Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T03:16:28.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Supports Citizens Selected by Lot to be the Main Policymakers? A Study of French Citizens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2020

Camille Bedock Open the ORCID record for Camille Bedock [Opens in a new window]  and
Jean-Benoit Pilet Open the ORCID record for Jean-Benoit Pilet [Opens in a new window]
Camille Bedock*
Affiliation:
Centre Emile Durkheim, Sciences po Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
Jean-Benoit Pilet
Affiliation:
Centre d’étude de la vie politique, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite their multiplication over the last 15 years, studies on the support for assemblies composed of citizens selected by lot are rare and the few that exist analyse citizens’ attitudes towards such mini-publics as consultative bodies associated with traditional representative institutions. In this article, we examine support for citizens selected by lot as new policymakers who take the most important political decisions instead of political representatives. We contrast support for this radical democratic innovation with support for two other reforms that increase citizen participation: generic support for a greater involvement of citizens in policymaking, and specific support for citizen-initiated referendums. The goal is to understand whether the drivers of support for citizens selected by lot overlap or differ from the drivers of support for other forms of citizen participation. We rely upon data from the 2017 French Election Study.

Keywords

democratic preferenceslotreferendumsparticipationrepresentative democracy
Type
Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 485 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors, 2020. Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achen, CH and Bartels, LM (2017) Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Almond, G and Verba, S (1963) The Civic Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C and Goodyear-Grant, E (2010) Why Are Highly Informed Citizens Sceptical of Referenda? Electoral Studies 29(2), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargel, L (2005) La Socialisation Politique Sexuée: Apprentissage des Pratiques Politiques et Normes de Genre Chez les Jeunes Militantes. Nouvelles Questions Feministes 24(3), 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedock, C (2017) Reforming Democracy: Institutional Engineering in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedock, C and Panel, S (2017) Conceptions of Democracy, Political Representation and Socio-economic Well-Being: Explaining How French Citizens Assess the Degree of Democracy of their Regime. French Politics 15(4), 389–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, Å (2012) Citizens’ Perceptions of Political Processes: A Critical Evaluation of Preference Consistency and Survey Items. Revista Internacional de Sociología 70(2), 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, Å and Christensen, H (2016) Ideals and Actions: Do Citizens' Patterns of Political Participation Correspond to their Conceptions of Democracy? Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics 51(2), 234–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, Å and Mattila, M (2009) Direct Democracy and its Critics: Support for Direct Democracy and ‘Stealth’ Democracy in Finland. West European Politics 32(5), 1031–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertsou, E and Pastorella, G (2017) Technocratic Attitudes: A Citizens’ Perspective of Expert Decision-Making. West European Politics 40(2), 430–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S, Donovan, T and Karp, JA (2007) Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies. Political Research Quarterly 60(3), 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, HE, Verba, S and Scholzman, KL (1995) Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation. American Political Science Review 89(2), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, BE, Dalton, RJ and Scarrow, SE (2003) Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caluwaerts, D et al. (2018) What is a Good Democracy? Citizens’ Support for New Modes of Governing. In Deschouwer, K (ed.), Mind the Gap: Political Participation and Representation in Belgium. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp. 75–90.Google Scholar
Ceka, B and Magalhaes, PC (2019) Do the Rich and the Poor Have Different Conceptions of Democracy? Socioeconomic Status, Inequality, and the Political Status Quo. Comparative Politics, published early online, September, https://doi.org/10.5129/001041520X15670823829196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffé, H and Michels, A (2014) Education and Support for Representative, Direct and Stealth Democracy. Electoral Studies 35, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collectif d'enquête sur les Gilets jaunes (2019) Enquêter in situ par Questionnaire sur une Mobilisation en Cours: une Etude sur les Gilets jaunes. Revue Française de Science Politique 69(6), 1–24.Google Scholar
Courant, D (2019) Sortition and Democratic Principles: A Comparative Analysis. In Wright E, Olin and Gastil, J (eds), Legislature by Lot. London: Verso, pp. 229–248.Google Scholar
Craig, SC (1979) Efficacy, Trust, and Political Behavior: An Attempt to Resolve a Lingering Conceptual Dilemma. American Politics Quarterly 7(2), 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, SC (1980) The Mobilization of Political Discontent. Political Behavior 2(2), 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, KJ (2016) The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, RJ (1999) Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. In Norris, P (ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, RJ (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, RJ (2017) The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, RJ and Welzel, C (2014) The Civic Culture Transformed: From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, NT and Hitt, MP (2017) Winning, Losing, and the Dynamics of External Political Efficacy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 29(4), 676–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Río, A, Navarro, CJ, and Font, J (2016) Ciudadanía, políticos y expertos en la toma de decisiones políticas: la percepción de las cualidades de los actores políticos importan. