Political Sciences Past Paper Q1 PDF

Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein A broader approach to political participation Gradually, behaviours and activities that were previously considered unconventional or illegitimate will be incorporated into conventional...

Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein A broader approach to political participation Gradually, behaviours and activities that were previously considered unconventional or illegitimate will be incorporated into conventional political participation → They will be considered as normal political activities and be part of citizen ship Alan Marsh was the first political scientist to address these issues in Protest and Political consciousness (1977) by distinguishes 4 traits op political participation beyond the classic Milbrath pyramid → Legal participation but with a protest dimension (demonstrations, petitions). → On the edge of legality participation : boycott behaviors). → Non-official strikes → Illegal actions with violence against property or persons o ex.: uprooting of transgenic maize plans, kidnapping of company managers, terrorism, etc.). The main idea is the to open the perimeter of political participation and getting read of the idea of what is conventional and what isn’t → Helps to relativize citizens’ civil and political apathy Samuel Barnes and Max Kaase where the first to develop a study that takes into account all types of participation and they ad about 15 question about certain modes of collective actions → Such as petition, strike, boycott, streets demonstration → They really broaden the range of possible political activities We can witness a gradual legitimation of political participation/protest and the expansion of the range of what citizens do in a democracy → Protest behaviors are now wild accepted → This makes possible to move from a minimalist and restrictive conception of democracy to a more inclusive one 3. Electoral behaviors Voting is a central feature of political in democracies, even if political participation is not limited to voting Yet, “habit leads us to confuse voting and elections and to identify these with democracy” (René Remond) : they are closely linked but not similar, since → voting goes beyond politics o Ex: people vote for many different occurrences such as the Oscar, in court while sitting on a jury etc. o Also, democracy and representation are not always equal to voting, as seen in the frame of Athenian democracy, where representation was achieved through lots. → Voting goes beyond the establishment of the universal suffrage, o election is not the only possible mode of selection of representatives in democracy o ex : random lot, cooptation Why studying voting as a contemporary political activity ? → it is the founding act of the democratic pact, which allows the election and renewal of the rulers at regular intervals in a democracy → it is the most common political activity → it is by far the most studied political behavior and the models and methods to analyze it have evolved over the last twenty years. 44  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein a. Some preliminary elements on elections and the act of voting The framework of voting: the rules of the game Voting seems obvious, spontaneous, but it's not: it changes historically, with the definition of the suffrage. → It's framed historically, legally and socially by all the rules of the game: Definition of the electorate: → who is entitled to vote, → it's an ever-evolving process (Ex: gender, nationality, age, …) question of the compulsory, or not, nature of voting: → in some countries, voting in compulsory while it is not in some others → compulsory voting is the exception the length of the terms and mandates → most of the time, elections are separated by 3-5 years depending on the country, → but there are also places where people are summoned to vote very often (ex: Switzerland) Why do people vote? The paradox of voting (Down's paradox): people should not vote The paradox of voting reads as follows: rationally, people should not vote, because the cost involved by the act of voting exceeds the benefit you can get from taking time to make up your mind … → In a mass democracy the chance that a personal vote will be decisive is almost zero → Despite all this, people vote Then, why do people vote ? → Voting cannot be reduced to the mere designation of the government or to the expression of a political choice. → It is invested with other, equally substantial dimensions [1. Voting as a political expression : It's a way for citizens to express political conviction → It a means of expression [2. Voting and the selection of representatives and the legitimization of the authority of those in power It centrally organizes the competition between the political parties and allows the selection of the those who will hold positions of power → Once again, it's the idea that the outcome of the vote gives a legitimacy which is based on collective consent. → This is also what distinguishes voting from choosing representatives through lot of cooptation, since lots don't benefit from the same legitimacy [3. Voting as a ritual The banalization of the act of voting cannot make us forget other dimensions of the vote, explored not only by political science, but also by anthropology, socio-history, psychology and even psychoanalysis. → Anthropologists who work on the question of the vote, especially the vote as a ritual, make this comparison in order to consider that voting is an operation which is quite similar to what happens in the mythical discourse : 45  