Types of Rural Residents in Central Poland in Terms of Their Local Participation: The Perspectives of the Local Authorities and the Inhabitants

Abstract

This article analyzes the public participation of rural inhabitants in Poland. It aims to identify the types of rural residents in terms of their local participation. In our research, we adopted the triangulation approach involving using two types of data, qualitative and quantitative, from the research including two types of respondents: mayors of rural communes and inhabitants. On this basis, two typologies of rural inhabitants were created, which were then confronted. First, the local authorities’ views on residents’ engagement in public affairs are presented. Free-form interviews with six mayors of selected rural municipalities of the Łódzkie Region in central Poland were conducted. Based on their observations, the typology of rural inhabitants includes two variables, namely, engagement (activity versus passivity) and motivations for an activity, or a lack of it. Second, we analyzed data from a survey conducted among inhabitants of the same rural municipalities concerning their forms of local participation, their interest in public affairs, their satisfaction with different dimensions of local life and local policy, as well as their trust in the local authorities and sense of impact on local policies and management. The distinguished types of rural inhabitants based on these data differ in their levels of public engagement (very active vs. totally inactive) and preferred forms of activity (individual vs. collective and public vs. social). In the comparison of the results of both studies, we confirmed some of the mayors’ observations concerning the most common type of resident, which is alienated people who are not interested in any public activity. The group of fully active residents, who could be partners in local governance for the local authorities, is very small. On the basis of the interviews with mayors, one can suppose that the situation can be used by local authorities as a justification for not involving residents in local public management.

1. Introduction

A democratic state system and decentralization of power are prerequisites for developing citizen participation in public policy formation [1,2,3,4]. Participation is a crucial value of a democratic society [5] and the cornerstone of democracy [6], strengthening democracy and civil society [7] (p. 297). These arguments advocate for the widest possible engagement of various social actors in participatory processes. Nowadays, citizen engagement in creating the public sphere of a democratic state is part of the formation of public policy [8] (p. 159), both at the government and local levels, and fosters a systematic remodeling of the relationship between citizens and public authorities [9].

The decades-long practice of incorporating citizens into public life has resulted in a significant body of empirical research [10] concerning, among other things, participation mechanisms [11], tools and how they are evaluated, innovative solutions [12], participation models [13], participatory attitudes [14] measuring the benefits and effects of participation [15], constraints [16], and the dilemmas referring to it (e.g., dilemmas of timing, relevance, representation, evaluation, criticism, and impact) [17]. We contribute to this scientific discussion on participation by presenting the results of research on this phenomenon conducted in rural communes in central Poland.

Contemporary democratic countries, including Poland, are subject to multifaceted transformations. The political transformation in Poland in 1989/90 led to fundamental changes in the relationship between government and citizens (i.e., the decentralization of power). After 1990 local governments were empowered, which proved to be an important moment in the division of competencies between the central and local levels [18] (p. 213). The systemic reforms that were introduced enabled citizen involvement in both formal and informal groups [19] (p. 536).

Residents of Polish villages are characterized by significant self-organization abilities and low involvement in public policy [20], as well as attachment to tradition and place of residence [21]. In the context of local co-management, this makes for interesting cognitive research issues. The reasons for inhabitants’ low engagement in commune management are numerous, including the unwillingness of local authorities to share their power [22]. Therefore, an interesting question arises as to how members of Polish local government view rural residents’ public participation, and whether they see them as partners in commune management.

The opposite of public participation is alienation in public life. It is observed in democratic countries and even developing countries [23,24]. This problem concerns Poland, and requires a change in public policy priorities so that local communities can rule themselves and want to deal with their own public affairs. The weakness of the mechanisms of civic engagement in Poland can be explained by cultural, institutional, and individual factors. Cultural factors include the legacy of the socialist system, the lack of civic traditions, and a low level of social capital, including social trust [25]. Institutional conditions include laws or intentionally created barriers to participation by entities that represent the public sector. Meanwhile, individual factors include a lack of belief in the success of initiatives, a lack of sense of subjectivity, feeling of a lack of personal benefit from involvement (“What will I get from this?”), the conviction that they have no influence on the authorities’ decisions, distrust towards the authorities, political apathy, reluctance to assume responsibility, a lack of or a weak bond with the place of residence and, consequently, poor interest in local affairs, a lack of time, and a lack of information about opportunities for public participation [26] (p. 25).

This article focuses on the public participation of rural inhabitants in central Poland. The aim is to identify the types of rural residents with regard to their involvement in public affairs in the local community.

We adopted a triangulation approach in the research in order to attain deeper insight into the complexity of the phenomenon of public participation and relations between local authorities and inhabitants. The study included two categories of respondents and two types of data (qualitative and quantitative). We constructed separate typologies of rural residents on the basis of, firstly, analysis of the opinions of mayors expressed in in-depth interviews, and secondly, analysis of statements of residents who participated in the survey. The juxtaposition of those two perspectives allows us to gain knowledge about the perceptions and declarations of the local authorities and residents of the selected rural communes as well as to identify common elements and differences in perception and implementation

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. The Concept of Participation

The engagement of residents in local socio-political processes is a topic frequently discussed in the literature [27,28,29]. In this article, we identify this concept with citizen participation in the public sphere. The terms public participation, citizen participation, and civic engagement are used in the literature on the subject. In a general sense, participation means “the act of taking part in an event or activity” [30]. In the social sciences, this concept is applied to political engagement (e.g., participation in elections) and non-political activity [31] (p. 940), [24,32]. In short, participation can be defined as “a process in which individuals take part in decision making in the institutions, programs and environments that affect them” [33] or “the engagement of individuals with the various structures and institutions of democracy” [34] (p. 4).

In the social sciences, the term participation is often designated by the adjectives “public” or “social”. This distinction suggests a focus on specific fields of interaction [35] oriented on common interests: public (related to public affairs) and social (concerning relationships within specific social groups). Herborth and Kessler [36] explain the modern understanding of “the public” by referring to the Latin word “publicus”: “Publicus signified a political order where the ‘the people’ (populus) appeared as the geographical limit of application as well as carrier and guarantee of the governing law. Publicus demarcated both a social space as well as the power of the magistrate. Things happening ‘on the street’ were associated with publicus, thus separated and held distinct from privatus, the rule of the house” [35]. According to Sarzyński and Cavaliere [37] (p. 5) the notion “public” refers to “those persons that are likely to be affected by a policy or have an interest in promoting or opposing a policy or a governmental decision”. Therefore, the term “public affairs” can be associated with the sphere of conducting policy and decision-making on public matters. In this sense, public participation is frequently referred to as the “involvement of the public in the affairs and decisions of policy-setting bodies” [11] (p. 251).

Arnstein [38], in a pivotal article on participation, defines it as the redistribution of power to ordinary citizens in order to involve them in decision-making. She characterized the issue using a diagram of the ladder of participation [38]. According to Arnstein, real participation includes a high level of public empowerment and direct input in the decision-making process. At the same time, she disapproved of participatory activities that do not provide real power (e.g., public meetings, surveys, focus group interviews). This understanding of participation is discussed by other researchers who point out the complexity of civic engagement and its conditions. For example, according to Rowe and Frewer [39], whether and to what extent the information obtained from a citizen (e.g., during a consultation) will be used depends on both the decision-makers’ motives and the intrinsic characteristics of the process. They point out the apparent nature of certain activities which are a priori considered highly participatory and the underestimation of others, which, depending on the intentions of the decision-makers, may not necessarily be treated instrumentally.

Other authors polemicize with Arnstein’s concept. For example, Collins and Ison point out that the goal of participation should be to orient participants towards social learning, not to the power of citizens [40]. According to Fung, citizen power is not always desirable [41], for example, when the decision affects a much larger community than the community of participants. Participation can be a facade behind which the different intentions of the participants in the process are hidden [42].

