Political participation

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The painting The County Election of George Caleb Bingham should have a choice in 1850 Saline County , Missouri , represent.

Political participation (also political participation or political participation ) is the participation and participation of citizens in political decision-making and decision-making processes. It can refer to both the basic political direction and very specific individual political issues and decisions. The concept of political participation is considered to be dependent on historical developments in political participation. In addition, there are various scientific definitions of political participation that differ according to their characteristics.

The various activities of political participation are systematically recorded, differentiated and examined in political participation research. Among other things, socio-economic status and gender are considered to be important factors that influence political participation.

The political participation of the citizens is considered a prerequisite, component and essential characteristic of a democracy .

Definitions of political participation

Internationally much quoted definitions of political participation come from Samuel P. Huntington and Joan M. Nelson (“ By political participation we mean activity by private citizens designed to influence government decision-making ” (German: “ By political participation we mean the activity of private citizens, their determination it is to influence the decision-making of the government. ”)) as well as by Sidney Verba , Norman H. Nie, Jae-on Kim (“ By political participation we refer simply to activity that has the intent or effect of influencing government action - either directly by affecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those policies ”(German:“ With political participation we simply refer to activity that has the intention or effect of influencing government action - either directly through Influencing the creation or implementation of political content or indirectly through the A selection of those who pursue this policy. ”)). What these provisions have in common is the limitation of political participation to activities that the state or government can or should influence their actions. Max Kaase's definition is particularly widespread in German-speaking participation research . According to this, political participation means "all activities (...) that citizens voluntarily undertake with the aim of influencing decisions on the various levels of the political system". Because of the voluntary criterion, it is initially questionable whether voting in states with compulsory voting such as Australia is a form of political participation according to this definition. However, if there is the possibility of deciding between different candidates (or election options) and voting invalidly despite compulsory voting, participation in political elections can also be counted as political participation according to this definition. Based on Max Kaase's definition of the term, political participation can be differentiated in various ways: through its political reference from social participation, through its "(direct) observability" of political attitudes, through the intention of influencing pure supportive or communication actions and through a possible limitation to actions of private citizens of professional occupation with politics.

However, broader provisions of political participation also include participation and activities in support of political leadership and reading about politics, the targeted perception of political information. According to a very broad understanding of the term, it can be related to all actions and attitudes with an immediately recognizable or expected political meaning. Accordingly, not only external actions, but - if the definition is based on a correspondingly broad definition - mental preoccupation with politics and political attitudes can be described as political participation.

There are also significant differences between the various definitions of political participation in the questions of whether the agent's intention to exert political influence is a necessary prerequisite for political participation, whether the agent's voluntariness is a necessary component and whether only legal or also illegal actions among the agents Political participation.

Instrumental and normative understanding of political participation

A distinction is made between instrumental and normative understandings of political participation according to different models of democracy and political terms. An instrumental understanding captures the actions taken by citizens to influence political decisions in their favor and in their interest. According to the normative understanding, political participation is perceived as an independent value in the sense of (direct) democratic constitution, participatory democracy and comprehensive social and political participation beyond the means to the end of the enforcement of interests .

Max Kaase's definition of political participation, which is widespread in German participation research and is also cited internationally, is to understand “all actions”, “citizens individually or in groups voluntarily undertake decisions at the various levels of the political system ( municipalities , State , federal government, possibly supranational units) to influence and / or to meet “represents an instrumental understanding of the term. In particular, it places an emphasis on assumed attempts to influence political decisions. This definition also refers explicitly to the role of people as citizens, understands political participation as an activity, which excludes a passive interest in politics from the concept of participation, and further restricts the concept in that political participation should be voluntary. These features of Kaase's definition are characteristic of an instrumental understanding of political participation.

