One of the key factors distinguishing democracies from non-democracies is the process by which political decisions are made. Central to democratic thought is the idea that policy made in a procedurally fair manner is more legitimate than policy that violates central tenets of procedural fairness. A large number of studies from social psychology show that procedural fairness matters in citizens’ evaluations of the success and legitimacy of various outcomes. Despite this observation, most political science literature focuses on the outcomes rather than the process of policy-making. Using survey experiments we find that procedural arrangements are an important factor in citizens’ judgement of policy outcomes. Specifically, we find that fair procedural arrangements increase outcome legitimacy to the extent that citizens perceive them to be fairer. Our findings suggest that policy-makers need to pay more attention to procedural arrangements when designing policies.

No abstract

Public deliberation has risen to the forefront of governance as a technique for increasing participation in policy making. Scholars and practitioners have also noted the potential for deliberation to give greater influence to historically marginalized populations, such as Indigenous peoples. However, there has been less attention paid to the potential fit between the ideals of deliberation and the governance and decision making practices of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) peoples. In this paper, we begin to address this gap by analyzing accounts of AI/AN governance from the perspective of deliberation, and note areas of overlap, synergy, and conflict. We conduct a close reading of key historical and ethnographic accounts of four historical AI/AN contexts-the Iroquois Confederation under the Great Law of Peace, 19th century accounts of the Ojibwa village, the Santa Clara Pueblo government in pre-19th century, and Yup'ik village life in the early 20th century-and a more contemporary case in the form of the Santa Clara Pueblo's Constitution from the Indian Reorganization Act period. We then apply two sets of key criteria for deliberative democracy-from the scholars Robert Dahl and John Gastil-to these accounts and note the ways in which each system is or is not congruent with these frameworks of deliberation. We find variations between these historical tribal contexts in our analysis. Social components of deliberation, such as respectful discussion and equal opportunities to participate, were partially or fully present in many accounts of governance practices, but it was less clear whether the analytic components, such as discussion of a range of solutions, were included in some forms of tribal governance. We then explore the potential implications of our findings for public deliberation within and in AI/AN tribes. We note that deliberative scholars and practitioners should be wary of overgeneralizing about AI/AN tribes.

Low levels of trust in government have potentially wide-ranging implications for governing stability, popular legitimacy, and political participation. Although there is a rich normative and empiricial literature on the important consequences of eroding trust in democratic societies, the causes of political trust are less clear. In this article we estimate the effect that changing Americans' views about the perceived honesty and integrity of political authorities (or "political probity") has on their trust in government using randomized survey experiments. In one experiment on a convenience sample and a direct replication on a more representative sample, we find that a single Op-Ed article about political probity increased trust in government by an amount larger than the partisan gap between Democrats and Republicans. These results complement prior observational studies on trust in government by demonstrating that political probity plays an important causal role in shaping Americans' judgments about the trustworthiness of their government and politicians.