Abstract
Complementing representative democracy with direct-democratic instruments is perceived to boost levels of political trust. This was why Finland in 2012 introduced an agenda initiative, which gives citizens the right to propose legislation and thereby provides citizens a say between elections. However, it remains unclear whether involvement in such mechanisms helps restore political trust and what factors shape developments in political trust during involvement. This article contributes to this research agenda by examining how using the Finnish agenda initiative affected developments in political trust. The study uses two surveys to determine developments in political trust: a four-wave panel survey (n = 809 - 1419) and a cross-sectional survey (n = 481) where the perceived change method is used. The results suggest that using the citizens’ initiative did not necessarily cause positive developments in political trust. Nevertheless, positive developments in political trust occurred when users achieved their intended aim and/or the process was seen as fair, which shows that direct-democratic instruments can increase levels of political trust under some circumstances.
Highlights
Direct-democratic mechanisms give citizens the chance to take part in political decision-making (Altman, 2011; Qvortrup, 2013; Setälä & Schiller, 2012)
Notes: Avoin Ministeriö: Entries are coefficients (B) with robust standard errors (SE) and significance levels (P) from growth curve models estimated with the xtmixed command in Stata
The results show that involvement served to further decrease levels of political trust among users on both Avoin Ministeriö and kansalaialoite.fi
Summary
Direct-democratic mechanisms give citizens the chance to take part in political decision-making (Altman, 2011; Qvortrup, 2013; Setälä & Schiller, 2012). Despite their popularity, it remains unclear how involvement in these affects developments in political trust (Bauer & Fatke, 2014; Kern, 2017), and critical voices maintain that such mechanisms frequently fail to improve democracy (Achen & Bartels, 2016; Blaug, 2002; Dyck, 2009; Ladner & Fiechter, 2012; Voigt & Blume, 2015). Direct democratic involvement can have positive effects under certain circumstances
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
