PARTICIPATION IN POLITY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Political institutions are concerned with the distribution of power in society (Bottomore, 1962; 147, 150) and political behaviour of the people. In the primitive type of society, political behaviour was organized and influenced by religion and kinship (Bottomore, 1962). Advent of tribal chief is taken as the initiation of political participation of the members (Karim, 1972;160). Political participation plays a very important role in human society. In the historical context of the subcontinent there was se!fgovemment in the villages. Wlth social development these traditional self-governmental bodies were replaced by Danchayat in India (Oscar, 1965; 26), basic democracy, union parishad in Bangladesh and Pakistan (Sobhan, 1968). Though, it is taken that villagers are politically inert but at the time of great movements as 'Quit India' (Desai, 1978 ; 45-53) 'satyagraha', 'swadeshi' movement, 'Dandimarch' independence movement in India, 'Trebaga movement', in Bengal and Assam, 1969 mass upsurge, 1971 war of liberation, participation in rural works programmes in Bangladesh, the villagers played active role.

Studies in rural polity and participation by Kogekar and Park (1956), Someji (1959), Firth (1957), in India found that things were influenced by caste, religion, even threat and bribes, factionalism, regionalism, etc. Weiner (1957) found in Indian situation that party system was not of final or rigid type. Jones (1957) found that middle class members were active in politics and holding major proportion of selected representatives. Beteille (1966) found in his study in Tamil Nadu village of Sripuram, India, that non-brahmin middle class with educated background dominated the political scene. Dube (1958) found the existence of a rural elite with some education, land property and having contact with outside the village. Bhatnagar (1972) found that educated background dominated the political scene. He found that educated were more participating in politics and preferred to have educated leaders while illiterates preferred traditional political system.
Srinivas (Mathias, 1968;18,43) found in Bihar that educated class took part in local politics in Taluka and District levels. In Bangladesh also the student leaders took part in national and local politics. Sukla (1963) found education as basis of political participation of the middle class. In the village educated got political power (Shipman, 1971;263).
In the modern age, national movements were started by the educated middle class in India by the Bengali 'Bhadralok', 'Chita Pavan' of Maharashtra, 'Tamilian Brahmin' (Basu, 1974;iv, 114). Waverstein (1968;8) found that nationalist movement started with educated middle class. Ayub (Chopra, 1971;40,59) found in Bangladesh that the liberation movement was led by educated middle class having rural peasant$ background.
In Bangladesh context, Karim (1976;115-138) found the rise of an educated muslim middle class around the beginning of this century who was leading the country in all fields. Chowdhury (1978) finds the influence of education in village politics along with groups. In Bangladesh, families having educated members who can arrange official patronage dominate the village scene by occupying key posts. Huq (1978;144) finds the importance of bari-kinship group, family, as the basis of political participation. In his study of two villages of Bangladesh, Zaidi (1970;126-134) found in every village there were 5 to 10 traditional informal pradhans or matabbar (village leaders) or sardars who would mitigate and control the village affairs. They are selected genenlly on the basis of family, M, kinship, age, wealth, locality. Karim (1976;141-157) finds such a type of village traditional informal leadership. Huq (1978) also reports of such a type of 'sardars' in village society.
With the introduction of new political system of 'Basic Democracy' in the early sixties and introduction of rural works programmes the village scene is changing. Traditional leadership is changing. People having some foimal education and otherwisely influenced and dominate the village polity. In the developmental works, government tries its best to make the general people participate en m e to boost up the village economy for rural upliftment (Planning Commission-Five Year Plans), through development package deal of agrarian modernization which include, modernization of agriculture, rural health and sanitary service, mass education, women's emancipation, and introduction of directly elected representatives to the local bodies. In the present study, it is assumed that education will have an impact on these rural development projects.
Thirteen questions were asked to 319 respondents. The responses out of the total 13 questions were evaluated (appendix). Maximum scores out of thirteen questions were 26 (2x13) and minimum 13 (1x13) as more participating responses scored two and less participating scored one (Gore eta1 1970: 136-137). After evaluation of the total replies, the total scores were dichotomized around mean (arithmetic mean 18.2), as 19 and above as high, 18 and above as low. The hypothesis that has been put forward for testing reads as follows: "The more educated a person is, the more helshe will be partic9ating in civic, political and rural developmental works. " Data are being presented in the following tables. . These data reveal certain direction in the sense that percentage of high participation grows up with the growth of the levels of education, highest percentage for higher level of education(93.54) and lowest (23.52) for the illiterates. It also indicates the direction that though in smaller proportion, some illiterates have participation. The data can be presented in a clear, precise and simple way by dichotomizing the total respondents into 'Literate' consisting of all the three levels of education of higher S.S.C. and primary, on the one hand and 'llIiteratel on the other. This follows a 2 x 2 contingecy Now the question arises that how far this association between education and high participation in polity, civic and development works is genuine. This may be due to some other antecedent variables as sex, age, bari status, occupation and income. In order to find out an answer to such a question and to find out independent, relative and cumulative effects of variables of education, sex, age, & (bangsha family) status, occupation and income on "Polity and Participation", data are represented according to the cross tables that follow taking education as constant in every table as the technique suggested by Hirschi and Selvin (1967) and Morris Rosenberg (1968;169-182).