Regardless of the assessment of the mechanisms and norms of participation, one can fully agree with Kaźmierczak [43] (pp. 101–102), who defines participation as a special social relationship between the governed and the governors. In other words, citizens co-create the political community and participate in the exercising of public power, either as representatives of the authorities or as citizens who are involved to varying degrees (or completely uninvolved), as well as initiators of public action [44] (p. 104). Another example of the relationship between government and citizens is political participation, which can be understood as “the active support of political continuity or change” [45] (p. 10). It can be defined as a type of citizen activity aimed at influencing the selection of government and the actions that are taken by them [23].

Participation can refer to the fields (spaces) of relations between citizens, without the participation of those who govern themselves and without any connection with public affairs. It can be defined as social participation, in which citizens voluntarily associate and cooperate to solve their own problems and meet their needs. The accompanying communication process is horizontal [46] (p. 83). Morrow-Howell and Gehlert [47] reviewed definitions of the term social participation and enumerated two main characteristics: first, “there must be engagement in the activity; second, this activity needs to occur in connection with other people (which excludes solitary activity). (…) Social participation thus means activity, social exchange (giving-receiving), and choice” [48]. Levasseur at el. defined social participation as “a person’s involvement in activities that provide interaction with others in society or the community” [49] (p. 2148). According to Brodie [34] (p. 5), social participation means “collective activities that individuals may be involved in as part of their everyday lives. This might include: being a member of a community group, a tenants’ association, or a trade union; supporting the local hospice by volunteering, and running a study group on behalf of a faith organization.” This kind of social engagement has been called associational life, collective action, and civil, horizontal, or community participation.

The opposite of social participation is individual participation. Brodie defines it as “everyday politics” which “covers the choices and actions that individuals make as part of their daily life and that are statements of the kind of society they want to live in. This would include, for example: choosing fair-trade goods; boycotting specific products; using ‘green energy’; donating money to charities, and signing petitions” [34] (p. 5).

Another dimension of participation that is interesting for us relates to its socio-spatial location. Participation in the local community and involvement in matters concerning the commune and the place of residence can be called local participation. It involves, among other things, residents taking part in collective actions and ventures that result from using the resources of a given area that are oriented towards meeting the needs of the people living there [50] (p. 198). According to Almond and Verba [51], local participation should be understood as participation in local government activities, political parties, non-governmental activities and organizations, and other institutions concerned with local affairs, as well as activity around parishes and religious groups. Warren [52] linked the concept of local participation with participation in voluntary associations.

2.2. Public and Social Participation in Polish Society

An important factor in people’s involvement in the public sphere at both the national and local levels is attitudes toward democracy. From the mid-1990s onwards, the majority of Poles have consistently expressed approval of democracy. As shown by the results of a 2021 survey by the Public Opinion Research Center (CBOS) [53] (p. 1), more than two-thirds of respondents (68%) saw the advantage of a democratic system of governance over other systems. However, since 2018 the percentage of pro-democracy attitudes has slightly decreased. The place of residence differentiates the approach of respondents to democracy. Only 41% of rural inhabitants are advocates of democracy, compared to 76% who live in large cities (with over 500,000 residents) [53] (p. 5). Rural residents are less interested in political affairs at the national level. Thus, the degree of interest in politics exposes important differences between rural and urban electorates. The low interest in politics and distance from this sphere of social life implies a number of unfavorable phenomena for the quality of democracy and participation in the public sphere. Many Poles do not feel the need or desire for public participation, and many are characterized by a lack of trust in public institutions and authorities [54] (p. 474).

The social alienation of citizens is reinforced by the authorities’ negative attitudes toward including other actors in public policy (e.g., there is a lack of understanding of the sense of community empowerment and activation, the top-down forcing of participation by lawmakers, lack of consideration of the residents’ voices in the decision-making process, the perception of co-governance as a threat to power). There also administrative barriers (e.g., short deadlines for submitting comments and opinions, a lack of response to submitted comments and opinions, and non-binding or ignored results of social consultations) [55] (p. 230). In such situations, the form of citizen engagement preferred by the authorities is passive participation, which is reduced to informing citizens about actions taken or, at most, consulting them. This helps the authorities maintain control over decisions while simultaneously reducing their sense of responsibility for them [18] (p. 115).

Poland’s low participation rate is associated with low levels of social capital and social trust, low voter turnout, and a lack of trust in institutions [55] (p. 226–229) [56]. Poles’ public involvement depends largely on an individual’s social status, measured by the level of education and professional situation (people with higher education, managers, and higher-grade professionals are most involved in social activities) [57] (pp. 4–5). Other factors that influence involvement in public life are individuals’ social networks and contacts with members of local political elites, the belief that they have an impact on the public sphere, and good neighborhood relations. In the case of participation in social consultations, attachment to the place of residence and the individual’s religiosity are crucial [58] (pp. 74–75), [31] (p. 938).

Despite the relatively high level of alienation from public life, Poles are interested in local public affairs related to their immediate neighborhood and place of residence. The majority of respondents (76%) in a nationwide survey declared such an interest [59] (p. 2). However, this does not mean a high level of active involvement in the local public sphere. Over half of those surveyed (56%) admitted that they had never attended a meeting with local authorities concerning proposed changes or plans for the development of their commune, city, or district. The reasons given for not attending such public gatherings included being unable to attend due to time constraints (30%) and a lack of information (28%). One in four respondents (25%) expressed a lack of interest in such meetings and saw no need to participate [59] (p. 7).

One of the more popular forms of public participation in Poland is voting in elections; however, voter turnout is low. In 2018, less than half of eligible voters (49%) took part in local elections. For residents of rural areas and cities with between 20,000 and 500,000 residents, local elections seem more important than parliamentary elections [60] (p. 5). Another form of public involvement is participation in a referendum. However, Poles are not interested in this, and because of the very low turnout, the outcomes are not valid. In the Polish public sphere, there are numerous other non-electoral ways to involve people in local public life, including social consultations. According to a nationwide survey, only 16% of respondents declared they took part in them, while participation in meetings with local authorities on communal issues was declared by 26% [59] (p. 9). Other forms of public involvement are even less popular. These include unpaid activities for non-governmental organizations in solving local issues (indicated by 16% of respondents), volunteering in social actions (14%), collecting signatures on petitions to solve local issues, intervening in a communal/city office or other local government unit on an issue concerning local affairs (13%), and taking part in protests concerning local issues (4%) [59] (p. 9).

As the results of the above-mentioned survey show, rural residents declare that they are interested in local public issues and participate in public meetings on local policy relatively more often [59] (p. 2). Greater interest in local affairs corresponds to higher ratings of local authorities. Rural residents evaluated the actions of local authorities higher than urban residents [61,62] (p. 5). Most rural inhabitants believe that local authorities meet the needs of residents well, consider their demands and opinions, and orient themselves to their concerns and problems [61].

In 2022, for the first time in nine years, half of adult Poles (50%) expressed the conviction that they have no real influence on what happens in their city or commune. However, a significant number of respondents in large cities (51%) and rural areas (48%) declared a sense of having an impact on the affairs of their community [63] (pp. 3–4).

According to Olech [64] (pp. 48–51), the policies implemented by local authorities in rural communes are more participatory than those of other territorial self-government. However, different results were presented by Pistołek and Martela [21] (p. 14). They concluded that a certain degree of anonymity, which is characteristic of large cities, is conducive to the development of public participation and the widening of opportunities for residents to influence decisions made at the local level.

