Political Engagement 2016

The concept of citizenship is having equal status and accessibility to rights and this comes with responsibilities. For example, citizens pay taxes to the government in order for there to be a free National Health Service. Citizenship has encompassed a narrative that was of a heterosexuality normative agenda. The legislation of homosexual people happened in Britain in 1967. The LGBT (lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual) Community however, have been very active in fighting for their right to have full citizenship status in, ‘education, parenting, employment, and housing’ (Richardson, 1998, pp.89) prior and since this law was introduced. Dispute the legal effort that the LGBT community have campaigned for, there are still discrimination for example hate crimes. It was only until 2014 where same-sex couples could achieved full citizenship as this meant that they were entitle to marry and the same tax credits that heterosexual couples where, ‘affecting pension rights, inheritance rights’ (Richardson,1998, pp.89). The LGBT community has fought for their right at every stage. From the right to love anyone who is an consenting adult and being able to express this by holding hands in public without being thrown into prison to whether their sexual orientation would be discriminated against if they wanted to stand for office, and be treated as fairly as the rest of the components.

Lesbian, gay and bisexual people are under representation proportionally to the amount of people in this demographic in the House of Commons. It is said that one in ten people are gay, lesbian or bisexual and yet there are only ‘32 of the United Kingdom’s 650 MPs calling themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual’ (Shariatmadari, 2015). This may be due to the fact that there are barriers in being selected to run for an MP position, illustrated by the graph by Summerskill (2013) the Chief Executive from Stonewall.org.

(Summerskill, 2013, pp.7).

I believe that the LGBT community are engaged in politics because of the amount of campaigning that their fellow community have done to gain equal acknowledgement from partial to full citizen status, and for the fight of LGBT rights. The limitation has been whether they have been acknowledged by government. An example is the 47 year gap from the legalization of homosexuality to the right to marry as there heterosexual friends had already based on their birth. If one is degraded as less then human or seen as the ‘other’ this makes it a lot easier to keep ‘them’ subjected. Many leaders over the years have used this tool of dehumanisation to inforce laws to segregate and oppress them from civil society. There have been examples of this many times over from; women being claimed to be less able and therefore should not have the right to vote, to Jews being seen as scum by Nazi Germans to Homosexuals being disregarded as unnatural and deviants. Full citizenship has been given in the UK to those who fit the criteria for it; heterosexual, white, middle class, and male. I would agree that with Diane Richardson, who would argue that citizenship status has been associated with the ‘institutionalisation of heterosexual, as well as male privilege’ (1998, pp.83).

An indication to male privilege would be underlined in political socialisation, and the narrative that this is gendered. Political socialisation is how we learn about politics through family, wider society and the education system. On the surface, the Electoral Commission (2005) would point out that women in general in the UK are found to be overall ‘significantly less politically active than men’, despite the fact that ‘men and women are equally as likely to vote in local, regional and national elections’. Looking deeper into the issue of women’s limited engagement in politics, the Electoral Commission (2005) found that political interest is higher among men than women (61% against 45%) and that only 31% of women feel they know at least a fair amount about politics, compared to 52% of men’. This may be due to the concept the politics is a predominantly masculine and of the male sphere, which would have been internalized by young people when learning about politics. It could be argued that this is why the ratio of male to female is at shocking levels for the twenty first Century. ‘After the 2015 General Election there are now 191 female MPs’ (Parliament, 2015) out of a possible 650. The pie chart below shows that the number of MPs in the House of Commons and their gender. Comparing the two pie charts it shows that the UK population of women proportionally is much greater than the amount of women in the current UK government. As there are ‘31 million men and 32.2 million women in the UK’ (Office for National Statistics, 2011).  

References 

 

I believe that all citizens should have equal access to engage in politics, from a local to national level, regardless of social class background. Unfortunately this is not the case at the moment in Britain. The 2015 General Election was a prime example of this as ‘75%’ of the upper classes voted compared to ‘57%’ of the lower classes (Ipsos Mori, 2015). People learn about politics through their socialisation. Political socialisation is the amount of knowledge and engagement that is in the family, education system, as well as wider society; all three of these components are passed onto the next generation. There is clear evidence that the working class have a lower level of political socialisation. Resulting in a lower level of political engagement than the middle or upper classes, according to the Electoral Commission (2005). The rates of engagement by the working class have been similar over a long period of time according to Beeghley (1986) who states that ‘the poor display the lowest and the rich the highest rate of participation’ (1989, pp.496) in politics, as the families pass on the same values from one generation to the next.

Generally working class pupils at GCSE level get lower grades as a whole compared to middle class students. Therefore, the education system component of political socialisation has a correlation to lower level of education and lower level of political engagement. The working class pupils with lower grades, are not trained into having the skill to understand or participate in politics. This could have the result of the working class feeling powerless to influence government and therefore they do not see the point of taking part in it. It has been rated that ‘51% of the top social class felt they could influence decisions at a local level in 2003, compared to just 33% among the lowest social class’ (The Electoral Commission, 2005, pp.9). Overall, this means that the working class have not been given the skills to engage, internalizing this to mean that they feel like they cannot make a change which has an outcome of a self–fulfilling prophecy; there is no point in engaging.