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Through voting, you transform a very complex universe (politics) into something which is more intelligible through simple operations. Going further with this idea, studies have shown that there can be different types of rituals: [ A ritual of pacification ? ] An embodiment of this idea is this image picturing the conquest of popular or universal suffrage. → A worker abandons his riffle in order to deposit his ballot in a shaped as an antique vase → It's an allegory of the universal suffrage which disarms people, prohibits physical violence, and promotes democracy. → This idea was very criticized because we know examples of voting processes that triggered episodes of violence (ex: Catalonia) [ Voting and the role of emotions and identity ] Psycho-affective satisfaction: → voting is linked to self-esteem, There’s a link → it triggers mechanism on how you identify with so and so, between the act of → and how you express your personal frustration voting and the in- Assertion of various social identities: it shows how you transfer your identity within group feeling your family, territory etc. → When you vote, → It's linked with you you participate to something bigger Reassurance of belonging to the national civic community: ex, national suffrage than yourself Moments of collective celebrations and playful practices b. To vote or not to vote At each election, whether voting is compulsory or not, a variable proportion of the electorate doesn't vote, although there are entitled to do so → For a long time, the act of withdrawing oneself from the elections was not really studied, unlike the act of voting This disregard was linked to the moral dimension: → it “also had civic morality against it: the fact of standing outside electoral consultation betrayed what was considered as an eminently reprehensible state of indifference to political society” René Remond. → It has not been studied for a long time. → But more and more, abstention is gaining importance in most democracies and the signification of this absence of vote evolves as well. Registration, non-registration, mal-registration When voting is not compulsory, you have to register in order to vote. REGISTRATION Electoral sociology distinguishes between: → Potential voter: they fulfill the prerequisites for enrollment (nationality, majority, enjoyment of civic and political rights) → Registered voter: they can effectively claim the exercise of the right to vote after being registered on the voting lists 46  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein NON-REGISTRATION Ex: in France, 7-14% of the potential electorate is not registered. MAL-REGISTRATION There is also the phenomenon of mal-registration: it's a result of modernity, less a deliberate refusal than an indifference to politics → Ex: the office is located far away from your home etc. → Most of the time, it corresponds to an indifference to politics rather than a deliberate refusal Voters non-turnout 3 main groups among the “registered” : → constant non-voters: are a minority and represent about 10% of the registered electorate → systematic voters: oscillate between 45 and 55% → intermittent voters: oscillate between 35and 40% Explaining non-turnout [1. Social explanations: Abstention is usually very strongly correlated with social/economic status and conditions: → E : Age: abstention is stronger at the extremes, o young people are usually among those who do not vote : they are gaining experience and it takes a lot of energy, so their attention is not focused on politics o Old people gradually exit from politics as well [2. Contextual explanations: factors related to the political system itself: → compulsory or not → electoral system: proportional, people are encouraged to vote and to participate because the system offers more consideration to people's individual choices → recurrence of elections : tend to discourage people → polarization: two main parties vs constellations of party with very different parties → media → practice of electoral campaigning: door to door campaign is a convincing practice and motivates people to go and vote [3. Political explanations: There is a strategic and political use of non-turnout that can be a form of protest 2 categories of non-voters (Jaffré and Muxel) “Out of the game” non-voters “In of the game” non-voters They are withdrawn from politics and They don’t vote but it doesn’t mean that they refuse indifferent to political life, they self-exclude politics themselves from it → Often young, graduated whit important social → It's the case of protesters who can be integration sensitive to the extremes, taking part in a → They return to vote soon as they fund something logic of refusal of political and social that is closer to what they think systems → Mostly intermittent There is a diversity of voting patterns, but also a diversity of non-voting patterns 47  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein The notion of voter suppression Another interesting point when it comes to non-turnout is the notion of voters suppression Voter-suppression is the name given to all the technique which can be use to limit voters turnout and also then to discourage or to prevent specific groups of people from voting especially in order to influence the outcome of an election → Currently it is a highly topical issue in the context of the US presidential election This can be done in 2 ways: → Making it more difficult for people to register o Ex: barriers to same day registration and voting) → Making it more difficult for people to vote o Ex: barriers to voting by mail, to