PARTICIPATION IN ROMANIA: AN EVALUATION OF SIX FORMS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

PARTICIPATION IN ROMANIA: AN EVALUATION OF SIX FORMS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Democracy constrains political power through institutions. The extent of this constraint depends in part upon an active public who communicates preferences to elected and appointed officials. Within the context of democratization, debate surrounds the appropriate level of political participation. An active citizenry, that relies upon institutional means to voice diverse preferences, facilitates a measure of consensus and builds legitimacy around democratic institutions (Parry and Moyser 1994). However, many individuals and groups within post-communist society perceive central issues as zero-sum that do not lend themselves to easy compromise. High levels of political participation that target issues, such as land reform or privatization, may burden fragile institutions and threaten the process of democratic consolidation (Przeworski 1991). Although levels of political participation do not in and of themselves determine the likelihood of successful democratic consolidation, they do contribute to an overall evaluation of the process.

Within this chapter, we identify the forms and levels of political participation within Romania. We address Romanian political participation by asking two fundamental questions.

1) To what extent have Romanians engaged in varying modes of political participation, and are these aggregate figures comparable to other democracies?

2) What are the common individual characteristics among political participants, and do these factors vary among the types of participation within Romania?

The first question concerns general levels of participation that locate Romania relative to other democracies. The second question addresses whose preferences are voiced through varying modes of political participation. Although Romanian democratic institutions are open, the possibility exists that individuals from advantaged social categories enjoy disproportionate access. We evaluate six forms of Romanian political participation: voting, political campaign activity, contacting media sources, signing petitions, contacting public officials and joining legal protests.

We evaluate Romanian political participation through an analysis of Romanian national survey data. As with any method of data collection, mass opinion surveys present several drawbacks in terms of the information they provide. Although survey data allows investigators to make broad generalizations about the activities and opinions of a large population, the information is not dynamic. Nevertheless, survey data provides a snapshot at a certain point in time which is appropriate for assessing general patterns of political participation. It allows us to identify the levels of Romanian political participation and the characteristics participants share.

We find that, with the exception of voting, levels of Romanian political participation do not compare favorably to levels found in other democracies. As many studies have demonstrated, resources are an important predictor of participation. In Romania, low levels of participation accent discrepancies across social categories such as an individual's level of education. Although not conclusive, the result suggests that representation through participation is not equal. The low level of group activity within Romanian civil society likely accounts for some of the discrepancy.

Political Participation

Political participation may be defined as acts that signal citizen preferences to appointed and elected representatives that contribute to a dialog over political orientations and policies. Beyond simply communicating viewpoints, political participation pressures public officials to respond to citizen concerns. Democratic institutions permit citizen input in a variety of ways. Common forms include voting, working on political campaigns, contacting media sources to express a political opinion, signing petitions, contacting public officials and protesting. Individuals may engage in such activities alone or through collective action.

Much of our understanding concerning the relationship between democracy and participation comes from analyses of consolidated democracies (Almond and Verba 1963; Almond, Nie and Kim 1978; Barnes et al. 1979; Powell 1982; Dalton 1988; Kaase 1990; Verba et al. 1995). Despite the attention that participation receives, the relationship between consolidated democracy and political participation remains ambiguous. It is unclear whether democratic institutions encourage increasing levels of political participation or if political activity strengthens and solidifies democratic institutions.

A certain level of political participation is a necessary element to democratic consolidation. Institutionalizing the right for individuals to participate politically is at the core of democratic consolidation. Democratization entails an opening of political institutions and allowing public contestation and the opportunity to participate within governing institutions so that power is more evenly dispersed and more effectively constrained (Dahl 1989, 251-6). An active public broadens the range of political preferences conveyed to decision-makers contributing to a more dynamic political dialog. The wide range of voices also contributes to the legitimacy of governing institutions. We might extend Dalton's view of voting to all forms of participation as activity 'that binds the individual to the political system and legitimizes the rest of the democratic process' (Dalton 1988, 47). In this way, political participation contributes to the process of democratic consolidation.

Since there is no single institutional configuration for translating individual preferences into the decisions of government representatives, we expect variation in levels of political participation among democracies (Pateman 1976, 17-21). In other words, different institutional arrangements will affect levels of participation. However, we also expect that a range of average levels does exist among democracies. The range may usefully be compared levels of participation that we find in Romania. While we must be careful not to read too much into the results, Romanian levels of participation that compare favorably with other countries indicate at a minimum that Romania is not experiencing a crisis of democracy.