Participation when controlled for sex
Data in table3 show that among 152 female respondents, 48.69(74) are literates and 51.31 (78) are illiterates and among 167 male respondents 55.09 percent (92) are literates and 44.91 percent (75) are illiterates. Thus the percentage of literates is more (55.09) among male than females (48.69). The data show that education and participation are positively associated for both male respondents (x 2 =27.080, Q=0.696) and female respondents (2 =29.130, Q = 0.746) though there is variation in percentage between male and female groups, males being more participating (68.48) than females (62.17). The table also shows that in both male and female groups, literates have more percentage of participation (68.48) fir males and (62.17) for females, respectively. This indicates the effect of education on participation in polity, civic and rural development works independent of sex. Within both males and females, literates have larger proportion of participation than illiterates. The percentage difference is 40.48 (68.48-28.0) for males and 42.94 (62.17-19.23) for females. In other words, when sex is controlled, education has an independent effect on participation. Conversely, when education is controlled, sex has also some independent effect on participation. Among both literates and illiterates, males are more participating than females. The percentage difference is 6,31 (68.48-62.17) for literates and 8.77 (28.0-19.23) for illiterates. Thus, sex has also some effect independent of education though the proportion is smaller in comparison to that of education. Now relatively which variable is more effective, education or sex ? This is the question of relative effect and Rosenberg (1968; 169-182) suggested to compare the proportion in two "counter directional" groups. The proportion of participation among male illiterates is 28.00 and that of females literates is 62.17. Thus female literates are more participating and more change-oriented than male illiterates. The same fact can be represented by ranking the percentage.
Groups Participation in perceptage

19.23
Above figures can be used to calculate the average percentage difference. The average effect of education, controlling sex, is 41.71. It is the average of (68. 48-28.00) and (62.17-19.23). Conversely, the average effect of sex, controlling education is 5.52. It is the average of (68. 48-62.17) and (28.00-19.23).
The cumulative effect of education and sex is 49.25 (68.48-19.23). It is the difference of two "extreme consistent" groups (Rosenberg, 1968;180).
Thus, education has positive independent and higher effect on participation and change in village, irrespective of sex difference.  Conversely, within each of the literate and illiterate group, age is also related to participation. Among both literates and illiterates, low age group is more participating than high age group. The percentage difference is 7.33 (68.75-61.42) for literates and 5.69 (26.25-20.56) for illiterates. Thus, when education is controlled age has some independent effect, though proportion is smaller in comparison to that of education.

Participation when controlled for age
Which one of these two variables is more effective ? This is the question of relative effect. It is the proportion in two "counter directional" groups. The proportion of participation among low age group illiterates is 26.25 while it is 61.42 among high age literates. Thus, the high age literates are more participating than. low age illiterates. The same fact can be represented by ranking the percentage. Above figures can be used to calculate the average percentage difference. The average effect of education, controlling age, is 41.68. It is the average of (68. 75-26.25) and (61.42-20.56). Conversely, the effect of age, controlling education, is 6.51. It is the average of (68. 75-61.42) and (26.25-20.56).

Groups Participation in percentage
The cumulative effect of education and age is 38.19 (68.75-20.56). It is the difference of two "extreme consistent" groups.
Thus, education is positively associated with participation and change in polity, civic and rural development works, irrespective of age variation.

