Political Engagement and the Engagement Project (HL)
What is examined
The HL extension asks you to theorize political engagement and then practise it. The engagement project is internally assessed: you choose a political issue, engage in action, and write an analytical report (max 2,000 words) with evidence and reflection. Marks reward analysis of the engagement, not a diary of activity.
Core rules
- Political engagement includes formal participation (voting, party membership, standing for office) and informal participation (protest, petitions, boycotts, social media, community organizing).
- Political efficacy: internal efficacy is belief in one's competence; external efficacy is belief that the system responds.
- Civic culture (Almond and Verba) and social capital (Putnam) explain how participation is sustained.
- Opportunity structures-laws, institutions, resources-shape who can engage.
- A strong project identifies the issue, the target, the action, the outcome and the concept it illuminates (power, legitimacy, citizenship).
Worked example
A student campaigns for a local council to fund period products in schools. They map the target (council budget committee), choose tactics (petition, meeting with a councillor, social media), and evaluate: the petition gained 1,200 signatures but the council cited budget constraints. Analysis: internal efficacy grew, but external efficacy was limited by institutional access; the action shifted the issue onto the agenda (agenda-setting power). Reflection links to soft power and legitimacy.
Traps
- Describing the activity without analysing it.
- Choosing a non-political issue (charity without a policy dimension).
- Overclaiming impact.
- Ignoring ethical issues (consent, safety, representation).
- Failing to cite evidence or link to course concepts.