Hoskins et al. (2014) study indicates that the level of education has a correlation to social class. As ‘people from working-class backgrounds disproportionately ending up in initial vocational education’ (Hoskins et al., 2014, pp.70) which encourages pupils to behave passively and carry out tasks without questioning them. It is important to point out that the academic studies often are taken by middle class pupils which encourages them to think critically compared to the vocational training.

Hoskins et al. (2014)

The graph above shows that in England the level of political engagement in the form of future voting is significantly lower for the vocational pupils who are predominantly working class, compared to the middle class academic students. This dramatic level of difference in involvement based on education could be improved by having lessons on the importance of democracy in a citizenship lesson for all students. Otherwise there is not an equal level of the possibility of engagement in politics. This has a massive impact on the legitimacy and the democratic process of the country. England shows a shockingly low level of future voters from the vocational and the academic students compared to Denmark. Therefore, the strong social class system in England has a big effect on the future of voters, showing cultural differences between England and Denmark whose social class system is not as deeply entrenched as England’s.

A way that the working class could be engaged in the political system would be to have the voting open for more than one day in General and Local Elections. This way people who have otherwise not had the time have more than one opportunity to formally participate. Other reasons that the working class do not go out and vote could be due to the polling stations being placed strategically further for some constituents to travel to. It could be said that this strategic move is a Conservative political agenda as the older generation are more likely to vote Conservatives, who also get a free bus pass, or middle class people are better off than the working class financially and can afford to travel. Whereas, people from working class backgrounds may not be able to afford to pay for travel costs in order to go and vote, as most working class people vote for Labour. Having voting open for more than one day and a free bus pass for the nation on that day of General Elections would resolve a lot of the inequalities that are in the political system.

Bibliography

How young people can engage with political activism.

Young people interact with the political system in alternative ways. Alternative political engagement can include going on demonstrations or signing petitions. Although it seems that young people are apathetic to politics the graph below shows it is low participation at 45% (Sloam, 2014, pp.671) compared to Germany who have a high level at 65% compared with Great Britain. As Sloam (2014) graph shows the numbers is lower for young people participating in around 10% on Campaigning or on Demonstrations. Whereas, it is higher on Petition which can be a form of alternative politics around is part of activism on an issue rather alignment with a political party. One way that young people can engage in political activism is by voting. For a democratic society all citizens should vote for their values to be represented.

(Sloam, 2014, pp.671)

One way to increase representative political engagement is to make activism relatable to young people, they may engage more. Young people can relate to ‘activism’ rather than ‘political activism’ because young people may not have a full understanding of what politics means in relation to their own lives. So why do the words ‘political activism’ cause young people to turn away? The association of the word ‘political’ produces an image of a middle to old aged white male, which young people cannot relate to; neither does it represent what young people stand for. Therefore, young people have been disengaged from political activism. Politics is associated with taxes and adult responsibilities. Whereas, if schools were to teach where taxes go and why children do not have to pay tax on clothing, for example, then this may form a foundation of political knowledge. The national curriculum only gives guidelines for teachers on citizenship classes but political discussions varies between schools. In other words, if a child does not grow up in a politically minded household then they may not have any engagement with the political system or knowledge of it. Therefore, compulsory schooling on the political system, with relatable examples for young people to engage, means they will be informed of their role in society and their rights. In particular, females and ethnic minority groups, as these social groups are massively underrepresented in parliament today, only ‘191 women MPs were elected at the 2015 General Election, 29% of all MPs’ (Keen, 2015, pp.3).

In recent years there has been a decrease in young people voting in general elections, as in previous to the 2015 general election, ‘18-24 year olds has[ve] fallen from over 60% in the early 1990s to an average of 40% over the previous three general elections’ (Sloam, no date). One of which includes the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties scrapping Education Maintenance Allowance. Then the increase of tuition fees for university students to triple the previous generations and finally the latest knock to the youth generation, the maintenance grants being replaced by effectively more student debt. The reaction to this has been a campaign called ‘#CutTheCosts & #GrantsNotDebt’ (NSU connect, 2015).

One resolution to voting apathy in young people is to make it easier to access and understand. This generation have been left to find out everything for themselves, like how to register to vote, under a new law that has been introduced. You have to register to vote, before you can actually vote. This is very confusing for university students who may move addresses many times. Some people are not able to vote because they are homeless which ‘83,000 young people experience homelessness every year’ (CenterPoint, no date) because effectively you have to register in a constituency in order to vote for an MP. So there are so many barriers already before you decide who you are voting for.

One resolution to not having a clear address is compulsory voting by being registered at birth and not having to register ever again. There can always be an opt-out option, and people can always spoil the ballot paper by scribbling on it. Similar to the Australian policy, with a penalty fine for not voting. Voting age, why 18 years old? There is so much that young people have to say but are restricted in the formal electoral system. This is arguably not democratic. At 16 years old, a person can get married and start a family, by having children legally, but not having a say in how much child-support they would be entitled to or where they have maternity leave for instance. Engaging more people like in the Scottish referendum, has got to be positive and more democratic.

If young people were educated on why it is important to vote and what it means in regards to their life, they would. If the registering process were made simpler people would register to vote. If compulsory voting was introduced in the UK, people would have to engage by going to the polling station to vote. If voting age could be lower then young people would vote. If all of these things were to happen the next generation would be fully engaged with the political system and could make informed choices as to what political activism they would partake in.