It is not uncommon to interact with people for whom politics has little or no interest. The way we govern society, the process by which we choose our rulers and the functioning of democratic institutions are, in their eyes, of little importance.
Such indifference to politics is expressed through all sorts of expressions, such as “what’s the point”, “what’s in it for me? or “How is it in my interest to vote?” “.
It is also and above all expressed by the fall in the rate of participation in elections. This is the case in Canada, where, although voter turnout in federal elections remains high, there has been a steady decline in voter turnout.
Indifference is also the main reason why many Canadians abstained from voting in the 2021 election. When asked why they did not vote, Statistics Canada reports that the most common answers were “not interested in politics” or “too busy”.
Tocqueville and political apathy
Indifference towards politics is not new. This is a danger against which Alexis de Tocqueville, author of a masterful work on democracy — Democracy in America — warns us, and this, from the XIXe century.
For Tocqueville, by promoting equality, individualism and material well-being, democracy tends to engender “political apathy”: it loses sight of the common good and diminishes civic engagement. . With apathy, we are more interested in our personal well-being than in the collective well-being.
Apathy, says Tocqueville, is particularly damaging to democracy in that it can lead to a concentration of political power. If citizens are indifferent to how they are governed, then this can lead anyone to exercise power and, eventually, abuse it.
Apathy can also lead to the fragmentation of society. By withdrawing into oneself, by privileging one’s personal interests and those of one’s loved ones, one weakens one’s sense of belonging to society.
Does political apathy breed extremes?
It seems that apathy can also generate another type of danger for democracy, namely extreme movements, political parties and ideas.
This seems entirely plausible in the sense that, by disengaging from political life, one provides those who are absolutely convinced of their ideas and beliefs with the opportunity to be at the center of the political game.
In a way, the field is left open to the radicals to exert a considerable, even disproportionate, influence on democratic life. Influence that they probably wouldn’t have if a majority of citizens were politically engaged.
Think of the Republican Party in the United States, whose leading exponents agitate wacky conspiracy theories and implausible economic and social ideas to satisfy the most radical elements of their base.
It is almost impossible to oppose such ideas without being accused of disloyalty to the party, the movement or the nation. So much so that belonging to such parties is more a matter of dogma than of free choice.
This has the effect of keeping moderates, who usually make up the majority of citizens, out of politics and discouraging anyone who wants to get involved in a political party from doing so.
Political parties are not the only institutions in which we see a rise in extremes. They illustrate well, however, the democratic malaise into which apathy can plunge us and the dangers that lie in wait for us if we do not take seriously the indifference of many citizens towards politics.
However, if you have read this text to the end, it is undoubtedly because you are not apathetic.