Forms of political participation

The use of the right to vote is a legal, indirect and written form of political participation and therefore belongs to the conventional forms of political participation. The picture shows a ballot in the second round of the 2007 presidential election in France.
Squatting is an example of illegal forms of political participation and can be attributed to civil disobedience . The picture shows occupied houses on Mainzer Strasse in Berlin-Friedrichshain (1990).

In political science, the term political participation was mainly related to the participation of citizens in political decision-making and decision-making processes in the context of institutionalized forms of participation such as elections and membership and work in political parties until the late 1970s. Since then, this term has undergone a significant expansion and today, in participation research, direct (direct) from indirect (indirect), legal from illegal, written (or institutionalized) from non-written (or non-institutionalized) and conventional from unconventional forms of political participation differentiated.

While generalizing actions and powers of attorney, for example in elections, are defined as indirect participation, direct participation means the direct influence on factual and personnel decisions.

In contrast to legal participation, illegal participation moves outside the legal framework. Squatting , wildcat strikes and participation in banned demonstrations are examples of illegal forms of political participation. Illegal but not violent forms of political participation are also referred to as civil disobedience .

The differentiation between written and non-written forms of political participation is considered particularly important. Written or institutionalized forms of political participation correspond to the legally justified institutions , while the non-drafted (or non-institutionalized) forms include all legal possibilities for political participation that do not correspond to the legally founded institutions, but also all illegal forms of political participation. Examples of written or institutionalized forms of political participation are participation in elections and membership and work in political parties or trade unions . However, professional involvement with politics, such as full-time political office or mandate, and professional political advice and lobbying , depending on the definition used, is often not included under the term political participation.

With plebiscites in Germany , Austria and numerous other democratic states there are not only indirect but also direct institutionalized forms of political participation. In the Federal Republic of Germany there are these possibilities to influence political decisions directly in an institutionalized way , mainly at the municipal and state level . The Swiss political system offers particularly extensive institutionalized opportunities for direct political participation . Examples of non-institutionalized forms of political participation are the perception of political information in the media, discussions in a social environment and work in citizens' initiatives.

Participation in permitted (or approved) demonstrations is one of the legal forms of political participation. Depending on the acceptance and establishment of this activity and the individual definition of the terms, it can be counted among the unconventional or conventional forms of political participation or it can be located in a gray area between conventional and unconventional forms of participation. The picture shows a demonstration of freedom instead of fear in Berlin (2007).

Conventional political participation means established and common forms of political participation. Less established and unusual forms of participation are described as unconventional. The distinction between conventional and unconventional forms of political participation was developed in the context of the Political Action Study , which was carried out by a group led by Samuel Barnes and Max Kaase in the 1970s. Here, forms of participation that are legal, indirect and constitutional were considered conventional; In particular, those forms of participation that could be assessed as illegitimate were classified as unconventional.

Furthermore, a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate forms of political participation is possible and is used in participation research. Legitimate political participation is defined as behavior of political participation that is considered morally justified by the vast majority (or ideally all) of the members of the community in question , regardless of whether they are legal. Forms of participation that contradict the values ​​and sense of justice of the group concerned are described as illegitimate. This theoretical differentiation between legitimate and illegitimate forms of participation is considered problematic because of the pluralism of values, i.e. the existence of various sometimes even contradicting values, and because of (possible) changes in values ​​in societies of pluralistic democracies.

A classic example of conventional political participation is (active) participation in elections. Participation in direct democratic votes can also be assigned to the conventional political forms of participation, although it is a direct and not an indirect form. Membership and work in parties and trade unions are also mostly counted among the conventional forms of political participation.

This systematic differentiation of the forms of political participation in which

  • direct / immediate and indirect / indirect
  • legal and illegal
  • drafted / institutionalized and non-drafted / non-institutionalized
  • conventional and unconventional

Forms of participation are contrasted dichotomously, is characterized by overlaps and ambiguities: Not every activity of political participation can be clearly assigned. For example, participation in legal demonstrations can be located in a gray area between conventional and unconventional forms of political participation, depending on the degree of establishedness and acceptance in society as well as the underlying precise definition of these terms. Participation in elections is also treated as an independent type of political participation in empirical participation research.