Participation when controlled f o r M status
Among 170 respondents of nichchu bari group 50 percent (85) are literates and 50 percent (85) are illiterates, and among 149 respondents of unchu bari group, 54.37 percent (81) are literates and 45.63 percent (68) are illiterates, respectively. Thus the percentage of literates is more (54.37) in unchu bari group than nichchu bari group (50.0). The data in table-5 reveal that education and participation in polity, civic and development works are positively associated for both unchu bari group (x 2 = 31.636, Q = 0.770) and nichchu bari group ( 9 = 25.852, Q = 0.680) though there is variation for bari groups, The for unchu bari group. This indicates the effect of education independent of bari groups.
- Which one of these two variables is more effective ? This is the question of relative effect. It is the proportion in two "counter directional" groups. The proportion of participation (change) among unchu bari illiterates is 20.59 and that of nichchu bari literates, it is 64.70. Thus, nichchu bari literates are more participating than unchu bari illiterates. The same fact can be represented by ranking the percentage. Thus, education and participation is positively associated irrespectire of variation in L r i status.

Participation when controlled for occupation
Among 220 agricultural occupants, 41.37 percent (91)   Within both non-agricultural and agricultural occupants, literates, have larger proportion of participation than illiterates. The percentage difference is 49.67 (74.67-25.00) for non-agriculturists and 34.98 (58.24-23.26) for agriculturists. In other words, when occupation is controlled, education has an independent effect on participation. Conversely, within each of the literates and illiterates, non-agriculturists are more participating in polity, civic and rural development. The percentage difference for literates is 16.43 (74.67-58.24) and illiterates 1.74 (25.00-23.26).Thus, when education is controlled, occupation has also some independent effect on polity and participation.
Which one of these two variables is more effective ? This is the question of relative effect. It is the proportion in two "counter directional" groups. The proportion of participation among non-agricultural illiterates is 25.00 and that of agricultural literates is 58.24. Thus, agricultural literates are more participating than non-agricultural illiterates. The same fact can be represented by ranking the percentage.

23.26
The above figures can be used to calculate the average percentage difference. The average effect of education, controlling occupation is 42.33. It is the average of (74. 67-25.00) and (58.24-23.26). Conversely, the average effect of occupation, controlling education is 9.9. It is the average of (74. 67-58.24) and (25.00-23.26).
The cumulative effect of education and occupation is 51. 41 (74.67-23.26). It is the difference between two "extreme consistent" groups.
Thus, education is positively associated with participation and change in polity, civic and rural development works irrespective of variation in occupation.

Participation when controlled for Income
Among 183 respondents of low income group, 38.26 percent (70) are literates and 61.74 percent (113) are illiterates and 136 of the high income group 70.51 percent (96) are literates and 29.41 percent (40) are illiterates. Thus, the percentage of literates is more in high income group (70.51) than that of low income group (38.26). The data in table: 7 reveal that education and participation (high) in polity, civic and rural development works are positively associated for both high income group (X2 = 8,905, Q = 0.515) and low income group (X2 = 36.276, Q = 0.762) though there is variation in percentage between high and low income groups. The table also shows that irrespective of income groups, literates have higher percentage of participation. It is 69.80 for high income group and it is 60.0 for low income group. This indicates the effect of education, independent of income. Withii both high income -and low income group literates-are more participatory than illiterates. The percentage difference is 27.30 (69.8042.50) for high income group and 43.19 (60.00-16.81) for low income group. In other words, when income is controlled, education has an independent effect on participation. Conversely, within each of literate and illiterate group, income is also related to participation. Among both literates and illiterates, high income group is more participating than low income group. The percentage difference is 9.80 (69.80-60.00) for literates and 25.69 (42.50-16.81) for illiterates. Thus, when education is controlled, Income has also some independent effect on participation in polity, civic and rural development works.
Which one of these two variables is more effective; education or income? This is the question of relative effect. It is the proportion in two "counter directional" groups. The proportion of participation among high income illiterates is 42.50 and that of low income literates is 60.00. Thus, low income group literates are more participating than high income group illiterate respondents. The same fact can be represented by ranking the percentage. The above figures can be used to calculate the average percentage difference. The effect of education, controlling income, is 35.25. It is the average of (69.80-42.50) ind (60.00-16.81). ~6 z r s e l~, the effect of income, controlling education, is 17.75. It is the average of (69.00-60.00) and (42.50-16.81). The cumulative effect of education and income is 52.99 (69.80-16.81). It is the difference of two "extreme consistent" groups. Thus the association between education and participation (change) in polity, civic and rural development works is positively associated irrespective of variation duelo income.

Summary and Conclusions
From above discussions, it can be found out that education is positively associated with the participation in polity, civic and rural development works in the villages. The educated persons are working as agents in this regard. The hypothesis that has been put forward is confirmed by the analysis of data.