گسترۀ مشارکت سیاسی (با رویکرد ساختارگرا- کارکردی)
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش سیاست نظری
1 - دانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: مشارکت سیاسی, نظام سیاسی, ساختارگرا- کارکردی, گابریل آلموند و کارکردهای نهادی.,
چکیده مقاله :
مسئله ساماندهی مشارکت سیاسی از آغاز تکوین نظامهای دموکراتیک از اهداف و کارویژههای احزاب و کنشگران سیاسی برشمرده میشود؛ اما در بسیاری از رویکردهای متداول، آن را صرفاً در قالب کنشهای بیرونی و فردی شهروندان، همچون رأی دادن، تظاهرات یا اعتراضات تعریف میکنند و از محاسبۀ نقشها و کارکردهای نهادها و ساختارهای قدرت به عنوان مشارکت سیاسی غفلت دارند. در حالی که با رهیافت ساختارگرا- کارکردی میتوانیم مشارکت سیاسی را بهمثابه ایفای نقشها و کارکردها در کلیت سیستم سیاسی بازتعریف کنیم. از اینرو کنشهایی مانند جامعهپذیری سیاسی، ارتباطات، استخدام سیاسی، تصریح منافع، تجمیع منافع، قانونگذاری، سیاستگذاری، اجرای قانون و قضاوت قانونی از ابعاد مشارکت سیاسی محسوب میشوند. بررسی انضمامی این کارکردها در ایران نشان میدهد که شکاف عمیقی میان جامعه و ساختارهای رسمی وجود دارد: رسانههای دولتی، ارتباطات سیاسی دوسویه را تضعیف کردهاند؛ احزاب ناتوان از جذب و ارتقای نخبگان هستند؛ بوروکراسی متمرکز و غیر پاسخگو است و نهادهای نمایندگی و مدنی در بیان و تجمیع منافع، ناکارآمد عمل میکنند. این وضعیت موجب شده که مشارکت شهروندان عمدتاً گسسته، مقطعی و بحرانمحور باشد و کمتر به مشارکت نهادی و پایدار بینجامد. از این منظر، مشارکت سیاسی نه صرفاً فعالیت بیرونی شهروندان، بلکه حضور و ایفای نقش در ساختارهای رسمی قدرت و کارکردهای نظام سیاسی است که میتواند بهمثابه شاخصی برای سنجش کارآمدی سیاسی نیز عمل کند.
The Scope of Political Participation
(A Structural–Functional Approach)
Seyed Rahim Abolhasani*
The issue of organizing political participation has, since the emergence of democratic systems, been regarded as one of the central goals and functions of political parties and political actors. However, in many prevailing approaches, political participation is defined merely in terms of citizens’ external and individual actions—such as voting, demonstrations, or protests—while neglecting the consideration of the roles and functions of institutions and power structures as forms of political participation. By contrast, through a structural–functional approach, political participation can be redefined as the performance of roles and functions within the political system as a whole. Accordingly, activities such as political socialization, communication, political recruitment, interest articulation, interest aggregation, lawmaking, policymaking, law enforcement, and legal adjudication are regarded as dimensions of political participation.
An empirical examination of these functions in Iran reveals the existence of a deep gap between society and formal structures: state media have weakened two-way political communication; political parties are incapable of recruiting and promoting elites; the bureaucracy is centralized and unaccountable; and representative and civil institutions perform ineffectively in articulating and aggregating interests. This situation has resulted in citizens’ participation being largely fragmented, episodic, and crisis-driven, rather than developing into institutionalized and sustainable participation. From this perspective, political participation is not merely the outward activity of citizens, but rather their presence and role performance within formal power structures and the functions of the political system—serving also as an indicator for assessing political effectiveness.
Keywords: Political participation; political system; structural–functional approach; Gabriel Almond; institutional functions.
Introduction
Political participation is one of the most fundamental concepts in political science and political sociology and has consistently been regarded as a key indicator for assessing the dynamism, legitimacy, and effectiveness of political systems. However, in a significant portion of both classical and contemporary literature, political participation has largely been reduced to external, individual, and observable citizen actions—such as voting, attending gatherings, street protests, or electoral activities. While this approach represents part of the reality of political participation, it neglects the analysis of the roles of formal power structures, governmental institutions, and the internal functions of the political system in shaping participation (Milbrath, 1981, p. 23; Verba et al., 1995, p. 17).