The scientifically recorded repertoire of political participation now includes over 70 different activities. In addition to the activities already mentioned, for example, participation in informal groups with a low degree of organization , the contacting of officials and holders of political offices or mandates or the media by citizens, the conscious purchase or boycott of certain products (political consumption) and the spraying and painting of Slogans for the activities of political participation recorded in various scientific studies. In practice, "the repertoire of actions of citizens in democratic societies [...] seems to be almost infinite."

The democratic and democratic theoretical significance of political participation

When measuring democracy, political participation is often one of several indicators . The picture shows the Map of Freedom 2016 from Freedom House .
  • free
  • partly free
  • not free

    • In general, the importance of political participation for democracy is rated as so crucial that it is often used as one of several indicators in operationalizations to measure the degree of democratization of political systems . How to find the rights granted to political participation and input into the democratic measurements of Freedom House . Theoretically, the democratic-theoretical concept of polyarchy according to Robert Alan Dahl is often assumed. In this work by Dahl, the opportunity for all citizens to participate is an important feature of a political system that is as close as possible to the democratic ideal, alongside the competition for political power .

    In particular, the legitimacy of a democracy and political decisions are considered to be dependent on political participation. According to Iris Marion Young , the legitimacy of a political decision depends on the degree to which those affected by the decision were involved in the decision-making process.

    Political participation is of particular importance in participatory democracy theories. These theories, whose representatives include Carole Pateman , Peter Bachrach, Aryeh Botwinick and Benjamin Barber , place “the effective influence on or participation in decisions” at the various political levels and also in civil society at the center of a normative answer to the question, how democracy should be. In accordance with reflective participatory theories, the democratic decision-making process itself is not to be determined in advance, but also to be handed over to the democratic process. Of great importance in the history of ideas for participatory democracy theories is Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his main work On the Social Contract or Principles of Constitutional Law .

    Furthermore, the deliberative theories of democracy can also be assigned to the participation- centered theories of democracy . Important representatives of deliberative democracy theories include Jürgen Habermas , John Rawls and James S. Fishkin . In contrast to participatory theories of democracy, deliberative democracy theories place greater emphasis on public discourse , public consultation, participation in public communication and the interaction between deliberation and the decision-making process.

    What the participation-centered democracy theories have in common is a strong "focus on the input of the political process" by the citizens, taking into account "the formation of political will."

    Opposite participation-centered democracy theories, representatives of the so-called realistic democratic theories, which can be traced back to Joseph Alois Schumpeter and his work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , argue against an expansion of the spectrum of participation beyond political elections. In the tradition of Schumpeter, skepticism about the political maturity of citizens is the central argument, and concerns about the stability of the system are also given as a reason.

    Thus, in summary, there is “no generally valid assessment of the level of participation” in terms of democracy theory: While corresponding normative approaches to democracy theory that focus on political input from citizens appear to be desirable, high participation rates can be high according to normative theories that focus on political output can also be assessed as a "symptom of crisis".

    Research on political participation

    In principle, the definition of political participation on which a research is based can significantly influence the design and results of a study. The majority of studies in participation research focus on the micro level and methodologically on the analysis of survey data. A distinction is made between different forms of participation as well as between the different extent and degree of dissemination of political participation. In addition to the distinctions between direct / direct and indirect / indirect, legal and illegal, written / institutionalized and non-written / non-institutionalized as well as conventional and unconventional forms of political participation, further typologies are developed and applied in participation research. For example, Oskar Niedermayer differentiates between participation in elections and voting; party-related activities (membership and work in parties); Community, election campaign and politician-related activities (may be institutionalized but limited in time); legal protest (for example participating in approved demonstrations); civil protest (civil disobedience) and political violence (the most extreme form of political participation includes violence against objects and people).

