Types of participators in political acts: the case of Lithuania

Transcription

1 Types of participators in political acts: the case of Lithuania Jūratė Imbrasaitė Department of Sociology, Vytautas Magnus University K.Donelaičio , LT44244 Kaunas, Lithuania Abstract. Modern democratic polity is grounded on citizens participation in public decision-making process. Citizen participation is a key indicator of democratic performance. The focus of the paper is the types of participators in political acts in Lithuania in What groups of citizens may be distinguished by political participation patterns in Lithuania? What are the causes and explanations of different types of participators in political acts? The method of the study is an analysis of a survey sample data, which was conducted in 2006 and 40 in-depth interviews with ordinary citizens. In the first section of paper, the concept of political participation is defined and modes of political participation regarding resources, degree of conflict, degree of cooperation and etc. are described. In the second section, the impact of the Soviet legacy and political/economic reforms related to transition to democracy on patterns of political participation in Lithuania are analyzed. In the third section, the cluster analysis of the survey data are presented and discussed. In the fourth section, using the data of in-depth interviews, the differences among types of participators, which have been distinguished by participation in political acts and interests in politics, are analyzed. The paper draws preliminary conclusions that the lack of civic resources, the development of individualization and rapid social differentiation, which has caused different perceptions of economic inequality and insecurity among different groups of the population, have had the impact on political participation patterns in Lithuania. Keywords: political participation, Soviet legacy, inequality, civic resources. Introduction Citizen participation in the process of political governance is an essential condition for the functioning of democracy and ensuring the stability of society (Conway, 1991; Degutis, 2002; Kaase & Marsh, 1979; Parry, Moyser & Day, 1992; Putnam, 1993; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Verba, Brady & Schlozman, 1995). The quantity and quality of political participation is extremely significant for ensuring representation of interests, preferences and needs of citizens. Participation itself is a value in democracy (Pateman, 1970). Participation in political life promotes citizens sense of efficacy and responsibility; therefore, not only the result of participation but experience of participation as such is very important for supporting the vitality of the democratic system. Citizen participation is extremely essential during the period of transition to democracy and consolidation of democracy (Valionis, 2000, 2001). The legitimation of democratic institutions, the institutionalization of conventional modes of participation is very important during transition period. Conventional modes of political participation constitute a precondition for a stable democratic system. (Kaase & Marsh, 1979; Valionis 200, 2001). However, voting at elections is only one form of numerous political participation modes. If citizens have the possibility to exercise control over political leaders only through elections, their role in the political process is that of a controller but not that of a participator (Parry and Moyser, 1992). Various political actions of individuals such as contacting politicians, government or 1

2 municipality officials and organizations, letter writing, participation in strikes, demonstrations or protests, involvement in election campaigns through wearing and distributing badges and posters, and financial contributions, are all aimed at informing political elite about citizens interests, preferences and needs. Unconventional political actions may be dysfunctional with respect to the activity of democratic institutions during the period of consolidation of democracy (Valionis, 2000; 2001). Political participation studies reveal the complexity, interconnections and peculiarities of political participation modes in the context of postcommunist societies (Imbrasaitė, 2008). A comprehensive analysis of conventional modes of political participation such as voting, contacting, involvement in electoral campaigns and unconventional modes of political participation such as protesting is still lacking. In Lithuania, civil society studies mostly focus on studies of the development of non-governmental organizations (Beresnevičiūtė, 2006; Žiliukaitė, 2006), social capital resources (Žiliukaitė, 2006) or electoral behavior (Žėruolis, 1998; Degutis, 2002, 2004; Ramonaitė, 2006) and selected protest actions (Riekašius,2001,2004; Valionis, 2000, 2001). It may be maintained that studies on electoral behavior analyze preferences towards political parties and in general do not employ any theoretical justification. In most cases such studies aim to demonstrate socio-demographic differences among supporters of political parties. It is problematic that these differences are indistinct, varying and non-explanatory (Degutis, 2002, p.63). The aim of my paper is the differences between types of participators in political acts in Lithuania. What groups of citizens in Lithuania may be distinguished in accordance with their level of interest in politics and participation in political acts? What are the factors that determine differences among participant types? What are the causes and explanations of different patterns of political participation among different groups? Theoretical insights and empirical findings of this study will contribute to a better theoretical and empirical understanding of the phenomenon of political participation in the postcommunist context and may be beneficial for both scientist and politicians in seeking a broader involvement of citizens in democratic governance and ensuring stability of a democratic system. The method of the study is an analysis of the data of the survey sample. In the first section of the paper, the concept of political participation is defined and modes of political participation regarding resources, degree of conflict, degree of cooperation and etc. are described. In the second section, the theoretical perspectives in respect to political participation are presented and analyzed. In the third section, the results of the cluster analysis and multinomial logistic regression are presented. In the fourth section, the particular types of participators (the active, the passive and the voters) and differences between them are discussed. The concept of political participation The concept of political participation refers to normative and operational difficulties of conceptualizing the notion of political participation and it varies from the wide (Milbrath, 1965; Conway, 1991; Rosenstone & Hansen 1993) to the narrow sense of notion of political participation (Verba & Nie, 1972; Kaase & March, 1979; Marsh & Kaase, 1979; Parry, Moyser & Day, 1992, Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 1995). Political participation in this study refers to activities of citizens that attempt to influence the structure of government, the selection of government authorities, or the policies of government (Conway, 1991, p.4). 2