Authors have pointed to significant differences between rural and urban models of Poles’ social participation, usually identified with participation in local NGOs or informal groups [65] (p. 46), [66,67] (p. 65), [68]. According to a European Social Survey (2018), 7.4% of surveyed Poles work for organizations and associations (author’s elaboration on the basis of European Social Survey 2018; we received permission to use the ESS data from Prof. Pawel Starosta of the University of Lodz). In comparison, in the EU the percentage is more than twice as high (15.7%). However, the involvement of rural residents in EU organizations and associations (15.9%) is not significantly different from that of residents of small towns (15.4%) and large cities (15.7%). The picture is slightly different in Poland. Only 6.8% of rural inhabitants declared that they participated in social organizations compared to 7.6% of residents of small and 8.3% of large cities. However, as the results of the Polish survey show, the average level of involvement in civic organizations, the highest is in large cities (1.86) and in rural areas (1.46) [69]. Organizations formed by rural inhabitants are much more durable as concerns the relationship between members of local organizations, and the rural community is more direct and regular. Members of rural organizations are characterized by higher levels of engagement. Their activities are more oriented toward the “common good” and local conditions foster social integration around common needs, interests, goals, and values [70] (p. 332–333).

The relatively low level of Poles’ socio-political involvement, including that of rural inhabitants, is not a uniquely Polish phenomenon. The problems associated with the broader inclusion of society in governance and public participation apply to the other former Eastern Bloc countries. Comparing the mean participation scales for those Central and Eastern European countries shows that Poland, reaching 1.983 (on a scale of 1–11), is the leader (the outcomes for the other countries are: Latvia—1.976, Lithuania—1.761, Hungary—1.644, and Bulgaria—1.662). Considering the Freedom House Democracy Index, Poland was identified as a semi-consolidated democracy (with a 4.93 democracy score). It ranked in seventh place, behind Estonia, Slovenia, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Slovakia [71]. According to a study by Starosta [27] (pp. 77–78), the civic participation of rural residents of the surveyed European societies was lower than expected. Nearly 17% of respondents in rural areas did not participate in any participatory acts, while 38% took part in only one. In addition, the analysis showed a high level of variation in civic participation between societies. The former Eastern Bloc countries, as well as Spain and Portugal, form a cluster of countries with the lowest levels of civic participation [27] (pp. 77–78).

3. Materials and Methods

As the above discussion shows, the concept of public participation is multifaceted and ambiguously defined. In our article, local public participation is widely understood as individual and collective involvement in matters concerning the commune, shaping the local policy.

The main research problem can be formulated as the following question: What types of rural residents can be distinguished by their forms of involvement in the public sphere? The first subject of our research is the opinions of commune mayors. Commune mayors in Poland are elected directly by inhabitants. They are the executive body of the commune; they implement resolutions of the commune council, take up legislative initiatives, manage the commune’s current affairs, conduct the commune’s economic policy, and represent the commune to outside groups. The mayors are recognized by the residents and local social entities as the “host of the commune” and they are the main actor in local policy. The second is the attitudes of inhabitants in rural communes regarding their public participation. We set four specific research questions. The first one relates to the opinions of the mayors, the next two refer to the residents’ responses in the survey, and the last question is aimed to confront information obtained from the two research groups. The research questions were formulated as follows:

• What types of residents do local authorities perceive in terms of activity and reasons (motivations) for action in the public sphere?
• What types of residents can be distinguished based on their declarations of local public participation?
• Can the distinguished types of residents be differentiated by selected psychosocial variables (interest in the public sphere, local satisfaction, trust in the authorities, sense of subjectivity)? If so, to what extent?
• Can the perception of mayors coincide with residents’ declarations? If so, to what extent?

Our analysis is based on comparing the two perspectives and analyzing the two types of empirical data gathered in the qualitative and quantitative research. It was conducted within the project “Models of management and the determinants of their functioning in rural communes”, in which public participation was only one of many analyzed aspects of local governance. We carried out the secondary analysis of collected data for other research purposes (neither the interview dispositions nor the questionnaire in the survey addressed all the issues that are of interest and importance to the problem raised in the article).

We first analyzed the opinions of six mayors of selected rural communes of the Łódź region regarding inhabitants’ public participation. A detailed description of the statistical methods used to select the voivodship and communes and the characteristics of the communes is included in Michalska-Żyła and Marks-Krzyszkowska [72]. This region is located in central Poland, covers an area of 18,219 square kilometers, and is inhabited by about 2.5 million people (data for 2022). It comprises 133 rural communes, 26 urban-rural communes, and 18 cities and towns.

The opinions were gathered in individual in-depth interviews. The mayors included five men and one woman, aged 38–65, with several years of experience in local government (as a mayor and/or council members) and/or administration. Two had been mayors for seven terms of office. The issues raised in the interviews included their opinions on residents’ participation in local management. Analyzing this qualitative research material allows us to create a typology of rural residents in terms of how the mayors view their public participation. Two variables indicated by the interviewees were considered: activity–passivity and motivations for public participation (or the lack thereof).

Second, the survey was conducted on a representative group of 700 residents of the same rural communes (stratified random sampling). The sample was based on data that correspond to the population structure of the communes. In each commune, sex- and age-representative samples of adult residents (aged 18–70) were selected and questionnaire interviews were conducted. The structure of the sample by share of residents in each commune reflected their share in the general population. The sample included respondents between 18 and 70 years of age. The survey involved 52% men and 48% women in total. The respondents’ level of education was as follows: primary (and basic) education—38%, secondary—34%, and tertiary—28%. As socio-demographic variables are not included in the analysis, we do not present broader characteristics.

The questions in the questionnaire referred to issues such as residents’ engagement in selected forms of public participation, their interest in public affairs, satisfaction with the different dimensions of local life and local policy, trust in the local authorities, and sense of impact on local management (sense of subjectivity). Based on the analysis of the results of this quantitative research, another typology of rural residents in terms of their public participation was created by applying cluster analysis (the k-means method). This allowed us to extract as many different types as possible while grouping the respondents according to combinations of different forms of public activity they declared.

We used this procedure for the variables that corresponded with the variables mentioned by the mayors identified in the qualitative research. The variables used to explain variation within distinguished types of residents (such as interest in village matters, commune and national affairs, satisfaction with the local situation and local government, trust in local authorities, and sense of subjectivity) were recorded on an 11-point scale, where 0 means the lowest level and 10 the highest. In the survey results, we measured the average for these scales. In our research, we adopted the triangulation approach involving using two types of data, namely, qualitative and quantitative data from the research including two types of respondents. This allowed us to cull deeper insights into how local participation is understood by mayors and practiced by residents and to identify factors that can influence it. These two categories of research participants are the main actors in local policy who, in the ideal model of local governance and participation, should cooperate. The results allowed us to get to know what barriers on both sides can make this cooperation and public participation in the local community difficult.

4. Results

4.1. Commune Mayors’ Opinions on the Types of Rural Inhabitants in Terms of Public Participation: Results of the Qualitative Interviews

When describing rural residents’ public involvement (or lack thereof), the authorities pointed to possible (sometimes antithetical) causes, including contentment, dissatisfaction, egoism, social alienation, altruism, or commitment resulting from a role in the community. Therefore, taking into account engagement (active or passive) and reasons for (not) being active, we distinguished six main types of rural residents: passive satisfied, passive egoists, and passive alienated, as well as active egoists, active altruists, and active ex officio (see Figure 1). This typology, supplemented with a subjective assessment of the involvement of residents, may reflect attitudes towards public participation.

