“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 Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy Pub Date : 2024-12-13 DOI:10.1111/asap.12445
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs and collective actions: Factors and processes that (de)motivate support for LGBTQ+ equality Founder ownership and system-justifying beliefs in relation to perception toward Black Lives Matter and other social movements When longing goes wrong: Nostalgia can cause a preference for harmful aspects of the past Exploring disparities in research through the lens of epistemic exclusion: A focus on Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy Testing the interrelationship between area deprivation and ethnic disparities in sentencing
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1