Within such a framework, political participation is often confined to action outside the state, leaving institutions such as parliament, bureaucracy, judiciary, official media, and even the educational system outside the scope of political participation. This limited conception, especially in societies like Iran, where a significant portion of political activity occurs within formal and semi-formal structures, prevents a comprehensive and realistic understanding of political participation (Jeroense & Spierings, 2023, p. 5). Consequently, rethinking the concept of political participation and expanding its analytical scope is both a theoretical and analytical necessity.
Problem Statement
The primary question of this study is why the role of structures and institutional functions of the political system has received less attention in analyses of political participation, which have predominantly reduced participation to individual citizen behaviors. This conceptual reductionism, particularly in the analysis of political participation in Iran, has led to interpretations that speak of a "lack of opportunity for participation" or a "complete blockage of political participation," without precisely examining the internal functions of the political system and the institutional forms of participation.
By applying Gabriel Almond’s structural–functional approach, politics can be seen as a set of interconnected roles and functions in which political participation flows through all of them (Almond, 1960, p. 21; Almond, 1396, p. 94). Within this framework, political participation is not merely protest or electoral action but the performance of roles across functions such as political socialization, political communication, political recruitment, interest articulation and aggregation, legislation, law enforcement, and judicial adjudication. The central research question is: How can political participation be redefined across the functions of the political system and analyzed within the context of Iran?
Research Objective
The primary objective of this article is to provide a comprehensive and systemic definition of political participation based on Almond’s structural–functional approach and to apply it to analyze the state of political participation in Iran. The study seeks to demonstrate that political participation is not meaningful solely at the level of ordinary citizen behavior but also occurs within formal and informal power structures through the performance of institutional roles. Secondary objectives include:
- Critiquing reductionist approaches to political participation;
- Explaining Almond’s eight political system functions as levels of participation;
- Examining institutional gaps and inefficiencies in achieving political participation in Iran;
- Providing an analytical framework for assessing political participation as an indicator of political system effectiveness.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant because much of the literature on political participation in Iran either focuses on behavioral measures (e.g., electoral participation) or examines participation through normative and ideological concepts (Fathi, 1395, p. 66; Ghasemi et al., 1398, p. 41). As a result, institutional and systemic analyses of political participation have received limited attention.
Given the evident decline in public trust, weak political parties, inefficiency of representative institutions, and the proliferation of episodic and crisis-driven forms of participation in Iran, there is a need for an analytical framework capable of explaining the structural roots of this situation (Norris, 2002, p. 11). Almond’s structural–functional approach allows political participation to be examined not merely as an individual act but as an institutional and intra-systemic process.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this article is grounded in Gabriel Almond’s structural–functional theory. Almond views the political system as a set of structures performing specific functions necessary for system survival (Almond & Powell, 1966, p. 12). These functions include political socialization, political communication, political recruitment, interest articulation, interest aggregation, legislation, law enforcement, and judicial adjudication.
In this model, political participation flows through all these functions—from political socialization within families, schools, and media to elite participation in policymaking and judicial processes. Thus, political participation becomes a continuous and multi-layered process encompassing both citizens and power institutions (Almond, 1396, p. 97). This approach fundamentally differs from perspectives that consider participation solely as observable individual behavior (Giugni & Grasso, 2022, p. 75).
Research Methodology
The methodology of this study is descriptive–analytical and theoretically based. Data were collected through library research, review of classical and contemporary political science texts, and document analysis. Almond’s theory is applied not only as a descriptive framework but also as an analytical tool to evaluate the functions of political participation in Iran.
The analysis is conducted at two levels: first, conceptual clarification of political participation within the theoretical framework; and second, an empirical examination of political system functions and existing gaps in institutional participation in Iran. This approach enables a connection between theory and institutional reality (Hague, 2017, p. 203).
Findings and Discussion
The findings indicate that political participation in Iran largely remains at the level of episodic, protest-oriented, and crisis-driven actions and rarely results in institutionalized and sustained participation. Weak political socialization, especially within the educational system and official media, has limited citizens’ familiarity with institutional roles in participation (Janmaat & Hoskins, 2022, p. 236).
In political communication, the dominance of one-way communication and limited public dialogue has weakened effective feedback between society and the state (Coleman & Blumler, 2009, p. 41). In political recruitment, weak parties and opaque mechanisms have hindered elite circulation and the effective participation of social actors (Kitschelt & Wilkinson, 2007, p. 29). Furthermore, representative institutions have demonstrated limited and inefficient functions in articulating and aggregating interests, resulting in the accumulation of unmet demands (Almond, 1396, p. 99).
Conclusion
The study demonstrates that political participation cannot be reduced solely to external citizen behaviors; rather, it must be analyzed in connection with institutional functions and power structures. Almond’s structural–functional approach allows political participation to be considered as an indicator of political system effectiveness.
