Political apathy and its effects

Introduction

Research studies on political apathy

typically aim to understand why individuals
may feel disengaged or indifferent towards
politics and political participation. These
studies often explore factors such as
socioeconomic status, education level,
political ideologies, and trust in
government institutions. One example of a
research study on political apathy is “The
Causes of Political Apathy in the United
States” by Emily Ekins and Joy Pullmann,
published in 2013 in the journal Critical
Review. The study uses data from the 2012
American National Election Study to
analyze the factors that contribute to
political apathy among Americans. The
study finds that political apathy is strongly
linked to feelings of disaffection and
disillusionment with political institutions,
particularly Congress. The authors also
suggest that low levels of political and
interest, as well as a lack of trust in
government institutions, can contribute to
political apathy. Other research studies on
political apathy have explored topics such
as the role of social media in political
engagement, the impact of political
polarization on apathy, and the potential of
civic education programs to increase
political participation. Overall, research on
political apathy can provide important
insights into the factors that contribute to
low levels of political engagement, as well
as potential solutions for increasing citizen
participation in democratic processes.
Research studies on political apathy
typically aim to understand why individuals
may feel disengaged or indifferent towards
politics and political participation. These
studies often explore factors such as socio-
economic status, education level, political
ideologies, and trust in government
institutions. example of a research study on
political apathy is “The Causes of Political
Apathy in the United States” by Emily Ekins
and Joy Pullmann, published in 2013 in the
journal Critical Review. The study uses data
from the 2012 American National Election
Study to analyze the factors that contribute
to political apathy among Americans. The
study finds that political apathy is strongly
linked to feelings of disaffection and
disillusionment with political institutions,
particularly Congress. The authors also
suggest that low levels of political
knowledge and interest, as well as a lack of
trust in government institutions, can
contribute to political apathy. Other
research studies on political apathy have
explored topics such as the role of social
media in political engagement, the impact
of political polarization on apathy, and the
potential of civic education programs to
increase political participation. Overall,
research on political apathy can provide
important insights into the factors that
contribute to low of political engagement,
as well as potential solutions for increasing
citizen participation in democratic
processes. Political apathy, also referred to
as political disengagement, refers to a lack
of interest or involvement in political
issues, processes, or institutions. It can be
seen as a form of political alienation and
has become a widespread phenomenon in
many societies around the world. In this
literature review, we will explore the
various causes and consequences of
political apathy. The assumption of political
apathy is the belief that people are
indifferent or disinterested in politics and
do not actively participate in the political
process. This assumption suggests that
individuals do not engage in activities such
as voting, protesting, or advocating for
policy changes because they lack interest
or motivation. However, it is important to
note that the assumption of political
apathy may not be entirely accurate. While
some individuals may indeed be
disengaged from politics, there are also
many factors that can influence political
participation, such as access to
information, the perceived relevance of
political issues to one’s life, and barriers to
participation such as voter Suppression.
Additionally, some individuals may choose
to engage in alternative forms of political
participation that may not be recognized as
traditional political activities, such as
community organizing or mutual aid
efforts. Overall, it is important to approach
the assumption of political apathy with
caution and recognize that there are many
factors that can influence political
participation.
Political apathy association

An association related to political apathy

could be a non- profit organization or a
community group that seeks to increase
political awareness and engagement
among individuals. Such organizations may
run campaigns to encourage people to vote
or engage in political discussions, provide
educational resources to help people
understand political issues, or hold events
to foster political dialogue. examples of
organizations that address political apathy
include Rock the Vote, a non-profit
organization that encourages young people
to vote, and the League of Women Voters,
a non-partisan organization that promotes
voter education and participation. These
groups work to counteract political apathy
and increase civic engagement.

Causes of Political Apathy:

There are several factors that contribute to

political apathy. First, many people feel that
their voices are not heard, and that they
have no real power to effect change in the
political system. Second, a lack of
education and understanding of political
issues and processes can lead to apathy.
Third, the media can also play a role in
shaping people’s attitudes towards politics,
as negative news coverage can lead to
disillusionment and disengagement.
Fourth, the complexity of the political
system can be a barrier to engagement, as
people may find it difficult to understand
the issues and how to participate.

Consequences of Political Apathy:

consequences of political apathy can be
significant. One of the most significant
consequences is a decline in political
participation, which can lead to a lack of
diversity in political representation and
policymaking. Apathy can also lead to a lack
of accountability and transparency in the
political system, as politicians may feel less
pressure to act in the best interests of their
constituents. In addition, apathy can lead
to a lack of innovation and progress, as
people are less likely to engage with new
ideas and solutions.
Strategies for Addressing Political Apathy:

There are several strategies that can be

employed to address political apathy. First,
education and awareness- raising
campaigns can help to increase people’s
understanding of political issues and
processes, and encourage them to
participate. Second, political leaders can
work to increase transparency and
accountability in the political system, which
can help to restore people’s faith in the
system. Third, efforts to simplify the
political system and make it more
accessible can also help to increase
engagement. Fourth, creating more
opportunities for civic engagement and
participation can help to empower people
and give them a sense of agency.

