4.3). Why does trust in political institutions affect the nature of participation?
Whilst there is a debate within the literature regarding the nature in which the
level of trust affects participation, there is consensus that it does have an impact.
In this regard, it is important to allude to why this may be the case. Based on the
arguments of Anderson and Tverdova, we can perhaps suggest that when we
have past confidence that institutional mechanisms work for us, we are unlikely
to participate unconventionally in order to solve our discrepancies. In a similar
vein, when we have very little past confidence in the functions of our political
bodies, as Antonini et al have stated, this may be the catalyst for more
unconventional participation. Possible factors could be:
Levels of past confidence in institutional mechanisms. Levels of group solidarity or affiliation around an issue.
Alternatively, the extremity of the way in which we participate may in fact be
driven by the size of the group we identify with, regarding the issue of trust at
hand. As Uhlaner argues, we often assess politics in terms of who around us is
like-minded and as such an enhanced “sense of group identity” is often a key
catalyst for mobilisation (1986, p.565). Furthermore, whilst individuals are still
ultimately responsible for their own intentional acts, “affiliation desires” can
perhaps act as a guide for certain actions (Uhlaner, 1986, p.564). Chang and
Rogers add to this sentiment as they suggest that “feelings of group solidarity”
around an issue often result in higher degrees of participation around this matter
(2005, p.351). In relation to the nature of participation, Chang and Rogers argue
that conventional participation is often driven by “personal or normative
considerations” and that unconventional forms are in fact the beneficiary of high
group solidarity (2005, p.352). This argument can allow us to make the
58
Made with FlippingBook HTML5