, as distinct from that of men, tends to produce a lack of concern with the sphere of politics, a sense of distance between one’s daily concerns and political events”.[9] It was also found that younger age cohort had more interest in politics than older ones. Out of the four age groups, voters in the age group of 18-25 have more interest in politics than the other age cohorts. With regard to education, those with the highest educational qualification have more interest in politics than the others.

Multiple disciplines have been interested in studying the relationship between media usage, political interest and political participation. The media can shape people's sense of civic duty, attention to issues, interest in public affairs, and motivation to get involved in the political process. In essence, the media has a role to play in stimulating political interest and engagement.[32] Traditional mass media such as television, newspaper, and radio, as well as digital media such as the internet, are communication tools or platforms. This media use feeds preexisting interest in public affairs and reinforces political interest and political engagement. According to Chadwick (2017), traditional mass media and new digital media coexist in a hybrid system, and both types of media influence politics.[33]

A Media Exposure Index, which includes a combination of variables on newspaper reading habits, listening to radio news, watching news on television, and using the internet/social networking, was created with the goal of examining the effects of media exposure on political knowledge. Media exposure was indexed into three categories: low for those who were sometimes exposed to any one medium only and never others, medium for those who were sometimes exposed to two or three media and high for those who were mostly exposed to three or more media.[34]

From table 3 it can be seen that among voters with great deal of interest 48 per cent of them had medium media exposure followed by low media exposure with 30 per cent and 21 per cent with high media exposure. Among voters with some interest in politics majority of them (45 per cent) had medium media exposure followed by low and high media exposure. Finally among voters with no interest in politics majority of them had low media exposure (43 per cent) followed by medium and high media exposure respectively. This result highlights that a certain degree of media exposure is needed for people to show an interest in politics.

1. Achen, C. H. & T. Y. Wang, T. Y. (eds) The Taiwan Voter. Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press 2. Atal, A. (1971). Local Communities and National Politics- A Study in Communication Links and Political Involvement. Delhi: National Publishing House 3. Brady, H. E., Schlozman, K. L. & Verba, S. (1999). Prospecting for Participants: Rational Expectations and the Recruitment of Political Activists. American Political Science Review.93 (1), pp.153-168. 4. Chadwick, A. (2017).The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press 5. Chang, WC.2018. Media Use and Satisfaction with Democracy: Testing the Role of Political Interest. Social Indicators Research 140, 999–1016. 6. Chung-li Wu & Tzu-Ping Liu. (2017). Political Participation in Taiwan. In Christopher H. Achen and T. Y. Wang (eds) The Taiwan Voter. Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press,p.252. 7. Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation. Political Studies, 56(1), pp. 76-98. 8. D.S. Chaudhary & O.K. Kar (1992). Elections and Electoral Behaviour in India. Delhi: Kanti Publications, pp.81-83 9. H. E. Brady et al. (1995). Beyound SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation. American Political Science Review. 89(2), pp. 271-294 10. H. E. Brady et al. (1999).Prospecting for Participants: Rational Expectations and the Recruitment of Political Activists. American Political Science Review.93 (1), pp.153-168. 11. Michael W. Hirlinger,Citizen-Initiated Contacting of Local Government Officials: A Multivariate Explanation, The Journal of Politics,Volume 54, Number 2.pp.553-564 12. Lijphart. (1997). Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma. American Political Science Review. 19(1), pp. 1-14. 13. Lupia, A., & Philpot, T. S. (2005). Views from inside the Net: How websites affect young adults' political interest. Journal of Politics, 67(4): 1122-1142. 14. L. W. Milbrath & M. L. Goel. (1977). Political Participation: How and Why do People get Involved in Politics? New York: University Press of America 15. M. Prior. (2010). You’ve either got it or you don’t? The stability of political interest over the life cycle. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), p. 747 16. Psychological Involvement in Politics (1989). Elections Archives and International a. Politics, 20, p.68. 17. P. Rai. (2017). Women’s Participation in Electoral Politics in India: Silent Feminisation. South Asia Research, 37(1), p. 72 18. Prior, M. (2010). You’ve either got it or you don’t? The stability of political interest over the life cycle. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), pp. 747-766. 19. Rai, P. (2017). Women’s Participation in Electoral Politics in India: Silent Feminisation. South Asia Research, 37(1), pp. 58-77 20. Rosenstone, S. J & Hansen, J. M. (2003). Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Longman 21. Steven J Rosenstone & John Mark Hansen. (2003). Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Longman,pp.245-48 22. S.Verba & N. Nie. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row 23. S.Verba et al. (1978). Participation and Political Equality: A Seven Nation Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 24. Verba, S., & Nie, H. N. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: University of Chicago Press. 25. Verba, S., H. N., Norman & K. Jae-on. (1978). Participation and Political Equality: A Seven Nation Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 26. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, E. H. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 27. Vedlitz, A., & Veblen, E. P. (1980). Voting and Contacting: Two Forms of Political Participation in a Suburban Community. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 16(1), pp. 31–48. 28. Verba, S., Burns, N., & Schlozman, K. L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement .Journal of Politics, 59(4), 1051-1072. 29. Yogesh Atal (1971). Local Communities and National Politics- A Study in Communication Links and Political Involvement. Delhi: National Publishing House, pp. 283-284