3 Verba, Nie and Kim (1978) argue that political actions represent a significant set of activities and there are some general dimensions along which citizen acts can be arrayed. Verba, Nie and Kim (1978) indicate four modes of political participation such as voting, contacting, campaign activity, communal activity 1. These dimensions derive from general consideration of the problem, which is associated with participation. Verba, Nie and Kim (1978) indicate four dimensions: type of influence exerted over leaders by a political act, scope of outcome that can be expected from an act, the amount of conflict, which an act involves, and the amount of initiative needed. Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995) categorize political participation as voting, campaign work, campaign contribution, community activity, contacting, protesting, membership in political organization and political mail contributions 2 and argue that each political act is different in its capacity for conveying detailed information, the extent to which the volume of activity can be multiplied, and the resources of time, money and skills, which it requires. Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995) indicate that political acts may be classified according to the type of influence, scope of outcome, conflict, initiative required, cooperation with others, skills, time and etc. Political participation modes are distinguished between conventional and unconventional actions. Conventional political participation refers to those modes that a dominant political culture recognizes as acceptable and that are related to institutionalized actions (Conway, 1990, p.20). Unconventional political participation refers to those modes that fail short of laws and customary norms of a specific society and that are related to non-institutionalized, frequently directed against the system itself, actions, which are the least interested in transforming its sociopolitical structure (Kaase & March, 1979, p.41). 1 Verba, Nie & Kim (1978, p.350) measure voting by three questions - 1) Did you vote in the President election in 1960; 2) Did you vote in the President election in 1964? 3) What about local elections do you always vote in those, do you sometimes miss one in, or do you rarely vote, or do you never vote?; campaign activities by five questions - 1 During elections do you ever try to show people why they should vote for one of the parties or candidates? (If yes,) Do you often, sometimes, rarely, or never? ) 2) In the past three or four years, have you attended any political meetings or rallies? 3) In the past three or four years, have you contributed money to a party or candidate or to any other political cause? 4) Have you ever done (other) work for one of the parties or candidates in most elections, some elections, only a few elections, or have you never done such work? 5) Here is a list of various kinds of organizations: What about political groups such as Democratic or respublican clubs, or political action groups? Are you a member of any of these types of groups?; communal activity by five questions- 1) Have you ever worked with others in this community to try to solve some community problem? 2) Have you ever taken part in a forming a new group or a new organization to try to solve some community problem? 3) Have you ever personally gone to see, or spoken to, or written to some member of the local community about some need or problem? 4) Have you ever contacted or written to a representative or governmental official outside of the local community on some nedd or problem? 5) here is a list of various kinds of organizations: Could you tell me whether or not you are a member of each type?; particularized contact by two questions - 1) Have you ever personally gone to see or spoken to, or written to some member of the local community, or some other person of influence in the same community about some need or problem? 2) Have you ever contacted or written to some representative or governmental official outside of the local community on the state or national level?. 2 Verba, Schlozman & Brady (1995, p.538) constructed overall activity index, which include seven items: 1) voting in the 1988 national election; 2) working as a volunteer for a candidate running for national, state, or local office; 3) making a contribution to an individual candidate, a party group, a political action committee, or any other organization that supports candidates in elections; 4) contacting government officials; 5) taking part in a protest, march, or demonstration; working informally with others in the community to deal with some community issue or problems; 6) serving in a voluntary capacity on any local governmental board or council (for example, s school or zoning board), or attending meetings of such board or council regularly; and 7) being a member of or giving money to a political organization. 3

