The Expert Cure? Exploring the Restorative Potential of Expertise for Public Satisfaction With Parties

Abstract

The declining legitimacy of political parties has become something of a truism in political science discourse. Less often reflected upon is how these legitimacy problems could potentially be resolved. This article contributes to this underexplored issue by examining the restorative potential of expertise as a supplement to intra-party democracy. Building on an established literature on Stealth Democracy, we explore the potential for expert-inspired reforms to boost citizens’ satisfaction with parties. Using original survey questions, we provide evidence that a perceived lack of expert engagement in parties predicts citizen dissatisfaction, before using deliberative workshop data to distil traits that define the appeal of experts and expertise. This mixed-methods approach allows us to demonstrate some common desires of which parties should be aware, but also traits that make these ideas difficult to realise. Combining these insights, we argue that while expertise has appeal, parties face considerable challenges in satisfying citizens’ desires.

Bring in the experts? Citizen preferences for independent experts in political decision‐making processes

“…Finally, while for many citizens, support for expert involvement does not come at the expense of democratic legitimacy (Dommett & Temple 2019), giving decision‐making power to experts, as opposed to elected representatives, poses a direct challenge to the democratic ideas of self‐governance and accountability (Caramani 2017, Sánchez‐Cuenca 2020). The crucial political moment of decision making is where democratic and technocratic legitimacy clash.…”

Lessons from the Criticality of the Spanish High Capacity Road Network on Direct, Representative Democracies and Technocracies

“…Bertsou and Caramani ( 2020 ) contend that expert roles in politics are multivariate through a continuum of possibilities that range from the pure government of experts (technocracy) to mere ‘advisors’ who adopt a subordinate role in which final decisions are in hands of the cabinet members who are usually traditional career politicians. Societies usually face an important dilemma between how to balance each type of citizens’ participation from direct democracy via referenda, representative democracy via government decisions or technocracy (Dommett & Temple, 2020 ).…”

Technocratic attitudes and voting behaviour ten years after the Eurozone crisis: Evidence from the 2019 EP elections

“…Political theory has mostly framed technocracy as an ideology that is harmful, or at least opposed to, democracy (Shapiro 2005;Fischer 2009;Gilley 2017;Sánchez-Cuenca 2017), although some claim it can be compatible with democracy (Radaelli 1999) and even solve issues of efficacy and accountability (Rauh 2016;Dommett and Temple 2019;van der Veer and Reinoud, 2020). In practice, technocracy often does exist in a democratic context, as a "a form of representation and source of legitimate power […] that can take various grades, from advisory positions for experts to the appointment of technocratic prime ministers or ministers to the executive, or even entire cabinets" Caramani 2020b).…”