4.1.1. Passive Residents

The mayors believed that the residents were not interested in public affairs. This is manifested in their lack of participation in sessions of the commune council and work related to drafting documents such as the development strategy or the spatial development plan of the commune. As one respondent stated, sometimes someone comes (I_3) (we use the following symbols to indicate the interview number: I_1—Interview 1, I_2—Interview 2, etc.). The mayors stated that they and the commune office do their best to provide the inhabitants with an opportunity for social participation: they inform them, invite them to meetings, and organize meetings in particular localities: If someone wants to know, no problem. There’s a whole group of people who have absolutely no interest in this (I_2). The respondents noted that some local residents do not benefit from the information provided and do not take advantage of the opportunity to have a voice, but then are unhappy that their needs are not considered and that their opinions are not asked for: People sporadically come to such meetings; they sporadically come, and then they resent that something was created and they don’t know (…). So I think that the inhabitants are well informed, but they don’t feel that this democracy gives them such an opportunity (I_5).

Within the attitudes of social passivity in the rural community that the mayors observed, several subtypes can be distinguished based on the reasons for non-involvement indicated by the respondents.

First, passivity may result from the residents’ satisfaction with the situation in the commune and the local policy (type: passive satisfied). As one of the mayors commented: Residents see that the municipality has changed over this year, that a lot is being done for them, (…) that these changes have taken place, and they do not feel the need to come (to municipality council sessions) (I_6). The rural mayors associate social activity with protests. From this point of view, if there are no reasons to protest, the residents “sit quietly” and do not get involved in local affairs: In our commune, there are no such controversial investments like windmills to mobilize the community to protest (I_5). Thus, their passivity does not bother the mayors. On the contrary, they treat it as a positive sign that legitimizes their activities.

Second, according to the mayors, other residents do not commit themselves to the common good, hoping that activists or authorities will take care of it in a way that is good or good enough. They may be called free riders. Their passivity results from their unwillingness to devote time and other resources because they do not see personal benefits in it (type: passive egoists).

Third, the respondents identified the inhabitants’ passivity with apathy and social alienation (type: passive alienated). In their opinion, residents’ indifference towards the social and political environment can result from the feeling that they lack influence on what affects their lives. It can be caused by their lack of trust in the authorities, not treating them as their representatives who act in their interests (the “us/them” division). The interviewees noticed that the lack of activity (in the case of free riders and the alienated) is often accompanied by a critical attitude towards local politics.

Although the mayors complained about the passivity of most members of rural communities, they treated this as “natural” and not surprising. They explained it by the immaturity of Poland’s democracy and the lack of knowledge and competencies necessary to exercise their rights and perform civic duties.

People sometimes do not realize it, although it is all on BIP (Public Information Bulletin) that it is possible to come to the session; they do not know the rules of local government functioning. They think that the commune office can do everything (I_2).

There is a growing interest among the residents in public affairs, but at this point, I would say that they are not yet prepared for this (for engagement). They simply lack knowledge, specific knowledge about the functioning of our commune and what is going on (I_1).

Society also does not fully know what this budget construction is all about (I_3).

A protectionist tone was evident in the mayors’ comments, which showed that they did not treat the inhabitants as partners in commune management. By emphasizing their incompetence, they permitted themselves to disregard the inhabitants’ voices as not knowing what communal politics is all about.

4.1.2. Active Residents

Apart from the passive majority, the mayors noticed groups of activists. However, they expressed the belief that the residents are usually guided by their interests (type: active egoists) rather than thinking in terms of the benefits for the whole commune:

It depends on who gets involved and how they get involved because some people get engaged to do something for the commune, to make the commune richer, to change its image, and to make it nicer and more pleasant to live here, at least in terms of, let’s say recreation or leisure time activities or sports. And there is a group that simply treats it as something more, let’s say, to gain something, something more, let’s say it straightforwardly, even to earn money, and there are two such groups that could be contrasted (I_1).

According to some respondents, people start to get involved when they are dissatisfied or afraid of the adverse effects of implemented projects, such as the construction of wind farms, landfills, or dog shelters near the village:

If they are so determined that they see no other solution, then they protest (I_1).

There was a wide dispute over the new zoning plan in X [name of the village]. Somebody wanted to build a windmill over 100 m high too close to these villages. Committees to defend these villages were formed (I_4).

People also raised their voices a bit when a bridge was being dismantled in a certain village (…). Well, there was indeed a bit of noise here, and the closing of the schools by my predecessor (I_3).

These situations are often accompanied by NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) conflicts [73]. What motivates people to take matters into their own hands is not the desire to improve the functioning of the community, rather it is the will to block initiatives that they believe are unfavorable to them (e.g., lowering the quality of life and the feeling of safety, decreasing the value of their plot of land).

The mayors did not show understanding that the residents were being guided by their private interests or the will to gain benefits for themselves, their families, and even their neighborhood. They expected more “global” thinking, in terms of the entire commune:

They are blinkered so that only they have it good, and their neighbor or a public road is not important (I_6).

There is little involvement here, [but] when it comes to a concrete situation when [the inhabitants] are affected, then yes [there is] (I_1).

There were such meetings regarding the construction of wind farms in the commune. I held meetings with various representatives of different companies who came here, and then there was interest. But more people were interested in having this pole erected on their land. So, it’s all about the money (I_5).

Such a negative example is forcing the construction of, let’s say, a local road, which is not important for the majority of residents. Well, because someone there wants the access, so to speak, because he has fields there (I_1).

Limiting the social involvement of local community members to the matters of their village or rural district (“village particularism”) is, despite its often “egoistic” motives, worth appreciating and may constitute a potential means of social participation on a broader scale, especially because, as a result of the initiative and activity of individuals, they and the entire community often benefit (e.g., blocking an unfavorable investment or building a road).

The type of “egoist activists” described by the mayors includes residents seen as constant opponents who take action to interfere with the activity of the local authorities. It was suggested that this is an element of the struggle for power, a manifestation of a generally bad attitude towards others, or specific personality traits of the “local troublemakers”:

Some people can’t see what the commune authorities are doing; they just keep denying it; they don’t like anything. Maybe they have a push for power, but they don’t manage to achieve it. They negate everything. It doesn’t matter if it is good or bad (I_5).

In every community, there are a few troublemakers who want to show off (…) Some people are always thinking up something, wanting something. Just for principle. They like to tease the authorities (I_2).

This selfish attitude is distinguished from passive egoism by the activity, e.g., coming to sessions (to criticize authorities and their actions), writing negative comments on the internet, and filing official complaints. If they do not act directly in their favor, their goal, in the mayors’ opinion, is to act to the disadvantage of others (local authorities and even the whole community).

The respondents contrasted “egoistic activism” with the attitude of social engagement identified with altruistic action for the community (type: active altruists). They pointed out that a small and relatively stable group of people operates locally and cooperates with the local authorities:

Now there are really few social activists; there are few people who can look beyond their village, deeper, at the prism of the entire commune (I_6).

It seems that the same people are the core, the same people (I_1).

An example of the model altruistic attitude in rural communities mentioned by the respondents are volunteer fire brigades, who devote their time, risking their life and health for the safety of others, as well as the rural housewives’ circles that enrich the cultural life of the village. The mayors view other local non-governmental organizations as only expecting financial support from the commune office, and therefore see them as burdensome:

Well, these [volunteer firefighters] are people who are social activists in their very nature. Well, because not everyone has, let’s say, the predisposition or the willingness to act socially without any salary, without any financial benefits, because they do it for free, attend all kinds of fire call-outs. They get on and go (I_3).

Apart from the volunteer fire brigades and the rural housewives’ circles, the rest [of the local organizations] only want something from the commune (…). I have stopped believing in selflessness because here, every… every association, every foundation, everything that is set up starts with the mayor, whether the mayor will support them financially (…). If there were a large number of these associations, I don’t know if it would be good for the commune (I_6).

They create organizations in order to, let’s say… raise funds. Their main purpose is to raise funds, but it’s a “dead” organization [in the sense that it is inactive] (I_1).

The respondents identified traditional rural social organizations, i.e., volunteer fire brigades and rural housewives’ circles, with activities for the common good. They treated those created in recent years with suspicion and skepticism; they believed they were founded to pursue the interests of narrow groups and obtain financial resources. Thus, in the mayors’ opinion, not every non-governmental organization is a product of an altruistic attitude, as they may rather be examples of the “selfish activism” described above.

