Support For Democracy Research Articles

What an Instrumentalist Perspective Adds to Cultural-Modernization Theory: Support for Democracy and Gender Equality in the Middle East

The comparative MENA literature on democratic support and the role of gender equality attitudes show mixed results despite the dominant cultural-modernization perspective predicting a positive interrelationship. Building on recent work, this paper derives and formulates the instrumentalist approach to democratic support as a supplement to the culturalist-modernization approach. It argues that people’s policy preferences and expectations of democracy are crucial to understand how democratic support is gendered, and part of these expectations are shaped by the political-institutional variations across the MENA region. Empirically, survey data from 47 AB and WVS surveys covering 13 MENA countries (2001–2014), are analysed. These data include information on support for gender equality, democracy, and the degree to which respondents link women’s rights to democracy. They are complemented with institutional information on the extent to which elections can form a threat to gender equality through empowering conservative Islamic forces via these elections. The multilevel regression models show initial support for cultural-modernization theory as the support for democracy and for gender equality correlate positively. This relationship is conditional to the risk elections pose to women’s position and whether people think democracy will bring gender equality thus illustrating the importance of adding an instrumentalist perspective. The support for democracy not only depends on the how much MENA citizens value democracy as a good in itself, it also depends on whether they expect democracy to be an instrument that helps further their other policy goals.

Hiding the Hate—Contextual Effects on Hate Crime Reports

This study examines the influence of local norm shifts driven by white supremacist ideology on hate crime reporting by US law enforcement agencies. Results show a substantial association, indicating a threefold increase in expected hate crimes reports in counties experiencing a spike in local hate group activity. Specifically, Republican vote share acts as a moderator, reducing reported hate crimes by 23% in counties with strong Republican support and right-wing hate group presence. Adjacent Republican counties also show a 13% reduction in expected reports, suggesting a spillover effect. Beyond local politics, a regional impact is evident; Northeastern counties with higher right-wing hate group presence show a 23% lower incidence rate. Using longitudinal data from the FBI UCR, SPLC, MIT Election Lab, and the US Census (2010–2020), through negative binomial regressions, this study highlights how right-wing hate groups can affect law enforcement’s enforcement of general civil rights depending on the local context.

Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: Perceived (In)Equality and Demand for Democracy in Africa

In this paper, I explore whether perceived individual inequality is associated with popular demand for democracy in 33 African countries. Past research has diverged on whether individual-level inequality should increase or decrease support for democracy, with some arguing that people might see democracy as a solution to inequality, and others that people might see it as a cause. Much of this research however uses country- level measures of inequality. Recent research however increasingly suggests that such country-level scores of inequality insufficiently capture how ordinary people perceive levels of inequality. I advance our understanding of co-variates of demand for democracy by using a perceptual measure of inequality from the Afrobarometer survey: how people feel their living situation compares to others in their country. I find that perceived relative equality is significantly associated with greater demand for democracy, while perceptions of both relative deprivation and relative advantage are significantly associated with lower democratic demand. These effects are largely significant above and beyond the effect of absolute poverty and known predictors of demand for democracy, such as free and fair elections and level of education.

The grass is always greener on the other side: (Unfair) inequality and support for democracy

Does inequality undermine support for democracy? While previous research has either focused on macro-level associations or alleged a uniform relationship between inequality and individual democratic support across countries, this paper documents the importance of the current regime type and of the source of inequality for such a linkage. Exploiting differential transition to democracy after the collapse of the Soviet Union allows to investigate the association of democratic support across regimes with differing levels of democracy. Inequality is found to erode democratic support in democracies and to foster democratic beliefs in non-democracies. In other words, inequality always subverts individual-level support for the current regime type. Further, evidence is provided for the relevance of disentangling the sources of economic inequality in line with fairness concerns: While unfair inequality (generated by factors beyond an individual’s control) and total inequality both are significantly correlated to democratic support, unfair inequality appears to be the relevant inequality component driving this association.

