Ideology and Deliberation: An Analysis of Public Support for Deliberative Practices in Finland

Abstract

Deliberative practices have been suggested as a way to increase involvement in political decision making, although it is unclear whether such practices appeal to all segments of society. For this reason, we examine the links between support for deliberative practices and two dimensions of ideological predispositions: left-right ideology and nationalism-cosmopolitanism. Analyses based on data from the 2015 Finnish National Election Study (FNES2015) with 1602 respondents, demonstrate that citizens with leftist and cosmopolitan predispositions are more supportive of deliberative practices. Furthermore, political awareness moderates the impact of the left-right ideological dimension, suggesting that individuals who are politically aware are better equipped to convert their left-right predispositions into opinions towards deliberative practices.

How citizens evaluate participatory processes: a conjoint analysis

“…For example, it makes little sense to simply ask people whether they would like to see more deliberative mini-publics without carefully explaining what they entail (Goldberg, Wyss, and Bächtiger 2019). Previous studies relying on surveys have asked more generally whether a respondent supported the use of public discussions in connection to decision-making (Christensen, Himmelroos, and Grönlund 2017;Christensen and von Schoultz 2019). However, this at best provides a crude assessment of support for the use of minipublics since these also involve other feature such as rules or expectations for how participants conduct themselves during discussions (Grönlund, Bächtiger, and Setälä 2014).…”

“…This approach provides us with insights into what democratic benefits a participatory mechanism can provide but fails to consider how citizens evaluate these mechanisms and their characteristics. Other studies examine popular attitudes towards specific types of participatory mechanisms (Goldberg, Wyss, and Bächtiger 2019;Jacquet 2018;Christensen and von Schoultz 2019), or differences in process preferences, i.e. how political decision should be made (Bengtsson and Christensen 2016;Gherghina and Geissel 2017;Font, Wojcieszak, and Navarro 2015).…”

How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis

“…Furthermore, the effects were similar across policy issues and process preferences, suggesting that the effects are a relatively stable in society. The results are therefore able to give new insights into what type of participatory mechanisms ordinary citizens want to see introduced on a more detailed level compared to previous research that have examined either broad process preferences (Bengtsson and Christensen 2016;Gherghina and Geissel 2017;Font, Wojcieszak, and Navarro 2015) or attitudes to specific mechanisms (Goldberg, Wyss, and Bächtiger 2019;Jacquet 2018;Christensen and von Schoultz 2019).…”

“…However, even when a specific participatory innovation could potentially deliver every imaginable democratic good, it would still need citizens' support to be able to fulfil this potential. Not only are people less likely to support its introduction in the first place, they are also less likely to take advantage of the possibility to take part once in place (Gherghina and Geissel 2017;Bengtsson and Christensen 2016;Christensen and von Schoultz 2019). Hence, although popularity does not alter the proposed advantages of a participatory mechanism, it affects the possibility to bring the hypothetical advantages to fruition.…”

“…This approach provides us with insights into what democratic benefits a participatory mechanism can provide but fails to consider how citizens evaluate these mechanisms and their characteristics. Other studies examine popular attitudes towards specific types of participatory mechanisms (Goldberg, Wyss, and Bächtiger 2019;Jacquet 2018;Christensen and von Schoultz 2019), or differences in process preferences, i.e. how political decision should be made (Bengtsson and Christensen 2016;Gherghina and Geissel 2017;Font, Wojcieszak, and Navarro 2015).…”