4 Theoretical perspectives on political participation patterns Socioeconomic status model refers to explanatory capacities of individual factors such as education, profession, income, age, gender, religion (Milbrath & Goel, 1977; Conway, 1991; Parry, Moyser & Day, 1992; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 1995; Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 2000) and concludes that socioeconomic factors have an impact on political participation. Education promotes political participation in two ways: by giving people the knowledge and skills that facilitate participation and by placing people in social networks that inform them about politics and reward political action (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). An important indicator of skills and social contacts is profession (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993, p.77). Individuals may acquire civic skills at the institutions, which they encounter during their life time (school, work, church and etc.) (Verba, Schlozman & Brady,1995). The longer people live, the more knowledge, skills and social contacts they acquire (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). Individual resources model starts with an idea that individual resources such as money, skills, knowledge, time and self-confidence has an impact on political participation, because they allow people to meet the economic and psychological costs of political participation (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993, Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 1995). Social capital perspective refers to Coleman s (1988, 1991) and Putnam s (1993, 2002) theoretical approaches. Coleman (1988, p.s98) defines social capital as social networks, information potential, norms and obligations that consist of some aspects of social structure that facilitate certain actions. Social network refers to individuals who are linked together by one or more social relationships, thus forming a social network. Coleman (1988) argues that social capital is some aspect of a social structure and is defined by its function. Social capital is productive and makes possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible (Coleman, 1988, p.s98). Putnam (1993, p.167) argues that social capital refers to features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and social networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions. Voluntary organizations generate social capital by encouraging interpersonal trust, supporting norms of reciprocity and providing networks of social relations. Putnam (1993) indicates that associations foster the general reciprocity, which helps to overcome free-riders problems in democracy. Participating in associations, individuals develop cognitive and deliberative skills, civic virtues, and a sense of efficacy (Badescu, 2003). Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995) argue that associations teach their members organizational skills. Associations provide the social infrastructure for public deliberation and setting of an agenda. Associations with private or nonpolitical purposes (self-help groups, sports clubs, choral societies) contribute to the public sphere less (Fung, 2003). An important attribute of civil society is the existence of informal social networks, which must be composed of weak ties. Weak ties are more likely to link members of different groups than strong ties, which concentrate on a particular group (Granovetter 1973, p.1376). At the level of the individual citizen, civil society requires a specific set of attitudes and behavioral orientations towards politics, including a certain style of interpersonal interaction and collaboration (Brehm & Rahn, 1997; La Due Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998). 4

5 Political participation in cultural perspective addresses the impact of values and attitudes on political participation (Inglehart, 1979, 1997; Schwarzt,1992; Sagiv L. & S. H. Schwarzt, 2000). According to Schwarzt s (1992) approach, the key aspect that differentiates people s values is the motivational goal. Value refers to the type of a goal or motivational concern that it expresses (Schwarzt, 1992, p.2). Motivational content of values is the most important principle in the organization of individual value preferences. Schwarzt (1992) identifies 10 motivationally distinct value types (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, spirituality, benevolence and universalism), which represent three universal requirements of human existence: biological needs, requisites of coordinated social interaction and survival needs of groups. Actions, which are taken in pursuit of each type of values, have psychological, practical and social consequences. Schwarzt (1992) argues that five types of values (power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation and self-direction) serve individual interests and three types of value serve collective interests (benevolence, tradition and conformity). Universalism and security serves individual as well as collective interests. The total structure of values consists of four higher order value types that form two conceptual dimensions (Schwarzt, 1992). First dimension combines stimulations and self-direction values in opposition to security, conformity and tradition. This dimension is called openness to change versus conservation. Second dimension combines power, achievement, hedonism in opposition to universalism, benevolence and spiritual life and is called self-enhancement versus self-transcendence. The shift from collective to individual values is related to an increase in interest in individual happiness and a decrease in interest in welfare of the whole society (Triandis, 1993). The shift from materialist to post-materialist values includes cognitive mobilization and increase in efficacy (Inglehart, 1979; Kaase & Marsh, 1979). External efficacy refers to understanding and evaluation of political system and authority as being open and responsive to needs of average citizens (Abramson, 1983, p.141). Internal efficacy refers to the feeling that political and social change is a possibility and that an individual may play a certain role in bringing about this change (Campbell, Gurin, Miller, 1954, p.187). According to Uslaner and Brown (2005, p.869) < >[g]reater equality and higher levels of trust are two pathways to participation. < > Inequality may depress participation, either directly or indirectly, through its effects on trust. First, where inequality is higher, the poor may feel powerless. They will perceive that their views are not represented in the political system and they will opt out of civic engagement. Second, trust in others rests on a foundation of economic equality. When resources are distributed inequitably, people at the top and the bottom will not see each other as facing a shared fate. Therefore, they will have less reason to trust people of different backgrounds. Also, trust rests on a psychological foundation of optimism and control over one s environment. Where inequality is high, people will be less likely to believe that the future looks bright, and they will have even fewer reasons to believe that they are the masters of their own fate. Inequality leads to lower levels of trust and thus may also have an indirect effect on civic participation. Some authors (Przeworski, 1991, 1992; Ekiert, 1991) are not optimistic about future of democracy in post-communist countries, although market economy and democracy seem to be mutually supportive. Rapid economic restructuring caused new patterns of 5

