zemeunvalsts.lv commentary

Recent developments in Latvia, when it comes to political culture, force us to keep asking questions, often without receiving answers. How so? Do we have a far-reaching long-term policy, or just a "scheme" for four years? Is our democracy the power of a knowledgeable and educated people, or is it "people power" in the way we (sometimes) hear it from a politician or journalist with educational credentials—uttered with a condescending undertone, while not hiding their thoughts about the "people" whose power and will they supposedly represent? When we speak of freedom of speech, do we include everything that is close to "me" (which could be any one of us), while considering any objection to "my correct opinion or the opinion I subscribe to" as an erosion of freedom of speech? Furthermore, how many opinions can be correct? And is an opinion just something that has popped into your head, or is it something considered and substantiated? Speaking of the Covid-19 era, has any thought been given to what comes "after"? (As we know, what comes "after habitat mapping" is being very emphatically and deliberately ignored.) Yes—are "it won't affect me" and "I'm not worried about it" the policy when it comes to diesel trains? And when we deliberately use the fancy term "Green Deal" instead of "green course", are we to understand that there will be a "green" future without any deal at all? ...

This article was written in connection with a lecture by Ivars Ījabs on political culture in Latvia, which took place at the Satori bookstore on 7 January 2010, and attempts to answer some of the questions about political culture raised in the discussion following the lecture.

Its aim is to provide a brief, in-depth insight into the concept of political culture and, based on this, to determine the role of rational ignorance in the formation of political culture; as well as to attempt to compare the positive and negative aspects of active participation versus contrary behaviour in the context of Latvia's political system.

Political culture has been defined in various ways—both as a "system of empirically grounded beliefs, symbols, and values that define the situation in which political action takes place [1]", and through Clifford Geertz's famous view that culture is not what is in people's heads, but that it is always something public: "culture is public because meaning is [2]". Within the framework of this essay, however, we will view it as: "the set of opinions, attitudes, and values held by individuals regarding politics [3]". This definition is broad enough to include in political culture the activities of a party member, the fact that Aunt Martha doesn't go to vote because she is fed up with everything, and also rational ignorance as a set of beliefs about politics.

Striving not to burden the reader with an excessive amount of theory, I will mention only the dominant theory regarding political culture. Its authors are Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, who published the work "The Civic Culture" in 1963. In their work, they identified 3 types of political culture:

Parochial or traditional political culture. Its representatives are only indirectly aware that an institution such as a government exists; they make their own daily decisions and live their lives without taking much interest in national events and politics as a whole. People in this culture correspond to a traditional culture, in which individuals had no opportunity to influence political processes and were also not particularly interested in them. A typical representative of this culture would be a native living somewhere in the Amazon jungle, who might have had contact with the Brazilian government, but who has no particular desire to learn anything more about it.

Subject or subject political culture. This culture includes individuals who are well aware of the existence of the government, understand how its decisions affect their lives, and are interested in political events in the country. On the other hand, they are reluctant to get involved in politics themselves. In the classical sense, this type of culture is often characteristic of authoritarian societies. In the case of Latvia, such a culture is represented by, for example, pensioners Jānis and Marta from the Madona district, who will always have a desire for a larger pension, yet their only contact with politics is watching the evening news. It should be noted, however, that Jānis and Marta are certainly not members of a pensioners' union, and outside of television, they regularly communicate only with shop and post office staff.

Participant or participant political culture. Its representatives have the opportunity to influence government actions in various ways; they are informed about political processes and are also happy to get involved in them. A participant political culture is often considered a democratic ideal, yet in reality, it is impossible for any society to consist only of individuals who are oriented towards participation [4]. And this culture can manifest itself in different ways—both in conventional and unconventional forms. For example, participant culture includes both active participation in parties or NGOs and taking part in the 13 January riots or protesting with tents near the Latvian government building.

It should be added that no society will ever consist only of representatives of one type of political culture. As Almond and Verba point out [5], "existing democratic cultures can be called civic cultures—political participation in them is based on the rational choice of individuals to defend their interests in the political system. ... At the same time, a civic culture is a combination of these 3 attitudes towards politics, not a substitute—in it, political engagement, activity, and rationality merge with more traditional values and passivity." [6] Thus, we can conclude that there will be no society where absolutely all individuals are interested in politics and are willing to get involved in it. Even though this is poor comfort for the Latvian political system, before I touch upon this issue, I would also like to mention a theory which, contrary to the blatant dominance of support for participation and various forms of engagement in political science, in my opinion, invites one not to be interested in politics at all and simply live one's life, trying to achieve one's individual goals—for example, earning a lot of money, etc.

When individuals' beliefs and actions have practical consequences in their individual lives, they are inclined to collect as much information as possible and make decisions as rationally as possible. For example, when buying a house, an individual will evaluate the location, nearby entertainment options and supermarkets, as well as the quality of the house according to their many potential preferences. On the other hand, when individuals' actions have minimal or, in their opinion, practically no consequences, they are not inclined to collect information before making a decision. It is this problem that the theory of rational ignorance deals with.