    Based on the scope of participation and different types of political participation, taxonomies of political participants are also developed. The classic differentiation by Lester W. Milbrath according to the extent of participation and active political participation between inactive, spectators and gladiators. A more recent example is Jan van Deth's distinction on the basis of a differentiation between the types of participation in voter participation, conventional political forms of participation and political protests “with regard to their combination of participation options ”. On this basis, van Deth distinguishes between eight different types of political participants: protesting voters (voter turnout and protests, no conventional participatory activities ), conventional (only conventional political participation actions, no voter participation, no protests), conventional protesters (conventional actions and protests, none Turnout), conventional voters (conventional actions and turnout, no protest actions), protesters (protest actions, neither turnout nor conventional participation), pure voters (only turnout), passives (no turnout, no protest actions, no conventional participation activities) and activists (turnout, Protests and conventional participatory activities).

    In the meantime, e-participation has also become the subject of political participation research. Like e-participation, political consumption as a relatively new form of political participation has only recently attracted the attention of empirical participation research.

    Research on political participation concerns, among other things, the question of the dependence of political participation on socio-economic status, gender, migration and nationality . In addition to studies on political participation in individual states, there are comparative studies on political participation in different political systems.

    Income, educational level, political interest, the feeling of political competence and gender are all important, empirically tested explanatory variables for political participation. Furthermore, the political values ​​acquired in political socialization , such as democratic conviction or a sense of civic duty, integration in social networks , the institutional framework and the behavior of political elites are important factors in explaining political participation.

    For example, empirical research showed that among schoolchildren (data from 9th and 10th grades of secondary schools and grammar schools in Baden-Württemberg) the influence of the already low political participation experience on political knowledge is small, while political knowledge has a positive effect on willingness to participate Has.

    History of Political Participation Research

    At first, political participation research developed together with electoral research - this can be seen as the reason for the earlier shortening of the definition of political participation to participation in elections. The first studies on voter behavior that were carried out in the early 20th century can be seen as the origin of political science research on political participation. An important further step in the development of modern political participation research is the systematic development of survey research with representative national or regional population cross-sections in the 1940s, mainly in the USA . The work of Lester W. Milbrath on Political Participation from the 1960s and 1970s marks the beginning of actual political science participation research : An attempt was made to “summarize the results of election and participation research in an internationally comparative and systematic way”. Milbrath's work concentrated on participation in elections and in parties, i.e. on institutionalized forms of political participation, but differentiated in this context according to type and scope. The study Participation and Political Equality by Sidney Verba, Norman H. Nie and Jae-on Kim from 1978, which compares seven countries internationally , already distinguished between the dimensions of “voting, election campaigns, community activities and individual contacts with particularist objectives”, recorded the precisely for The forms of participation typical of the non-institutionalized political protest, such as demonstrations, sit-ins and boycotts , which are characteristic of the 1960s and 1970s , however. International research comparing the non-authored forms of political participation was also included in the study Political Action. Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies. Operated in 1974 and published in 1979 by Samuel H. Barnes, Max Kaase, and others. This study also put political protest at the center of interest.

    Further steps towards the distinctions between various forms of political participation that are common in participation research today were taken in the 1980s. The dissertation by Hans-Martin Uehlinger from 1988 is particularly important in German-language research: Uehlinger's taxonomy distinguishes between “citizenship role”, problem-specific participation, party-oriented participation, civil disobedience and political violence. Examples of being a citizen are expressing political opinion and voting in elections. Uehlinger describes problem-specific participation as “forms of activity whose aim is to influence the decision on a specific problem”. Examples are signature campaigns , public discussions, citizens' initiatives and union strikes. Party-oriented participation means working in political parties in which the focus is not on an individual question, but on the expression of a political direction or an ideology. Refusal to pay rent or taxes, forbidden demonstrations, wildcat strikes and squatting are examples of Uehlinger's civil disobedience. Political violence can be further differentiated into political violence against people and political violence against property.