6 social stratification and inequality in post-communist countries. There is a relationship between perceptions of the economy and of democracy in postcommunist countries (Pacek, 1994; Paczynska, 2005). Institutions of democracy Market economy Individual factors Political participation modes Individual/ collective values Figure 1. An analytical schema of political participation Transition from the state to market economy has been related to different economic opportunities and the need of different individual resources in comparison with socialist economy and it caused rapid social differentiation and a rapid increase of economic inequality in the society. There is a connection between a market economy and democracy (Przeworski,1991, 1992). A direct link is posited between process of (economic) modernization and process of democratization (Thomassen & van Deth, 1998). Although market systems can be subjected to high levels of manipulation by authorities, and do not by themselves guarantee democracy, independent economic institutions have been closely associated with the growth of the bourgeoisie, the rule of law, and, eventually, of democracy itself (Thomassen & van Deth, 1998, p.119). Transition from the state to market economy was related to transition from totalitarism to institutions of democracy and it increased a gap between the government officials and ordinary citizens along with other reasons. According to modernization theory, technological and economic change is going simultaneously with political and cultural change (Inglehart, 1997) i.e. rapid increase of economic inequality caused disappointment about future and low trust to institutions and people. Furthermore, a change from socialism to market economy is related to change from collective to individualistic culture (Triandis, 1993) Research methodology 6

7 The measurement of political participation in the questionnaires corresponds to questions that are used in classical studies of political participation (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Verba, Nie & Kim, 1978; Verba, Schlozman & Brady,1995). Political participation is measured by 16 questions that include conventional modes of political participation such as voting, contacting, working in a political party or/and in an election campaign and unconventional modes of political participation such as protest acts. 3 The hypothetical model of factors, determining political participation includes: 1) socio-demographic characteristics, 2) civic skills, 3) social capital dimensions, 4) individual and collective values, 5) perceptions of a good citizen and an effect of a particular political act in decision-making; 6) evaluations of the political system, economy of the country and economic situation of respondent s own family at present and in the future (Coleman, 1988; Conway, 1991; Inglehart, 1979, 1997; Putnam, 1993; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Schwarzt,1992; Sagiv L. & S. H. Schwarzt, 2000Verba & Nie,1972; Verba, Nie & Kim, 1978; Verba, Schlozman & Brady,1995). The instrument of the survey was a questionnaire, which includes closed questions concerning political participation modes, membership in organizations, characteristics of networks of discussion about politics, individual and collective values and attitudes. The empirical analysis of the types of participators is based on quantitative data. The method of the study is survey sample data. The survey was conducted by the Market and Opinion Research Center Vilmorus in June, The sample of the survey was a stratified multi-stage sample, which represents the total number of the inhabitants of Lithuania at the age and includes 1050 respondents. This study employs cluster analysis to identify citizen groups and group distribution in Lithuania in accordance to their similarities and differences of participation in political actions and their interest in politics. Various methods and techniques of statistical analysis are applied in order to measure the impact of individual sociodemographic factors, civil skills, social capital dimensions, values and attitudes that explain differences among participators types. Differences between types of participators in political acts in Lithuania: empirical results TwoStep cluster analysis was used to group Lithuanian citizens in accordance with differences of the level of interest in politics and participation in political acts 4. The cluster analysis discovered differences between the types of participators in relation to three dimensions: 1) interest in politics, 2) voting and 3) participation in other modes of political acts. The results of the cluster analysis are shown in table 1. 3 Political participation is measured by asking 16 questions: 1) Did you vote in the last elections? 2) Did you contact a politician last year? 3) Did you contact any organization or association last year? 4) Did you contact any government or local official last year? 5) Did you work in a political party last year? 6) Did you work in any local initiative group last year? 7) Did you work in any other organization last year? 8) Did you wear or display any badge or sticker of any campaign last year? 9) Did you sign a petition last year? 10) Did you contact or appear in the media last year? 11) Did you donate money or raised funds last year? 12) Did you participate in a demonstration last year? 13) Did you participate in a strike last year? 14) Did you boycott certain products last year? 15) Did you perform an act of civil disobedience last year? 16) Did you participate in any other political activities last year? 4 See tables 1-20 in the Annex. 7