Beyond aggregate levels of participation, the question of who participates is also important. Democracy assumes that individuals have equal opportunities to participate politically. However, variance exists among individuals who engage in political activity. Assessing the profile of an individual who likely participates allows us to assess the possibility that certain voices, and viewpoints, are systematically excluded from the political arena. Such a possibility holds grave consequences especially for relatively new democratic institutions that compete for the popular trust and legitimacy against other social institutions and regime types.

Individuals who participate tend to share common characteristics or attributes. Most studies on political participation evaluate clusters of attributes among individuals who have engaged in political activity. We can divide the variance among individual attributes into three categories: resources available to individuals, the level of political engagement and exposure to political recruitment. In other words, individuals participate because they can, because they want to, or because they were asked (Verba et al. 1995, 269).

Resources that contribute to the decision to participate include time, money and skills. We can associate these attributes more concretely with measures such as age, education and income. Political engagement includes levels of political interest and information held by individuals. As an admittedly imperfect measure of these attributes, we evaluate the strength of an individual's identification with a particular political party. Exposure to political recruitment addresses the strength of civil society. Social mobilization occurs effectively through group activity. Therefore, membership to political parties, unions and other group associations serves as a measure of whether individuals participate because groups actively encourage them to do so.

The nature of a political act may also influence the individual choice to engage. Political activities vary according to the influence they have on political decision-making. Political acts are distinct in three ways: resources, specificity of message and volume of activity (Verba et al. 1995, 43-6). The level of resources refers to the effort, time, money and skills required of an individual to engage in a particular activity. For instance, joining a legal protest draws more individual resources than casting a vote. The specificity of the message of a political act refers to the preciseness of information conveyed to officials. Message specificity may be only a general political orientation on a commonly understood scale, or it may be a narrowly defined policy prescription concerning a particular issue. The volume of activity for a particular act refers loosely to the amount of political pressure that a political act is likely to generate. While this is difficult to measure, we can identify the potential for acts to provide a multiplier effect through repeated individual acts, or generate a mass message through collective action (Verba et al. 1995, 45). Contacting media sources to express a political viewpoint potentially carries higher volume than casting a single vote.

These three dimensions of political participation are important, because they tell us about the vehicles that individuals employ in an effort to effectively voice their political preferences. However, patterns of participation vary due to a wide variety of other factors which include political culture, constitutional provisions, attitudes, and country-specific issues. While these factors undoubtedly influence the case of Romania, we limit our evaluation to identifying aggregate levels and patterns of participation as they relate to individual attributes.

Romanian Voter Turnout

Romania has held three national elections since it established democratic institutions in 1990. The most common participatory act within a democracy is voting. Elections determine political leadership and the general orientation of a particular government. The stakes are high since voting affords citizens the opportunity to change political leadership and orientation.

Voting is unique in terms of a participatory activity since it requires little effort and few resources from an individual. However, the specificity of the message that citizens convey through voting in national elections is weak. Voting aggregates general political orientations which only indirectly articulate specific policy stances. Each vote holds equal weight in terms of the preference. Voting is not multiplicative in nature concerning the individual act since a citizen is allowed a single vote. While groups and associations do mobilize their memberships, voting is also weak in terms of the volume it generates.

Table 1 presents the voter turnout rate for Romania according to the official figures from the Romanian Central Electoral Bureau. Compared to other post-communist societies, Romania is somewhat above average with an average voter turnout rate of approximately 76 percent for parliamentary elections. The average voter turnout rate for legislative elections in Central-Eastern Europe is roughly 68 percent (IDEA 1997, 18). The range for the average post-communist European voter turnout is between 48 percent in Poland and over 84 percent in Uzbekistan, Albania and the Czech Republic.

Compared to Western European countries, Romanian voter turnout is average. The average turnout rate in Western Europe just over 78 percent. The range for the Western Europe average is between 49 percent in Switzerland and more than 89 percent in Iceland and Italy (IDEA 1997, 20-1).

[Table 1 about here]

Average voter turnout says little about the functioning of democracy or overall patterns of mass political participation. Low voter turnout rates do not necessarily signal a crisis of democracy. For instance, the average turnout in the United States for presidential elections is less than 50 percent. Voter turnout varies among countries due to cultural and institutional differences (Dalton 1988, 43-6; Cox 1997; Farrell 1997). Therefore, wide fluctuations in turnout rates within a particular country may point to unique and potentially dangerous political circumstances, while steady levels indicate continuity.

A more interesting question concerns the characteristics that voters likely share. As a preliminary assessment of Romanian participation, we limit our analysis to the correlated relationship between voting and individual attributes. The primary purpose of the approach is to evaluate whether the individuals who abstain from voting share certain social characteristics.

