How do participatory models influence youth participation? A case study from Hungary.

• Author: Oross, Daniel
• Position: POLSCI PAPERS - Report

1. Introduction

   While there has been significant policy and research interest in youth political apathy, it is also important to note that political structures, processes and debates often marginalize young people (3) (not least by legal age requirements for political and other citizenship rights). This happens because they are primarily structured around adult interests and needs (see also Edwards 2007). Therefore, participation of young people in democratic institutions is not merely a question of their interest in politics, but also the result of available mobilization channels (Stolle, Hooghe, 2005:44, Skocpol 2003), and youth political participation depends as much on agency as on structure, that is, on the interest of democratic institutions and how open they are to having young people participate in them (Forbrig, 2005:15). While in some countries public authorities and civil organizations work together on expanding arenas for youth involvement in public life, in others young people have to find their ways for political expression in a situation of diminishing resources at their disposal (Loncle et al, 2012). The present paper estimates manifest "political participation" (including formal political behaviour as well as protest or extra-parliamentary political action) and less direct or "latent" forms of participation, conceptualized as "civic engagement" and "social involvement (Ekman--Amna, 2012).

   The political opportunity structure paradigm in social movement research states that political opportunities shaped by access to the political system or alliance and conflict structures influence the choice of protest strategies and the impact of social movements on their environment. (Kitschelt, 1986:58). Drawing on this paradigm and on the findings of Stolle-Hooghe (2005:44) on youth participation, this paper argues that, if young people participate less intensively than adults, this is not just a matter of lower interest, but also a result of differences in their political opportunity structures.

   Several government-initiated democracy programs take efforts to ameliorate the institutional context within which civic involvement takes place with the aim of involving citizens in decision making (Geissel-Newton, 2012). Participatory models introduce methods and practices that are more than renovation, minor modification or reform of an existing system (Newton, 2012). Democratic innovations as co-governance and consultative-discursive procedures have positive impact on civic education, namely on political knowledge and civic skills of the citizens (Geissel, B. 2012, 174-178). Where attempts to increase engagement through new forms of participation are successful, there is also a potential to promote the construction of new institutions (Aars, 2007:205). Because most innovations take part at the local level, it is especially interesting to scrutinize the effects of participatory options and procedures (Geissel, 2014; also see more about the complex relationship between state and local level in Kriz and Cermak, 2014). The main actors of promoting innovative solutions for youth participation are youth councils (a form of youth voice engaged in community decision-making) within the European Union. Youth councils exist on local, state, provincial, regional, national, and international levels among governments, non-governmental organizations (NGO), schools, and other entities.

   Youth studies claim that "citizenship" and "community" are closely related concepts, and young people (4) can be addressed mostly in their micro-environment (Hall and Williams, 1999). Therefore it is extremely important to focus on the processes of their involvement at a local level.

   Youth involvement within local spaces of the neighborhood and constructions of their everyday life around schools, households, peer and family networks that operate within these local spaces shapes the meaning they make of politics and the action they take on political and on social issues (Harris-Wyn, 2009:339). Social and political issues therefore took on real meaning for young people in a local context where they can experience the impact of their activity. This is important to note because it has a direct relationship with young peoples' sense of political efficacy. Harris and Wyn (2009) have shown that, for example, while war and terrorism were nominated as the most significant national and global issues, many participants felt powerless to do anything about these concerns. Where personal experience, social interaction and everyday practice became part of politics, these young people were better able to articulate their political views and to take social action.

   The UN General Assembly observed 1985 as International Youth Year, bringing the issue of youth participation to the fore. Roger Hart (1992) elaborated 'The Ladder of Participation diagram' as a typology for thinking about children and youth participation in society. The theoretical model sets a number of important requirements for a project to be truly labelled as participatory. Hart deals with eight different stages of children participation. The first three stages are manipulation, decoration and tokenism, not real means of participation that can compromise the entire process. Real forms of participation include the assigned and informed stage in which specific roles are given to children and the consultation and informed stage in which children give advice on programs run by adults and they understand how their opinion will affect the outcome. The most advanced stages are adult initiated participation, a shared decision making process with children, and child-initiated and directed projects in which adults appear only in a supportive, advisory role. This last stage provides children with the opportunity for joint decision making, co-management and shared responsibility with children and adults accessing each other's information and learning from each other's life experience. Even though the levels of participation within the ladder can be construed as being too broad and vague (Kara 2007), and the application of a hierarchy of participation has profound implications since it limits youth engagement, the model is a valuable tool to measure whether a given project or institutional setting serves the interest of young people or not. Political participation and civic engagement is developed, highlighting the multidimensionality of both concepts. Therefore, I use the model to investigate local participatory structures of the Morahalom subregion. (5)

   The issue of youth participation first appeared at a European level in 1992, when the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe adopted the European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life. This document was revised and adopted again by the Congress in 2003. According to the definition of the Charter, "participation and active citizenship is about having the right, the means, the space and the opportunity and where necessary the support to participate in and influence decisions and engage in actions and activities so as to contribute to building a better society." The document serves as reference for local youth policy documents and local democratic innovations aiming to increase youth participation since it sets the standards of support structures.

   With regards to youth political representation, there is a clear territorial division among the member states of the European Union. In Western member states, arenas for youth involvement in political life are numerous. Low participation levels of young people in these countries brings evidence that institutionalization has a strong tendency to limit participation, and it seems to be this weakening social anchoring that, over time, has affected the legitimacy of democratic institutions (Forbrig, 2005:13). Therefore, the main concern in these countries is to expand the institutional realm and to ameliorate connections between political institutions and their social environment. In Eastern, post-communist member states (e.g. Hungary), where the economic and democratic transition has abolished former structures of the youth sector, the main question is not how to expand the former institutional realm, but how to establish adequate structures for youth involvement (Kovaceva, 2000: 74).

   This article explores the political participation in local participatory institutions that aim to encourage political participation of Hungarian young people aged between 15-29 years. Hungary is an interesting case because the Hungarian youth sector has taken a zig-zag path since 1989 (Wootsch, 2010 and Agh, 2013) and the coordination of local and regional institutions is weak. However, there are some best practices at a local level. According to Hungarian youth policy reports (Szasz, 2010), the most developed youth advocacy organizations and the most dense network among the organizations can be found in the subregion of Morahalom (Morahalmi Kisterseg) and there is a unique, subregional cooperation among them. The analysis of this cooperation thus brings empirical evidence that youth advocacy organizations can increase the political participation of young people. By investigating the role and impact of political opportunity structures on youth participation this case study widens the scope of research on youth participation patterns.

2. Research questions and hypothesis

   The first group of questions of the paper focus on the political opportunity structures of the selected subregion. Does the Participatory Model of the Morahalom subregion set equal conditions for every and each young person living in the subregion? Based on the theoretical model of Rogert Hart, and on the recommendations of the European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life, how does the model serve the interest of young people?

   The second group of questions aim to...