Do pandemics reduce support for democracy? A survey experiment in Myanmar

Do pandemics reduce support for democracy? A survey experiment in Myanmar

Right to information and ambiguities generated by classification of documents

The right to information is one of the pillars of support for democracy, centered on individuals as citizens and their opportunity to be actively involved in the political life of a modern state. The right to information involves aspects such as transparency in governance and the possibility of the governed to access relevant information about how the decision-making process is carried out. In this article, we will approach the legislative perspective on the right to information both in Romania and in Europe, ruling on practices in the field and current challenges. Approaching the right to information from a legislative, doctrinal and jurisprudential point of view, confers to the academic space possible solutions in building a pertinent point of view on how some information of public interest can end up being sealed. The present article focuses on how document classification is carried out in contrast to citizens' rights to information, access to justice, and fairness in the process. Promoting transparency in the democratic system and protecting classified information in a non-compliant manner can lead to a series of ambiguities. In the light of the provisions of the Constitution of Romania, of the legislation of the European Union and of a broad doctrinal perspective, related to various jurisprudential aspects, we emphasize that the classification of information of public interest presents several implications, starting potential impacts on the right to information, culminating in the destabilization of the trust relationship between the state and its citizens.

A spectre of democracy: are populist citizens less supportive of democracy?

In academic and public debates, populism has been portrayed both as a threat and a corrective to democracy. In the article, this debate is approached from the perspective of citizens’ attitudes and it is asked whether more populist citizens are less supportive of democracy. Using data from an original 6-country panel, robust evidence is presented that populism is indeed negatively related to democratic regime preferences. By disentangling populist attitudes, however, a more nuanced picture is offered and it is highlighted that not all forms and sub-dimensions of populism present a threat to democracy. It is primarily right-wing populism and the Manichaean outlook on society that are negatively related to diffuse support for democracy in the general public. This underlines the need for democratic societies to address the dangers of an exclusionary populism and the radical polarisation inherent in a Manichaean worldview.

Support for a strong leader or democracy, or both?

ABSTRACT The rise of authoritarian-style strong leaders in democracies has prompted scholars to question the change in public support for democracy. However, existing studies have often misunderstood this shift by erroneously equating support for authoritarian strong leaders with a rejection of democracy. They thus fail to recognize the growing public support for both, a conception of democracy termed guardianship democracy. This conception reconceptualizes democracy, viewing strong leaders as necessary for the effective functioning of democracy. By differentiating these two distinct supports for authoritarian-style strong leadership in democracies – authoritarianism and guardianship democracy, we reexamine the impact of factors believed to increase public support for authoritarian leadership. Our analysis, utilizing data from the World Values Survey spanning from Wave 3 to Wave 7, reveals that authoritarianism and guardianship democracy supporters share several common factors that bolster their political convictions. However, two notable differences emerge. First, higher confidence in the elected government and political parties is only associated with guardianship democracy supporters. Second, lower trust in parliament is associated with authoritarianism supporters, but not with guardianship democracy supporters.

Pandemic Times and Health Care Exclusion: Attitudes Toward Health Care Exclusion of Undocumented Immigrants.

Most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States are excluded from government healthcare programs. Yet, healthcare inequities pose significant dangers to all members of society during a pandemic. This project explores to what extent undocumented immigrants, in the context of a pandemic, can be seen as deserving of access to government healthcare programs. The first survey experiment explores whether work ethic can affect perceptions of undocumented immigrants as deserving of government healthcare programs. The second survey experiment tests to what extent appeals to fairness and self-interest, during a pandemic, shape healthcare deservingness attitudes. The results show that respondents view undocumented immigrants as less deserving of healthcare than citizens, even when undocumented immigrants have a solid work history. The second survey experiment, however, shows that appeals to fairness and self-interest trigger substantial increases in support for undocumented immigrants, both among Republicans and Democrats. The results suggest that while undocumented immigrants are seen as less deserving of access, appeals to fairness and self-interest can trigger increased support.