We evaluate Romanian voting behavior through an analysis of 1996 post-election survey data and identify common individual attributes among voters. The survey asked if a respondent had voted in the second round of the 1996 Presidential election. In Romania, five individual attributes hold a significant relationship with voting in this election: party identification, age, education, gender, and union membership. Individuals who identify more strongly with a particular political party tended to vote at higher rates. Individuals who are older and have higher levels of education also tended to vote at higher rates. Males tended to vote more in percentage terms. Finally, individuals who are members of a labor union voted at higher rate than the national average. These relationships are consistent with other cross-national studies that assess voting behavior (Verba, Nie and Kim 1978; Barnes et al. 1979; Dalton 1988).

Table 2 takes a closer look at these relationships. It considers the percentage of voters within each category of the above factors. For instance, party identification appears to be almost linear in nature assuming we hold all other factors constant. Individuals who reported identifying more closely with one of the Romanian political parties were more likely to report that they had voted in the second round of the Romanian 1996 presidential election. Those with strong identification are above the average of self-reporting voters from the sample (77 percent), and those with weak identification fall below the average.

For a factor like party identification, we must not over interpret the result. Although the factor appears significant and nearly linear in form, the direction of this relationship is not altogether clear. Many factors contribute to the strength of party identification that an individual might possess. These factors include the views of one's parents and the political party system in a given country (Westmore and Niemi 1992). Additionally, the act of voting itself may serve to strengthen political party identification. Nevertheless, the correlation between party identification and voting appears to be strong.

[Table 2 about here]

Table 2 also provides a closer look at probability that the age and level of education of a respondent increase the probability of voting. Both age and education appear to hold a curvilinear relationship with voting. Younger individuals tend to vote less. This finding is consistent with other studies of voting behavior (Barnes et al. 1979; Dalton 1988). However, the effect of age comes largely from the youngest category of respondents who are between eighteen and thirty years old. Only 56 percent from this group respond affirmatively to the voting question compared to over 80 percent in each of the other categories of older individuals.

There are many factors that explain why younger individuals vote less frequently. Among these reasons is that younger individuals tend to view themselves as holding less of a stake in election outcomes (Topf 1993). Additionally, the Romanian Central Electoral Bureau establishes voter registration based on the permanent residence of individuals. Often younger Romanians are away from their permanent residence due to university study or military service. Therefore, voting involves higher costs for many within this group, and many younger people forgo the effort of changing their residence status or returning to their permanent residence to vote. Therefore, the voting registration process and higher levels of mobility among younger Romanians influences the voter turnout among individuals within this age group. If age does correspond with unique viewpoints and preferences that can be voiced through voting, younger Romanians are less well-represented in this respect. Kitschelt (1992) argues that within post-communist societies, younger individuals are more likely to support democratic institutions and economic reform. Therefore, the lower rates of voting by younger individuals may carry adverse implications for the process of democratic consolidation.

An individual's level of education is positively related to voting in Romania which is also consistent with studies of voting behavior in other countries (Almond and Verba 1963; Dalton 1988, 57). In Romania, the impact of education on voting is limited to those who have attended university. The figures in Table 2 show that 86 percent of individuals within this education bracket voted. All other categories of education remain close to the national voting average of 77 percent. Therefore, preferences that correspond with individuals with university education, articulated through voting, are slightly over represented within the political arena.

Like age, an individual's perceived stake in the system may explain the discrepancy found among levels of education. In addition, it is likely that individuals with higher levels of education follow politics more closely and are more informed about issues. Higher levels of political information sharpen viewpoints and heightens the perceived stake in electoral outcomes. A further consideration is that individuals who have attended university may attach a stronger sense of civic duty, or political efficacy, to the act of voting increasing the likelihood that they will vote (Almond and Verba 1963).

The act of voting does not obligate individuals to cooperate with others for its full message to be conveyed, and all votes are counted equally. Nevertheless, organized groups do serve as effective mobilizing agents for their members. In Romania, trade unions that enjoyed status as a political force under communist rule continue to mobilize their members. According to Table 2, union members tend to vote at a higher rate than non-union members. This result can be partly explained through recognizing the influence such organizations hold over their members in terms of getting out the vote. An individual may be ambivalent toward election outcomes, but the organizations to which they belong are not. Therefore, union membership has an independent effect on voting.

The impact of group membership is not limited to trade unions. Individuals who belong to political parties or other organized groups, such as housing associations, civic education groups, or environmental organizations, also tend to vote at higher rates than individuals who are not active in civil society. Table 2 shows that 93 percent of political party members claim to have voted. Of those individuals who belong to civil society groups other than unions and political parties, 86 percent claim to have voted. We must be careful in assessing the impact of these groups other than unions since the numbers of participants are so small relative to the sample drawn from the survey. As a result, these figures do not hold statistical significance. Nevertheless, Verba et al. (1995) who constructed a weighted sample to accent individuals involved in communal activity for the United States find a significant tendency among communal activists. Moreover, Kriesi (1992) demonstrates the impact organizations have in getting out the vote.