8 Table 1. The three types of participators: the main characteristics of their levels of participation Type of Interested in Voted, % Participated in other Size of a group, % (N) participators politics, % political acts, % Passive 25,0 17,9 43,7 26,6 (240) Active 69,2 98, ,6 (240) Voters 53, ,3 46,8 (418) TwoStep cluster analysis; N=898. Respondents were grouped into the three types of participators: the passive (26.8%), the active (26.3%) and the voters (47.6%). 25.0% of the passive respondents were interested in politics, 17.9% of the passive voted in elections, and 43,7% of the passive participated in other political acts. Donating money and raising funds was the most popular political act within the category of other political acts among the passive respondents. 20.0% of the respondents, who donated money or raised funds, were the passive % of the active were interested in politics, 98.3% of the active voted in elections, and 100% of the active participated in other acts. 42.0% of the respondents, who donated money or raised funds, were the active. 53.6% of the voters were interested in politics, 100% of the voters voted in elections, and they do not participated in other political acts with except of donating money or raised funds. 38.0% of the respondents, who donated money or raised funds, were the voters. The multinomial logistic regression was used to identify demographic, civic skills, social capital characteristics, values and attitudes of Lithuanian citizens to predict which citizens belong to particular types of participators (the active, the passive, the voters). The model of multinomial logistic regression was composed of 4 demographic predictors (age, education, profession, family status), 1 predictor of civic resources (self-assessment of his/her own capability to write a letter against a decision of a government institution), 4 predictors of social capital (index of membership in organizations 6, socializing with people, who a respondent does not know, selfassessment of ease of expression a deviant opinion, trust to people), 3 predictors of external efficacy (evaluation of politicians attentiveness to ordinary people s opinion, ordinary people s opportunities to understand what happens in politics, sufficiency of ordinary people s knowledge to make political decisions), 3 dimensions of internal efficacy (his/her own opportunities to present own requirements to politicians, his/her own capabilities to find out the truth in politics, sufficiency of his/her own knowledge to make political decisions), 7 values (self-realization, social life, peace, self % (N=71) of respondents, who donated money, 31.1% (N=169) of respondents, who not donated money, were the passive. 42.0% (N=149) of respondents, who donated money, 16.9% (N=92) of respondents, who not donated money, were the active. 38.0% (N=135) of respondents, who donated money, 52.0% (N=283) of respondents, who not donated money, were the voters. 6 Index of membership in organizations was created by computing membership in a sport club, in a cultural club, in a envirnmental organization, in a women s organization, in a temparance organization, in a farmers organization, in a local action group, in a political party, in a trade union, in other organizations. 8

9 discipline, various life, social justice, being influential), 2 predictors of assessment of effectiveness of a particular political act (voting in elections, signing a petition), 4 understandings of a good citizen (a good citizen has to be informed about events in a society, a good citizens has to influence political and societal decisions, a good citizen has to vote, a good citizen has to do military service), 2 evaluations of the political system (evaluation of the present political system, evaluation of the political system in five years) and 4 economic evaluations (evaluation of the present economic situation of the country, evaluation of the economic situation of the country in five years, selfassessment of the present economic situation of the own household, self-assessment of the economic situation of the household in five years) in order to predict type of participators (the passive, the active or the voters). Two regression patterns were indentified one was for the active respondents versus the passive, the second was for the voters versus the passive. The pseudo-r square (Nagelkerke) was 0.66 indicating a good fit between the total model and data although the fit was less than perfect. The results of multinomial regression model reveal which variables 7 predict types of participators (Table 2). Table 2. Results multinomial logistic regression Variable B Exp (B) Active Intercept Primary school Secondary incomplete school Secondary school Secondary professional school High education Age (coded in years) Divorced Married Single Membership in two or more organizations Membership in an organization Nonmember Able to write a letter against a decision of a government institution Not able Socializing with people that he/she does not know Often Seldom Never Evaluation of an economic situation of the household in five years Much better -7.96*** -3.13* -3.81*** -1.42* *** * *** 2.01** * % Confidence Interval Independent variables: age is coded in years; attitudes (ease of expression of a deviant opinion, understanding that voting is effective, understanding that signing a petition is effective, evaluation of the political system in five years, politicians are attentive to ordinary people s opinions, opportunities to present personal requirements to politicians, his/her own knowledge to make political decisions, trust to people, a good citizen has to vote, a good citizen has to do military service, trust to the Government) are coded in scale from min= 1 to max=10. 9