Conclusion: Political apathy is a complex

phenomenon that has significant
consequences for societies. While there is
no one-size-fits-all solution to addressing
political apathy, strategies such as
education, transparency, simplification, and
increased civic engagement can help to
mitigate its effects and promote a more
engaged and participatory political system.
Research studies on political apathy
typically aim to understand why individuals
may feel disengaged or indifferent towards
politics and political participation. These
studies often explore factors such as socio-
economic status, education level, political
ideologies, and in government institutions.
One example of a research study on
political apathy is “The Causes of Political
Apathy in the United States” by Emily Ekins
and Joy Pullmann, published in 2013 in the
journal Critical Review. The study uses data
from the 2012 American National Election
Study to analyze the factors that contribute
to political apathy among Americans. The
study finds that political apathy is strongly
linked to feelings of disaffection and
disillusionment with political institutions,
particularly Congress. The authors also
suggest that low levels of political and
interest, as well as a lack of trust in
government institutions, can contribute to
political apathy. Other research studies on
political apathy have explored topics such
as the role of social media in political
engagement, the impact of political
polarization on apathy, and the potential of
civic education programs to increase
political participation. Overall, research on
political apathy can provide important
insights into the factors that contribute to
low levels of political engagement, as well
as potential solutions for increasing citizen
participation in democratic processes.
Research studies on political apathy
typically aim to understand individuals may
feel disengaged or indifferent towards
politics and political participation. These
studies often explore factors such as socio-
economic status, education level, political
ideologies, and trust in government
institutions. One example of a research
study on political apathy is “The Causes of
Political Apathy in the United States” by
Emily Ekins and Joy Pullmann, published in
2013 in journal Critical Review. The study
uses data from the 2012 American National
Election Study to analyze the factors that
contribute to political apathy among
Americans. The study finds that political
apathy is strongly linked to feelings of
disaffection and disillusionment with
political institutions, particularly Congress.
The authors also suggest that low levels of
political knowledge and interest, as well as
a lack of trust in government institutions,
can contribute to political apathy. Other
research studies on political apathy have
explored topics such as the role of social
media in political engagement, the impact
of political polarization on apathy, and the
potential of civic education programs to
increase political participation. Overall,
research on political apathy can provide
important insights into the factors that
contribute to low levels of political
engagement, as well as potential solutions
for increasing citizen participation in
democratic processes. Research studies on
political apathy typically aim to understand
why individuals may feel disengaged or
indifferent towards politics and political
participation. These studies often explore
factors such as socio- journal Critical
Review. The study uses data from the 2012
American National Election Study to
analyze the factors that contribute to
political apathy among Americans. The
study finds that political apathy is strongly
linked to feelings of disaffection and
disillusionment with political institutions,
particularly Congress. The authors also
suggest that low levels of political
knowledge and interest, as well as a lack of
trust in government institutions, can
contribute to political apathy. Other
research studies on political apathy have
explored topics such as the role of social
media in political engagement, the impact
of political polarization on apathy, and the
potential of civic education programs to
increase political participation. Overall,
research on political apathy can provide
important insights into the factors that
contribute to low levels of political
engagement, as well as potential solutions
for increasing citizen participation in
democratic processes. Research studies on
political apathy typically aim to understand
why individuals may feel disengaged or
indifferent towards politics and political
participation. These studies often 10 of
70ctors such as socio- status, education
level, political ideologies, and trust in
government institutions. One example of a
research study on political apathy is “The
Causes of Political Apathy in the United
States” by Emily Ekins and Joy Pullmann,
published in 2013 in the journal Critical
Review. The study uses data from the 2012
American National Election Study to
analyze the factors that contribute to
political apathy among Americans. The
study finds that political apathy is strongly
linked to feelings of disaffection and
disillusionment with political institutions,
particularly Congress. The authors also
suggest that low levels of political
knowledge and interest, as well as a lack of
trust in government institutions, can
contribute to political apathy. Other
research studies on political apathy have
explored topics such as the role of social
media in political engagement, the impact
of political polarization on apathy, and the
potential of civic education programs to
increase political participation., research on
political apathy can provide important
insights into the factors that contribute to
low levels of political engagement, as well
as potential solutions for increasing citizen
participation in democratic processes.
Research studies on political apathy
typically aim to understand why individuals
may feel disengaged or indifferent towards
politics and political participation. These
studies often explore factors such as socio-
economic status, education level, political
ideologies, and trust in government
institutions. One example of a research
study on political apathy is “The Causes of
Political Apathy in the United States” by
Emily Ekins and Joy Pullmann, published in
2013 in the journal Critical Review. The
study uses data from the 2012 American
National Election Study to analyze the
factors that contribute to political apathy
among Americans. The study finds that
political apathy is strongly linked to feelings
of disaffection and disillusionment with
political institutions, particularly Congress.
The authors also suggest that low levels of
political knowledge and interest, as well as
a lack of trust in government institutions,
can contribute to political apathy. research
studies on political apathy have explored
topics such as the role of social media in
political engagement, the impact of
political polarization on apathy, and the
potential of civic education programs to
increase political participation. Overall,
research on political apathy can provide
important insights into the factors that
contribute to low levels of political
engagement, as well as potential solutions
for increasing citizen participation in
democratic processes. As another such
instance of convergence, consider Stanley
Cavell’s perfectionist ideal of a democracy
“that in our everyday life is always still to be
achieved” (Saito, 2012, 284). This ideal
could be served by using language to resist
the rhetoric of accountability (Saito, 2006).
The underlying philosophy chimes with the
dependence of democracy upon a certain
distance from one’s own culture and upon
considering the “native” always in
“transition, by and through language, in
processes of translation”, constituting “a
Cavellian education for global citizenship”
(Saito, 2007, 261). Democracy requires the
ethic of the spatial. Metaphor of distance
and of the arrival at a juncture for other:
“The translator normally confronts a gap
between meanings for which there is no
ultimately satisfactory resolution”
(Standish, 2011, 77). This opens a critical
space for the translator, “that space where
there is no rule to resolve the diffi culty she
faces”. Missing such challenges, “the
monolingual may be morally blind” (ibid)
and, I would add, uncomfortably situated in
a democratic way of life that depends on
valorizing otherness. Like other, related
educational-philosophical visions, the
educational cultivation of democracy as a
way of life also confronts challenges and
obstacles to be overcome prior to the
approximation of the recommended
ideality. Accountability and the managerial
outlook is one such challenge. However,
other risks (many of which are well
documented in the above sources), often
relate not just to the managerial collective
subject but also to the whole body politic
expected to embrace democracy and live
by it. Some such risks may be of an onto-
anthropological register, as they concern
the fi nitude and imperfectibility of life, but
there are also risks of a socio- political
register, risks deriving from globally
dispersed ways of living. In my opinion, a
kind of apathy and a kind of pathos are
such pernicious pathologies. us call all
related operations, positive or negative,
“(a)pathetics. (A)pathetics as investing or
reserving one’s pathos, directing it toward
or away from a specific object, involves
energy and movement. There is a kinetic
dimension in what one has learned to repel
or to embrace, to pathologize or to sanitize,
to join or to stave off. In this vein,
(a)pathetic operations involve metaphors
of disease and cure as well as of proximity
and distance. The above granted, the topic
of this article could be rephrased into this
complex question: what is the normative
task of pedagogy in a spatiotemporality
where anti-democratic conditions such as
political apathy and extreme political
pathos aff ect the demos, that is, the body
politic par excellence which, as the
collective subject, is expected to embody
the political promise of a better world and
of a corresponding education? I do not
claim that I can answer this question, but,
to explore it more deeply. I begin with
metaphors of diagnosis, which I connect
with pathos and its absence in the body
politic and with the metaphor of ‘pathos of
distance’. From this perspective, I read
William James’ outlook on a pathos- free
accomplished utopia of his times to
illustrate some complexities in the
(a)pathetics of relational distances and
social extremes.

