Having Their Say: Authority, Voice, and Satisfaction with Democracy

Merkley, Eric; Cutler, Fred; Quirk, Paul J.; Nyblade, Benjamin

doi:10.1086/702947

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gaps are smaller in consensual democracies and when voters feel their views are represented fairly (Martini and Quaranta 2019; Merkley et al. 2019). Although most scholarship has focused on advanced democracies, one panel study in Uganda documented winner–loser gaps in satisfaction with democracy (Conroy‐Krutz and Kerr 2015), uncovering scant evidence that losers rejected democracy outright, even in this weakly institutionalized context.…”

Section: Reversing the Causal Arrow: Voter Response When Authoritaria...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Losers react more negatively to loss, and winnerloser gaps are larger, when institutions maximize the benefits accrued to winners, in countries with weak rule of law and electoral institutions, and in young democracies, where the consequences of losing are uncertain (Anderson et al 2005;Anderson and Guillory 1997;Blais and Gélineau 2007;Blais, Morin-Chassé, and Singh 2017;Dahlberg and Linde 2016;Monsiváis-Carrillo 2020). 6 Gaps are smaller in consensual democracies and when voters feel their views are represented fairly (Martini and Quaranta 2019;Merkley et al 2019). Although most scholarship has focused on advanced democracies, one panel study in Uganda documented winner-loser gaps in satisfaction with democracy (Conroy-Krutz and Kerr 2015), uncovering scant evidence that losers rejected democracy outright, even in this weakly institutionalized context.…”

Section: Reversing the Causal Arrow: Voter Response When Authoritaria...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Winners’ Consent? Citizen Commitment to Democracy When Illiberal Candidates Win Elections

Cohen¹,

Smith

Moseley

et al. 2022

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Democracy is in decline worldwide, primarily because voters elect candidates harboring antidemocratic aspirations. Scholars argue that elections animate the democratic spirits of winners and deflate those of losers, but what about contests ending in the victory of authoritarian candidates? To answer this question, we consider the dynamics of commitment to democracy in Brazil's 2018 presidential campaign. Drawing on AmericasBarometer data and an original five‐wave panel survey, we confirm that Jair Bolsonaro's campaign attracted skeptics of democracy. Although his election and inauguration boosted his supporters’ allegiance to the political system, it also exacerbated their tolerance for institutional ruptures such as executive‐led coups. Meanwhile, election losers retained their democratic commitments. As a result, the authoritarian victory narrowed preexisting winner–loser gaps in support for the political system, but widened gaps in tolerance for certain antidemocratic maneuvers. Thus, authoritarian electoral victories can foster short‐term satisfaction among democracy's critics while abetting future instability.

show abstract

Section: Reversing the Causal Arrow: Voter Response When Authoritaria...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reversing the Causal Arrow: Voter Response When Authoritaria...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Winners’ Consent? Citizen Commitment to Democracy When Illiberal Candidates Win Elections

Cohen¹,

Smith

Moseley

et al. 2022

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Citizens’ views are voiced in the political dialogue, including in parliaments but also in the courts, the bureaucracy, the media, and civil society. They feel heard in elite discourse, even if it is others who are speaking (Merkley et al, 2019; Hoerner and Hobolt, 2020). Dahlberg and Holmberg (2014), Reher (2015) and Ezrow and Xezonakis (2011) find that the closer citizens are to their preferred party, the higher their SWD, irrespective of whether their party is in government. Ideal policy.…”

Section: A Macro-micro Theoretical Model Of Swdmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One distinguishing feature of party systems is the typical number of campaigning parties (4) (Sartori, 1976). A key function of political parties is to aggregate and voice concerns of the population, and a higher number of parties usually means more diversity in the types of issues that are voiced and enter the political discourse (Merkley et al, 2019; Hoerner and Hobolt, 2020). Thus, the number of parties is likely to directly affect how much interest citizens have and whether they feel represented by a party (however, Dassonneville and McAllister [2020] find that the number of parties has a negative effect on SWD).Constitutional arrangements, such as federalism (5) or a separation-of-powers system, shape citizens’ experience with democracy in their countries—in particular, how political decisions are reached (more voice in federal systems), whose interests are considered in the process ( ideal policy , responsiveness) , how policy is ultimately implemented ( government effectiveness ) and how clear responsibility is for policy outcomes ( accountability and transparency may be weaker in federations, as per Tsebelis [2002]; Cutler [2004]). The current political context A number of more fluid characteristics of the political context are likely to influence citizens’ considerations.…”

Section: Macro Context and Institutional Influences On The Ten Consid...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Satisfaction with Democracy: The Impact of Institutions, Contexts and Attitudes

Cutler

Nuesser

Nyblade³

2023

Can J Pol Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a new, unified approach for comparative research on citizens’ satisfaction with democracy (SWD). It starts with a well-specified individual-level model of the considerations citizens draw upon when answering the SWD survey question. Then we specify the relationship from contextual factors (especially institutions) through these individual-level mediating considerations and on to the SWD attitude. Multilevel structural equation estimation is applied to a merged dataset of European Social Survey (ESS) and country-level contextual data. The results add solidity to theoretical and empirical findings that citizens’ judgments of democracy are driven mostly by policy outputs and lived experience and not much by institutional variation or its political consequences.

show abstract

“…Political polarization is negatively related to satisfaction with democracy, though less so when diverse topics are seriously considered by parties (Merkley et al, 2019;Hoerner and Hobolt, 2020). This indicates the importance of both input (procedural) and output (performance) considerations when assessing the functioning of democracy (Hobolt, 2012).…”

Section: Satisfaction With Democracymentioning

confidence: 99%

The System Works Fine: The Positive Relationship Between Emphasis on Individual Explanations for Inequality and External Political Efficacy

Greenwood-Hau

2021

Front. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses the largely overlooked question of whether explanations for inequality are related to appraisals of the political system. It posits a positive relationship between individual explanations for inequality and three indicators of appraisals of the political system: satisfaction with democracy, political trust, and external political efficacy. Individual explanations for inequality are a form of system justifying belief and constitute part of a wider ideological view of the status quo social order as just and defensible. This positive view of the functioning of society may flow over into appraisals of the political system, imply a positive disposition towards high-status groups including politicians, and remove the motivation to blame the political system for ongoing inequality (which is instead seen in a positive, meritocratic light). The relationships between explanations for inequality and appraisals of the political system are tested for the first time in the United States, using 2002 ANES data, and in Great Britain, using data from a survey fielded in 2014. The results in the United States show few consistent or significant relationships between explanations for inequality and any of the appraisals of the political system. However, the results in Great Britain show consistent, robust, and statistically significant positive relationships between individual explanations for inequality and external political efficacy. The inconsistency in these results may stem from the differing temporal and national contexts of the surveys. It is also likely that the ranking measures of explanations for inequality in the GB data distinguished respondents for whom individual explanations are particularly important, who have a less negative appraisal of external political efficacy. However, more work is required to investigate the effects of question format, the impact of national and temporal context, and the causal direction of the relationship between explanations for inequality and appraisals of the political system.

show abstract

Having Their Say: Authority, Voice, and Satisfaction with Democracy

Cited by 15 publications

References 41 publications

Winners’ Consent? Citizen Commitment to Democracy When Illiberal Candidates Win Elections

Winners’ Consent? Citizen Commitment to Democracy When Illiberal Candidates Win Elections

Satisfaction with Democracy: The Impact of Institutions, Contexts and Attitudes

The System Works Fine: The Positive Relationship Between Emphasis on Individual Explanations for Inequality and External Political Efficacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About