MUCH has been made of the way social interactions in contemporary societies are characterised by an increased assertiveness of their citizens in how they advance their interests and raise issues. From the growth and influence of Internet news portals, blogs and other social media to constant updates and opinions one receives via email, the assertive and, at times, aggressive nature of how people now view their relationship to politicians, governmental institutions and the state in general is demonstrated day after day.
In an essay titled From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens, Christian Welzel and Russell J. Dalton write: “The transition from allegiant to assertive cultures is real. In the mid-20th century, democracies expected their citizens to be supportive and largely quiescent -- and there was general conformance to this model. Such a pattern was considered essential for democratic government to function properly. It is also likely that many individuals in less developed nations were unaware of or at least untouched by politics. But these patterns have changed. People in mature post-industrial democracies have become sceptical of state authority and institutions, and are now more willing to assert their own views. People in developing societies have also become more connected to politics because of the forces of social modernisation and global communication. The modal citizen today is more likely to be the assertive citizen… .”
A key issue in regards to the relationship between an increasingly assertive citizenry and governmental institutions is the extent to which there is a congruence between the culture of governmental institutions and the culture of the people. To illustrate why this is important, perhaps we can try to imagine a situation where the broad population of a country is increasingly assertive and where deference to authority is in decline. In such a country, the general populace no longer sees its relationship to governmental institutions as defined by allegiance and deference, but rather views its relationship in terms of asserting its rights or interests. Imagine that such a citizenry also no longer necessarily accepts that it has to present its concerns through “the proper channels” or in the conventional institutional ways but rather expresses and asserts itself in all types of venues and through all manner of avenues.
Now imagine in the same country that the members of government institutions had a strong sense of allegiance and deference to authority. Their culture was allegiant and deferential, and they are used to and insist on citizens interacting with them and seeking redress problems through traditionally understood institutional methods.
In such a situation, there is a potential cultural mismatch between the culture of government and that of its citizens. Such an increasing mismatch, according to Welzel and Dalton, can place strain on democracies. They point out that: “Certainly, rising assertive cultures present new challenges for democracies. A more assertive public places new demands on the political process. A more assertive public also produces more contention and conflict.” While Welzel and Dalton view assertiveness as an expression of democratisation, some sense of congruence between the cultural expectations and norms of government, and those of its citizens is necessary for a functioning and stable democracy to prosper. If the values and expectations of citizens are increasingly at odds with the values and expectations of the institutions of society then the “culture-institution congruence” that is necessary for institutions to be effective begins to fray.
Tension between a public that increasingly vents its needs, views and demands in an assertive and non-deferential fashion and bureaucracy and government institutions that can only function effectively if they receive a certain amount of deference and acceptance by the public of their legitimate authority is a strain that we see increasingly in our contemporary societies. While some theorists view the growth of assertive behaviour and the decline of deference in society more generally as a healthy sign of the expansion of a democratic culture, others are concerned that the efficient functioning of government and the state is hindered if assertiveness becomes too promiscuous. Furthermore, they worry that the very legitimacy of democratic societies is eroded if in the clamour and din of citizens asserting their rights and interests, governments fail to function properly and lose their ability to advance the broad interests of society, not least because they are constantly distracted and put of balance by having to engage with and address increasingly diverse demands often made in non-conventional venues and ways.
The problem that institutions face in having to address an increasingly aggressive and assertive public may well be that they lose sight of their fundamental missions in their effort to address and engage every demand and therefore fail to do anything effectively at all. Finding a way to balance citizen’s assertiveness with a sense of responsibility and civility when dealing with government is an increasingly critical and difficult issue. Educating citizens to balance their assertiveness in regards to their rights and demands with a sense of responsibility and manners in public engagement is a key long-term consideration worthy of engagement.
The writer spoke on the subject of development education at the World Summit of Educators. Email him at education@nst.com.my