early voting, reducing polling stations, … Blank voting They are demands for the recognition of blank voting as a citizen's act → distinguished from non-voting, since the voter went to his polling station → as a political act, meaning the impossibility of choice or the refusal of choice by the voter in the face of a political offer deemed unsatisfactory, left their ballot blank. Some countries count them as valid ballots Ex: Netherlands, Spain, Colombia etc c. Analytic models of voting 3 main periods in electoral studies: [ Electoral geography or the “ecological” approach ] It is based on the official electoral results, aggregated, and mapped at different territorial levels (local, regional and national) → it highlighted the unequal distribution of electorates on the territory and the decisive influence of the political, social, cultural and local context on voting, → it underlined the spatial logic of collective voting behavior [ Evolution after WWI ] The evolution is due to the development of opinion polls → highlighted the existence and the role of what has been called the “heavy variables” of electoral sociology, namely social class, and religion → Learn who was voting for whom and why [ Since the mid-1970s] A more individualist, rational, and critical voter seem to have made their appearance → electoral behavior appears less determined and more autonomous → new analytical based on the individuals rather than collective voting → decline in the religious influence, in the class voting 48  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein A predetermined voter ELECTORAL GEOGRAPHY Electoral geographies consider that voters are “predetermined”. → This stream of electoral geographies focused on territories and here, The author of reference is André Siegfried (Tableau politique de la France de l'Ouest sour la Troisième République, 1913) → He analyzed votes in 14 departments of Western France from 1871 to 1910: it gives him 40 years of electoral history → he realizes that during these 40 years, there is a very surprising stability in the spatial distribution of the votes. There are local “political temperaments” and a division between the left and the right according to territories. → He finds that in the specific region he analyzed (Vendée), there are two contrasting territories : granite and limestone → He considered that there is a geological cleavage over which he superposes a social and a political cleavage. That's why he said “granite votes to the right and limestones vote to the left” : → it stresses the correspondence between the sub-soil itself (type of habitat, the land structures), religion and social organization, all of which impact the political orientation: On granite soil: On limestone soil: → there is a very scattered habitat with large → the housing is much more grouped properties, which includes the figure of the landlord, with small properties, religion is less importance of parish priests (Catholicism) and influent and social structures are hierarchical social structure less equalitarian → vote on the right → vote on the left Based on all these different variables, Siegfried designs an explanatory model including different factors explaining political orientation to human and social geography. THE SOCIOLOGICAL MODELS OF VOTING Sociological models of voting rely on sociological criteria [ Columbia model, 1940 ] : Paul Lazarsfeld wanted to analyze the presidential elections of 1940 in the USA, → more precisely how the presidential campaign influenced people's voting and organized a polling before and after the elections on a panel to do so 49  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein He realized that the majority had decided on a political choice at the beginning and they sticked to it whatever happened During the campaign. → They didn’t change their mind during the political campaign → He stresses that voters' political orientations are stable and echo the norms of their family, cultural preferences, and environment Led to develop what he calls “Index of political predispositions” → which combines various factors that influence votes: social status, religion and place of residence of the voters → With that, he was able to predict the electoral choices made for the presidential election o Ex: he showed that 75% of the people who voted for the Republican candidate was mainly rural, protestant and wealthy o In the contrary urban voters were catholic, disadvantages and voted for the Democrat candidate → “People think politically as they are socially” : the individual makes his/her opinion in contact with the pierce, the social environment is essential to voting decision After that there was a competitive model that was develop… [ Michigan model, beginning of the 1950s ] It's the analytical model of voting. Tenants of this model (designed through almost three decades) argue that the vote is above all political, (>< vote is mainly social for the Columbia model). “funnel of causality”: They reconstitute the decision-making process of the voter: → it's made of all the elements that influence the person who is voting, from birth, to the moment when the person is inside the polling station, ready to vote. → The idea is to take into account all the living spaces of individuals synthesized in what is called the funnel of causality and to put all these elements in a chronological order (see image). The Michigan model add to the Columbia some political and Left side: economic, social and partisan contextual elements structures which make up the familiar environment of the voters since their childhood Right side: specific