In Iran, the gap between society and formal structures, weak political parties, inefficient political communication, and limited transparent elite recruitment have led to participation that is largely fragmented and unstable. Strengthening political participation requires rebuilding institutional functions, expanding two-way communication, empowering parties and intermediary institutions, and redefining citizens’ roles within formal power structures. Only within such a framework can political participation evolve from episodic action into an institutionalized, sustained, and effective process (Norris, 2002, p. 15; Almond & Verba, 1963, p. 31).
Refrencecs
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963) The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton University Press.
Ariestandy, D., Adidharma, W., & Isdendi, R. R. (2024). Transformation of political participation in the digital age: The role of social media in shaping public opinion and mass mobilization. JETBIS: Journal of Economics, Technology and Business.
Atkinson, Sam (2013) The politics book. DK. pp. 1–5.
Barker, D. C., & Tinnick, J. D. (2006) Competing visions of parental roles and ideological constraint. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 249–263
Bayat, A. (2017) Revolution without revolutionaries: Making sense of the Arab Spring. Stanford University Press. p. 132.
Bergman, T. (2003) The European parliament and democratic legitimacy: A comparative view. Routledge. p. 34.
Boix, C. (2010) Democracy and redistribution. Cambridge University Press. p. 42.
Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009) The Internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice, and policy. Cambridge University Press.
Dabashi, H. (2011) Iran: The green movement. Transaction Publishers. p. 211.
Dutkiewicz, G. (2014) Processes of recruitment and selection of political elites as a theoretical concept. Colloquium: Wydziału Nauk Humanistycznych i Społecznych, (3), 99–108.
Ghazian, H. (2017) Public opinion in contemporary Iran. Routledge. p. 44.
Giugni, M., & Grasso, M. (Eds.). (2022). The Oxford handbook of political participation. Oxford University Press.
Hague, R. (2017) Political science: A comparative introduction (pp. 200–214). Macmillan Education UK.
Hall, P., & Taylor, R. (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957. pp. 941–942.
Ishiyama, J. T., & Breuning, M. (Eds.) (2011) 21st century political science: A reference handbook (Vol. 1). SAGE Publications.
Ismail, M. M., Hassan, N. A., Nor, M. S. M., Zain, M. I. M., & Samsu, K. H. K. (2021) The influence of political socialization among educated youth at Universiti Putra Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(12), 2142–2159.
Jankowski, R. (1988) Preference aggregation in political parties and interest groups: A synthesis of corporatist and encompassing organization theory. American Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 105–125.
Janmaat, J. G., & Hoskins, B. (2022) The changing impact of family background on political engagement during adolescence and early adulthood. Social Forces, 101(1), 227–251
Jeroense, T., & Spierings, N. (2023) Political participation profiles. West European Politics, 46(1), 1–23.
Johnson, C. (1982) MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975. Stanford University Press. p. 187.
Kaim, M. (2021) Rethinking modes of political participation: The conventional, unconventional, and alternative in democratic theory. Democratic Theory, 8(1), 65–88.
Khalaji, M. (2014) Iran’s ideological crisis. Washington Institute for Near East Policy. p. 5.
Kitschelt, H., & Wilkinson, S. I. (2007) Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge University Press.
Leftwich, A. (2015) What is politics? The activity and its study. Polity Press.
Mahoney, C. (2007) Lobbying success in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1), 35–56.
Milani, A. (2013) The Shah. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 67.
Milbrath, L.W. (1981) Political Participation. In: Long, S.L. (eds) The Handbook of Political Behavior. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3878-9_4
Moaveni, A. (2019) Guest house for young widows. Random House. p. 88.
Norris, P. (2002) Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge University Press.
Norris, P. (2011) Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press. p. 112.
Okon, E. E. (2012) Religion as instrument of socialization and social control. European Scientific Journal, 8(26), 136–143.
Olson, M. (1965) The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.
Parsa, M. (2016) Democracy in Iran: Why it failed and how it might succeed. Harvard University Press. p. 193.
Smith, J., & Johnson, A. (2018) The role of feedback in political participation: A review. Political Behavior, 40(3), 651–670.
Thorson, E., McKinney, M. S., & Shah, D. (Eds.). (2016) Political socialization in a media-saturated world (Vol. 29). Peter Lang
Transparency International. (2022) Corruption perceptions index 2022. Berlin: TI. p. 55.
UNESCO. (2022) Media development indicators: Iran country report. UNESCO. p. 153.