The political role of middle class in China: disentangling democratic attitudes and values

ABSTRACT China's middle class is found to differ in their democratic orientations – compared to the middle class in the non-state sector, a state sector middle class is believed to show lower support for democracy. Based on data from the Asian Barometer Survey 2019, we contend that democratic attitudes and democratic values are distinct dispositions. Despite displaying weaker attitudes towards the standard Western democratic institutions - such as multiparty elections and free media - the state sector middle class exhibits equally strong democratic values as the non-state sector middle class. On the other hand, compared to other social classes, while the non-state sector middle class shows stronger democratic values, it nonetheless holds a similar level of democratic attitudes. A most similar systems design and a joint method of agreement and difference reveal how values and attitudes are shaped respectively by early existential security and the structural constraints/stimuli one faces.

Anything but Representative Democracy: Explaining Conspiracy Believers’ Support for Direct Democracy and Technocracy

Conspiracy theories gained considerable attention during the Covid-19 pandemic. Although studies have extensively explored their (mostly) negative impacts on various political and social aspects, like participation, health-related behavior, and violence, their influence on support for democracy remains relatively unexplored. The few existing studies offer conflicting findings, prompting my focus to shift from assessing generic support for democracy to examining preferences for alternative decision-making models. To address some limitations of prior research on alternative models of decision-making, I combine a trade-off item with a ranking methodology: respondents were prompted to indicate their first and second preferences for different democratic and non-democratic models over representative democracy. The study is based on data from a representative survey in Germany (July/August 2022; N = 2,536). My findings confirm that the belief in conspiracy theories is positively associated with a preference for direct democratic decision-making. However, conspiracy believers also favor expert-based decision-making over elected politicians—but direct democracy would be their primary choice. Although the evidence for a preference for autocracy over representative democracy is associated with a higher degree of uncertainty, it does suggest that conspiracy believers tend to favor “anything but” representative democracy. These findings contribute to the broader discourse on the impact of conspiracy beliefs on democratic systems.

Cue-taking, populist attitudes, and support for holding a referendum: evidence from survey experiments

ABSTRACT Why do citizens support holding a referendum? In this article, we argue that citizens are instrumental by using heuristics and cues from parties, independent experts, and the population to decide whether to hold a referendum. We further expect that populist and non-populist citizens differ in how they respond to these cues. Using pre-registered survey experiments in Austria and Germany, we find that citizens’ support depends mainly on their attitudes towards the respective policy and the opinion of their preferred party, while the views of experts and the public play only a subordinate role. Crucially, we find no systematic differences between populist and non-populist citizens, suggesting that even populists’ support for holding a referendum depends mainly on instrumental rather than normative considerations. This study provides comprehensive insights into the causal mechanisms of support for direct democracy and their implications for liberal and representative democracy.

When legitimacy becomes the object of politics: the politicization of political support in European democracies

Democratic legitimacy is essential for democratic stability, as democracies rely on citizen support to survive. However, perceived legitimacy gaps can also be an important catalyst for change and potential democratic renewal, begging the question when challenges to legitimacy become problematic for democratic survival. Easton distinguished between citizen support for political authorities and the political system, and argued that if support for political authorities declined, such declining support could either be resolved by the current political authorities changing course, or by citizens electing new political authorities at the next elections. However, if dissatisfaction with political authorities would not be resolved, lacking support had the potential to eventually “spill-over” and undermine support for the political system as a whole. In most empirical research on legitimacy, the assumption is that such “spill-over” is visible only if declining levels of political trust and satisfaction with democracy start to undermine support for democracy as a political system. In this paper, we argue that “spill-over” can also manifest in a different way: through the politicization of political support. When politics is no longer (only) about substantive policy decisions, but rather (increasingly) about the system itself, agreement on the rules of the game, or even on democracy as “the only game in town”, is no longer self-evident. In this paper we further develop our theoretical argument about the connection between legitimacy and politicisation, and argue that European democracies appear to experience growing politicization of political support, in terms of the association of political support with citizens’ substantive issue positions and voting behaviour. The paper demonstrates empirical evidence of such politicization of political support in 17 European democracies with European Social Survey data from 2002–2022. The paper concludes by reflecting on the implications of the politicization of political support for democratic stability and renewal.