1. A.Lijphart. (1997). Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma. American Political Science Review. 19(1), pp. 1-14.
2. Sidney Verba (1996), ‘The Citizen as Respondent: Sample Surveys and American Democracy Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1995’, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 1, pp. 1–7.
3. See Almond and Verba, 1963; Pateman, 1970; Verba and Nie, 1972; Verbaet al., 1978; Barber, 1984; Dalton, 2009.
4. Sills, David. (ed.) (1968). International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol.12, The Macmillan Company and the Free Press, New York, p.252.
5. Singh, J.P. (2000). Indian Democracy and Empowerment of Women”, The Indian Journal of Public Administration, Oct-Dec, Vol. 46, Issue: 4, 617-630.
6. Verba,S.,Kay Lehman Schlozman., and H.E.Brady. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics, Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
7. McAllister. (1992). Political Behaviour, Melbourne:Longman Cheshire, pp 51-53.
8. Amer,M. ( 2012). Womens Political Status and Engagement : A Study of Nagaland, New Delhi :Akansha Publishing House.
9. Sidney Verba and Norman Nie (1972), Participation in America, Harper & Row Publishers, p. 2.
10. Herbert Mc Closky (1968), ‘Political Participation’, International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Vol. 12, Macmillan, NewYork, p. 253.
11. Gimpel, James G., et al. (2003), Cultivating Democracy: Civic Environments and Political Participation, Brookings Institution Press, Washington; Rolfe, Meredith (2004), ‘Interrogating the Usual Suspects: Education and Voter Turnout’, Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
12. Chang, WC.2018. Media Use and Satisfaction with Democracy: Testing the Role of Political Interest. Social Indicators Research 140, 999–1016.
13. H. E. Brady et al. (1999).Prospecting for Participants: Rational Expectations and the Recruitment of Political Activists. American Political Science Review.93 (1), pp.153-168.
14. S.Verba et al. (1978). Participation and Political Equality: A Seven Nation Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
15. H. E. Brady et al. (1995). Beyound SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation. American Political Science Review. 89(2), pp. 271-294
16. Sidney Verbaand Norman Nie (1972), Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality, Harper and Row, New York.
17. Herbert McClosky (1968), ‘Political Participation’ in David L. Sills (ed), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 12, Macmillan Co. & Free Press, New York, p. 253.
18. Vissandjee, B., A. Apale, S. Wieringa, Abdool, S. Dupere (2005), ‘Empowerment beyond Numbers: Substantiating Women’s Political Participation’, Journal of International Women’s Studies, Vol 7 No 2, pp 123-141.
19. B.Vissandjee, A. Apale, S. Wieringa, Abdool, S. Dupere (2005), ‘Empowerment beyond Numbers: Substantiating Women‟s Political Participation’, Journal of International Women‟s Studies Vol. 7(2), pp 123-141.
20. Eva Zeglovits & Martina Zandonella, Political interest of adolescents before and after lowering the voting age: the case of Austria, Journal of Youth Studies ,Volume 16, 2013 - Issue 8, pp.1084-1104,p1086
21. Van Deth, J. W. 1989. “Interest in Politics.” In Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies, edited by M. K. Jennings and J. W. Van Deth, 275–312. Berlin: de Gruyter.
22. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
23. Chung-li Wu & Tzu-Ping Liu. (2017). Political Participation in Taiwan. In Christopher H. Achen and T. Y. Wang (eds) The Taiwan Voter. Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press,p.252.
24. Yogesh Atal (1971). Local Communities and National Politics- A Study in Communication Links and Political Involvement. Delhi: National Publishing House, pp. 283-284
25. Steven J Rosenstone & John Mark Hansen. (2003). Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Longman,pp.245-48
26. D.S. Chaudhary & O.K. Kar (1992). Elections and Electoral Behaviour in India. Delhi: Kanti Publications, pp.81-83
27. Smets, K., and C. van Ham. 2013. The Embarrassment of Riches? A Meta-analysis of Individual-Level Research on Voter Turnout. Electoral Studies 32 (2): 344–359.
28. M. Prior. (2010). You’ve either got it or you don’t? The stability of political interest over the life cycle. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), p. 747
29. Prior, M. 2010. You’ve Either Got it or You Don’t? The Stability of Political Interest Over the Life Cycle. The Journal of Politics 72 (3): 747–766.
30. Psychological Involvement in Politics (1989). Elections Archives and International Politics, 20, p.68
31. Andersen, Kristi. 1975. Working women and political participation, 1952–1972. American Journal of Political Science, 19(3): 439–453.
32. Shelley Boulianne (2011) Stimulating or Reinforcing Political Interest: Using Panel Data to Examine Reciprocal Effects Between News Media and Political Interest, Political Communication, 28:2, 147-162, p.148.DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2010.540305
33. A. Chadwick. (2017).The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press
34. P. Rai. (2017). Women’s Participation in Electoral Politics in India: Silent Feminisation. South Asia Research, 37(1), p. 72