The last type of social involvement manifested by rural residents, in the mayors’ opinions, is related to the roles performed by individuals such as village leaders, members of village councils, and priests (type: active “ex officio”). The village leaders participate in the commune council sessions, monitoring the residents’ affairs and reporting their problems and needs. However, as one of the mayors noted, they are motivated to attend the sessions because they are paid.

Such a communicator of rural affairs to the council is the village leader (I_2).

[Village councils] get heavily involved in the social life of the community (I_2).

Village leaders come [to commune council sessions], well, because village leaders should come (W_6).

Village leaders (…) in our commune get allowances for participation, (…) and village leaders attend [commune council sessions] (I_3).

An example of a social role that involves local community affairs is that of the parish priest. Because of his position, function, authority, he is able to reach many residents with his message, and he can be a local leader and mobilize parishioners to action.

This is the driving force behind some endeavors. The priest, when he figures something out, immediately gathers a group that wants to tire me out (I_2).

Finally, being active in volunteer fire brigades is usually associated with social participation in other areas. Firefighters often become village leaders or councilors, acting as local leaders and enjoying social trust.

The results of this qualitative research allow us to explore the social involvement of rural residents from the perspective of local authorities. These subjective opinions of the rural mayors are based on their observations and life experiences. However, they make up an important component of their attitude towards including citizens in commune management, and they may have a significant impact on how power is exercised.

Due to the qualitative nature of the study and the small research sample, the results only allow us to formulate a hypothesis that rural authorities do not view residents as co-partners in making decisions about commune-related matters. They accuse the citizens of being unwilling or unable to engage and say that they stick to their own interests. However, the residents’ limited social involvement (village localism) is, despite the “selfish” reasons, worth appreciating and can be a potential cause for social participation with a wider reach. It is supported by the fact that, as a result of the initiatives of individuals, benefits are often achieved not only by them but by the entire community (e.g., blocking unfavorable investment or road construction).

4.2. Types of Rural Inhabitants in Terms of Public Participation: Results of the Survey

The results of the study conducted in the group of mayors were confronted with the results of quantitative research. This allows us to determine whether the mayors’ observations and the typology of rural residents created on this basis are reflected in reality.

In order to study the correlation between the mayors’ statements and the inhabitants’ declarations of their own participation, selected forms of public activity were analyzed. Our attention focused primarily on the forms indicated by the mayors, and was limited to the following available variables, as shown in

Table 1. Forms of public activity of inhabitants in local communities (N = 700).

Forms of Activity	Percentage
Participating in local elections	53
Voluntary and unpaid work for the village or commune	34.3
Donating money to the commune or village	22.6
Public opposition to local authorities	18.9
Membership in the Volunteer Fire Brigade or the Rural Housewives’ Circle	13.1
Submitting one’s own vision of the commune’s development to the authorities	7.9
Participating in consultations on planning documents	7.9
Action to solve a specific problem of one’s own village	7.1

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

.

According to the data, the most frequently declared activities for the commune or village were participation in local elections (53%) and voluntary and unpaid work (34%). The latter was indicated by more than one in three respondents. Another relatively commonly indicated manifestation of public engagement (by one in five respondents) was donating funds to the village or the commune (at least once).

Nearly one-fifth of respondents declared that they publicly opposed the actions of local authorities. From the list of activities in the questionnaire, they indicated that they undertook the following: taking part in a referendum on the dismissal of local authorities, publicly criticizing local authorities or the effects of their actions, turning to higher authorities or political parties to intervene, participating in local protests or demonstrations, posting on the internet, talking to other residents about the shortcomings or mistakes of local authorities, acting in opposition to local authorities, and engaging in local election campaigns. The mayors viewed these people as opponents. People who protested against local policies were treated as the opposition, especially political opponents, perhaps competitors, and people who are always dissatisfied.

The opposite of these people is the “active altruists”. They are mainly publicly involved through activities in the volunteer fire brigades or the rural housewives’ circles, which are organizations with a strong tradition of activity in the Polish countryside, often representing the commune externally during celebrations with a promotional and cultural character. As a rule, these entities cooperate well with the local government. At the same time, however, they are financially dependent on it. Both sides, i.e., the local authorities and the traditional rural organizations, are interested in maintaining good relations and mutually fulfilling their needs and interests. According to the survey, about 13% of respondents acted in the volunteer fire brigades or the rural housewives’ circles.

Other forms of public activity listed in the questionnaire were much less popular (7–8%). Activities such as participating in consultations on planning documents, submitting their own vision of the commune’s development to the authorities, or searching for a solution to a specific problem in their village demand a greater contribution from the individuals, such as civic competence, knowledge, familiarity with administrative procedures, a systematic interest in public life in the commune, or devoting their time to take part in creating local policy (e.g., through social consultations).

With the above-described set of variables (they form an internally consistent group, with a value of Cronbach’s alpha of 0.692.) relating to various forms of involvement in local life, we distinguished the types of villagers in terms of participation. We used cluster analysis (the K-means clustering method), which enabled us to extract as many different types as possible. Four types of rural inhabitants were identified, as shown in

Table 2. Types of respondents based on forms of public activity.

Form of Activity	Alienated	Partly Active Individuals	Partly Active Collective Activists	Fully Active Individuals
Membership in the volunteer fire brigade or the rural housewives’ circle	−0.38872	−0.38872	2.56890	0.59716
Voluntary and unpaid work for the village or commune	−0.46530	0.98245	0.21091	1.05956
Donating money to the commune or village	−0.28676	0.37107	0.33793	1.11532
Submitting their own vision of the commune’s development to the authorities	−0.27473	0.06190	−0.00974	2.85070
Participating in consultations on planning documents	−0.24058	0.21348	−0.05675	1.99365
Public expression of opposition to local authorities	−0.40538	0.70000	0.29436	1.28686
Action to solve a specific problem in their own village	−0.23255	−0.17157	0.31223	2.60807
Participating in local elections	−0.33393	0.51880	0.45949	0.83835
Percentage of respondents	62.1	21.0	11.3	5.6

Source: Author’s elaboration.

. There are two extreme opposite types (very active vs. totally inactive) and two types in between who differ in their preferred forms of activity (individual vs. collective and public vs. social).

The first type (“alienated”) occurs most frequently (62%). It is characterized by alienation from the local public, social, and political life. People included in this type do not engage in any activity, do not belong to local social organizations, and do not engage individually in the public sphere (lack of collective, organizational, or individual activity). They do not participate in local elections either (a lack of political participation). Thus, they participate neither directly nor indirectly (by choosing their representatives) in the local community.

The other three types refer to people who are active in different forms and at different levels.

The second type, which included 21% of respondents, represents those who manifest relatively high involvement on an individual level without participation in local traditional organizations. We called this type of active resident “partly active individuals”. What distinguishes them is the comparatively frequent expression of opposition to the authorities or their actions. These respondents declared that they perform voluntary unpaid work for the village or commune. However, it may be the case that those actions are undertaken in response to the requests of others, rather than resulting from their own initiative. The basis for this supposition is that these respondents are much less likely than other active residents to notice local problems themselves, and they do not publicly suggest possible solutions. On the other hand, they relatively often take advantage of opportunities for representative (political) participation by electing their representatives in local elections.