Do wars abroad affect attitudes at home?

Can foreign conflicts affect attitudes in nonbelligerent countries? A large literature studies the effects of conflicts and wars on countries that are directly involved, without considering the potential consequences for other nonbelligerent countries that might nevertheless be threatened. To address this question, we examine how the Russian invasion of Ukraine affected 12 economic and political attitudes using survey data covering eight European countries. We use a natural experiment whereby the timing of the invasion overlapped with the fieldwork of a cross-national individual-level survey in these eight countries. We find that the war increased support for democracy, redistribution, support for Europe, and immigration, while it reduced authoritarian attitudes. Our findings highlight the impact of foreign conflicts on a wide range of attitudes in countries that are externally threatened, but neither directly involved militarily, nor necessarily very close to the conflict.

Decoding Corporate Support for Democracy: A Study in Eastern Germany

Decoding Corporate Support for Democracy: A Study in Eastern Germany

How Ideological Diversity Moderates Republican Support for Voter Suppression Measures: The Cases of Georgia and Alabama

How Ideological Diversity Moderates Republican Support for Voter Suppression Measures: The Cases of Georgia and Alabama

Democracy is hot. Or not? Examining the link between political dissatisfaction and democratic support in European democracies

ABSTRACT The article focuses on the evaluative attitudes of citizens and their association with regime support in European democracies. In the context of widespread public scepticism with politics, different findings about the effect of political dissatisfaction in terms of democratic legitimacy have appeared. This may imply that citizens’ attitudes towards politics and their interrelations are complex and that the effects might not be the same across individuals and contexts. To investigate the link between political dissatisfaction and democratic support, data from the European Values Study and hierarchical regression models are used. The results of the analysis suggest that political dissatisfaction is not related to democratic support by highly interested and highly involved citizens. Nevertheless, contrary to the assumptions, the negative effect is quite strong in less corrupt countries, while in corrupt ones it tends to be positively related to democratic support.

Conceptualizing and Measuring Support for Democracy: A New Approach

Much of what we know about public support for democracy is based on survey questions about “democracy,” a term that varies in meaning across countries and likely prompts uncritically supportive responses. This paper proposes a new approach to measuring support for democracy. We develop a battery of 17 survey questions that cover all eight components of liberal democracy as defined by the V-Dem project. We then ask respondents from 19 national samples to evaluate these rights and institutions. We find considerable heterogeneity across countries in how our items cohere, especially in less developed contexts. Yet, those items that are more weakly connected with general support for liberal democracy tend to reveal the influence of political events and actors, arguably indicating weaknesses in political cultures. We further identify a concise subset of seven items that provide a reliable and valid measure of support for liberal democracy across our different samples.

Fifty Years After

Abstract Chile experienced an unprecedented crisis in the early 1970s and some civilian groups started supporting a “military solution” which occurred on September 11, 1973. Parallels between 1970s Chile and 2020s United States can be drawn in terms of democratic tradition, polarization, private armed groups, and middle-class support of democracy. While the South American country experienced a democratic breakdown in South America, the process is ongoing in the North. This article discusses analogies between both countries and explains which lessons can be learned to protect the U.S. democracy.

The relationship between local councillors’ representative style and their support for participatory democracy

The last few decades governments have operated in a challenging environment which increasingly calls for extended citizen participation. The aim of the article is to demonstrate that representative and participatory democracy are not two distinct realities, but that politicians’ opinions about their representative roles are associated with their attitudes about participatory democracy. To this end, the present paper links representative styles (partisan-delegate-trustee) with support for (1) the amount of citizen participation and (2) the type of citizen participation. Elected politicians traditionally perceive their representative roles either as ‘partisan’ (party-driven), ‘delegate’ (voter-driven) or ‘trustee’ (driven by their own judgement). We conducted a large-scale survey among Flemish (Belgium) local councillors ( N = 791). We show the biggest differences in support being between ‘delegates’ and ‘partisans’. The first group seems to be more receptive to (far-reaching) citizen participation and we explain that by their general orientation towards citizens.