In The Periphery: Political Efficacy in Postcolonial and Colonial States

Bianca Orfila-Molinet

Introduction

Over the past two centuries, democracy has expanded to influence more governments than ever before. As of 2024, nearly half of the world’s countries—48.89%—are classified as democracies, according to Our World in Data. In comparison, only 15.89% of countries were categorized as democracies a century ago. The commonality of democracy as a system of government has become much more widely accepted, opening the door for new data surrounding voting. 

Political structures in postcolonial and colonial states have widely been influenced by the colonial histories of their past. “Postcolonial states” are nation-states that emerged from decolonization, particularly after World War II. Comparing interstate and intrastate examples of colonial states allows us to see the influence of continued colonial control on political efficacy. Interstate, in this case, represents a comparison between states–for instance, South Sudan versus Ghana. Intrastate, on the other hand, refers to a comparison between in-state entities, such as states within the country of the United States of America. With a case study of Hawaii and the United States, an analysis will be done of colonially integrated states and the political efficacy of the citizens residing there. By examining both intrastate and interstate case studies, colonialism’s impact on integrated colonial communities is clear. Colonialism’s legacy, fraught with racism, economic stagnation, and institutional fragility, continues to shape the political realities of states worldwide. Political efficacy is not uniform across states, and the influence of colonization may be one of the reasons.

Political Efficacy

Political efficacy is “the feeling that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process,” according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This form of efficacy can manifest in many ways, with voting, organization, and petitioning being some signals indicating that a citizen’s political efficacy is high. The two types of efficacy are internal efficacy and external efficacy. Internal efficacy indicates individuals’ self-perceptions that they are capable of understanding politics enough to participate in political acts like voting or protest. In contrast, external efficacy measures expressed beliefs about political institutions rather than perceptions about one's abilities. Essentially, external efficacy is the citizens’ belief that their government will respond with necessity and accuracy to their requests. A lack of external efficacy in a state illustrates that the public believes they cannot influence political outcomes because government leaders and institutions are unresponsive to their needs.

In states where citizens have high political efficacy, voter turnout rates flourish because voters believe that casting a ballot will influence their government, either directly or indirectly. One way that countries have tried to increase voter turnout is compulsory voting. However, compulsory voting has come into question for its obligatory practices, as some argue that civil engagement should not be an obligation under a quality democracy. Other arguments stem from the idea that, even with compulsory voting laws in place, some governments will not enforce them. Thus, the severity of the law is not the key operative; the enforcement mechanism is. Some studies indicate the possibility of compulsory voting laws crowding out intrinsic motivation for civic engagement, meaning that citizens do not feel motivated to participate in government that does not originate from external consequences. Furthermore, recent data gathered by UGA professor Dr. Shane Singh shows that compulsory voting laws have differing effects on both men and women. Singh uncovered that, on average, enforced compulsory voting could shift political representation in favor of men. This finding suggests that, although compulsory voting laws are often focused on ensuring the rights of all are represented in voter form, they may suppress some voices.

However, political efficacy is not just represented in civilians’ interest and participation in voting. In 2024, more than 160 significant anti-government protests took place in hundreds of countries. Furthermore, protests against voting rights restrictions erupted in states like France, Ghana, Tanzania, and Tunisia, and protests against electoral fraud raged in others. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace identified that in the first four months of 2025, there were 48 protests across the world. Notably, 38 of those 48 protests, almost 80%, have been labeled as political protests, which feeds back into the notion of political participation and efficacy. 

Interstate Case Study

Cambodia and Japan

In 1863, Cambodia became a protectorate of France, kickstarting what would be almost a century of French colonial rule. In 1941, Japan occupied Cambodia throughout the period of World War II, ending its occupation in 1945. France once again gained control of the state in 1946, but not without resistance. Communist guerrillas actively revolted against French rule until 1953, when Cambodia gained independence. 

Since its independence, Cambodia has struggled to maintain participation and political efficacy. According to the United Nations, Cambodia remains in the category of least-developed countries, and Freedom House ranks the state at 23% for its freedom report, making it “Not Free.” Freedom Rights measures Political Rights in ratings out of 40, with 40 being the highest amount of Political Rights and zero being the lowest. Political Rights in Cambodia sit at 4/40 points, with Civil Liberties rated at 19/60 points. Political efficacy in the state is extremely low, as Cambodia is effectively a one-party state with no free or fair elections and an abundance of media censorship. Cambodian political participation only falls at a 1.8 out of 10 rating according to the BTI Transformation Index. Both an internal and external lack of efficacy can be observed– Cambodian citizens do not believe their involvement in the system will do anything, and they do not believe their government will reciprocate their needs. 

Japan has a significantly different history with colonialism. The state was frequently the actor of imperialism in several cases of colonialism. The Japanese Empire was renowned for its excessively violent rule over two hundred million people across thirteen modern-day countries. For a long time, Japan was a widely feared imperialist superpower, but the United States’ occupation after World War II greatly weakened the former Empire’s strength. In the modern day, however, the superpower has regained much of its wealth and influence post-occupation. Japan is now recognized as one of the strongest democracies in the continent of Asia, with Freedom House rating it a 96/100 in terms of its freedom scale. Moreover, Japan’s political rights and civil liberties are rated at 40/40, the maximum number of points possible, and 56/60 points, respectively, making it one of the strongest democracies in the world. Despite this, internal political efficacy is low amongst young people, meaning the youngest generation has little to no interest in participating in political processes. Nevertheless, social media has become a way to encourage political efficacy in Japanese citizens. External efficacy remains high, as citizens believe their government will respond to their requests.

Intrastate Case Studies

Hawaii and the Continental United States

Hawaii’s history as a sovereign kingdom, then eventually as an annexation of the United States, is extensive. Polynesians first arrived at the collection of islands thousands of years ago to form the Kingdom of Hawaii, which was uninhabited by European colonizers until 1778. During this period and after, the Kamehameha dynasty ruled over Hawaii, which was united in 1810. In 1893, the United States initiated the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which ended with the annexation of Hawaii in 1898. Finally, in August of 1959, Hawaii was accepted as the 50th state.

Since then, Hawaii has played a crucial role in U.S. politics, joining many other states in voting, engaging with political systems, and contributing to the economy. However, it is important to note how the U.S. occupation in the former kingdom altered the political and economic traditions of Hawaii. For decades, Hawaii has consistently ranked among the bottom three U.S. states in voter turnout. From 2000-2016, Hawaii ranked last in voter turnout rates out of all 50 states, indicating poor political efficacy amongst citizens. According to data from 2020, the average voter turnout rate in the 48 continental United States was approximately 65.5%. Hawaii’s voter turnout rate, on the other hand, was 14% lower, sitting at a barely above-average of 51.5%. This illustrates a divergence in political participation and efficacy in Hawaii compared to other U.S. states that had not been annexed.

Conclusion

The correlation that may be gleaned from the presented evidence is this: postcolonialism, and even the annexation of admitted countries/states, may hurt political efficacy and participation in the colonized entity. In general, as seen in the aforementioned case studies, states with a longer-lasting, more recent history of colonialism experienced lower average voter turnout rates and rates of political participation. Attitudes from citizens in least-developed countries leaned towards indifference or active distrust of government entities. In the near future, there may be a reason to research qualitative data regarding internal and external political efficacy in developing states to garner a greater understanding of the impact of occupation on citizens’ lasting political attitudes.