characteristics of the election, such as the nature of the ballot, the candidates, the economic and political situation etc. If the family, religious affiliation, or even ethnic group don't directly influence voting, of course, they shape the identities and values of the individuals and their attraction to a political party Here, the Michigan model joins the Columbia model in including sociological characteristics childhood 50  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Add the notion of “partisan identification”: it's at the heart of the Michigan model and refers to the effective attachment that a person will have with one of the two major parties in the US, → this affective attachment being transmitted by the parents and maintained by the social and professional environment → the attachment grows stronger with age → It's always here to translate the political reasoning of the people. → Researchers at the university of Michigan realized that in the 1950s and 1960s, almost 75% of Americans defined themselves as republicans or democrats Partisan identification was very strong and it's really at the heart of the Michigan model. → The American model developed in the US had a tremendous influence on the research carried out in Europe. → They confirmed the existence and importance of the heavy variables in electoral sociology (social class and religion) ROLE OF THE “HEAVY VARIABLES” IN ELECTORAL SOCIOLOGY: SOCIAL CLASS AND RELIGION These American models had a big influence on the research conducted in Europe. This research contributed to the confirmation of the existence of these “heavy variables” in electoral sociology = the essential influence of social class and religion on voting behaviours [ Robert Alford and the class-voting index (the Alford index) in the UK ] The index was aimed to measure class voting → do people vote like a social class or not ? He especially showed a very strong link between the British workers and the Labour party during the 1960s → → when the more you have working class integration, the more you are inclined to vote for the Labour party. → Link between belonging to a specific social class and voting for the left/right This heavy variable was thus demonstrated. [ Guy Michelat and Michel Simon in France ] They focused on religion → They showed how there were two different very strong sub-cultures which translated into two voting habits structured by religion → Catholicism on the one side and irreligion on the other side. They showed through interviews and sample surveys that the right-wing vote increases with the frequency of religious practices → On the one hand, chances are you vote on the right if you frequently go to church → on the other hand, the more you are integrated within the working class, the more you are inclined to vote on the left It seems obvious to us now but it wasn't the case at the time, since it was scientifically demonstrated for the first time These models were developed in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Are these heavy variable still relevant today ? 51  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein The end of the sociological determination of the vote Crisis of the “heavy variables”: should we speak of the end of the sociological determination of the vote? → Several indications that seem to go in the direction of a crisis of these variables: there is a decline of the relevance of the left-right cleavage → And the Alford index doesn't work anymore → Also, the process of secularization gradually erodes religious voting. The idea of the sociological determination of the vote still exists but it has to be qualified: it plays less than before, it has not disappeared, but it has changed over time. From class voting to educational voting the distinction between workers and non-workers doesn't correspond to the post-industrial societies and the complexity of socio-professional structures → Leads to a decline of class voting(Butler and Stokes), While the left used to be the political arm of the under-educated, it has become the domain of the educated → The higher educated o Have become far more diversified o They have quickly increased in the population, but they are also a very wider spectrum of business professionals o It is now the socio-cultural professionals (professor, journalist, …) who support left-wing parties → The low-educated working-class o Has dramatically changed o structural transformation o new service underclasses and under-skilled middle classes either don’t vote or vote for the right, o more precisely populist of radical right o exception: ethnic minorities vote more for the left, securing rights From religion to religious practices : There is the process of secularization and a retreat of religion. → It indicates a shrinkage of the religious vote. → However, the religious cleavage tends to resist. → Religious practice (church going practice) remains important indicators to explain electoral behavior o Religious vote more for the right New sociological cleavages → independent workers/wage-earners: self-employed vote more on the right than employees → public/private sectors: people working in the private sector tend to vote on the right, but people who use to public good tend to vote more on the left than those who have individual goods o differs from a country to another depending on the development of the public sector → “patrimony effect”: each one's voting behaviors are impacted by their patrimony o The left always prevails among those who don't possess a patrimony o the right always prevails for those who possess at least two elements of