1.Diagnoses Democratic education

discourses, like other discourses, often
begin with a chronotope, that is, with the
slice of history within which and against
which the normativity in question is to be
deployed. Such are typically theorized
through medical metaphors: diagnoses,
disease, symptoms, recovery, melancholy,
therapy, blindness, pathologies, pathos and
apathy. Diseases aff ect a body, and
democracy presupposes the aff ectivity of a
specific body which is no other than the
body politic: its ills and ailments, general as
they are, defer the universalizing prospects
of a democracy to come. “Indifference and
apathy are the signs of a bewildered
public” (Saito, 2009, 101). Among other
things, this heightens “our existential need
to recover political passion” (Saito, 2011,
3). We need this recovery for vigilance
against the extreme political pathos that
nourishes political emotions such as
hatred, unjustifi ed anger and blind fear.
Surrendering to the absence of
commonalities or believing in an
absolutized, abstract commonality,
annihilating, overlooking, fabricating or
inserting distances from others enforces
pernicious, new exclusionary ideologies. 2
We also need attention to subtler and as
yet unperceived or under-theorized
pathologies. These invite redirections of
empirical educational research, new
research questions about the
contemporary world and its priorities, the
technological being-in-the world, the
passionate attachment to e-entertainment
and media. We need to fathom whether
such new passions are exclusivist of other
ways of living and of those who opt for
such alternatives. What kind of diverse
temporalities operate underneath
passionate engagements or withdrawals
from segments of reality? How does the
early conditioning of the self in digital times
perpetuate social divisions, rework or gloss
over social distance? new educational
inequalities emerge from new ways of
children’s so-called time management??
Political apathy and extreme political
pathos may not merely be pathologies but,
more alarmingly, new ways of life and
generators of new social ontologies (new
class divisions, new distributions of the
real) framing one’s (e.g. a student’s)
experience and politicization of
spatiotemporality. The identifi cation of
‘pathologies’, the diagnoses of ‘health’ risks
of the global demos, is a very complex
matter. Such metaphoric depiction of the
real (educational and other) has its own
risks, for instance, of pathologizing certain
realities or of taking notice only of visible
pathologies and risks which have already
become real and thematized threats.
Aristotle discussed emotions such as fear,
anger and sympathy and saw the rhetorical
connection of logos (e.g. the logical
composition of an argument), with ethos
(the character of the speaker, her credibility
and trustworthiness) and pathos (e.g. the
emotive disposition of the audience).
“Pathos means the emotional appeal of an
argument” not to rational faculties but to
“subjective empathy, […] passions or strong
feelings, whether positive or negative”
(Rabaté, 2016, 69). Pathos also entails that
suff ering may imaginatively be shared and
passion stirred. One danger is the
rhetorical, “low appeal to basic passions”
(ibid) which creates a distance from logos
and a pathologically impassionate public
lacking critical distance from demagogues.
Diagnoses suff er from the risks involved in
the ideological role of metaphoricity. For
example, experts, academics, leaders and
other groups within demos have the
rhetorical and institutional power to
metaphors to followers who invest them
with varied semantics, aff ective gratifi
cation and pathos. The rhetorical eff ect of
the ‘body politic’ metaphor itself has
shifted over time; its modern use likens “a
political disorder to an illness” and evokes,
as I see it, the medical and political
metaphor of (organismic) balance.
Ultimately, “the diagnosis of disease in the
body politic” is a “legitimacy claim, since
the elimination of a disease may be taken
as something that is inherently ‘right’ and
legal” (Charteris-Black, 2009, 98). But “this
mythic dimension of metaphor”, “so
persuasive in the communication of
ideologies” (ibid), also works in another
way: in my view, some “fatalistic diagnoses
of diseases in the body politic” (Charteris-
Black, 2009, 97) eff ect political apathy by
passionately attributing a chronic or
endemic nature to the pathologies of
demos. The incurability of the latter blocks
the imaginative reach of politics, depicts
the real as the best possible world and de-
legitimizes democracy as chimeric. Then
again, the assumption of curability may
overemphasize the very need for a cure,
one that may seek to eliminate all diseases,
all enemies, all the fascists or Stalinists and,
along with them, all the Yukio Mishimas
and Ezra Pounds of the world whose
breaking off cultural boundaries in
literature was not enough to produce
ruptures of their own, internal borders,
whose multilingualism (in a deeper,
metaphorical sense of translation) did not
suffice to heal them from political
blindness and political monolingualism.
Such of diagnoses, of the well-meant effort
to identify a problem and solve it and of
the simultaneous risk of unevenly or
unfairly pathologizing something other to
sanitize what is near and dear to you, will
operate as a subtext to my next steps.
These comprise: a paving of my connection
of apathetics with distance through
Nietzsche’s metaphor of ‘pathos of
distance’; and two critical readings. One is
of Foucault’s ‘mobile’ moment of
translating Japanese events into his own
idiom upon his visit to Japan; the other is of
James’s ‘mobile’ moment in visiting a
‘utopia’ and in translating its intricacies into
a plea for democracy as a way of life that
shrinks aff ective distances. 2. The Pathos
of Distance The Call for Papers (CfP) to
which this article responds shows the
dependence of politics, justice, rights and
deliberation on awareness of the pressing
character of the ills of terrorism, religious
and ethnic tensions, exclusivist and inward
state policies. The political emotions (anger,
hatred, fear) which underpin such ills need
to be addressed and countered through
other political emotions. “The pathos lies in
the need to destabilize the ground on
which we stand” and “to feel the weight of
political emotions of positive and of
negative kinds” (CfP). This means that
democracy also depends on making room
for political emotions in education.
Diagnosing democracy’s dependencies
further leads to awareness of political and
non-political questions about “how we are
to live with one another and, indeed, about
who we are” (CfP). As I see it, this touches
precisely upon what politics in the ancient
Greek sense could be: not just a managerial
dealing with problems to solved or crises to
be handled but, more deeply, a question
about the ideality of the polish, about what
humanity is capable of; not so much who
we now are but what humanity can
become, i.e., humanity’s political
reshuffling. More, in my view, this concerns
not just how to live with one another, that
is, not just a modus (co)- existence, but
who we think the other is when we
perceive the other as different from us.
Interpreting the question of democracy as
a way of life in this light, the question of the
kind of political education and human
transformation called for today could also
involve the question of the ‘dose’ or
‘balance’ of withdrawal and apathy and
pathos, wonder and certainty, required for
a democratic life to be realizable or
meaningful. This may entail additional
attention to the spatial metaphor of
distance. It Is not only about the distance
from one extreme to another, but also
about the pathos that is invested in the real
or invented (constructed) distances
separating us: class divisions, existential
asymmetries and diverse political
positionings in the globe, at home and in
the face-to-face relationality. For instance,
in classrooms, pupils come from a variety
of social-political settings and existential
positionings that affect in varying ways not
just their experience of learning and
sharing space with other pupils but also
one another’s (including the teacher’s)
perception and explanation of the
distances that separate them. In
individualist schooling, the nominal
commitment to the d 20 of 70ay of life may
secure for all but does not suffi ce to undo
the pathos for distinction and the self-
perception of the successful pupil as
exceptional and gifted, thus naturalizing
the measured differences in learning
outcomes. Nietzsche, suspicious of
democracy, inclusion and demotic ethical
sensibilities as signs of weakness,3 called
the “pathos of distance” “the chasm
between man and man, class and class, the
multiplicity of types, the will to be oneself,
to stand out”. He praised this class-
producing pathos of distinction and
differentiation as characteristic of “every
strong age” and lamented that “the
tension, the range between the extremes is
today growing less and less-the extremes
themselves are finally obliterated to the
point of similarity” (Nietzsche, 1990, 102).
Nietzsche saw and opposed the mediocrity
produced by bridging gaps. But, in critical
distance from Nietzsche, let me emphasize
that a democracy worthy of the name
cannot let this risk deter the whole
operation of de- normalizing and de-
naturalizing distances, of eradicating their
political cost. Nevertheless, I see
Nietzsche’s metaphor ‘pathos of distance’
as helpful and shall evoke it throughout this
article to weave my critical readings of the
apathetics involved in the mobile,
‘translator moments of philosophers such
as Foucault and James. Nietzsche’s
metaphor is helpful not becausee of its
supposed social-normative validity but
precisely because of its revealing force
(revealing inter alia of Nietzsche’s own
elitist4 affi rmation of the chosen). issue of
distance and its shrinking (up to
