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
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-
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.

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.

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
systemic 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.
Some 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:

 The 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
democratic 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 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.

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.

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
the 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.
 Let 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 specifi c 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
beginnings 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 specifi c 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?
 Do 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
introduce 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
complexities of diagnoses, of the well-meant eff ort 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
be 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
engagement, 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 democratic way of life may secure
liberties 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 diff erences 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 because 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).
 The 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 diff erent 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.
 Some 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 diff erence 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
philosophy “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 and
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
pathos: “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
Dewey 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 diff erent 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
to 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 its 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
paradigmatic 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 suff ering (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
astonishing13 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
expendable (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
mediocrity14 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
remained”). 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 eff ort,
human nature strained to its uttermost and on the rack”),
though always victorious (“yet getting through alive”),
was there sacrifi ced 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.
 Bourgeoisie and mediocrity, church sociables and
teachers’ conventions, are taking the place of the old
heights and depths and romantic chiaroscuro” (59). And
it is diagnosed as a global new way of life: “The whole
world, delightful and sinful” as it still appears “to one
just escaped from the Chautauquan enclosure, is
nevertheless obeying more and more just those ideals
that are sure to make of it in the end a mere Chautauqua
Assembly on an enormous scale” (59). But James
transforms his own thinking by reconsidering his view on
the heroic and on human life’s “wild intensity”.

The latter is manifest in the industriousness of the

lower classes whose pathos (passion and suff ering) is
overlooked both in the middle-class touristic paradise
and in the minds of the cultivated and affl uent, blind as
they are in their own pathos of distance from their
Others.15 In a self-critical twist in the tale, James
contemplates his own lack of onlooker curiosity:
“Wishing for heroism and the spectacle of human nature
on the rack, I had never noticed the great fi elds of
heroism lying round about me.” He could not see it
present and alive. “I could only think of it as dead and
embalmed, labelled and costumed, as it is in the pages of
romance” (60). Outside the heterotopia, the longed-for
extremes do not meet, they continue to move, so long as
the social distance among humans continues to have eff
ects, so long as there are those for whom extremes are:
“On freighttrains, on the decks of vessels, […] among
the fi remen and the policemen, the demand for courage
is incessant; and the supply never fails. There, every day
of the year somewhere, is human nature in extremis for
you” (61). For James, a kind of pathos, sympathy, syn +
pathos, for the common produced a cure of his
(monolingual) blindness: “As I awoke to all this
unidealized heroic life around me, the scales seemed to
fall from my eyes; and a wave of sympathy greater than
anything I had ever before felt with the common life of
common men began to fi ll my soul” (ibid, 61, emphasis
mine).16 To all the above there relates another spatial
metaphor aff ecting distance and extremes: leveling.
“Thus are men’s lives levelled up as well as levelled
down—levelled up in their common inner meaning,
levelled down in their outer gloriousness and show” (65).
Though he does not spell this out as democratization,
James praises a leveling of humanity and laments its
being obscured by an ever renewed blindness: “Yet
always, we must confess, this levelling insight tends to
be obscured again; and always the ancestral blindness
returns and wraps us up, so that we end once more by
thinking that creation can be for no other purpose than to
develop remarkable situations and conventional
distinctions and merits” (65), in other words, created,
constructed distances that divide the demos. James’
Nietzschean moment of pathos of distance ended with
the ethical, piecemeal triumph of charismatic, extreme
singularity: with the advent of ever new “levellers” “in
the shape of a religious prophet” or of “some Rousseau
or Tolstoï” “our blindness” is re-dispelled. Then comes
James’ pragmatist, meliorist utopianism: “Yet, little by
little, there comes some stable gain; for the world does
get 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 an
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 confl icting
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
material to the optic, blind as he is to any deeper, more
fundamental eff ects (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).
 In 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

 Political 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.
 Generally, 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.
 The 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.
 H2: 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).
 In 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
television 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
in 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.
 Most 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,
will 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.
 In 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
and other electoral malpractices: electoral
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

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.(i) 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

hinders 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 breeds lawlessness and

disorderliness in society.

(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.

c. Disorder in the Political

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.

d. Current Condition of
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.
 e. 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.

e. Hyper-Critical Negative
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.
 h. 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.

k. Religious Belief: Some religion

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.
 As 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.
 While 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.
 For 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.
Political 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,
 which 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
 politics 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.
 Decreased 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