    In the 1990s there was more research into the relationship between social and political participation, with a particular focus on the importance of social capital . The publications Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. (1993) and Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. (2000) Robert D. Putnams are of particular importance for this development.

    Political participation and socio-economic status

    The existence of a relationship between social participation and political participation is considered an empirically well-established assumption in participation research today. Social and political participation can also be summarized under the term civic engagement . A close positive connection between social capital and political participation is also postulated on the basis of numerous studies in participation research, and the dependence of political participation on the factors income and education is also confirmed in many cases by research.

    For the Federal Republic of Germany, more recent empirical studies also show that political participation is dependent on income and employment status. More recent international comparative research points to a strong relationship between economic status and political participation in other established democracies as well.

    According to resource models of political participation that have been frequently cited and subjected to empirical tests, time, money, knowledge and competence are decisive resources for political participation. In addition, according to the resource-socialization-mobilization model by Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Henry Brady, motivation and social networks are important incentive factors. According to this model, characteristics of socio-economic status such as income, occupation and education correspond to the resources of political participation, the ( primary and secondary ) socialization of individual actors establishes the motivation to participate politically and the social environment, networks, political parties and political elites can encourage participation.

    Participation research also provides indications that the influence of the characteristics of the socio-economic status on the willingness to participate in politics is converging; the socio-economic characteristics and the social environment are then seen rather “as facilitating or aggravating conditions for participation.” On an empirical basis, the Propose thesis that it is not the socio-economic status per se, but its implementation in cognitive resources of political participation such as a sense of responsibility for the community and the feeling of political competence that is decisive.

    Political Participation and Gender

    Political participation research has been observing a difference between the sexes for decades: women showed less political commitment than men. According to Bettina Westle, the reasons for this observation can be distinguished from the interpretation patterns and arguments of the political science mainstream and the criticism of them from the feminist side. According to this, gender-specific "different socialization ", gender-specific "different life situations" and, based on this, gender-specific different "structural access barriers" such as a "structurally congealed misogyny of the established political organizations" in the institutional area, which are adapted to the typically male life course, are the main interpretation patterns of the mainstream to justify the observed difference between the sexes. As a criticism of the feminist side, Bettina Westle presents five points:

    • There is a “general gender blindness” in German political science.
    • The maintenance (“ perpetuation ”) of the “ myth of the apolitical, conservative woman incapable of democracy, which contributes to the further exclusion of women from the political and parliamentary space”.
    • The “norm of the male active citizen”, the political participation of women is disqualified against the background of this ideal.
    • There is a restricted concept of politics, the mainstream remains with its political concept "in the space of political institutions". Anything that does not relate directly to this area of ​​political institutions is ignored.
    • In research, gender is conceptualized as an independent variable and not as a social category.

    Political scientist Beate Hoecker describes the political culture , socio-structural factors such as education, employment and personal life situations as well as institutional factors such as the structure of the party systems, the political recruitment patterns and the political scientist Beate Hoecker not conceptualizing the gender as an independent variable and as the background for an international comparison of the political participation of women Electoral systems as influencing factors for political participation in general and especially for women.

    The political participation of women and the differences between the sexes are also considered in political participation research in a differentiating manner according to the forms of political participation. Accordingly, since the 1950s, the development of women's voter participation in the Federal Republic of Germany at the state, federal and European level has largely followed the development of overall voter participation. However, it is almost consistently somewhat below the turnout for men. However, the difference between the sexes in terms of voter turnout is so small that we cannot speak of a gender gap here .

    When it comes to political interest, there are clearer differences between the sexes: In Germany, according to surveys, the proportion of women who indicate strong or very strong political interest is only about half as large as the proportion of men. In 2008, a good quarter of the members of political parties in Germany were women.

    The differences between the sexes in the legal, non-institutionalized forms of political participation are very weak or negligible. In some of these forms of participation, such as taking part in signature campaigns, the participation of women is even greater than that of men.