annihilation) had, in modernity, been the
meeting point of extremes, there where, in
our example, apathy and unconditional,
raw, pathos make a common cause or are
reducible to a common ground. André Gide
turned Pascal’s ‘extremes meet’ (les
extrêmes se touchent) into *extremes
move me’ (les extrêmes me touchent) so
as to ask: for whom are these extremes?
(Rabaté, 2016, 28). In yet another twist, we
may think through the issue of space,
where extremes meet the very moment
that they attract the (post)modern world
that responds either with apathy or with
unbridled pathos to the distances between
those who inhabit the extremes, those for
whom the extremes are or those whose
gratification requires extremes. The latter
pursue incriminatory utopias,5 demonizing
an Other, exaggerating their own (real or
imagined) distance from the Other to
promise the demos a populist political
future. Public apathy has many faces. It
could be a retreat revealing discontent, or,
in cases of disagreement, it could be
respectful acceptance of one’s entitlement
to a different opinion. But it could also be a
withdrawal, especially aff ordable by those
whose comfortable lives do not give them
reasons to engage in politics or to engage
with others. It could even be resignation
(Saito, 2012, 283). But extreme pathos has
many faces too. such faces are seen by a
visiting Other. For instance, John Dewey
encountered an undemocratic version of
extreme political pathos in his “cross-
cultural experience in Japan, in 1919 and
1921”. The “undemocratic culture of Japan
at that time” made Dewey feel that his
“principle of sympathetic imagination
toward the diff erent” and “humanitarian-
democratic position” were
incommunicable. Diagnosing “the
impenetrability and inscrutability of
Japanese culture” Dewey simultaneously
diagnosed a cultural distance, a distance
that is metaphorized as an “abyss” and
“gap”: the “episode is symbolic of the abyss
that constantly jeopardizes communication
between diff erent cultures. Dewey was
caught out by a real gap in cross-cultural
communication in a foreign place”, “where
the English word ‘democracy’ was
untranslatable” (Saito,2012, 283). Decades
later, another western philosopher, Michel
Foucault, in a mobile moment too, his visit
to Japan, engaged in cultural-philosophical
translation and comparativism to diagnose
the causes of “two great diseases of power,
two great fevers” which “dominated the
20th century” (Foucault, 1994[1978], 534),
fascism and Stalinism.6 In the relevant
lecture, which has remained7 untranslated
into English, Foucault ‘translated’ the
philosophical difference of ancient Greek
culture from ancient Eastern and modern
Western culture as one of the appropriate
distance between philosophy and the state.
Unlike “China and Japan, there was not in
the West, at least for a very long time” a
“able to become part of [be one body with,
faire corps avec M.P.] a political practice, a
moral practice of an entire society”
(Foucault, 1994[1978], 537).8 Foucault not
only lamented the shortening or
annihilation of the distance between the
philosopher and the state but, in what I see
as a moment of pathos of distance,
pathologized just any normative aspiration,
just any political-philosophical crossing of
the border of the descriptive. To
recommend the normativity of such non-
normativity he engaged in a translation of
the Anglo- American idiom of analytic
philosophy of language into a paradigmatic
model for any political philosophy: to avoid
the common cause with (or even to avoid
becoming the cause of) anti-democratic
diseases, political philosophy should be
cured of normative utopian visions. It
should become the descriptive study of
power relations with no transformative
aspirations other than those of the
particularist resistance of power by social
agents. On this point, Foucault failed to
take from Anglo- American analytic
philosophy the critical distance that he took
from other modernisms when analyzing
their power operations. Instead, he rushed
to embrace a full translation of all political
philosophy into the analytic, non-
normative idiom. Foucault recurrently
employed a Japanese example of those
times, the Narita case,9 to illustrate the
merits of normativity being lost in this
translation: once to indicate a politically
conscious kind of apathy, a decision “not to
play the game of power” (543)10 and then
to indicate what I consider a kind of: “the
target is power” and “an arbitrary power is
answered by a violent inversion of power”
(545).11 To Foucault, this pathos for power
with no need for ethico- political justifi
cation illustrates what he orientalized in
both Japan and Iran (Papastephanou,
2018) and understood as a particularist,
anti-modernist revolt of (positively meant)
utopian possibility. This focus on power by
farmers and left-wing Japanese activists
presupposes another epochal shift,
another translation of politics from one era
into another, from the Western emphasis
on revolution to this non-Western case of
particularist revolt embraced by Foucault in
the same year (1978) that he had
embraced the Iranian revolution
(Papastephanou, 2018): Foucault prepared
its theorization in his lecture through the
distance covered by the poor and the rich
to the point where impoverishment
ceased, to him, to be a nodal point of late
20th century politics. With regard to the
“problem of the impoverishment of those
who produce wealth, the simultaneous
production of wealth and poverty”, “I do
not say that it was totally solved in the
West at the end of the twentieth century”.
Yet the gap has been closed to the extent
that this problem “no longer arises with the
same urgency. It Is doubled by another
problem which is no longer that of too little
wealth, but that of too much power”
(Foucault, 1994[1978], 535, my
translation).12 Foucault of France and
Japan de-materialized and de-politicized
the distance between the rich and the
poor. One wonders: extremes either met or
they ceased to move the West and the
Western, mobile philosopher. I have passed
from to Foucault to indicate some subtle
complications regarding 3. William James,
what makes a life significant? Referring to
ways of life, one may ask what makes a life
signifi cant and consider the legitimacy of
the question as such. Is this question
legitimate enough for educators who infl
uence (even shape) the life of students in
multiple ways? Do we, educators, not
presuppose that certain ways of life (e.g.
democracy, translation) are more
meaningful than illiberal alternatives, yet,
in a liberal manner, do we not assume that
there is no one good way of living one’s
life? “The fi rst thing to learn in intercourse
with others is non-interference with their
own peculiar ways of being happy,
provided those ways do not assume to
interfere by violence with ours” (James,
2016, 50). We know that things are more
complex, despite the signifi cance of
negative-duty liberalism as a necessary
though insuffi cient politics. We need to
“convert our ways of thinking” to “re-
encounter different cultures as other
through a process of border-crossing” and
to pursue its “educational implications in
terms of an art of dialogue through which
one exposes oneself to the other” (Saito,
2015, 19). Distance from our ways of
thinking does not always translate into the
required distance from our habitual ways
of living, and the metaphor of border-
crossing may need, in my view, a kind of
border-raising, one blocking unqualifi ed
glorifi cation of the mobile global curious
observer (and translator) of otherness.
Lives involve material conditions that are
not reducible finding the right word,
speaking properly about the other or
growing through cultural encounters with
others. Another kind of politics, another
sense of crossing distances of space and
time, another look at the pathos of
distance and perhaps another kind of
(a)pathetics may be needed. William
James, as yet another mobile philosopher,
visited a ‘heterotopia’ from which he
recoiled with pathos when facing it’s a-
pathetic de- pathologization of life. In his
‘What Makes Life Significant,’ James
compared modern ideal ways of life while
transforming his own thinking throughout
the essay. “A few summers ago I spent a
happy week at the famous Assembly
Grounds on the borders of Chautauqua
Lake,” says James, and registers a string of
normatively outstanding nouns that
indicate what pervades the air of that
“atmosphere of success”: “sobriety and
industry, intelligence and goodness,
orderliness and ideality, prosperity and
cheerfulness” (James, 2016, 53). This
heterotopia of accomplished modern
values is “a town of many thousands of
inhabitants, beautifully laid out in the forest
and drained, and equipped with means for
satisfying all the necessary lower and most
of the superfl uous higher wants of man”.
The eff ected utopia was inter alia
educational: “You have a fi rst-class
college”, “magnificent music […] with
possibly the most perfect open-air
auditorium in the world. You have every
sort of athletic exercise […] and the more
artifi cial doings which the gymnasium aff
ords. You have kindergartens and model
secondary schools” (54).. It was also of
religious openness, inclusion and catering
for various tastes: “You have general
religious services and special club-houses
for the several sects. You have perpetually
running soda-water fountains, and daily
popular lectures by distinguished men. You
have the best of company, and yet no eff
ort”. In the perfectly balanced and sanitized
topos, there are “no zymotic diseases, no
poverty, no drunkenness, no crime, no
police. You have culture, you have
kindness, you have cheapness, you have
equality”. James thus had “a foretaste of
what human society might be, were it all in
the light, with no suff ering and no dark
corners” (55). No suffering (in Greek:
pathos), no disease (corporeal or social), no
pathology in this place of advanced
temporality. James states that he was
