{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012715033657442034, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4326923076923075, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Political Action, Protest, and the Functioning of Democratic Governance

The current debate on the vitality of affluent democracies often cites the changing patterns of citizens’ political participation as signs of this malaise. Fewer citizens are voting, and more are turning toward contentious and more direct forms of participation. What are the consequences? I describe the participation patterns in affluent democracies and then consider whether these changes in citizen participation are linked to the quality of democratic performance. Some scholars see a more assertive public as overloading the political system or destroying collective views of politics. Others see contentious politics as giving citizens an additional and more effective method of influencing policymakers. The evidence on citizen participation comes from two waves of the International Social Survey Program. Measures of the functioning of government come from the Economist Intelligence Unit and the World Bank. The analyses show that a more active public is correlated with a better functioning government. Moreover, these relationships are stronger for protest and other forms of direct action than for voting in national elections. The results suggest that an assertive and elite-challenging public is more of a boon than a curse for democratic politics.