stronger than that of the sit-ins, with the participating group in 2021 being
smaller than that of the 1960s. This provides an explanation for the variation of
unconventionality seen here, with the higher group solidarity being a catalyst for
more unconventional participation. This argument has a clear and consistent
application across all of our case studies and appears to be an extremely relevant
factor in determining why exactly levels of trust in political institutions affects
the nature of participation. Nevertheless, it is again important to suggest that
more case studies should be analysed in order to determine if this is indeed the
determining factor in answering this question.
Past confidence in institutional mechanisms does have relevance in explaining
why trust in political institutions affects the nature of political participation and
may have indeed been a key factor in some of our case studies, with the sit-in
protests being the most applicable to this argument. However, the sentiment
that group affiliation and solidarity around a trust issue being a key catalyst for
determining the nature of participation is far more consistent across our case
studies. However, as we have mentioned, further study to solidify these
suggestions is perhaps needed.
11). Conclusion
This report has examined how different levels of trust in political institutions
affect the nature of political participation in the US and the UK. To answer our
research questions, we used the four previously discussed case studies -
Watergate, Iraq war protests, Sit-ins and the Storming of the US Capitol. These
case studies have confirmed our hypothesis – that a lack of trust in political
institutions results in more unconventional participation. Some of the limitations
of this report are that we only focused on case studies that occurred in the
79
Made with FlippingBook HTML5