Civic Engagement

Download complete Civic Engagement domain

Civic engagement (participation in public decision-making) gives people a way of contributing to their communities, which is an important aspect of wellbeing. Civic engagement can also reflect a sense of being valued by community leaders and others in the community [1]. Electoral participation is the most well-established measure of civic engagement and the feeling that one has a moral obligation to vote (civic duty) has been shown to be the most powerful driver of engagement [2]. Civic duty is associated with citizens’ confidence in their ability to influence local and national decision making, including their trust in the political process [3]. If people believe strongly in their ability to be heard and to make a difference, they are more likely to enrol and vote in elections [4]. Participation in public decision-making offers people a way to engage with, and contribute to, their communities [3,5,6].

Key trends within civic engagement

Local trends in civic engagement should be considered within the context of the general decline in voter engagement across western democracies [6]. In the last 30 years, voter turnout in New Zealand has fallen from a high of 89 percent in the 1984 general election to a low of 70 percent in 2011 [7]. Greater Christchurch citizens’ (New Zealand citizens or permanent residents) engagement with central government elections has generally followed this national pattern. Similar to general elections, there has also been a gradual decline in voter turnout for local government elections (now typically ≈40%) [7]. Along with declining turnout over the last three or more decades, this period has also shown declining levels of trust in political institutions, and in the political system; an important driver of ‘civic duty’ [7,8].

However, there is some variation in turnout in greater Christchurch, such as improved turnout in the 2010 local government elections. This increase in local voting in greater Christchurch has been partly attributed to the 2010 Canterbury earthquakes. Increased engagement by greater Christchurch residents was also apparent in the 2017 General Election: 82% of enrolled electors in greater Christchurch voted in 2017 compared with 79.8% across New Zealand as a whole (compared with the ≈72% OECD average in this period).

While greater Christchurch residents appear relatively well engaged with the democratic processes of central and local government, the majority of residents appear to be less than satisfied with their level of influence on government agencies’ actions.

Key equity issues within civic engagement

Although turnout for Māori electors increased for all age groups between the 2014 and 2017 general elections, turnout rates for Māori are still lower than for non-Māori electors. In terms of citizens’ sense of being able to influence the actions of central and local government agencies, there appears to be no difference between Māori and non-Māori (being generally low for all ethnic groups).

What this means for wellbeing

There has been a noticeable increase in civic engagement in greater Christchurch (above New Zealand levels) post-earthquakes. This suggests changes in attitudes, knowledge, awareness, political emotion and involvement in the post-earthquake context. The drivers of these changes are difficult to determine, but may include engagement opportunities such as the ‘Share an idea’ and ‘Residential Red Zone Draft Regeneration Plan’ consultation processes. This broadening of traditional engagement platforms may have boosted participation in public decision-making generally. Such participation is recognised as an important aspect of people’s wellbeing [3,5,6].

References

  1. Community and Public Health (2011) Christchurch city health profile: democratic participation. Christchurch: Canterbury District Health Board.
  2. Blais A, Young R, Lapp M (2003) The calculus of voting: An empirical test. European Journal of Political Research 37: 181-201.
  3. Dalton RJ (2013) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
  4. Niemi RG, Craig SC, Mattei F (1991) Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. The American Political Science Review 85: 1407-1413.
  5. Robert Putnam (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  6. Solijonov A (2016) Voter Turnout Trends around the World. Stockholm, Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
  7. Department of Internal Affairs (2016) The Social Report 2016: Te pūrongo oranga tangata. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.
  8. Robert Putnam (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York: Simon and Schuster.
  9. Almond GA, Verba S (1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown & Co.
  10. The Electoral Commission (2018) Report of the Electoral Commission on the 23 September 2017 General Election: Provided in accordance with section 8(1) of the Electoral Act 1993. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
  11. Electoral Commission (2014) Electoral Commission Report on the 2014 General Election. Wellington: Electoral Commission.
  12. Canterbury DHB (2018) Canterbury Wellbeing Survey, June 2018: Report prepared by Nielsen for the Canterbury District Health Board and partnering agencies. Christchurch: Canterbury District Health Board.