curious to know this place, to cover this
distance literally and figuratively: “I went in
curiosity for a day. I stayed for a week, held
spell-bound by the charm and ease of
everything, by the middle-class paradise,
without a sin, without a victim” (55). But
precisely its lack of pathos (both as passion
and disease), its de-pathologization of life,
struck James as pathological. To his own
astonishment, “on emerging into the dark
and wicked world again”, he caught himself
“quite unexpectedly and involuntarily”
exclaiming: “Ouf! What a relief!””. And then
he makes an astonishing 13 comment:
“Now for something primordial and savage,
even though it were as bad as an Armenian
massacre, to set the balance straight again”
(James, 2016, 55). What sense of balance
does the evocation of the massacre of
others (in this example, non-American
others) strike? For James, it was the
balance where extremes meet (without
mutual annihilation) to produce a happy
medium of the kind that renders the
hyperbolic (consider the recurrent “too” in
the following): “This order is too tame, this
culture too second-rate, this goodness too
uninspiring”. There was “human drama
without a villain”; this community was “so
refined that ice-cream soda-water is the
utmost off ering it can make to the brute
animal in man” (55). Locating brutality
within humanity (annihilating the time-
honoured distance between ‘animal’ and
‘man’), James longs for its manifestations
(especially as they happen to others –
Armenians in this case) which seem
preferable to middle-class mediocrity 14
and petty virtues. “There had been spread
before me the realization […] of all “the
ideals for which our civilization has been
striving: security, intelligence, humanity,
and order; and here was the instinctive
hostile reaction, not of the natural man,
but of a so-called cultivated man upon such
a Utopia” (56). In answering
himself why he recoiled in facing such an
accomplished utopia, James indicated his
longing for a kind of pathos: “I asked myself
what the thing was that was so lacking in
this Sabbatical city” and “I soon recognized
that it was the element that gives to the
wicked outer world all its moral style,
expressiveness and picturesqueness.” That
was the “element of precipitousness”, “of
strength and strenuousness, intensity and
danger” (57). The distance between
extremes (“the everlasting battle of the
powers of light with those of darkness”)
had been covered in that space of no
mnemonics (“the ideal was so completely
victorious already that no sign of any
previous battle”). Nothing heroic that
“romances and the statues celebrate and
the grim civic monuments remind us of’
remains, no unexpectedness “excites and
interests the looker-on at life,” no extremes
coexist to move the curious observer.
Signifi cantly, James characterized that
utopia of “no potentiality of death in sight
anywhere” as “unspeakable” (57); We may
assume, untranslatable. We may say that,
for James, the place lacked the Nietzschean
“pathos of distance” and agonism between
extremes. “Human emotions […] require
the sight of the struggle going on.” Modern
adventurous industriousness (“sweat and
effort, human nature strained to its
uttermost and on the rack”), though always
victorious (“yet getting through alive”), was
there sacrificed on the altar of
appeasement. In the touristic utopia,
“there were no racks, even in the place’s
historical museum; and no sweat, except
possibly the gentle moisture on the brow
of some lecturer” (58). Extremes had met,
their distance was lost, and James
singularized the outcome with the spatial
metaphor of fl atness: “Such absence of
human nature in extremis anywhere
seemed, then, a suffi cient explanation for
Chautauqua’s fl atness.” The pathology of
such fl atness is declared incurable: “An
irremediable fl atness is coming over the
world. more humane, and the religion of
democracy tends toward permanent
increase” (65). However, adding
remarkable complexity, James again shifts
his perspective: he feels that for the
democratic thinker the tip of the balance
should not lean toward overcorrecting “our
social prejudices”. He states the danger of
the “love of the peasant [being] so
exclusive” that the thinker “hardens his
heart toward the educated man” (71).
James does not want to set in opposition to
the Chautauqua heterotopia incriminatory
utopia that requires the former’s
demonization to justify its own futurist
promise. For James, that there “was little
moral effort, little sweat or muscular strain
in view” in Chautauqua did not justify
wholesale incrimination of it. In yet
another remarkable twist, he asserts:
“deep down in the souls of the participants
we may be sure that something of the sort
was hid, some inner stress, some vital
virtue not found wanting when required.”
The tensions of his essay take the form of
recurring questions that “force themselves
upon us”: “Is the functional utility, the
worth to the universe of a certain defi nite
amount of courage, kindliness, and
patience, no greater if the possessor of
these virtues is in an educated situation,
working out far- reaching tasks, than” a
laborer? For James, the latter could be “an
illiterate nobody, hewing wood and
drawing water, just to keep himself alive”
(72). Reading him critically, we realize that
James leaves the political, existential and
social distance between extreme
positionings intact; he only wants a
shortening of the rhetorical and cultural
distance between conflicting classes. He
wants the social distance not to be
translated into an unhealthy way of viewing
one another’s lives: “So far as this confl ict
is unhealthy and regrettable,- and I think it
is so only to a limited extent [a Nietzschean
moment here – M.P.], the unhealthiness
consists solely” in that “one-half of our
fellow countrymen remain entirely blind to
the internal signifi cance of the lives of the
other half. They miss the joys and sorrows,
they fail to feel the moral virtue, and they
do not guess the presence of the
intellectual ideals” (82).
The members of the demos “are at cross-
purposes all along the line, regarding each
other as they might regard a set of
dangerously gesticulating automata.”
Caught up in such optics, they horribly
mistranslate one another. “Often all that
the poor man can think of in the rich man
is a cowardly greediness for safety, luxury,
and eff eminacy, and a boundless aff
ectation” (89). James noticed de-
humanizing tendencies: “What he is, is not
a human being, but a pocket-book, a bank-
account”. Then come the negative passions
of dangerous political effects or distorted
depictions of the other’s political emotions:
“And a similar greediness, turned by
disappointment into envy, is all that many
rich men can see in the state of mind of the
dissatisfi ed poor” (89). And, “if the rich
man begins to do the sentimental act over
the poor man, what senseless blunders
does he make!”17 For James, the upshot is
that each “ignores the fact that happiness
and unhappiness and signifi cance are a
vital mystery; each pins them absolutely on
some ridiculous feature of the external
situation; and everybody remains outside
of everybody else’s sight” (90). In my view,
James’ diagnoses, apposite as they
otherwise are, reduce the to the optic,
blind as he is to any deeper, more
fundamental effects (of ultimately
educational relevance) of the very pathos
of distance as such and of constructed
distances. Like Foucault, James de-
materializes social distance, naturalizes it
by not questioning it, by leaving it intact,
and de-politicizes the eff ects of wealth
gaps among people. Ultimately, he fails to
translate social distance into political
idioms of constructed inequality and
avoidable injustice. In this way, a kind of
untranslatability of social distance emerges
as a surplus of political meaning that
cannot be channeled within the confines of
Foucault’s and James’ essays and resists
their attempts at ‘multilingualism”.
Research indicates that the mainstream
newspaper remains a steady source of
political information to many Nigerian
youths despite the growing internet
penetration and popularity of online media
among young people in Nigeria (Erubami,
2020). Besides, Edogoh et al. (2015) assert
that many Nigerian youths regularly read
newspaper political reports on the Internet
despite the global decline in newspaper
readership. Generally, such readership of
newspaper political contents by youths
may sway their perception about politics
and influence their extent of involvement
or apathy towards the governance and
government of their locale (Moreno et al.,
2013; Waqas, 2017). the past, research
investigating the possible influence of the
media on civic engagement and political
apathy tended to focus principally on the
electronic media and Internet. However,
little attention was devoted to empirical
inquiry into the interplay between
newspaper use, political efficacy, and
political apathy among young people,
especially within media studies in Nigeria.
Besides, studies on newspaper and political
behaviour in Nigeria seem limited to the
coverage of elections and political
statements (Ikpegbu & Ihejirika, 2020;
Oboh, 2016), newspaper campaign
discursive strategies (Ademilokun & Taiwo,
2013), representation of political actors
(Asiru et al., 2018) and gender bias in the
coverage of politics (Ojebuyi &
Chukwunwike, 2018). Thus, our study seeks
to extend the frontiers of empirical
knowledge on media use and civic
engagement by providing precise insights
into the interaction between young
people’s consumption of newspaper
political news and their overall civic
engagement. Specifically, the study seeks
to ascertain the level of political apathy
among youths in Nigeria and examine the
relationship between exposure to
newspaper political news, perception of
newspaper political news, perceived
political efficacy, and political apathy
among young people in Nigeria.

