‘Democracy always comes first’: adolescents’ views on decision-making in everyday life and political democracy

Abstract

Research shows adolescents to be positively oriented towards democracy, but little is known about what it actually means to them and what their views are on decision-making in both everyday situations and political democracy. To gain insight into these aspects of adolescents' democratic views, we have interviewed 40 Dutch adolescents from second grade of different types of high school. Potential conflict between various democratic principles prevalent in everyday life situations was discussed and compared to how they view decision-making in political democracy. The results of our qualitative study showed that adolescents' views on issues concerning collective decisionmaking in everyday situations are quite rich and reflect different models of democracy (majoritarian, consensual, and deliberative). Moreover, how adolescents deal with tensions between democratic principles in everyday life situations varies. While some adolescents combine several principles (for instance, majority rule as a last resort after trying to find broader consensus), other adolescents tend to strictly focus on only one of these principles. Adolescents' views on political democracy, however, are rather limited and one-dimensional. Those adolescents who seemed to have a more explicit picture of political democracy often preferred a strict focus on majority rule, neglecting minority interests. For the stability of a democratic society, it is of great importance that new generations develop democratic orientations. Yet, during the past 15 years, studies have raised questions about the orientations of new generations towards democracy and specific aspects thereof, such as political interests, willingness to vote, freedom of speech, and collective decision-making. Scholars claim that new generations are largely preoccupied with their own lives and interests, and are therefore less focused on participation in public spheres and the common good (Galston 2001;Putnam 2000;Ribeiro et al. 2015).

Compensating or reproducing? Students from different educational tracks and the role of school in experiencing democratic citizenship

“…Studies show that many adolescents are positively oriented towards democracy. They prefer democracy over other forms of governing, such as oligarchy or aristocracy, and concur with underlying aspects of democracy, such as freedom of speech, equal rights for all and free elections (Munniksma et al, 2017;Nieuwelink et al, 2016a;Schulz et al, 2010). Young people in general possess limited knowledge of politics and political institutions.…”

“…There are different ways of coming to a decision. Democratic decisions can be made through voting, negotiation or deliberation (Goodin, 2008;Lijphart, 1999;Nieuwelink, Dekker, Geijsel, & Ten Dam, 2016a). To clarify viewpoints or find common ground, it is important that all people concerned participate and voice their perspectives on collective problems.…”

“…Adolescent political participation is also rather limited (Elchardus, Herbots, & Spruyt, 2013;Munniksma et al, 2017). Adolescents are, therefore, more positively oriented towards democracy and democratic values than they are towards formal political institutions (Nieuwelink et al, 2016a(Nieuwelink et al, , 2017Schulz et al, 2010). Furthermore, young people have different orientations towards democratic citizenship.…”

Growing into politics? The development of adolescents’ views on democracy over time

“…Whenever the possibility of collective decision-making arose, they usually simply cast a vote without having much debate or taking into account the perspectives of minorities. In the student experiences at school, collective decision-making equalled simple majority rule (Nieuwelink et al, 2016). All in all, there are indications that students are not offered many opportunities to develop multidimensional perspectives on democracy at school.…”

Regulatory Focus and Self-Construal as Determinants of the Majority Rule in Individual Decision Making

“…The majority rule posits that individuals prefer to choose the majority-weakly-superior option (i.e., slightly more favorable on most of its attributes) rather than the minority-strongly-superior option (i.e., considerably more favorable on few of its attributes; A brief formal description of the majority rule is provided in the Appendix; cf., May, 1952 for the pioneering axiomatic characterization of the majority rule). This preference could have stemmed from a deepseated belief that a congruent decision is more effective at receiving accurate information than an individual's effort (e.g., Hastie & Kameda, 2005), or that the majoritarian judgments are, for instance, more democratic and just than the assertive judgments of the minority for satisfying political equality, with most elections of legislative representatives and referendums being decided by this rule (e.g., Nieuwelink, Dekker, Geijsel, & Ten Dam, 2017;Risse, 2004;Saunders, 2008, p. 21).…”