The third type of rural residents are those associated with local grassroots organizations, i.e., volunteer fire brigades or the rural housewives’ circles (about 11% of the respondents). As they are active through their involvement in these organizations, we name them “partly active collective activists”. They do not engage publicly on an individual basis in activities such as consultations on planning documents or presenting their own ideas for the development of the commune to the local authorities. However, in contrast to “active individuals”, they are more likely to recognize local problems and become involved in solving them. This may be due to their affiliation with groups acting in the village, who are very familiar with the situation, needs, and problems of the local community. As mentioned earlier, the volunteer fire brigades or the rural housewives’ circles are usually on good terms with the local authorities, and they depend on local government funds, which may explain why they relatively rarely express opposition to the authorities publicly. Thus, it can be assumed that they prefer the collective form of social participation in rural organizations with a long tradition, without necessarily engaging individually in the public sphere and governance of the commune. They participate comparatively frequently in local elections.

The fourth and last type comprises local activists who are fully engaged in local public life. We call them “fully active individuals,” and they are the smallest group (5.6%). Although they belong to local organizations, this is less common than among those who belong to the third type, and they focus on individual support for the local community (unpaid work and financial donations). They are active actors on the local public scene, expressing their opinions in various forms, participating in consultations, and presenting their own visions for development or solutions to local problems in the public forum. They express opposition to local authorities much more often than other types of active residents. These residents participate in local mayoral and council elections more often than others.

Based on an analysis of the observations and statements of the village mayors, the types of residents referred to the level (activity versus passivity) and forms of activity as well as to the motives for their local involvement. We attempted to identify the factors that differentiate the types of residents using the psychosocial variables indicated by the commune mayors and that were simultaneously included in the quantitative research. These comprise interest in public affairs, a sense of satisfaction with living conditions in the commune, satisfaction with the way the commune is managed and trust in the authorities, and a sense of subjectivity. We deliberately omitted environmental (e.g., type of commune) and socio-demographic (e.g., sex, age, education) variables, which were not commented on by the mayors.

The basis for undertaking any type of public activity is having an interest in public affairs that concern the village, commune, and country.

Table 3. Types of respondents and their interest in public affairs.

Interest in Public Affairs with Regard To	Alienated	Partly Active Individuals	Partly Active Collective Activists	Fully Active Individuals
Village	4.40	5.18	5.32	6.1
Commune	3.37	4.34	4.01	5.26
Country	4.89	5.79	5.05	6.15
Average level of interest	4.19	5.1	4.79	5.8

Source: Author’s elaboration.

presents these variables in relation to the types of residents identified from the survey data.

Considering the three dimensions of public affairs, which refer to the different levels of social reality, the respondents were most interested in national issues, followed by the situation of their village and finally, the commune. This finding confirms the opinion expressed by the mayors that rural inhabitants are more interested in their close neighborhood than in the commune as a whole. This is often accompanied by “village particularism,” which involves viewing the commune exclusively through the prism of the problems and opportunities of one’s own village/neighborhood and striving to meet the needs of only that part of the commune.

This phenomenon is, among other things, the result of the post-war development of state administration (communes and communal boards) which lead to the reduced role of traditional institutions of local communities. A number of functions of the community were taken over by the state, which contributed to diminished interest in the affairs of the commune. Next, in the administrative reform of the 1970s, communes were created in a top-down way, with artificially defined boundaries that comprised several or a dozen (sometimes dozens) of neighboring villages. In spite of those administrative processes, the neighborhood bonds and social awareness of common interests have stayed strong in rural communities.

The average level of interest, at about 5 on the 11-point scale, indicates a generally ambivalent level of interest in public matters.

Looking at the kind of interest in public affairs shown by each type of resident, the commune’s affairs (planning, decision-making, and implementing public tasks) are of greatest interest to those categorized as “fully active individuals” and “partly active individuals”. A relatively higher level of interest in the situation of their own village is characteristic of respondents categorized as “collective activists,” who are active publicly through participation in rural organizations. Unsurprisingly, the “alienated” type of respondents comparatively manifest the lowest interest in the public affairs of the village, commune, and country.

An analysis of the average level of interest in each type of resident provides interesting information. Regardless of the level of public life (village, commune, country), the lowest indicators of interest in public affairs are characterized by the alienated inhabitants, while the highest is characteristic of the “fully active individuals”. This observation confirms the relationship between public activity and interest in public affairs. On the other hand, there is a very clear difference between the “collective activists” and “partly active individuals”. The former show the greatest interest in their place of residence, i.e., their own village, while the latter are more interested in national affairs.

According to the mayors, inhabitants’ lack of public activity can be explained by their satisfaction with the local situation. They stated that residents who are satisfied with it do not undertake public activity because they accept the status quo and do not want or need change. Using the results of a survey on satisfaction with various aspects of the commune’s functioning, we analyzed the average level of satisfaction in each category of residents (see

Table 4. Type of respondents and satisfaction with various aspects of the local situation. The respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they were satisfied with the listed areas of life in the commune using a scale of 0–10 (0—high dissatisfaction, 10—high satisfaction.

Aspects on Which Residents’ Satisfaction Was Assessed	Alienated	Partly Active Individuals	Partly Active Collective Activists	Fully Active Individuals
Health	5.01	5.41	5.87	5.05
Education	5.94	6.32	7.15	6.44
Culture	5.02	5.47	6.10	5.62
Environment	6.67	7.54	7.75	8.15
Roads	4.89	5.30	5.05	6.18
Cleanliness and aesthetics of public places	4.40	4.85	4.69	5.53
Public transportation	4.82	5.16	5.27	4.79
Security	5.77	6.65	6.09	6.92
Commune office	5.05	5.33	5.73	5.41
Average satisfaction rating	5.73	5.89	6.18	6.34

Source: Author’s elaboration.

). The contentment referred to public spheres shaped by local government in the rural commune, such as health, education, culture, the environment, roads, the cleanliness and aesthetics of public places, public transportation, security, and the functioning of the commune office.

The “alienated” respondents were characterized by the lowest level of satisfaction with all dimensions of local life, contradicting the mayors’ observation that inactivity is motivated by satisfaction with the local situation.

The highest average level of satisfaction was noted for the “fully active individuals”. They particularly appreciated the environmental situation, security, quality of roads, and the cleanliness and aesthetics of public places. These are the spheres of public life on which the local community and local government seem to have the relatively greatest and direct influence. People belonging to this type are more involved in local activities than others, which may be the reason for their high rating of those areas, for which they may feel responsible, unlike the other aspects mentioned in the survey. At the same time, they were the most dissatisfied with such spheres as public transportation and health. The inability to fulfill health needs locally (one of the basic problems of rural areas) results in the need to seek these services in neighboring communities or in the city. This, in turn, requires public transportation, which is also listed as one of the primary problems in rural development. Therefore, it can be assumed that both assessments are based on the respondents’ negative personal experiences.

The “partly active collective activists” respondents declared relatively high satisfaction with particular aspects of the communal situation. They were the most satisfied with aspects such as health, education, culture, and transportation services, as well as the functioning of the commune office. The “partly active individuals” expressed relatively low contentment (below average) with the local situation, with the exception of security, public transportation, and health. They were the most dissatisfied with the cleanliness and aesthetics of public places in their commune.

Another dimension of the local situation included in the study is satisfaction with the management of the commune. The rural inhabitants rated their satisfaction with the actions undertaken by local authorities and their commune governance and expressed their trust in them. We analyzed how the different types of respondents differ in this regard (see

Table 5. Types of respondents and attitudes towards local authorities.