Political Apathy and Media Use

apathy is a general state of indifference
towards the affairs and governance of one’s
political locale. Such indifference usually
reflects in the attitudes of the citizens of a
state towards political activities, such as
elections, public opinions, and civic
responsibilities (Yakubu, 2012; Tan, 2012).
Hence, a politically apathetic individual
lacks interest in the social and political
affairs of his or her country and will likely
decline to register as a voter, refuse to cast
a vote during public elections, and fail to
participate in protests against systemic
failures. Such an individual would also lack
enthusiasm in sociopolitical debates, be
unwilling to assist security agents with
useful information, and generally become
indifferent to government policies and
programmes irrespective of the
consequences of such government’s
actions (Yakubu, 2012; Idike, 2014).
People’s level of political involvement is
significantly influenced by the twin factors
of political efficacy and situational political
involvement (Diemer & Rapa, 2016; Kushin
& Yamamoto, 2010). While political efficacy
denotes an individual’s belief in the
effectiveness of his or her participation in a
democratic process, situational political
involvement borders on the perceived
relevance of an issue and its degree of
contribution to political outcomes (Ejiofor,
2007; Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010; Morrell,
2003). Considering that both factors tend
to be strongly influenced by the availability
of accurate information and increased civic
education (Ejiofor, 2007; Ha et al., 2012;
Levy, 2013), the mass media remain
indispensable to a functional democracy. ,
the media play the critical role of informing
and mobilising people for democratic
processes. Consequently, their reports tend
to hold a considerable level of influence on
people’s political behaviour. Moreover, the
capacity of the media to tweak public
opinion by providing the content and
context of political discourse has severe
implications for democracy (Aghamelu,
2013). This is because, like a double-edged
sword, the media can either increase the
extent of political participation or increase
the level of political apathy. In this regard,
proponents of the media mobilization
theory contend a positive correlation
between media use and political
participation (Moreno et al., 2013 and
Scheufele & Nisbet, 2003). In comparison,
advocates of the media malaise school of
thought argue that media use is associated
with increased public political cynicism and
negative political behaviour (Ha et al.,
2012; Kenski & Stroud, 2006; Lee, 2006;
Strömbäck & Shehata, 2010; Waqas, 2017).
As the watchdog of society, the mass
media focus public attention and direct
citizens’ interests to governance affairs and
public issues. By providing accurate and in-
depth coverage of political activities,
policies, and programmes, it is assumed
that the media may stimulate political
consciousness, renaissance, and interest
among citizens, including the youths
(Ejiofor, 2007). Such political awakening
would, in turn, raise the bar of public
political participation and deflate political
apathy, especially among young people.
newspaper is one of the media platforms
devoted to disseminating information on
diverse areas, including politics.
Consequently, obtaining news from
newspaper is one of the strongest
predictors of political participation (Ha et
al., 2012; Scheufele & Nisbet, 2003). It is,
therefore, likely that youths’ exposure to
media political content will influence their
level of involvement or apathy towards
politics (Pasek et al., 2006). Research has
shown that individuals with heavy reliance
on the mass media, especially television,
are likely to have lower levels of subjective
efficacy and, consequently, increased
political apathy (Loveless, 2010). Similarly,
the way young people perceive media-
political content may influence their
political behaviour, given the overlapping
relationship between perception and
people’s behaviour (Erubami, 2020;
Segaard, 2015). In light of earlier
theoretical and empirical findings, we
assumed that newspaper exposure would
interact significantly with youths’ political
apathy and their general perception of
newspaper content on politics. Hence, the
study proposed the following hypotheses:

H1: Exposure to newspaper political news

will be negatively associated with political
apathy among youths.

2: Political apathy will be negatively related

to youths’ perception of newspaper
political reports.

Political Efficacy, Political Apathy, and

Media Use

The feeling of efficacy is arguably the

fulcrum upon which human agency rests.
People tend to be less motivated to act
when they feel that their action may not
yield the desired results (Bandura, 2001;
Henson, 2002). Previous studies have
shown that political efficacy is a strong
predictor of political participation, and it is
an essential mediator between general
self-efficacy and political participation
(Ardèvol-Abreu et al., 2017; Diemer &
Rapa, 2016; Gastil & Xenos, 2010; Kushin &
Yamamoto, 2010). Political efficacy refers to
an individual’s conviction that their action
can influence the overall political process.
Such assurances usually include the
internal feeling that individuals hold the
capacity and political competence to act
(internal efficacy) and that their actions will
be appropriately responded to by the
government (external efficacy) (Ejiofor,
2007; Loveless, 2010; Morrell, 2003).
 extending the frontiers of efficacy as a
determinant of political involvement,
Ejiofor (2007) asserts that individuals
become less likely to participate in politics
if they place a low valuation on the rewards
gained in political involvement relative to
the rewards expected from other kinds of
human activities. Accordingly, individuals
are less likely to engage in politics if they
feel that the alternative they face will not
make a significant difference (unchallenged
alternatives) if they doubt that their action
can bring about significant changes in the
outcome of political processes (self
deprivation), or if they feel that their
knowledge is too limited for effective
political engagement (relative ignorance).
Debates on the possible influence of the
media on political efficacy and political
involvement easily lend themselves to two
schools of thought: the media form
reliance bloc and the specific media use
bloc (Loveless, 2010). Generally,
dependence on certain media forms (such
as television or newspaper) tends to
manifest variations in people’s world views
and political orientations; hence, studies
have demonstrated that people may be
politically immobilised by television viewing
due to the peculiar form (rather than
content) of

that promotes more entertainment than

information and education (Hooghe, 2002).
Similarly, Pasek et al. (2006) found that
although total time spent watching
television was negatively related to civic
activity, specific forms of television, such as
national news programmes, promoted
knowledge acquisition and civic
engagement.

Conversely, the opposing school of thought

contends that it is not the form of the
media but the content that influences
people’s political behaviour considering
that deliberate use of the media can serve
as a bulwark or potential mechanism for
mitigating the demobilising effect of the
media. In their study, Bakker and de Vreese
(2011) argue that specific media usage is a
stronger predictor of political participation/
apathy than the time spent with a medium.
Other studies have also shown that the
Internet is a powerful tool for promoting
political participation due to the peculiar
nature of online technologies, and the
Internet is a stronger predictor of newer
forms of political participation, such as
participating in online polls, compared to
traditional forms of political participation,
such as participation in public political
debates (Johnson & Kaye, 2003; Jung et al.,
2011; Ha et al., 2012). Based on these
debates, we proposed that young people’s
exposure to political news

the newspaper is significantly related to

their perceived efficacy, which interacts
with their level of political apathy.
Therefore, we formulated the following
hypotheses:

H3: Exposure to newspaper political news

will be positively related to perceived
political efficacy among youths.

H4: Political apathy will be negatively

related to Perceived political efficacy
among youths.

Limited policy solutions: Apathy can limit

the development of innovative policy
solutions to complex problems.

1.Corruption: Corruption is the basically a

dishonest, fraudulent act done by people
holding key offices, or even an individual
with the intention of acquiring personal
gains and illicit wealth or power.A system
eaten by corruption breeds people who
have apathy towards politics. It funds the
belief that their input doesn’t, and will
never matter. It discourages people with
good interests whose aim is to promote the
development of the particular country or
society from actually being productive.
often than not, people are either converted
into corruption upon seeing that the
system lacks a working justice system and
that most often than not, criminals go scot
free and even stay around to perpetrate
more crimes like stealing the country’s
funds, bribing of officers election
malpractices etc.
2. Electoral Malpractice: This is one major
issue of democracy in many countries
today. Electoral malpractice is the act of
manipulating electoral results and the
voting figures. It could also be by enabling
under 18 that is people less than the legal
age of voting to vote in return for gifts. It
could also be in form of making vulnerable
people vote in exchange for gifts and
money.

In a country known for malpractice and

manipulation of election results, the
citizens are very likely to lose faith in the
system and see no reason to come out to
exercise their franchise when in reality, the
government and the key players only
appoint a person to rule and ensure they
rig the process and result until the aim is
achieved.

2. Distrust: This happens when the people

have needs that they don’t think the
government can or rather,

help solve because they choose not to,

and it is actually against their
aggrandizement. Most times, political
apathy stems from the fact that the people
do not trust their political leaders to do the
right thing, so they stay helpless.

They belief that there is really no need to

get involved in the politics of the country
fighting for their needs and the
enthronement of certain policies when the
players involved would only get there and
do something else. This belief is often
prevalent in countries that have had series
of bad leaders and have experienced bad
leadership first hand. They have seen the
cycle; politicians promising heaven and
earth and when they are voted in, forget
and ignore the promises made by them
during their campaign.

3. Absence of Variety: Politics should be

exciting and intriguing. It should make
people interested enough to want to
engage in the voting process and bring
their candidate to win. Where there are no
variety of candidates, the people get bored
and lose interest. This is one of the reasons
for political apathy in most countries.
4. Lack of Education: Lack of education
breeds ignorance. In a country where
majority of the citizens are illiterates due to
bad system, expensive education or
poverty, the citizens are more likely to have
political apathy. This doesn’t start out
rightly as lack of interest, but from the fact
that due to their illiteracy, they have no
idea what the process is about, or how to
even vote if they wanted to. They do not
know when to criticize or even how and
when to make their voices heard.

5. Poverty: A poor man does not have the

time to socialize and criticize the
government. His firsts instinct is to quell his
hunger and that of his family and then
proceed to provide basic amenities for
them. Where poverty lies, there is
unemployment, illiteracy, corruption and
even electoral malpractice. This is because
the average poor person would do
anything to put food on his table, even if it
means stealing or even participating in the
manipulation of election results. These
poor people are often the thugs used to
disrupt the electoral process, they are
often the people even crumbs to go
provide underage people to vote. In a
country where this abounds, political
apathy thrives.