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 154, 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, D (1965) A System Analysis of Political Life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Finkel, SE (1985) Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel Analysis. American Journal of Political Science 29(4), 891–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Font, J, Wojcieszak, M and Navarro, CJ (2015) Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes. Political Studies 63(S1), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fournier, P et al. (2011) When Citizens Decide: Lessons from Citizens’ Assemblies on Electoral Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Espín, P and Ganuza, E (2017) Participatory Skepticism: Ambivalence and Conflict in Popular Discourses of Participatory Democracy. Qualitative Sociology 40(4), 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J and Wright, EO (2019) Legislature by Lot: Transformative Designs for Deliberative Governance. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Gherghina, S and Geissel, B (2017) Linking Democratic Preferences and Political Participation: Evidence from Germany. Political Studies 65(suppl. 1), 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherghina, S and Geissel, B (2018) An Alternative To Representation: Explaining Preferences for Citizens as Political Decision-makers. Political Studies Review, published early online, October, https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918807713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, S, Wyss, D and Bächtiger, A (2019) Deliberating or Thinking (Twice) About Democratic Preferences: What German Citizens Want from Democracy. Political Studies, published early online, April, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0032321719843967.Google Scholar
Gougou, F and Sauger, N (2017) The 2017 French Election Study (FES 2017): A Post-Electoral Cross-Sectional Survey. French Politics 15(3), 360–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grönlund, K, Bächtinger, A and Setälä, M (eds) (2014) Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Grossman, E and Sauger, N (2009) The Institutions of the French 5th Republic at 50. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grossman, E and Sauger, N (2014) ‘Un Président Normal’? Presidential (In-)action and Unpopularity in the Wake of the Great Recession. French Politics 12(2), 86–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, JR and Theiss-Morse, E (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, R and Welzel, C (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacquet, V et al. (2015) Changer la Démocratie? Attitudes des Citoyens Envers la Démocratie Actuelle et ses Alternatives. In Deschouwer, K and Delwit, P (eds), Décrypter l’Électeur: Le Comportement Electoral et les Motivations de Vote. Louvain: Lannoo Campus, pp. 232–250.Google Scholar
Kahne, J and Westheimer, J (2006) The Limits of Political Efficacy: Educating Citizens for a Democratic Society. PS: Political Science & Politics 39(2), 289–296.Google Scholar
Karp, JA and Banducci, SA (2008) Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour. British Journal of Political Science 38(2), 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, B (1997) The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morel, L and Qvortrup, M (2017) The Routledge Handbook to Referendums and Direct Democracy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neblo, MA et al. (2010) Who Wants to Deliberate – and Why? American Political Science Review 104(3), 566–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, K and Geissel, B (eds) (2012) Evaluating Democratic Innovations: Curing the Democratic Malaise? London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P (1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P (2011) Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuchamps, M and Suiter, J (eds) (2016) Constitutional Deliberative Democracy in Europe, 1st edn. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Rojon, S, Rijken, AJ and Klandermans, B (2019) A Survey Experiment on Citizens' Preferences for ‘Vote-Centric’ vs. ‘Talk-Centric’ Democratic Innovations with Advisory vs. Binding Outcomes. Politics and Governance 7(2), 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuck, ART and de Vreese, CH (2015) Public Support for Referendums in Europe: A Cross-National Comparison in 21 Countries. Electoral Studies 38, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suiter, J, Farrell, DM and Harris, C (2016a) The Irish Constitutional Convention: A Case of ‘High Legitimacy’. In Constitutional Deliberative Democracy in Europe. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
Suiter, J, Farrell, DM and O'Malley, E (2016b) When Do Deliberative Citizens Change their Opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens’ Assembly. International Political Science Review 37(2), 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomassen, J (2015) What's Gone Wrong with Democracy, or with Theories Explaining Why it Has? In Poguntke, T et al. (eds), Citizenship and Democracy in an Era of Crisis: Essays in Honour of Jan W. Van Deth. London: Routledge, pp. 34–50.Google Scholar
Tiberj, V (2017) Les Citoyens qui Viennent: Comment le Renouvellement Générationnel Transforme la Politique en France. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandamme, P-É (2018) Le Tirage au Sort Est-il Compatible avec l’Élection? Revue Française de Science Politique 68(5), 873–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandamme, P-É et al. (2018) Intercameral Relations in a Bicameral Elected and Sortition Legislature. Politics & Society 46(3), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, S, Burns, N and Schlozman, KL (1997) Knowing and Caring about Politics: Gender and Political Engagement. Journal of Politics 59(4), 1051–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, P (2013) Who is Willing to Participate? Dissatisfied Democrats, Stealth Democrats and Populists in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Political Research 52(6), 747–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zittel, T and Fuchs, D (2006) Participatory Democracy and Political Participation: Can Participatory Engineering Bring Citizens Back In? London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bedock and Pilet Supplementary Materials

Bedock and Pilet Supplementary Materials

Download Bedock and Pilet Supplementary Materials(File)
File 30.9 KB