Another explanation for why this form of extreme unconventional participation
occurred is argued by Uhlaner. Whereby, we often view politics in terms of who
is around us, this plays into the idea of group identity and how this can be a
catalyst for mobilisation (1986, p.565). This argument allows us to propose that
a group of likeminded individuals who have a similarly low level of trust towards
institutions, are motivated to act unconventionally with their group in order to
cause institutional change. This provides a strong explanation for why this event
happened with Trump’s supporters having a strong group identity with similar
views and lack of trust that motivated them to engage in the most
unconventional participation by the storming the Capitol building.
10). Discussion
10.1). How does trust in political institutions affect the nature of participation?
Regarding how exactly differing levels of trust in political institutions affects the
nature of political participation, our initial hypothesis appears somewhat correct
based upon our case studies. Firstly, from the example of Watergate we see that
whilst levels of trust were in fact low, this was mostly directed to President Nixon
himself and not the political institution of the president or government as a
whole. We see that the effect the scandal had on the way Americans participated
after was in fact conventional in nature, with Republican partisans most notably
abstaining from voting in the following mid-term elections. This largely aligns
with the arguments made by Lee and Schachter who say that in situations like
Watergate, we will not utilise unconventional participation as institutional
mechanisms are still functioning well for us, and we can likely amend the lack of
trust we feel in a given moment by replacing individuals or administrations
(2019, p.407). Furthermore, the example of the Iraq War protests continues this
sentiment. Whilst the protests following the Iraq War were less conventional
75
Made with FlippingBook HTML5