10 A little better About the same A little worse Ease of expression of a deviant opinion Effectiveness of voting Effectiveness of signing a petition Evaluation of political system in five years Politicians are attentive to ordinary people s opinions Opportunities to present personal requirements to politicians Sufficiency of his/her own knowledge to make political decisions Trust to people A good citizen has to vote A good citizen has to do military service Trust to the Government Voters Intercept Primary school Secondary incomplete school Secondary school Secondary professional school High education Age Divorced Married Single Membership in two or more organizations Membership in an organization Nonmember Able to write a letter against a decision of a government institution Not able Socializing with people that he/she does not know Often Seldom Never Evaluation of an economic situation of the household in five years Much better A little better About the same A little worse Ease of expression of a deviant opinion Effectiveness of voting Effectiveness of signing a petition Evaluation of political system in five years Politicians are attentive to ordinary people s opinions Opportunities to present personal requirements to politicians Sufficiency of his/her own knowledge to make political decisions Trust to people A good citizen has to vote A good citizen has to do military service * ** ** ** *** -3.24** -2.30** *** ** 2.16** 1.23* * 0.21** -0.16* ** -0.30** 0.33** -0.17* 0.20* 0.16*

11 Trust to the Government Stepwise method: Backward stepwise; N=430; df=1; *** p=0.000; **p<0.01; *p<0.05; Log likelihood = ; LRT Chi2 (52)= Pearson Chi-Square =807.69; df=806; p=0.477; Nagelkerke= A comparison between the active and the passive group suggests ten variables, namely education, age, index of membership in organizations, self-assessment of civic skills, social networks of leisure, evaluation of the economic situation of the household in five years, understanding that voting is effective, a good citizen has to vote, politicians are attentive to ordinary people s opinions (external efficacy), sufficiency of his/her own knowledge to make political decisions (internal efficacy), which were statistically significant. This shows that controlling for other variables. It was less likely that respondents with primary education (odds ratio [OR] = 0.04, confidence interval [CI] 95%: ), secondary incomplete education (OR=0.02, CI 95%: ) and secondary education (OR= 0.24, CI 95%: ) would become the active than respondents with high education. It was more likely that elder respondents (OR=1.10, CI 95%: ) would become the active than younger respondents. Respondents with two or more memberships in organizations are more likely to be the active than nonmembers (OR=23.35, CI 95%: ). It is more likely that respondents who are able to write a letter against a decision of a government institution (OR=1.10, CI 95%: ) would be the active than respondents who are not able to write a letter against a decision of a government institution. Respondents, who often socialize with people that they do not know, are more likely (OR=23.35, CI 95%: ) to be the active than respondents who never socialize with people that they do not know. Respondents who evaluated the economic situation of their household in five years much better (OR=0.11, CI 95%: ) are less likely to be the active than respondents who evaluated the economic situation of their household in 5 years a little worse. Respondents who think that voting is more effective way to influence a particular decision making process (OR=1.23, CI 95%: ) are more likely to be the active than respondents who think that voting is less effective. Respondents who are more inclined to think that a good citizen has to vote in elections are more likely (OR=1.31, CI 95%: ) to be the active than respondents who are less inclined to think that a good citizen has to vote in elections. Respondents who think that politicians are less attentive to ordinary people s opinion are more likely (OR=0.74, CI 95%: ) to be the active than respondents who think that politicians are more attentive to ordinary people s opinion. Respondents who think that they have more opportunities to find out the truth against politicians are more likely (OR=1.31, CI 95%: ) to be the active than respondents who think that they have less opportunities to find out the truth against politicians. On the other variables, the respondents showed no differences. A comparison between the voters and the passive group suggests thirteen variables, namely education, age, self-assessment of civic skills, social networks of leisure, ease of expression a deviant opinion, understanding that voting is effective, understanding that signing a petition is effective, a good citizen has to vote, a good citizen has to do 11