Attitudes towards Local Authorities	Alienated	Partly Active Individuals	Partly Active Collective Activists	Fully Active Individuals
Evaluation of actions of local authorities (mayor and commune council). The respondents were asked how they rate the activities of the mayor and the commune council during the current term. They used a scale of 0–10, where 0 means very low and 10 means very high.	5.26	5.88	5.85	6.02
Satisfaction with local management. The question in the survey was as follows: To what extent are you satisfied with the way the local government manages the municipality? Please use a scale of 0–10, where 0 means high dissatisfaction, and 10 means high satisfaction.	5.22	5.34	5.70	5.51
Trust in local authorities. The respondents evaluated their trust in the local authorities using a scale of 0–10, where 0 means no trust and 10 means full trust.	5.28	5.91	5.85	6.02
Sense of influence. In the survey, the respondents indicated to what extent they agree with the statement: “People like me have no influence on what the commune authorities do” using a scale of 0–10, where 0 means disagreement, and 10 means complete agreement. In the statistical analysis, the scale was transformed to interpret as follows: the higher the score, the higher the sense of influence.	4.48	3.99	5.17	6.20

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

).

The respondents gave the local authorities (represented by the mayor and commune council) and the way the commune is managed an average rating slightly above 5 on a scale of 0–10. The “alienated” inhabitants rated the actions of local government members the lowest, and they were least satisfied with the local management. Active people evaluated those aspects better. The most active inhabitants (“fully active individuals”) rated the local authorities highest (6 points). However, the “partly active collective activists” were most satisfied with how their commune was managed. These people are most likely to interact directly with officials and authorities through membership in local organizations, which may explain their relatively high satisfaction with the local management.

Another variable that can affect the extent and forms of public participation is trust in government. As the results show, the highest trust in local authorities is held by “fully active individuals,” which may result from their experience of cooperating with local government. The lowest level of trust was expressed by the passive (alienated) inhabitants. Interestingly, a slightly higher average level of trust was indicated by “partly active individuals” than by the respondents who engaged in local organizations (“partly active collective activists”). However, this difference was not significant.

What is important for public participation is belief in one’s sense of influence on local policy and governance, which is a crucial aspect of subjectivity and empowerment. The analysis shows that this variable significantly differentiates the different types of respondents.

The lowest average level of feeling of impact on the actions of local authorities was noted for the “partly active individuals”. This is unexpected, as this group is characterized by relatively high participation in various forms of publicly expressed opposition to the authorities, and protest can be seen as an attempt to gain more influence on local policy. On the other hand, the lack of satisfactory results of expressed opposition may affect the lack of a sense of subjectivity. The “alienated” respondents rated their influence on local government higher than the above-mentioned individually active residents, which is surprising given that one of the explanatory variables for non-participation is precisely the lack of a sense of influence. The highest sense of subjectivity was noted among the “fully active individuals”. Therefore, it can be assumed that they believe that their activities are effective and can encourage them to be further active. The relatively high sense of having an impact on the local policy of the respondents belonging to the last type, “partly active collective activists,” may be based on them belonging to local organizations that play a crucial role in the rural community and that cooperate with local authorities.

5. Discussion

The subject of our research interest was the opinions of local authorities and the attitudes of residents regarding their public participation in rural communes. Our qualitative and quantitative research allowed us to identify types of inhabitants who participate in the local public sphere in different ways. The names of these types, which were distinguished based on interviews with commune mayors and data gathered in the survey, refer to the distinctive features of the rural residents’ public participation. Two dimensions of this participation are noticeable. The first is the disposition to a certain behavior, in this case, activity or a lack thereof (passivity), which corresponds with a behavioral dimension of their attitude [74]. On this basis, we distinguished types of active and passive residents.

The second dimension refers to the psychosocial dimensions of attitudes towards public life, i.e., the affective dimension of the attitude [74] emotional reaction towards the object of the attitude [75] or feelings [76] In the interviews, the mayors indicated the residents’ motivations to become involved based on their selfish or altruistic characteristics and approach to the good of the community (the egoistic versus altruistic type, and individualistic versus communitarian). In the survey of rural residents, another aspect of participatory attitude was noticed, i.e., the individual or collective dimension of public activity. Klekotko [77,78] described similar theoretical patterns of individual and collective activity. Our analysis is of the quantitative data took into account the affective aspects of the respondents’ attitudes which complement the characteristics of the types, such as interest in public affairs (at the local and national levels), satisfaction with the local situation and local government, trust in the local authorities, and a sense of subjectivity.

The results presented in the article, based on both the qualitative and quantitative data analyses, confirm widespread opinions about the deficit of citizen involvement in public affairs (e.g., Putnam) [24]. The mayors stated that the vast majority of the local community are uninvolved/passive members, which is confirmed by the quantitative research. Indeed, most of the rural inhabitants were classified as passive and “alienated”. This type of respondent almost perfectly reflects a specific pattern of citizenship, which Klekotko [77,78] (p. 8) characterizes as: “the civil society of apolitical community workers: this entails significant involvement in a group activity in the public sector, but a lack of individual activity (namely, no participation in elections at any level, lack of personal political viewpoints, and no interest in the political life of the community).”

A good frame of reference for our empirical results is the considerations of Olson [79]. He points to the lack of motivation for individual involvement of members who are characteristic of large groups. In a sense, the community of the rural commune can be considered such a group. He also explains the logic of the “free rider” concept, that is, a person who does not get involved but enjoys the benefits of the efforts of other members of the community. This type of resident was noticed and characterized by the mayors in our research. The free rider assumes that their efforts will not have a noticeable impact on the situation of the organization, while they can enjoy the achievements of others, whether they are committed to the organization or not [79] (p. 62). The passive respondents were characterized by a low sense of influence on the local situation and government. Thus, it can be assumed that they withdraw from the public sphere because they are convinced that their actions are unnoticeable and insignificant. They see no point in getting involved as they will benefit from decisions made without their participation, sometimes negotiated or won by other activists. However, Olson’s argument is somewhat at odds with the observations of the mayors, who believed that inhabitants’ public passivity can be the result of their satisfaction with the local situation and policy.

The opposite of alienated residents are people who are active in the local public sphere. In this case, this is not a homogeneous group of citizens, as the results of both our quantitative and qualitative research show. According to the data gathered in the survey, rural inhabitants most often participate in local elections, which is noted in nationwide statistics [80] and surveys [81]. This is the primary form of public political activity within the system of representative democracy in Poland. Citizens thus legitimize the activities undertaken by the representatives they elect. However, rural residents are less interested in more involved forms of public participation (i.e., that require more of their own resources), such as voicing opposition to local government decisions or participating in social consultations concerning local matters and local development strategies. The survey results indicate a low level of participation in volunteer activities such as unpaid voluntary work for the village or membership in local NGOs. Associational activity (social participation) is one of the indicators of civil society. However, as Klekotko [77] notes, the (low) level of participation in local organizations in rural Poland should not be the sole indicator of the quality of local civil society. According to her, rural inhabitants focus more on the affairs of their own community; self-help and resourcefulness movements are more frequent, while philanthropic or ideological activities are observed less often. In turn, Putnam states that participation in social organizations (e.g., non-profit organizations, mass associations) is often limited to paying a membership fee [24] (pp. 88–89). Thus, simply belonging to an organization does not necessarily reflect active involvement and vice versa. Moreover, a feature of associations is that they focus on serving their members, not outsiders. Thus, one should not expect the wide involvement of organizations such as volunteer fire brigades or rural housewives’ circle in the public sphere.

As our research shows, the category of active rural inhabitants is heterogenous and diverse; they differ in their forms and level of participation as well as in their psychosocial characteristics (e.g., attitude towards local government and sense of subjectivity). Among the active residents, we can identify the type that is fully engaged, i.e., they participate in all the activities included in the survey (although to different levels). This type (“fully active individuals”) corresponds to one of the theoretically distinguished patterns of citizenship described by Klekotko [77,78] (p. 8): “[the] ideal civil society pattern consists of citizens participating in society in both formal and informal ways: they are involved in both institutional and informal forms of civic activity, interested in local and national-level public matters, [and] take part in political life (they are active in all forms and fields of civil society).”