The results of group membership highlight the importance of civil society in articulating preferences through voting. The results in Table 2 are unable to answer whether members of a particular organization may or may not vote as a bloc for a specific candidate, political party or political orientation. However, the results do indicate that individuals who are active within their communities, civil society more generally, vote at higher rates. Therefore, their preferences are more often articulated in relative terms. Group membership is small in absolute numbers within Romania which mitigates the effective representation of their viewpoints through voting.

The last significant individual attribute we consider in relation to voting is gender. The results from our analysis show that in Romania, men are more likely to vote than women. The explanation for this result includes traditional roles for men and women that persist within Romanian society. However, we must remind ourselves that the data on voting is self-reported. Social surveys allow respondents to construct an image. It may be that men are more likely to feel that reporting a vote is more important to constructing a positive self-image. Therefore, while the gender gap likely exists to some extent, it is difficult to assess its full magnitude.

As a final consideration, it is useful to address factors that do not produce a statistically significant effects, specifically income and locality type (urban or rural). We assume that individuals with more resources and a greater stake in electoral outcomes will vote at higher rate than others. Income would seem to fit this criterion. However, income also reflects an individual's security and outlook of the future. Overall, levels of income in Romania are low in absolute and relative terms. It is likely that we would not see variance across categories of income because, despite income differences, most Romanians feel their income is not adequate. Moreover, many feel that their prospects for future income are limited. In other words, the factor displays little variance. Romanian Barometer polls consistently show that Romanian attitudes do not significantly vary according to levels of income. It is not unreasonable to assume that this lack of variance extends to voting as well.

The second factor that holds no statistical significance in terms of predicting voting behavior is type of locality. We define locality type according to whether an individual lives in a locality with more or less than 5,000 inhabitants. We designate the former as 'urban' and the latter as 'rural.' According to the Romanian National Commission for Statistics, in 1996 almost 46 percent of Romanians lived in rural areas defined in this way. Our analysis shows no significant difference based on this distinction among voters. A Romanian living in an urban area is just as likely to vote as their rural counterpart if all other factors are held equal. In other words, if different viewpoints and preferences are held between urban and rural residents in Romania, they are articulated at similar rates through voting.

To summarize, voting in Romania compares favorably to patterns of voting found in other democracies. In terms of turnout, Romania is consistent with averages found in Western Europe and above average relative to other post-communist European societies. In terms of constructing a profile of a likely Romanian voter, we find several shared characteristics. A Romanian voter tends to identify more strongly with a particular political party. Individuals under thirty years old tend to vote less than others, and those with some university experience vote in rates above the national average. Finally, a Romanian that is active within civil society, especially union members, have a tendency to vote. However, civil society activity appears weak given the overall group membership figures. Therefore, group membership mitigates the effect on voting somewhat.

The overall picture of voting in Romania that emerges is positive. Romanians are active voters. Although several social categories, such as age and education, point to a discrepancy in the probability of casting a vote, these differences are consistent with voting behavior in many countries. However, the analysis here is limited. It says little about the precise reasons that bring individuals to the polls, and nothing about their political preferences or orientations. If we assume that an active public is a healthy sign, or at least not a negative sign, of democratic consolidation, the picture of voting in Romania is positive.

Forms of Political Participation Beyond Voting

Voting is only one form of political participation. However, citizens have a wide array of choices beyond voting that may convey their political preferences to elected and appointed officials. We consider five of these forms: political campaign activity, contacting media sources, signing petitions, contacting public officials and joining legal protests.

In terms of the resources required to engage in the act, the activities are arranged in ascending order with political campaign work requiring the least resources and political protest requiring the most (Dalton 1988; Verba et al. 1995). The activities are similarly arranged according to the specificity of the message conveyed with campaigns likely producing the least precise message to officeholders and protest conveying the most specific (Verba et al 1995). Each of the activities holds the potential for higher volume, and multiplicative effects, than voting since there are few restrictions on the number of times an individual can engage in each activity. Among the five activities we consider, some variance exists. Compared to voting though, each activity requires more resources, produces a clearer message to political leaders, and potentially produces more pressure for leaders to respond.

[Table 3 about here]

Table 3 presents the frequency in which individuals have engaged in these activities in Romania, Russia, Ukraine, and Lithuania. In relation to the frequency of these activities, Romania does not compare favorably. At first