community meeting4, or, less significantly, joining other to raise an issue. However, caution must be exercised in attending meetings, since it is probable that the Non-elite group will have a high percentage of rural residents, and attendance at meetings in the rural areas is not always voluntary, and voluntary attendance would be the marker for agency. Figure 3: Political Participation, Elite versus Non-elite [%] 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 67 49 49 34 32 23 12 24 10 5 Non-elite Elite Again, Non-elites expressed significantly greater frequency of participating in political activities than Elites (Table 1 & Figure 3). Apart from the greater frequency amongst Elites to discuss politics,5 Non-elites voted 6and attended campaign rallies7 significantly more frequently, as well as being more likely to work for a candidate or party8. Activism was defined as engaging public officials and agents, and again Non-elites were more likely to do so than Elites (Figure 4 over). This was the case for every types of contact bar contacting government officials, where Elites reported a slightly greater frequency. Obviously contacting traditional leaders would be more likely for rural residents, and this overall finding on activism is an artefact of the greater proportion of rural residents in the Non-elite group.9 4 χ² = 40.03; p=0.0001 χ² = 16.07; p=0.001 6 χ² = 21.16; p=0.001 7 χ² = 39.1; p=0.001 8 χ² = 11.19; p=0.001 9 However, it should also be noted that this high rate of contacting traditional leaders does not imply much more than this as it is also the case that only 28% of rural respondents in 2017 “trust” traditional leaders. 5 10