This month I complete ten years of online activism. And since the beginning my intention was to create a space for me and others to practice English and to educate myself and others about important issues that concern everybody, not just us Brazilians, but I won't write more about this now. In the near future I will write authorial posts to celebrate this decade of educative activism. This post is a summary of two articles. The first with the title above was published in February of 2015 at http://www.crickcentre.org/blog/improve-political-education/. The second was published in May of 2016 at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/book-review-uninformed-why-people-know-so-little-about-politics-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-by-arthur-lupia/.
As a discipline, the good political education has to be formed by two sets of principles. First, there are the Nolan principles of public life, drawn up after the cash for questions scandal in 1994: accountability, honesty, integrity, leadership, objectivity, openness and selflessness, which all politicians are expected to uphold. Second, I (Titus Alexander, political scientist) suggest the following principles from the book "Learning Power": 1) Pragmatic, start from where people are and help them achieve what they want. 2) Pluralistic in funding, forms of provision, content and values. 3) Participative to develop confidence, communication skills and critical thinking. 4) Practical, to include techniques, knowledge and analysis relevant to active politics. 5) Peaceful, violence is a failure of politics. 6) Pro-poor, prioritise provision for people on low income with least access to politics and resources. The opposite of these principles of good political education is the political education that is ideological, partisan, coercive and exclusive, the kind of politics which prevails in undemocratic societies. The principles from the book "Learning power" recognise that politics is about people creating practical solutions to problems by peaceful means in a pluralistic society, and that society benefits when all citizens take part, including the poor and the disadvantaged. To say that political education should be 'pro-poor' does not presume a particular ideology or political programme. Left, right and centre claim their approach is better for the poorest. The principle is included because the poor and disadvantage in society have least resources to take part and therefre need additional support to have some equality of influence with those who can employ lobbyists to make their case. So, what can political education do? Political education can do three things during the election campaign: 1) Promote discussion and critical thinking by creating spaces for people to explore the issues that concern them and party policies. 2) Provide independent analysis and information about the arguments presented by candidates, as well as the political process, strategy and tactics used, to develop a deeper understanding of the issues and the system. 3) Encourage and equip people to take part as citizens, by learning how the system works and questioning candidates, campaigning for a cause, joining a party or even standing for elections themselves. Political parties, their candidates, campaign staff and supporters are also political educators, but they are not neutral, and people may learn more from the interaction between candidates, which is why debates are useful, and also from engaging directly with candidates themselves. Public political education, like can exists in the public media, (sometimes present on TV and newspaper) should not take sides between parties, but increase people's understanding, knowledge and ability to take part in politics as equal citizens. Also , TV, newspaper and political educators should challenge politicians on their claims, and equip citizens with analysis and information to do the same. If we believe democracy matters, then educators and civil society organisations should do everything possible to encourage people to use these wider sources of evidence to understand the issues and take part in the elections. This is not just about using websites to get information. We can find out what the hot issues are in the area and organise a study group, workshop or public debate with experts on the issue, or a panel meeting with candidates from all parties. Moreover, we can work with community groups to draw up local manifestos about issues they want politicains to address, and invite candidates to respond to them. Many schools are organising "mock elections" in which pupils stand and campaign for different parties, 'Democracy centres' can be created in public libraries to give citizens information on local issues and opportunities to book meeting with officials and elected representatives, as they already has done in Sweden. Information on issues and political processes is scattered across websites on internet. But also, it may be useful to have a 'political education' portal, equivalent of the Institute of Fiscal studies has in England, where people can find links to authoritative information on issues and the political processes under the following three headings: 1) How to take part: Opportunities and ideas on how citizens can influence the agenda and political debate, including topics like voter registration, organisinf hustings, getting commitments on issues from politicians, using social media, with a link to an events page. 2) Issues: Where to find analysis and reliable evidence on isses, such as austerity, health, deficit, etc. 3) Process: Commentary and analysis on the use of social media, community organising, advertising, polls, the TV debates, the slogans, and other aspects of the campaign process.
Are citizens fundamentally uninformed, or even misinformed, when comes to questions of politics and government? In the book "Uninformed: Why People Knows So little About Politics and What We Can Do About It", the author, Arthur Lupia tackles the issue of political ignorance by arguing that rather than simply seeking to provide greater information to the public on political issues, the more pressing concern for those positioning themselves in the role of 'civic educators' is how to communicate effectively. Michele Fenzi finds this book is one of the best scholarly engagements with the question of political ignorance, offering practical strategies that will not only be of use to politcal 'instructors', but to anyone interested in education and effective communication. Since the seminal contributions of Philip Converse (1964) and Stenphen Bennett (1988), political ignorance has drawn the attention of political scientists. In Arthur Lupia's words, "when it comes to political information, there are two groups of people: one group understands that they are almost completely ignorant and the other group is delusional about how much they know". This casts shadows on democratic quality: how can democracies function if voters are uninformed, if not misinformed? How to hold political leaders accountable, if they can exploit ignorance? The book by Arthur Lupia, builds upon decades of research in different fields, not only describing what we know about political (un)information, but also suggesting strategies to overcome the problem. Lupia indeed argues that the root of enduring political ignorance partially lies in the misunderstanding of civic educators, who believe that merely exposing the public facts will increase competence. The book, however, does not simply criticise this approach: its aim is to draw up strategies for civic educators, so that they can provide more information of more value to more people. The part I of the book discusses what political knowledge is, and how to achieve effective communication; part II, instead focuses on the measurement and interpretation of survey data. The first and most important message discussed in part I is that anyone willing to convey information must select what is necessary and sufficient to achieve the desired level of public competence. Individuals have varying levels of background knowledge, contrasting interests and different value-systems. Given that the public ignores most of the information to which it exposed, an informer must achieve perceived credibility. However, as Lupia underlines, this is necessary, but not sufficient, condition for effective communication. What an educator needs is to attract attention. To do so, the author suggest speaking to the audience's fears and aspirations. These are the two stimuli, as research in cognitive psychology has found, that are most likely to stimulate focus and activate memory. What is, however, missing from this chapter is a distinction between the two. since positive and negative emotions can lead to different cognitive results, this is an important discussion that civic educators should be aware of, particularly in an age of increasing populism. Values shape and affect the acquisition of information. Lupia underlines that "if prospective learners will have the information related to their values, then prospective learners will have greater motivation to use the information in the way that the educators desires. If Part I concentrates on why political ignorance exists and on how to overcome it, part II discusses the measurement and interpretation of 'recall data'. There are two central arguments. Firstly, 'competence does not require the ability to recall all the facts'. Secondly, 'it is necessary to understand what recall questions uncover about sophistication. Using examples from survey of the U.S. public, Lupia shows how, as other scholars have also found, political ignorance is often overestimated: 'the irony here is that many scholars and pundits feel free to castigate the public for its ignorance without checking their own facts first. The book thus expands on a mere revison of what we know about political ignorance, offering practical strategies to inform the public and read sophistication data. Given the sensitivity to ideological diversity that political communication entails, the application of the proposed strategies can be adapted to a wide range of fields.
No comments:
Post a Comment