6. Coercion: This is predominantly in

systems that are dictatorial or
authoritarian. In military regimes, people
are bullied into silence, political leaders are
enforced on them and their views on
certain policies or the system of
government does not matter.Basically, they
have no say on what happens in the
country, they cannot trust the justice
system to protect them from the
government and they know their vote does
not count. This is one major cause of
political apathy. In countries that have
experienced this system of government,
research has it that they are less likely to
develop a very healthy interest in the
governance of their states.

7. Stress: Technology has made things

easier for us. Thankfully, there are
machines that facilitate the voting process
and the counting of results, so people do
not have to wait a whole day for them to
cast their vote or have their election results
known. However, in poor countries, where
these machines are yet to be acquired, it
causes some form of discomfort for the
citizens who want to vote but cannot stand
the stress of waiting in line for hours before
it gets to their turn. It becomes worse,
where facilities are not even in place for
sick, old people who want to cast their vote
but are not strong enough to withstand the
stress involved with voting.

8. Insecurity: Elections in most countries

end up with violence and people losing
their lives. In a country battling with
terrorism and insecurity, where people on
a normal day fear for their lives, they will
not turn up for an election where the
chance of them losing their lives is tripled.
Take Northern Nigeria for example where
Boko Haram and bandits kill people for fun,
the average northerner who is scared for
his life is very likely to stay indoors and
avoid places where he could be killed.
Moreso, where politicians are prone to
employing thugs to manipulate the
election results or harm voters, there is low
turn out in the number of voters, thus
political apathy.

9. Lack of Communication: There should be

a line of communication between the
political leaders and the masses. Where
this is absent, the people are left in the
dark as to the affairs of the governance of
the country. This breads political apathy as
the people gradually lose interest in the
country’s governance.

conclusion, political apathy is a plague that

should not be the fate of any country as it
marks the beginning of doom for the
country and its citizens. It opens doors for
corruption and other vices.

Forms and Consequences of Political

Apathy

Political apathy appears in many forms.

Some of the distinguished forms of political
apathy are:
1.Refusal to register: Voters registration.
Are essential aspect of election which the
electoral body takes very seriously, it is the
pre-condition for voting in an election,
some citizens see registration of voters as a
waste of time, so people give excuses to
ignore the exercise.

2.Refusal to belong to a political party:

political party is a body of people who
come together with the goal of leading the
state or country. It is through political party
an individual can aspire to any political
position or emerge as a candidate for
election.

3.Refusal to fight or protest against rigging

other electoral malpractices: electoral and
malpractices is a situation in which
electorate and electoral bodies falsifies and
manipulate the electoral process, especially
voting in order to ensure that an unpopular
candidate wins the election which could be
in form of ballot snatching, multiple voting
etc, such nonchalant attitude helps wrong
people to emerge as leaders.

4. Refusal to vote: Refusal to vote is a

situation whereby the total number of
votes cast is very low compares to the total
number of registered voter, this is the most
common form of apathy, many eligible
voters deliberately avoid to vote.

5. Refusal to participate in electoral

process: This is refusal to participate in
series of events or activities such as
debates, seminars, campaigns etc.

Consequences of Political Apathy

is not without its effect. Some of the
negative effects of political apathy in any
political system include:

1.Threat to Democratic dispensation: When

a politician wins an election in where there
is high level of political apathy in election,
such a winner wins with a minority vote.
Such winning does not give the winner
confidence that she is a popular political
representative in a given area.

2.Elections are not representative: Results

of elections are supposed to be based on
majority feelings. With political apathy,
such is difficult.

3.Political Apathy hinders good governance

and decision making: Political apathy leads
to bad government. When elected political
leaders win with a minority vote, such
leaders feel reluctant to mobilize majority
citizens in the area who might not have
voted for him or her. As a result, such
political leaders fail to organize good
governance or community development
related meetings in local communities as
most of the residents might not be coming
to such meetings as they fell that the
political representative concerned is not a
leader of their choice; and is not popular in
the area.
4. Political Apathy retards community and
national development processes: instead of
a political leader to concentrate on
spending more time facilitating
development related projects, he or she
might spend more time justifying that he or
she is current ward councilor, member of
parliament or a current president.

5. High voter apathy is a vote of no

confidence in political representatives as
most citizens feel there is little or nothing
they benefit from spending time and
energy voting for someone who might
benefit more from politics while a voter
gets poor and poorer every year.
6. With political apathy, most elected
political leaders at whatever level of
political representative rarely or never go
back to their respectively areas to consult
and work with the electorate on local
community or national socio-economic
needs and challenges.

7. Increase high voter apathy can erode

checks and balances, accountability, rule of
law, etc; this leads to bad governance (1)
Emergence of an undemocratic
government: government that would
emerge may not reflect the wishes of the
people. (ii)Lack of accountability: there will
be no accountability on the part of the
government because the people that are
supposed to keep the government and the
leaders in check have shown no interest in
the affairs of the country.

Mediocre leaders are likely to be in power

if responsible/competent people refuse to
seek political offices.

Corruption: corruption will set in when

dishonourable people fill the vacuum
created by the absence of credible citizens.

The government in power would not

provide social amenities and infrastructural
facilities since it cannot be held
accountable.

Slow pace of political development:

political apathy
proper political participation which
ultimately affects development.

(vii) Minimal popular input in decision

making processes.

(viii) Problem of legitimacy for those in

power.

(ix) Political apathy disorderliness in society.

Breeds Lawlessness And

(x) Inability to protect the principles and

ideals of democracy in the society e.g.
refusal to protest against bad policies and
bad governance.
(xi) Wrong set of people come into power.
There are many causes why people have a
lackadaisical attitude towards politics and
governance. Here we have listed the Major
Causes of Political Apathy in a country.

a.Violence Campaign: Due to the level of

violence that always occur during the build-
up to elections, most people stay away
from electoral process for the safety of
their lives and properties.

b.Attitude of Politicians: Large number of

people does not like politicians for so many
reasons. But the number one cause is that
they do not believe in them and see them
as thieves, liars, thugs, and people who
have no compassion for the populace.
Disorder in the Political

c.System: There is so much state of

confusion going on in politics and in the
government. They include political
oppression and victimization, political
infighting, tribalism and so on. Current
Condition of

d.Governance: This is probably the number

one cause for political apathy. The
government has failed to provide good
leadership and governance for the state, as
a result, the level of apathy towards politics
and governance has increased.. Lack of
Trust in Governance: This is different from
the dislike of politicians. In this case, this is
an issue of not believing in the way of
governance and lacking the interest to see
governance improve. Most people also
have lost hope of better governance and
therefore a reason for their political apathy.
Hyper-Critical Negative

e.Media: Negative political news coverage

and negative political ads create cynicism in
many countries, which leads to apathy.
News programs do not provide substantive
coverage of candidates and their views on
issues, offering instead sound clips and
opinions from biased panelists. As negative
political ads become more mean-spirited
and distorted, some people get disgusted
and completely disconnect from the
political process.
g. Weak Security Measures during
Elections: Some people believe that their
votes are not secured during elections. This
is as a result of the history of snatching of
ballot boxes, election rigging, and
disruption of voting centers by thugs or at
time by electoral personnel. As a result,
people do not participate effectively in the
voting process.

g.Dishonest Electoral Personnel: At time,

most electoral personnel plays patrician
politics that is giving favor to one candidate
or political party. These and other ills-
behavior makes people mind to deviate
from involving totally in politics.
i.Rigging of Elections: This is a major cause
for the increase in political apathy. Over the
years, elections have been plagued with
rigging and malpractices. And that is why
most people do not believe in elections
therefore resulting in political apathy.

j. Political frustration: This denies the

people the right to decide the issues they
want addressed and select the candidates
they want to address them. As a result, the
people’s political skills deteriorate because
the system gives them no input into the
political process. Religious Belief: Some
religion

k. organizations have no regards for

political process. They see politic as a dirty
game. Therefore discourage members from
participating in electoral process.

