“Is voting even effective?” Examining voting and protest as an expression of dissent and their efficacy in risky contexts

IF 1.8 4区 社会学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Özden Melis Uluğ, Yasemin Gülsüm Acar, Betül Kanık
{"title":"“Is voting even effective?” Examining voting and protest as an expression of dissent and their efficacy in risky contexts","authors":"Özden Melis Uluğ,&nbsp;Yasemin Gülsüm Acar,&nbsp;Betül Kanık","doi":"10.1111/asap.12445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the current contribution, we aim to examine how the political efficacy of different actions is understood in authoritarian contexts and, in particular, whether protest and voting are viewed as an efficacious way to engage in the political process among opposition members. We used an online survey (<i>N</i> = 152), asked open-ended questions about (1) motivators for voting, (2) reasons for not voting/indecisiveness, opinions on (3) voting, (4) offline protests, and (5) online protests to make voices heard and analyzed the data using qualitative content analysis. Results highlighted the motivators behind voting, such as opposing the current government, hope for change, and seeing it as a civic duty, while hopelessness/lack of faith in change and lack of representative candidates were barriers to civic participation. While some saw voting as ineffective in competitive authoritarian contexts like Turkey, others perceived it as a way for people to make their voices heard. Last, the difference between offline and online protests regarding making one's voice heard was stark: Offline protests were described as necessary yet very dangerous, whereas online protests were seen as mostly effective. We discuss these different actions’ political efficacy and civic participation challenges in authoritarian contexts, especially among opposition members.</p>","PeriodicalId":46799,"journal":{"name":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/asap.12445","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12445","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the current contribution, we aim to examine how the political efficacy of different actions is understood in authoritarian contexts and, in particular, whether protest and voting are viewed as an efficacious way to engage in the political process among opposition members. We used an online survey (N = 152), asked open-ended questions about (1) motivators for voting, (2) reasons for not voting/indecisiveness, opinions on (3) voting, (4) offline protests, and (5) online protests to make voices heard and analyzed the data using qualitative content analysis. Results highlighted the motivators behind voting, such as opposing the current government, hope for change, and seeing it as a civic duty, while hopelessness/lack of faith in change and lack of representative candidates were barriers to civic participation. While some saw voting as ineffective in competitive authoritarian contexts like Turkey, others perceived it as a way for people to make their voices heard. Last, the difference between offline and online protests regarding making one's voice heard was stark: Offline protests were described as necessary yet very dangerous, whereas online protests were seen as mostly effective. We discuss these different actions’ political efficacy and civic participation challenges in authoritarian contexts, especially among opposition members.

“投票是否有效?”考察投票和抗议作为不同意见的表达及其在危险环境中的功效
在当前的贡献中,我们的目标是研究在专制背景下如何理解不同行动的政治功效,特别是抗议和投票是否被视为反对派成员参与政治进程的有效方式。我们使用了在线调查(N = 152),提出了关于(1)投票动机,(2)不投票/犹豫不决的原因,对(3)投票的意见,(4)线下抗议,(5)在线抗议的开放式问题,以发出声音,并使用定性内容分析分析数据。结果强调了投票背后的动机,例如反对现任政府,希望变革,并将其视为公民义务,而对变革的绝望/缺乏信心以及缺乏代表性候选人是公民参与的障碍。虽然有些人认为投票在土耳其这样竞争激烈的专制环境下是无效的,但其他人认为这是人们表达自己声音的一种方式。最后,在表达自己的声音方面,线下抗议和在线抗议之间的区别是明显的:线下抗议被认为是必要的,但非常危险,而在线抗议被认为是最有效的。我们讨论这些不同的行动的政治效能和公民参与的挑战,在专制的背景下,特别是在反对派成员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Recent articles in ASAP have examined social psychological methods in the study of economic and social justice including ageism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, status quo bias and other forms of discrimination, social problems such as climate change, extremism, homelessness, inter-group conflict, natural disasters, poverty, and terrorism, and social ideals such as democracy, empowerment, equality, health, and trust.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信