    In the area of ​​illegal political participation, for example participation in unauthorized demonstrations, there is also no significant difference between the sexes, neither for nonviolent illegal forms of political participation nor for violent forms of political participation. On the basis of survey data, there is only a low statistical relationship to gender in illegal forms of violent participation in West Germany .

    Gender comparative participation research on the basis of ISSP data from 2004 from 18 established Western democracies shows that women are more active than men in non-institutionalized forms of participation such as signing petitions, political consumption, and donating and collecting money for political and political purposes social organizations. The thesis that, in a gender comparison, it is more about different modes of participation than more or less participation is represented.

    Individual evidence

    1. ^ A b Carsten Lenz, Nicole Ruchlak: Participation . In: Carsten Lenz, Nicole Ruchlak: Small Political Lexicon . Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, Munich / Vienna 2001.
    2. ^ Richard Johnston: Political Participation ( English, French ) In: The Canadian Encyclopedia . October 7, 2015. Accessed August 21, 2019.
    3. ^ Oskar Niedermayer : Citizens and Politics. Political orientations and behavior of the Germans. 2nd, updated and expanded edition. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2005, p. 192.
    4. ^ Samuel P. Huntington, Joan M. Nelson: No Easy Choice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1976. Quoted from Carole Jean Uhlaner: Political Participation. In: NJ Smelser, PB Baltes (Ed.): International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences . Elsevier, Amsterdam 2001, p. 11078 ff.
    5. ^ Sidney Verba, Norman H. Nie, Jae-on Kim: Participation and Political Equality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1978. Quoted from Carole Jean Uhlaner: Political Participation. In: NJ Smelser, PB Baltes (Ed.): International Encyclopedia of the Social Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam 2001, p. 11078 ff.
    6. ^ A b c d Carole Jean Uhlaner: Political Participation. In: NJ Smelser, PB Baltes (Ed.): International Encyclopedia of the Social Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam 2001, p. 11078 ff.
    7. ^ Max Kaase: Participation. In: Dieter Nohlen (Hrsg.): Dictionary State and Politics. Federal Agency for Political Education , Bonn 1995, pp. 521–527. Quoted from Jan W. van Deth: Social and Political Participation: Alternatives, Supplements or Twins? (PDF) In: Achim Koch, Martina Wasmer, Peter Schmidt (eds.): Focus on society 6. Political participation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Empirical findings and theoretical explanations. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 2001.
    8. ^ Jaime Sperberg: From the neighborhood movement to civil society: Urban poverty and political participation in Chile. Lit Verlag, Hamburg 2000, p. 42.
    9. ^ A b c Oscar W. Gabriel: Political Participation. In: Dieter Fuchs / Edeltraud Roller (ed.): Lexicon politics. A hundred basic terms. Reclam, Stuttgart 2009, pp. 224-226.
    10. ↑ a b c d e f g h Oscar W. Gabriel , Kerstin Völkl: Political and social participation. In: Oscar W. Gabriel / Everhard Holtmann (Hrsg.): Handbook Political System of the Federal Republic of Germany. 3rd, completely revised and expanded edition. Oldenbourg, Munich / Vienna 2005, ISBN 3-486-27343-4 , pp. 523-573.
    11. ^ Definitions of political participation . Oxford University Press: Online Resource Centers; accessed on March 28, 2013.
    12. ↑ Rainer-Olaf Schultze: Participation. In: Dieter Nohlen, Rainer-Olaf Schultze (Hrsg.): Lexicon of political science. Theories, methods, terms. CH Beck, Munich 2002, p. 635 f.
    13. ^ Max Kaase: Participation. In: Everhard Holtmann (Ed.): Political Lexicon. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, Munich 2000, pp. 466-470.
    14. ↑ a b c d Jan W. van Deth: Political Participation. In: Viktoria Kaina, Andrea Römmele (ed.): Political sociology. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2009, p. 141 ff.