Why do people experience political

apathy?

Indirect political apathy through slow,

inefficient or non-representative
bureaucracies was highlighted in a recent
study based out of Nigeria, where
researchers surveyed and analysed voter
attitudes on political apathy. They
discovered four main factors which lead to
voter apathy in Nigeria:
Incompetence of the body which ran the
electoral
Process
Unemployment
The political environment
Electoral violence
Survey respondents voiced their concerns
for the impartiality and independence of
the body which ran the electoral process,
alleging electoral fraud and election
rigging, which consequently discouraged
public participation in the voting process at
all.

the childhood of Moses Tai, the ADC

founder explains, political apathy results to
low expectations by Unemployment and
the dissatisfaction of the electorate with
the job opportunities available to them
stems from a larger disapproval of those in
authority. Plus, a dangerous and toxic
political environment often results in
violence which can scare citizens from
participating in political action.

However, governance and politics and

therefore political apathy occur every year,
all year long, not just during election years.
Afrobarometer conducted a series of public
opinion polls on democracy and
governance in Africa in 2013-2014; they
found that 32 percent of respondents said
they never discuss politics, while only 20
percent of respondents say they frequently
discuss politics.

Perhaps the disillusionment of citizens is

unsurprising in Kenya many of the public
services people rely upon fail to serve the
needs of the people, leading private
companies to come in to fill the service
gaps.

the number of primary public schools

grew 40 percent from 2001 to 2011,
reports that private primary schools
increased by 1000 percent in that same
time period. With many essential services
being privatised, community members can
feel like they have even less of a stake in
politics, and suffer from more political
apathy since the government does not
provide necessary services.

What are the consequences of political

apathy?
The consequences of political apathy on
communities are wide ranging. Those in
positions of power have who face little
accountability for their actions or have a
low risk of being voted out of office
maintain their authority, while citizens
rarely see their lives improve.

Authorities with little accountability are

more likely to misuse public resources and
reinforce discriminatory policies. This
eventually reduces citizen’s ability to
participate.

example, the marginalised indigenous

Wayuu people have faced a famine which
has killed hundreds of children due to the
mismanagement of public funds from
authorities in La Guajira, Columbia.
According to former senator and former
governor of La Guajira, Jorge Ballesteros,
corruption and misallocation of
government resources had greatly
contributed to the famine, and only 30
percent of all La Guajira government
resources reached the communities. The
lack of political willingness of government
authorities to help the marginalised
indigenous community is a form of political
discrimination, and leads to a lack of
political engagement of the Indigenous
Wayuu people. In order to spark genuine
political action, political and social reforms
must take place, including the electoral
body, electoral process, and political parties
who must work together with citizen
support to create safe and approachable
environments for all citizens to participate.
Citizens deserve to be empowered to make
decisions for their communities to improve
their lives. They also must see a benefit to
participating in governance and see
positive impacts of dedicating time and
resources in becoming politically engaged.
Get involved, be part of something big and
help empower communities in Africa,
either through donating or volunteering.
Your participation will go a long way to
supporting people in need.

apathy can have significant effects on

individuals, communities, and society as a
whole. Here are 20 potential effects:
1 Reduced voter turnout: Apathy can lead
to fewer people showing up to vote, which
can impact the outcome of elections.

2 Limited political engagement: Apathetic

individuals may be less likely to engage in
political discussions or attend political
events.

3 Decreased political knowledge: A lack of

interest in Politics can lead to a lack of
knowledge about Important issues and
policies.

4 Reduced accountability: Apathy can lead

to politicians being less accountable to
their constituents.
5 Weakened democracy: Apathy can
undermine the democratic process and
weaken the ability of citizens to participate
in government.

6 Reduced civic engagement: Apathy can

lead to less volunteering and fewer
community activities.

7 Limited representation: Apathy can lead

to certain

Groups being underrepresented in

government.

8 Decreased political power: Apathy can

reduce the political power of individuals
and communities.
9 Less political activism: Apathetic
individuals are

Less likely to engage in political activism

and protest.

10 Limited social change: Apathy can limit

the ability of society to create positive
social change.

11 Decreased trust in government: Apathy

can lead to

A lack of trust in government institutions.

12 Increased cynicism: Apathy can lead to
increased cynicism about politics and
government.

13 Reduced transparency: Apathy can lead

to less transparency in government and
less scrutiny of elected officials.

14 Limited access to information: Apathy

can lead to a lack of interest in seeking out
information about politics and
government.

15 Less political discourse: Apathy can lead

to less political discourse and debate. 16
Decreased political efficacy: Apathy can
reduce
Individuals’ sense of political efficacy and
the belief

That they can make a difference.

17 Weakened civil society: Apathy can

weaken civil society and the ability of
individuals to come together to achieve
common goals.

18 Reduced public participation: Apathy

can lead to less public participation in
decision-making processes.

19 Limited representation of diverse

perspectives: Apathy can lead to a lack of
representation of diverse perspectives in
government.
20 Limited policy solutions: Apathy can
limit the development of innovative policy
solutions to complex problems.

Some of the potential negative effects of

political Apathy include:

Lack of political engagement: People who

are politically apathetic may not participate
in elections, attend community meetings,
or engage in other forms of civic
involvement. This can lead to a lack of
representation and a loss of democratic
accountability.

Decreased awareness of political issues:

Political apathy can lead to a lack of
knowledge or understanding about
important political issues, which can
prevent people from making informed
decisions or taking action to address
problems.

Limited political discourse: Apathy can

contribute to a lack of meaningful political
discourse and debate,

can inhibit the development of effective

policies and solutions.

Lack of diversity in political representation:

Political apathy can result in a lack of
diversity among elected officials, as people
may not feel motivated to support
candidates who represent a range of
viewpoints and backgrounds.

Lower voter turnout: Apathy can lead to

low voter turnout, which can result in less
representative and less democratic
outcomes in elections.

Reduced accountability: Political apathy can

make it easier for elected officials to avoid
accountability for their actions, as there
may be less public pressure to hold them
responsible for their decisions.

Decreased political legitimacy: Apathy can

contribute to a sense of disillusionment
and disaffection with
 and government, which can undermine
the legitimacy of democratic institutions.

Greater polarization: When people are

politically apathetic, it can make it easier
for extremist or ideologically-driven groups
to dominate the political conversation and
push their agenda.

Reduced public trust: Political apathy can

erode public trust in government and other
institutions, which can make it more
difficult to address important societal
issues.

Weakened social cohesion: Political apathy

can contribute to a sense of disconnection
and disunity among members of society,
which can make it more difficult to address
common challenges and promote social
cohesion.

Poorer policy outcomes: Political apathy

can lead to a lack of engagement and input
from citizens, which can result in policies
that do not effectively address the needs
and concerns of the population.

responsiveness: When citizens are

politically apathetic, it can make it more
difficult for elected officials to be
responsive to their needs and concerns.

Less effective democracy: Political apathy

can weaken democratic institutions and
processes, making it more difficult to
achieve meaningful democratic outcomes.

Limited civic participation: Apathy can

result in limited civic participation, which
can reduce opportunities for people to
engage in meaningful and fulfilling
activities that contribute to their sense of
well-being and community.

Weakened sense of citizenship: Political

apathy can contribute to a weakened sense
of citizenship and civic responsibility, which
can reduce people’s willingness to
participate in the democratic process.

Decreased political efficacy: Apathy can

lead to a sense of powerlessness and
reduced political efficacy, which can make it
more difficult for people to feel that their
voices are being heard and that they can
make a difference in the political process.

Reduced social mobility: Political apathy

can contribute to a lack of social mobility,
as people may be less likely to engage in
the political process and advocate for
policies that promote social and economic
equality.

Greater income inequality: Apathy can

contribute to greater income inequality, as
people who are politically apathetic may be
less likely to advocate for policies that
promote greater economic equity.
Decreased international competitiveness:
Political apathy can make it more difficult
for countries to compete on the global
stage, as it