Van Aelst, P., van Erkel, P., D’heer, E., & others. (2017) Who is leading the campaign charts? Comparing individual popularity on old and new media. Information, Communication & Society, 20(5), 715–732.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995) Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
Von Beyme, K. (2000) Parliamentary democracy: Democratization, destabilization, reconsolidation 1789–1999. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 211.
Warren, M. E. (2017) What is democratic theory? Polity.
Wøien Hansen, V., & Rødland, L. (2024) Explaining interest group position-taking across partisan policy dimensions. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–25.
World Bank. (2023) Worldwide governance indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank. p. 77.
Young, I. M. (2002) Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.
* Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
abhasani@ut.ac.ir
0000-0001-8610-7746
اباذری، یوسف و دیگران (1398) رسانه و بازنمایی سیاست در ایران، تهران، نشرنی.
آبنیکی، حسن (1390) «جهانیشدن و چالش مشارکت سیاسی در جمهوری اسلامی ایران»، پژوهش سیاست نظری (دوفصلنامه علمی- پژوهشی)، سال اول، شماره 10، صص 123-140.
https://political.ihss.ac.ir/Article/11819/FullText.
آقاجانی، علی (1402) «صورتبندی مشارکت سیاسی در نظام سیاسی مشروع؛ رهیافتی قرآنی»، پژوهشنامه معارف قرآنی، سال چهاردهم، شماره 54، صص 121-157.
https://journals.atu.ac.ir/article_16866.html.
آلموند، گابریل (1396) سیاست تطبیقی: رویکرد ساختار- کارکردی، ترجمه محسن ثلاثی، تهران، قومس.
آلموند، گابریلآبراهام و پاول جی. بینگهام و رابرتجی مونت (1377) چارچوبی نظری برای بررسی سیاست تطبیقی، ترجمه علیرضا طیب، مرکز آموزش مدیریت دولتی.
آلموند، گابریلآبراهام و پاول جی. بینگهام و استروم کاره و دالتون راسلجی (1396) مقایسه نظامهای سیاسی، ترجمه علیرضا طیب و وحید بزرگی، تهران، امیرکبیر.
بشیریه، حسین (1381) جامعهشناسی سیاسی ایران: دوران جمهوری اسلامی، تهران، نگاه معاصر.
تاجیک، محمدرضا (1399) سیاستورزی در ایران پس از انقلاب، تهران، پژوهشگاه فرهنگ، هنر و ارتباطات.
سریعالقلم، محمود (1396) عقلانیت و آینده توسعهیافتگی ایران، تهران، طرح نو.
طهماسبی، شهرام و مهرداد جواهری پور و رضا علی محسنی (1397) «ساختیابی الگوهای مشارکت سیاسی (موردپژوهی: ایران در دوره جمهوری اسلامی)»، فصلنامه جغرافیا (برنامهریزی منطقهای)، سال هشتم، شماره 32، صص 395-409.
20.1001.1.22286462.1397.8.4.23.6.
علمداری، کاظم (1395) چالشهای جامعه مدنی در ایران، تهران، اختران.
فتحی، مسعود (1395) «سرمایه اجتماعی و مشارکت سیاسی در ایران»، فصلنامه پژوهشهای علوم سیاسی، سال یازدهم، شماره 3، صص 45-72.
فیرحی، داوود (1377) «مفهوم مشارکت سیــاســى»، علوم سیاسی، سال اول، شماره اول، تابستان، صص 38-69.
https://psq.bou.ac.ir/article_7422.html.
قاسمی، حاکم و دیگران (1398) «تحلیل تطبیقی مشارکت سیاسی در دولتهای نهم تا دوازدهم»، فصلنامه سیاست، سال بیست¬ونهم، شماره 2، صص 101-130.
کروتی، ویلیام (1395) دانشنامه سیاست حزبی، ترجمه محسن میردامادی و سید علیرضا بهشتی شیرازی، تهران، روزنه.
لیتل، دانیل (1386) تبیین در علوم اجتماعی، ترجمه عبدالکریم سروش، تهران، مؤسسه فرهنگی صراط.
مجلس شورای اسلامی (1401) گزارش ارزیابی کیفیت فرایند قانونگذاری در ایران، تهران، مرکز پژوهشهای مجلس.
محمدینژاد، احمد (1355) احزاب سیاسی، تهران، امیرکبیر.
هیوود، اندرو (1389) سیاست، ترجمه عبدالرحمن عالم، تهران، نشرنی.
یونسکو (2022) گزارش توسعه رسانه در ایران، تهران، کمیسیون ملی یونسکو.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963) The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton University Press.