It is a theory for which Anthony Downs [7] is considered one of the pioneers in modern political science. At its core is the claim that at the moment the costs of obtaining information (time spent, resources, etc.) about an issue exceed the potential benefit that this knowledge could provide, it is rational to be ignorant—to choose not to obtain any information at all. Two possible ways of understanding this theory can be identified: the "weak" version—since obtaining information and delving into politics is expensive for voters, and the influence of an individual voter—one person—on the election result is negligible, rational individuals will have a tendency not to be particularly interested in politics. The second, "strong" version—since the policy implemented as a result of an election will often not coincide with the will of the voters (for various rational reasons), it is logical for them not to be particularly interested in politics." [8] The theory of rational ignorance helps to explain the behaviour of people in elections, when studies of political culture suggest that their activity should have been significantly higher. Although there will always be individuals who consider the theory of rational ignorance to be adequate and see no point in wasting their time being interested in politics, for many, such a choice will not seem correct; it might even seem irrational. However, that cannot be said quite so simply—people who are not particularly interested in politics and do not go to vote cannot be considered irrational, because their refusal to seek information is conscious and, in their view, rationally justified. "Individuals whose beliefs are based on a minimal amount of information can still make rational decisions. Minimal information leads to a high probability of average absolute error, not to a lack of objectivity or to prejudice." [9]

Is this theory significant in the case of Latvia within the framework of political culture? Without a doubt—here, at every corner, one hears that there is no point in being interested in politics and getting involved in it, and that if someone does get involved, they will certainly get "soiled", and they are most likely motivated by selfish interests. Post-Soviet countries already tend to place a greater emphasis on material values compared to Western European countries, so it seems adequate to express the assumption that this has only increased during this time of economic crisis. But are these people, who for rational reasons urge others to live their own lives and not to be interested in political processes, somehow different from others? Do they belong to a political culture? In other words, in which of the three types of political culture proposed by Almond and Verba should we place the model of rational ignorance? At first, it might seem that it corresponds more to the parochial or traditional type of political participation—an individual supporting rational ignorance does not want to get involved in politics, is not interested in its results—an identical view to that of a representative of a traditional political culture. At the same time, in political theory, traditional culture is usually understood as a society in which individuals have objective reasons not to be interested in politics and a modern, contemporary state has not yet formed [10], as it began to form after the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which concluded in Western Europe with the rise of nation-states in the 19th century, rather than a relatively modern contemporary society, such as Latvia. Respectively, individuals who consciously choose rational ignorance as the basis for their political (non)participation are sufficiently educated; they are aware of their opportunities to get involved in politics and the consequences thereof, and they live in a modern state, thus it is impossible to identify it with parochial political culture. With what then?

It must be admitted that Almond and Verba, who wrote their work in the heyday of behaviourism [11], do not consider this stance at all. They assume that political involvement is unequivocally a positive phenomenon, and that as soon as an individual is educated enough to understand the positive consequences of involvement, they will do so. It should be noted that here they do not mean only involvement in political parties, but involvement in the broader sense of the word—from participating in various associations, trade unions, and NGOs to being active in a local knitting or chess club, or a hunters' society.

An interesting question is also whether supporters of the theory of rational ignorance cannot, to some extent, influence politics more through other methods than any ordinary individual who regularly goes to vote and follows the political process in the country at least slightly. Here I am specifically thinking of people's economic activity, as there are many cases in the world where economic action influences politics far more than ordinary political participation. For example, it would be difficult to deny that the people who created the first Nokia mobile phones in the eighties influenced Finland's economy and, therefore, its politics far more than any active rank-and-file voter. However, such cases are not the norm in every political system, and it is unlikely that an entrepreneur who owns 5 shoe repair shops in Riga significantly influences the economy or politics in Latvia in any way.

Returning to political culture and individual participation in it—it is clear that a society where everyone is willing to get involved in politics will never exist and is, most likely, even undesirable, because in that case, everyone would defend their interests through political methods so vigorously that it would hinder any decision-making—there will always be someone whose interests are not met by a specific decision. However, "if a democratic political system is a system in which citizens should participate in decision-making, then a democratic political culture should consist of a set of beliefs, values, and attitudes that view participation and engagement positively" [12]. In other words, if pensioners Jānis and Marta in the countryside do not need digital television, they should make their interests known to politicians. If they do not do so, then it is only logical that the decisions made do not correspond to their wishes. Democracy, however, is often a system where the one who shouts loudest gets something. Only by publicly highlighting a problem is it possible to ensure that others, including politicians, notice it and find a solution. Therefore, even though rational ignorance and other forms of doing nothing will always be popular while we live in a democracy, it would be desirable to both publicly articulate one's interests and stand up for them, because who else will do it if not we ourselves?

zemeunvalsts.lv has received the Author's kind permission to publish this article.