12 military service, politicians are attentive to ordinary people s opinions (external efficacy), personal opportunities to present his/her own requirements to politicians (internal efficacy), sufficiency of his/her own knowledge to make political decisions (internal efficacy), trust to people, which were statistically significant. It was less likely that respondents with primary education (OR=0.04, confidence interval [CI] 95%: ) and secondary incomplete education (OR=0.10, CI 95%: ) would become the voters than respondents with high education. It was more likely that elder respondents (OR=1.13, CI 95%: ) would become the voters than younger respondents. Respondents, who often (OR=8.70, CI 95%: ) and seldom (OR=3.42, CI 95%: ) socialize with people that they do not know are more likely to become the voters than respondents who never socialize with people that they do not know. Respondents who find out to express deviant opinion during discussion more difficult (OR=0.84, CI 95%: ) are more likely to be the voters than respondents who find out to express deviant opinion during discussion easier. Respondents who think that voting is more effective way to influence a particular decision making process (OR=1.23, CI 95%: ) are more likely to be the voters than respondents who think that voting is less effective. Respondents who think that signing a petition is less effective way to influence a particular decision making process (OR=0.86, CI 95%: ) are more likely to be the voters than respondents who think that signing a petition is more effective. Respondents who are more inclined to think that a good citizen has to vote in elections are more likely (OR=1.22, CI 95%: ) to be the voters than respondents who are less inclined to think that a good citizen has to vote in elections. Respondents who are more inclined to think that a good citizen has to do military service are more likely (OR=1.17, CI 95%: ) to be the voters than respondents who are less inclined to think that a good citizen has to do military service. Respondents who think that politicians are less attentive to ordinary people s opinion are more likely (OR=0.72, CI 95%: ) to be the voters than respondents who think that politicians are more attentive to ordinary people s opinion. Respondents who think that they have less opportunities to present their requirements to politicians are more likely (OR=0.74, CI 95%: ) to be the voters than respondents who think they have more opportunities to present their requirements to politicians. Respondents who think that they have more opportunities to find out the truth against politicians are more likely (OR=1.40, CI 95%: ) to be the voters than respondents who think that they have less opportunities to find out the truth against politicians. On the other variables, the respondents showed no differences. To sum up, ten variables, namely education, age, index of membership in organizations, self-assessment of civic skills, social networks of leisure, evaluation of the economic situation of the household in five years, understanding that voting is effective, understanding that a good citizen has vote, politicians are attentive to ordinary people s opinions (external efficacy), sufficiency of his/her own knowledge to make political decisions (internal efficacy) are statistically significant, when we compare between the active and the passive respondents. Thirteen variables, namely education, age, self-assessment of civic skills, social networks of leisure, evaluation of ease of expression a deviant opinion, understanding that voting is effective, understanding that signing a petition is effective, understanding that a good citizen 12

13 has to vote, understanding that a good citizen has to do a military service, politicians are attentive to ordinary people s opinions (external efficacy), personal opportunities to present his/her own requirements to politicians (internal efficacy), sufficiency of his/her own knowledge to make political decisions (internal efficacy), trust to people are statistically significant, when we compare between the voters and the passive. Table 3. Means of evaluations of the economic and the political system in Lithuania Passive Active Voters Mean, N F Present political system 4,02 4,17 4,08 4,09 (877) 0,28 Political system in five 5,29 5,85 5,44 5,51 (757) 3,69* years Present economy 4,87 5,07 4,55 4,77 (862) 5,63** Economy in five years 6,10 6,38 5,89 6,08 (769) 3,35* Present situation of the 2,31 2,29 2,44 2,37 (876) 5,58** household Situation of the household in five years 2,38 2,47 2,59 2,50 (809) 4,53* df=2; *** p=0.000; **p<0,01; *p<0,05 Discussion Three types of participators (the active, the passive and the voters) are characterized by different patterns of interest in politics, voting and participation in other political acts. The passive contribute to voting the least, but they contribute more to participation in other political acts in comparison with the voters. For the reason that a number of respondents, who participate in other political acts, are modest in absolute numbers and percent 8, there is no sense to investigate the participation of group of the passive in respect to conventional versus unconventional modes of participation. The results of multinomial logistic regression reveal that age is a significant predictor, which distinguishes between the types of participators. Age is a little stronger predictor of the group of voters than of the active. The group of passive is the youngest one, the group of voters is the oldest one. The impact of age on political participation in this study corresponds to the impact of the age on political participation in the classical studies i.e. younger individuals participate in political acts less than the older ones (Milbrath & Goel, 1977; Conway, 1991; Parry, Moyser & Day, 1992; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 1995; Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 2000). Education is a significant predictor, which distinguishes between the types of participators. The more educated the respondents, the more likely they are in the group of the active or of voters. Primary, secondary incomplete and secondary education in relation to high education distinguishes between the group of active and 8 4.6% contacted a politician, 7.0% contacted an organization, 15.3% contacted an official of the national or local government, 3.3% worked in a political party; 3.3% worked in a local group, 6.9% worked in an another organization, 4.2% wear a campaign badge; 7.6% signed a petition, 2.6% participated in demonstration, 0.9% participated in a strike, 2.4% boycotted products, 39.0% donated money or raised funds, 8.1% contacted mass media or appeared in mass media, 1.6% participated in acts of civil disobedience, 7.1 % participated in other acts. 13