    15. ↑ Brigitte Geißel, Virginia Penrose: Dynamics of political participation and participation research. Political participation of women and men. (PDF; 1.2 MB) 2003, p. 3 f.
    16. ↑ Brigitte Geißel, Virginia Penrose: Dynamics of political participation and participation research. Political participation of women and men. (PDF; 1.2 MB) 2003, p. 4 f.
    17. ↑ a b c d Brigitte Geißel, Virginia Penrose: Dynamics of Political Participation and Participation Research. Political participation of women and men. (PDF; 1.2 MB) 2003, p. 4 f.
    18. ^ Max Kaase / Friedhelm Neidhardt: Political violence and repression - results of population surveys. Volume IV. In: Hans-Dieter Schwind , Jürgen Baumann et al. (Ed.): Causes, prevention and control of violence. Analyzes and proposals of the Independent Government Commission to Prevent and Combat Violence. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1990, p. 8.
    19. ↑ a b c d Max Kaase: Political participation / Political participation. In: Uwe Andersen / Wichard Woyke (Hrsg.): Concise dictionary of the political system of the Federal Republic of Germany. 5th updated edition. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 2003. Licensed edition by the Federal Agency for Civic Education, Bonn 2003.
    20. ↑ Ulrich von Alemann / Christoph Strünck: The width of the political pre-space. Participation in party democracy. In: Klaus Kamps (Ed.): Electronic Democracy? Perspectives of political participation. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1999, pp. 109–126, phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de (PDF; 119 kB).
    21. ↑ Melanie Walter-Rogg: Direct Democracy. In: Oscar W. Gabriel, Sabine Kropp : The EU states in comparison. Structures, processes, policy content. 3rd, updated and expanded edition. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2008, pp. 238-267.
    22. ↑ a b Brigitte Geißel, Virginia Penrose: Dynamics of Political Participation and Participation Research. Political participation of women and men. (PDF; 1.2 MB) 2003, p. 5.
    23. ^ Jan W. van Deth: Comparative Political Participation Research. In Dirk Berg-Schlosser / Ferdinand Müller-Rommel (eds.): Comparative Political Science. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 2003, pp. 167-188.
    24. ↑ a b Thomas Müller / Susanne Pickel: How can democracy best be measured? On the conceptual quality of democracy indices. In: Political quarterly. Volume 48 (2007), issue 3.
    25. ↑ Freedom House: Methodology , Freedom in the World 2011 (English). Retrieved February 10, 2013.
    26. ^ Russell J. Dalton: Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation. In: Political Studies. Vol. 56 (2008), pp. 76-98, here p. 76.
    27. ↑ Iris Marion Young: Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 5 f.
    28. ^ A b Manfred G. Schmidt: Theories of Democracy. An introduction. 5th edition. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2010, p. 237.
    29. ^ A b Manfred G. Schmidt: Theories of Democracy. An introduction. 5th edition. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2010, p. 236 ff.
    30. ^ Carole Pateman: Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1970, p. 22 ff.
    31. ↑ Beate Hoecker: Political Participation: Systematic Introduction. In: Beate Hoecker (ed.): Political participation between convention and protest. A study-oriented introduction. Barbara Budrich Verlag, Opladen 2006, pp. 3–20.
    32. ↑ Wolfgang Merkel , Alexander Petring: Participation and Inclusion. (PDF; 231 kB) Democracy in Germany 2011 , Friedrich Ebert Foundation, p. 2 f.
    33. ↑ Markus Steinbrecher: Political Participation in Germany. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden 2009, p. 33.
    34. ↑ Markus Steinbrecher: Political Participation in Germany. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden 2009, p. 30ff.
    35. ↑ Brigitte Geißel, Virginia Penrose: Dynamics of political participation and participation research. Political participation of women and men. (PDF; 1.2 MB) 2003, p. 2 f.
    36. ^ Wichard Woyke: Political participation / Political participation . In: Uwe Andersen, Wichard Woyke (Ed.): Concise dictionary of the political system of the Federal Republic of Germany. 7th, updated edition. Springer VS, Heidelberg 2013; accessed on February 5, 2016.