Ariestandy, D., Adidharma, W., & Isdendi, R. R. (2024). Transformation of political participation in the digital age: The role of social media in shaping public opinion and mass mobilization. JETBIS: Journal of Economics, Technology and Business.
Atkinson, Sam (2013) The politics book. DK. pp. 1–5.
Barker, D. C., & Tinnick, J. D. (2006) Competing visions of parental roles and ideological constraint. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 249–263 Bayat, A. (2017) Revolution without revolutionaries: Making sense of the Arab Spring. Stanford University Press. p. 132.
Bergman, T. (2003) The European parliament and democratic legitimacy: A comparative view. Routledge. p. 34.
Boix, C. (2010) Democracy and redistribution. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009) The Internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice, and policy. Cambridge University Press.
Dabashi, H. (2011) Iran: The green movement. Transaction Publishers. p. 211. Dutkiewicz, G. (2014) Processes of recruitment and selection of political elites as a theoretical concept. Colloquium: Wydziału Nauk Humanistycznych i Społecznych, (3), 99–108.
Ghazian, H. (2017) Public opinion in contemporary Iran. Routledge. p. 44.
Giugni, M., & Grasso, M. (Eds.). (2022). The Oxford handbook of political participation. Oxford University Press. Hague, R. (2017) Political science: A comparative introduction (pp. 200–214). Macmillan Education UK.
Hall, P., & Taylor, R. (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957. pp. 941–942.
Ishiyama, J. T., & Breuning, M. (Eds.) (2011) 21st century political science: A reference handbook (Vol. 1). SAGE Publications.
Ismail, M. M., Hassan, N. A., Nor, M. S. M., Zain, M. I. M., & Samsu, K. H. K. (2021) The influence of political socialization among educated youth at Universiti Putra Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(12), 2142–2159.
Jankowski, R. (1988) Preference aggregation in political parties and interest groups: A synthesis of corporatist and encompassing organization theory. American Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 105–125.
Janmaat, J. G., & Hoskins, B. (2022) The changing impact of family background on political engagement during adolescence and early adulthood. Social Forces, 101(1), 227–251.
Jeroense, T., & Spierings, N. (2023) Political participation profiles. West European Politics, 46(1), 1–23.
Johnson, C. (1982) MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975. Stanford University Press. p. 187.
Kaim, M. (2021) Rethinking modes of political participation: The conventional, unconventional, and alternative in democratic theory. Democratic Theory, 8(1), 65–88.
Khalaji, M. (2014) Iran’s ideological crisis. Washington Institute for Near East Policy. p. 5.
Kitschelt, H., & Wilkinson, S. I. (2007) Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge University Press. Leftwich, A. (2015) What is politics? The activity and its study. Polity Press.
Mahoney, C. (2007) Lobbying success in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1), 35–56.
Milani, A. (2013) The Shah. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 67.
Milbrath, L.W. (1981) Political Participation. In: Long, S.L. (eds) The Handbook of Political Behavior. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3878-9_4.
Moaveni, A. (2019) Guest house for young widows. Random House. p. 88. Norris, P. (2002) Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge University Press.
Norris, P. (2011) Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press. p. 112.
Okon, E. E. (2012) Religion as instrument of socialization and social control. European Scientific Journal, 8(26), 136–143.
Olson, M. (1965) The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.
Parsa, M. (2016) Democracy in Iran: Why it failed and how it might succeed. Harvard University Press. p. 193.
Smith, J., & Johnson, A. (2018) The role of feedback in political participation: A review. Political Behavior, 40(3), 651–670.
Thorson, E., McKinney, M. S., & Shah, D. (Eds.). (2016) Political socialization in a media-saturated world (Vol. 29). Peter Lang.
Transparency International. (2022) Corruption perceptions index 2022. Berlin: TI. p. 55.
UNESCO. (2022) Media development indicators: Iran country report. UNESCO. p. 153.
Van Aelst, P., van Erkel, P., D’heer, E., & others. (2017) Who is leading the campaign charts? Comparing individual popularity on old and new media. Information, Communication & Society, 20(5), 715–732.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995) Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
Von Beyme, K. (2000) Parliamentary democracy: Democratization, destabilization, reconsolidation 1789–1999. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 211. Warren, M. E. (2017) What is democratic theory? Polity.
Wøien Hansen, V., & Rødland, L. (2024) Explaining interest group position-taking across partisan policy dimensions. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–25.
World Bank. (2023) Worldwide governance indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank. p. 77.
Young, I. M. (2002) Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.