patrimony → winners/losers of globalization: globalization is restructuring the electorate but also the partisan space of the European democracies (Kriesi) o It tends to compel parties to change their program so as to take into account issues that are linked to globalization on an economic dimension o Ex: pro/anti EU, pro/anti international integration and on the cultural dimension Cleavages persist but they are re-composed: it emphasizes that there is a persistence of the logic of cleavages 52  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein A more individualistic voter 3 factors to explain these new branches of electoral studies A NEW CONTEXT : Development of individualism : economic growth, … Crisis of partisan identity : → It refers to the Michigan model : focused on the idea that people identify themselves / are attached to one of the two main parties in the US. → Studies have shown that the intensity of this attachment has been declining more and more since the end of the 1960s - beginning of the 1970s → When they were defining the model (60) 75% of Americans identified themselves with the democrats or the republicans → 10 years later, only 16 % considered they had a political identity linked to the Republic or the Democrat party There begins to be people who voted for the democrats at one election and for the republican candidate at the other election (split ballot) → it's a new phenomenon that directly clashes with the predictions of the Michigan model. → We also saw the similar phenomenon in Europe with new parties emerging and competing with other existing parties o Ex: Green parties, autonomist, regionalists etc. Traditional parties and ideological references are increasingly evolving for the voters Electoral behaviors are less and less predictable: all these inclined authors to design new theories to try and understand this new voter and to explain electoral volatility → emergence of a more critical informed individualistic and less predictable voter A “NEW VOTER” How to take into account these voters ? There are 2 theoretical approaches that seek to capture and to analyze this new voter, who is more individualistic and rational Economic approach to voting: The idea is to apply economic theories to electoral behaviors → voters are considered as economical rational actors whose behaviors can be described in simple equations according the gain, the cost, and the interest of each individual → A rational elector acts according to their interest, the aim being to maximize gains and to minimize costs → The parties are like political business that seek to maximize the vote in their favor → The main authors is Anthony Down (An Economic Theory of Democracy, 1957. o It remained quite isolated for a long time and only gained momentum 20 years later o Ex: PD= E(UA t+1) – E(UB t+1) o Voters are considered as economic rational actors whose behaviors can be described in a simple equation according to the gains, the costs and the interest of each individual “Issue voting” model: The idea that specific issue can determine the voting choices of individual → People are voting rather according to an issue then according to a ling to a party 53  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein For actual voting issue to exist, there should be 3 main conditions: → the issue must be high for large segment of electorare : it has to mobilize people → the issue must polarize parties : The candidates or the parties in competition have to take dstincly different position in the issue → necessity of “responsive voters” Those 3 conditions are rarely met, pure issue voting is therefore relatively rare d. Conclusion: what about the gender gap? In most Western democracies, women's electoral behavior has evolved into three distinct stages: [ “traditional” gender gap ] Beginning in the years 1945-1950: women are more absent from the electoral game, showing less interest in politics. → When they vote, they give their support to conservative and Christian-Democratic parties, showing their reluctance to choose leftwing parties, including Communists → They vote less than men and also have a preference for Right wing parties [ “second age” gender gap ] beginning in the 1980s: it led to kind of an alignment of the behavior of both sexes. → While the non-voting rate of women tends to approach that of men, a gradual shift of women voters to the left is observed [ “modern” gender gap ] from the 1990s on: it began in post-industrial countries. → Now, women voters vote as often as, or even more often than men, in favor of the left-wing Social Democratic parties and the Greens, → they are less likely to support European integration and are intolerant to corruption etc. → Moreover, in countries where the extreme right has an electoral breakthrough, women are less likely to vote for this family. Today, gender is no longer a decisive marker of the left / right orientation of voting behaviours, nor of non- voting behaviours → But still, a gap on the rate of voter registration and other political behaviors exist and there are difference in opinions. How can we explain that these differences in political behaviors continue beyond voting ? 2 factors: * → role of socialization institutions: socialization is transmitted by the family and the school, who tend to continue and encourage women to self-exclude from a political universe that is considered as masculine → role of the economic inequalities: they continue to strike women more than men: o it explains their opinions regarding Europe, the welfare state etc o clear link with the precariousness of the economic integration. 54