    37. ↑ Jan W. van Deth: Are Participants the Better Democrats? In: Silke I. Keil, S. Isabell Thaidigsmann (Hrsg.): Civil society and democracy. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden 2013, pp. 35–52.
    38. ↑ a b Sebastian Bödeker: Social Inequality and Political Participation in Germany (PDF; 1.9 MB), Otto Brenner Foundation, Frankfurt am Main 2012.
    39. ↑ Georg Weißeno , Barbara Landwehr: On the connection between political trust, participation and performance. In: Sabine Manzel, Carla Schelle (Ed.): Empirical research on school political education. Springer, Wiesbaden 2017, pp. 3–17, here p. 13 doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-658-16293-1_1
    40. ↑ Max Kaase: Political Participation / Political Participation. In: Uwe Andersen, Wichard Woyke (Ed.): Concise dictionary of the political system of the Federal Republic of Germany. 5th updated edition. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 2003. Licensed edition by the Federal Agency for Civic Education , Bonn 2003.
    41. ↑ Max Kaase: Political Participation / Political Participation. In: Uwe Andersen, Wichard Woyke (Ed.): Concise dictionary of the political system of the Federal Republic of Germany. 5th updated edition. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 2003. Licensed edition by the Federal Agency for Civic Education , Bonn 2003.
    42. ^ Hans-Martin Uehlinger: Political Participation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Structures and explanatory models. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1988, p. 130.
    43. ^ Hans-Martin Uehlinger: Political Participation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Structures and explanatory models. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1988, p. 129 f.
    44. ↑ Markus Steinbrecher: Political Participation in Germany. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden 2009, p. 29.
    45. ↑ Jan W. van Deth: Social and Political Participation: Alternatives, Supplements or Twins? (PDF; 147 kB). In: Achim Koch, Martina Wasmer, Peter Schmidt (eds.): Focus on society 6. Political participation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Empirical findings and theoretical explanations. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 2001.
    46. ↑ a b Christian Lüdemann: Political participation, incentives and resources. A test of different action models and connection theories at the ALLBUS 1998. (PDF; 169 kB) In: Achim Koch, Martina Wasmer, Peter Schmidt (Eds.): Focus on society 6. Political participation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Empirical findings and theoretical explanations. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 2001.
    47. ↑ Petra Böhnke: Unequal distribution of political and civil society participation. In: From Politics and Contemporary History. , Edition 1/2 2011, pp. 18-25, bpb.de (PDF; 4.1 MB).
    48. ^ Frederick Solt: Economic Inequality and Democratic Political Engagement. In: American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 52 (2008), Issue 1, pp. 48-60.
    49. ^ Hiltrud Naßmacher: Political Science. 5th edition. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, Munich 2004, p. 29.
    50. ↑ Bettina Westle: Political Participation and Gender (PDF; 217 kB). In: Achim Koch, Martina Wasmer, Peter Schmidt (eds.): Focus on society 6. Political participation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Empirical findings and theoretical explanations. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 2001.
    51. ↑ Beate Hoecker (Ed.): Handbook Political Participation of Women in Europe. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 1998, p. 13 ff.
    52. ↑ Beate Hoecker, Gesine Fuchs (ed.): Handbook Political Participation of Women in Europe. Volume II: The Accession Countries. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2004, p. 12 ff.
    53. ↑ a b c d e Steffen Schmidt, Sabrina Röser: Political participation of women. Federal Agency for Civic Education , 2011.
    54. ↑ Hilde Coffé, Catherine Dahl bolts: Same Game, Different Rules? Gender Differences in Political Participation. In: Sex roles. Vol. 62, 2010, issue 5, pp. 318–333.