14 the group of passive, and primary and secondary incomplete education in relation to high education distinguishes between the voters and the passive. Secondary incomplete education is a stronger predictor in relation with high education in the group of voters than in the group of the active. Education gives people the knowledge and skills that facilitate participation and places people in social networks that inform them about politics and reward political action (Conway, 1991; Parry, Moyser & Day, 1992; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 1995). Because of education, the active respondents have more knowledge, skills and social contacts and they are able to participate in a wide diversity of political acts (contacting, participation in a campaign, work in an organization, protest actions). Because of lower education in comparison with the group of active, the voters have less knowledge, skills and social contacts and they choose to cast a vote in an election, because it requires little skills and initiative. The group of passive is characterized by low levels of education (mostly secondary incomplete and secondary education), which are considered as an obstacle to participation in political acts, but the passive have opportunities to increase their level of education, because of their young age. Membership in two or more organizations is a significant predictor, which differentiates between the group of the active and the passive. Members of organizations may develop cognitive, deliberative and organizational skills, civic virtues and a sense of efficacy by working in organizations. But it is assumed that not all organizations are equally involved in political activities. Organizations with private or nonpolitical purposes (sports clubs, choral societies, self-help groups) contribute to democracy less and their members participate in political acts less (Foley & Edwards,1998). That may be a reason that only membership in two or more organizations is a statistically significant predictor. For the reason that membership in a particular type of organization is modest in absolute numbers and percent, it was impossible to investigate the impact of membership in a particular types of organizations. Self-assessment of civic skills (self-assessment of ability to write a letter against decision of a government institution) is a significant predictor, which differentiates between the types of participators. Self-assessment of civic skills (self-assessment of ability to write a letter against decision of a government institution) is a stronger predictor of the active and less strong predictor of the voters in relation to the passive. The active participated in a wide diversity of political acts, which need the maximum of civic skills. Self-assessment of civic skills is not so strong predictor of the voters, because voting and donating money is related to the minimum of civic skills in comparison with other political acts (contacting, participation in a campaign, work in an organization, protest actions). It is assumed that self-assessment of civic skills (self-assessment of ability to write a letter against decision of a government institution) may be an aspect of education, because education provides the knowledge and skills that facilitate participation in politics. There are statistically significant differences between types of participators in relation to socializing with unknown people. Respondents, who often or seldom at their leisure socialize with unknown people, are exposed to exchange of more diverse information in their social networks in comparison with those who never socialize with unknown 14

15 people (Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998). It is assumed that the active and the voters have more developed social networks, which helps them to get more diverse information about social and political matters and which are characterized by weak ties in comparison with the passive (Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998). It is assumed that socializing with unknown people at leisure may be related to membership in an organization, because organizations provide the social infrastructure for socializing with unknown people. On the other side, it may be an indicator of any informal social life outside the home. The evaluation of the economic situation of the household in five years is a significant predictor, which differentiates between the active and the passive. The active are less likely to evaluate it as much better in comparison with the passive and it supports Uslaner s and Brown s (2005) argument that the experience of rapid increase of economic inequality leads to lower levels of optimism about future. It means that the passive are more optimistic concerning the future of their household than the active. Nevertheless, it may be explained as a lifecycle effect, because the passive is the younger (the present economic situation of the household the active and the passive group evaluate almost the same 9 ), and they have bigger expectations concerning their success in the market economy, because they are going to start or have recently started their job career. The passive have not had an experience of rapid increase of inequality, because of transition from the state economy to market economy (privatization and etc.), for the reason that they were not in a job position at that time. It may be assumed that the passive respondents accept economic inequality as an inevitable fact. Understanding that voting is effective and understanding that a good citizen has to vote are significant predictors of the types of participators. The higher the respondents evaluate the statement voting is an effective mean to influence a decision-making process, the more likely they are in the group of the active or in the group of voters. The higher the respondents evaluate the statement a good citizen has to vote in an election, the more likely they are in the group of the active and in the voters. The higher the respondents evaluate the statement a good citizen has to do military service, the more likely they are in the group of voters. The active and the voters differ from the passive, because they evaluate the statement voting is an effective mean to make influence in a decision-making process and the statement a good citizen has to vote in an election higher. Most respondents of the active and the voters vote in elections, because they think it is an effective mean of making influence on public decisions and it is a duty of a good citizen. After 1990 most citizens considered participation in elections as support to democracy (Thomassen & van Deth, 1998) and the passive who mostly do not remember the Soviet regime accept democracy as a natural thing. The external efficacy (understanding that politicians are attentive to ordinary people s opinion) is a significant predictor of the types of participators. The higher the respondents evaluate the statement politicians are attentive to ordinary people s opinions, the less likely they are in the group of the active or of voters. 9 See Table 3. 15