As the results of the panel research show, the involvement of Poles is often determined by individuals’ social position, measured among other things by their level of education and professional situation (people with higher education, managers and senior professionals are most active) as well as their age, place of residence, and social capital [57] (pp. 3–4), [58]. The variety of factors influencing public activity is emphasized by Pająk-Patkowska [45], who distinguished demographic, psychological, and contextual variables. Dealing with the public participation of rural residents, we are aware of the importance of socio-demographic variables; however, in our analysis conducted for the purpose of this article, we consciously did not include it. We made the assumption in advance that we would not analyze those explanatory variables that were not mentioned by the mayors in their description of the different types of rural residents. It can be hypothesized that mayors do not perceive socio-demographic factors as significantly differentiating residents’ activities. The topic seems to be a very interesting research problem to raise in another article.

In summary, both the quantitative and qualitative research confirm the relatively low level of rural residents’ social and public participation at the local level in Poland. This corresponds with the generally low interest in public participation at the local level in rural Eastern European countries. The low level of participation, for example, in local elections in former Eastern Bloc countries, is confirmed by recent research by Gendźwił, Kjaer, and Steyvers [82] (pp. 269–349). The low level of participation in Poland is most often explained by cultural factors, related to the legacy of the People’s Republic of Poland and the lack of strong civic traditions. It is associated with low levels of social capital, low voter turnout, and lack of trust in institutions [55,56] (pp. 226–229). Many barriers related to cooperation with public administration have been pointed out, such as short deadlines for submitting comments and opinions, lack of response to submitted comments and opinions, or not taking public consultations seriously [55] (p. 230). According to national statistics [83], 40% of the Polish population lives in rural areas, which cover 90% of the country. Most communes in the country (62%) are classified as rural. This makes research on the public participation of rural inhabitants crucial for understanding this phenomenon in Polish society. The problem of rural residents’ passivity or suppression by the authorities (due to the lack of shared values) may be more important in the context of democratic development throughout the country, as submission and inadequacy of reaction favor authoritarianism.

6. Conclusions

The analysis of the empirical data resulted in the following answers to the research questions posed and the formulation of the following conclusions.

First, based on the mayors’ opinions and the two variables that they indicated, namely, engagement (activity versus passivity) and reasons for (not) undertaking an activity, six main types of rural residents were distinguished: passive satisfied, passive egoists, and passive alienated, as well as active egoists, active altruists, and active ex officio. According to the mayors, a significant part of the population is passive. The reasons they provided include a lack of interest in local public affairs, unwillingness to engage their own resources, and satisfaction with the status quo. Residents who are active (mainly for altruistic or selfish reasons) are definitely in the minority. However, the mayors are less critical of the lack of commitment than actions that oppose their decisions. While cooperation with the authorities is appreciated, they do not accept activities that aim to protest against their policies. These attitudes lead to the perpetuation of opportunistic attitudes and conservatism in rural communities.

Second, based on the rural residents’ declarations expressed in the survey, we distinguished four types of residents: inactive/passive (alienated), partly active individualists, partly active collective activists, and fully active individualists. The “alienated” and “fully active individualists” types represent two opposites. The former includes those who declare a lack of participation in public life, which included more than half of the respondents (62%). The latter refers to people who manifest activity in all of the forms of public involvement we investigated. They were the smallest group (less than 6% of all respondents). The two other types of active respondents we identified are characterized by partial involvement. However, these types are clearly differentiated by their forms of involvement. The “partly active individualists” (20%) are characterized by involvement in public affairs of an administrative nature (e.g., participation in consultations organized by local authorities) and expressing public opposition to local policy. This activity is more often individualistic. By contrast, the second type of partly involved inhabitants (11%) tends to be active on the social level through membership in local organizations (social participation) and collective rather than individualistic attempts to solve local problems.

Third, the variables indicated by the mayors as determinants of local public participation significantly differentiate the types of residents. They differ in psychosocial traits such as interest in the village, commune, and national affairs, satisfaction with living conditions in the commune, satisfaction with the actions of the local authorities and local management, trust in local authorities, and a sense of subjectivity. A non-participating alienated type is most often a person who is not interested in public life, is least interested in communal affairs, is less satisfied with the local situation and local policy, has low trust in the local authorities, and declares a low sense of influence on what is happening in their community. Thus, the lack of participation is accompanied by a lack of satisfaction with the local situation and local government, a lack of interest in public affairs, and a lack of trust in local authorities. The opposite type is that of fully active individuals. They are usually the most interested and the most satisfied, and they have the greatest sense of influence. The “partly active individualists” are more interested in the commune and the country than in their own village, less satisfied with living conditions and the local management, and feel that they have less influence, although they most often protest against local policies. The “partly active collective activists” are more often interested in village than commune or national affairs. In addition, they are more satisfied with living conditions, they are the most satisfied with the local authorities, and they have a greater sense of influence on the local situation. This may be explained by them belonging to local organizations that play a crucial role in the local community and that cooperate with local government.

Fourth, the mayors’ opinions on the rural inhabitants’ local public participation coincide with the declarations of the residents in terms of predominant public alienation and a general lack of interest in public affairs. There is significant similarity between the “active egoists” and the “fully active individuals”, as well as between the “active altruists” and the “partly active collective activists”. However, it was noticed that the interviewed mayors seemed not to respect forms of public activity such as protests against local authorities, as they perceived this as a personal attack against them, and damaging to the local community. Thus, they associated protests with egoistic attitudes, troublemaking, and problems for local management, not with valuable citizen engagement.

On the other hand, there is a significant discrepancy between the perceptions of the mayors and the residents’ declarations in terms of the motives for their lack of involvement. The mayors largely justify this by inhabitants’ acceptance of local politics and satisfaction with the current local situation and management of the commune. However, as the survey results show, passive residents are relatively more likely than other types to be dissatisfied with the situation. This discrepancy can be explained by, among other things, the subjective perception of mayors, who interpret residents’ public passivity to their advantage. However, the research confirms that the authorities of rural communes are not interested in knowing the needs and preferences of residents using professional survey tools; rather, they form their knowledge based on their own personal views and circulating opinions.

The popularity and importance of the concept of public participation result from the benefits it brings to people in both the individual and collective dimensions. It accelerates development, builds trust in the authorities, strengthens civic competencies, and contributes to the development of democracy. It increases the scope of public control and responsibility, as well as the responsiveness of authorities and the efficiency of public service provision [84,85].

Public participation in decision-making processes is fundamental to the development of both local democracy and rural development. With regard to the latter, the importance of sustainability has been pointed out [86]. The concept of sustainable development is well recognized and described in the literature on the subject [87,88,89,90]. One of the three pillars of rural sustainable development is the development of local government and local civil society [91] (p. 486). Particularly crucial is the involvement of the stakeholders, including inhabitants, in the strategy of transformation and local development [86]. The implemented pattern of local management depends on mayors’ and inhabitants’ attitudes towards public participation. In the presented research, we look at those two key actors in local policy who, in the ideal model of local management and participation, should cooperate. By learning about the way mayors view the public engagement of residents, we can recognize their attitudes toward inhabitants’ involvement and passivity, and thus their attitudes toward including citizens in decision-making processes. Analyzing the survey data, in turn, allows us to better understand the relationship between residents’ attitudes of passivity and activity toward such aspects as interest in public affairs, sense of subjectivity, and evaluation of local management. Knowing mayors’ opinions and residents’ attitudes concerning public participation in the local community helps to identify problems that hinder the implementation of a participatory model of local management.

One of the limitations of our research is that it was conducted in selected communes in the Łódź region. However, a review of the literature on public participation proves that problems with low levels of citizen involvement in rural areas do not occur only in Poland, nor especially in this region. Therefore, our considerations illustrate a broader problem related to the inclusion of rural society in public affairs. It would be worthwhile to extend this analysis to study the reasons and determinants of low public participation in other rural areas.