Participation, Contentious

In the most conventional usage, contentious participation refers to forms of political participation that employ nonconventional, confrontational means of action in expressing collective interests, such as demonstrations, strikes, and boycotts. Contentious participation here represents an alternative to institutionalized channels of participation, such as election, interest group activities, and political parties. However, a growing number of scholars have been starting to use the concept of contentious participation to illustrate the contentious nature inherent in all forms of political action, which range from peaceful acts such as voting and lobbying to disruptive and oftentimes violent protest. This latter view highlights aspects of continuity in what have been conventionally understood to be categorically different forms of participation.

This changing interpretation of contentious participation mirrors the change in how the literature has come to understand protests and/or social movements. Previously, a social movement was commonly understood to be an action form carried out by outsiders of a political establishment—that is, those who lack power and resource and those who do not have regular access to the decision-making process. Those inside the system, many believed, would seek reform or policy change by expressing their voices through interest groups or political parties. Gradually, however, a new framework arose that drew attention to the fuzzy boundary dividing the two and to how social movements and institutionalized forms of participation are not mutually exclusive but complementary.

This latter view is predicated on the idea that, in essence, the basic principles of contentious participation and established forms of participatory institutions, such as elections, are not dissimilar. In fact, many established political parties, such as the Social Democratic parties in Western Europe, have had historical roots in social movements. Nowadays, many social movement groups employ conventional forms of action (e.g., lobbying and petitioning) in conjunction with their typical street repertoire, while many interest groups organize large public demonstrations to add leverage to their lobbying effort. They may look different on the surface, but in essence both contentious and institutionalized participation aim at getting the voices of the public to be heard and to be taken seriously by decision makers.

It seems as if there is a growing consensus over the overlap between contentious and institutionalized methods of participation. Still, it is important to note that not all societies are equipped with the same levels of institutionalized channels of participation. As a result, contentious participation may take different forms and carry different meanings across varying contexts. This is because forms of contentious participation are often mirror images of the political environment in which they operate.