Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T03:37:15.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing the Churchill Hypothesis: Popular Support for Democracy and its Alternatives*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Richard Rose  and
William Mishler
Richard Rose
Affiliation:
Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XH, Scotland, UK, Phone: 44–141-552–4400, Fax:44–141-552–4711
William Mishler
Affiliation:
Political Science University of South Carolina, Government Department, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C. 29208, Phone: 803–777-9590, Fax:803–777-8255
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Whereas many studies of democratization evaluate it in idealist terms, Winston Churchill offered a relativist criterion, democracy being a lesser evil compared to other types of regime. Since everyone in a post-Communist society has lived in at least two different regimes, the New Democracies Barometer survey of post-Communist countries can ask people to evaluate five alternative regimes: a return to Communist rule, the army taking over, monarchy, rule by a strong leader, and decision making by economic experts. Factor analysis shows endorsement of three alternatives—the return to Communism, army rule, and personal dictatorship—form an authoritarianism scale. It also shows support for authoritarian rule is confined to a minority. Five hypotheses are tested to see what accounts for this. The political legacy of the past is more important than current government performance, economic attitudes, social structure differences, and national culture and traditions. Endorsement of economic technocrats making decisions is not related to authoritarianism; it reflects some national differences. Given the importance of experiencing both democratic and undemocratic regimes, the Churchill hypothesis does not apply in a country that has not yet attempted to introduce democratic institutions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 29 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Adorno, Theodor W., Frenkel-Brunswick, Else, Levinson, Daniel J. and Sanford, R. Nevitt, 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, Hannah, 1958. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Meridien, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Beetham, David, ed., 1994. Defining and Measuring Democracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Berlin, Isaiah, 1969. ‘On Liberty’. In Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breslauer, George W., 1978. ‘On the Adaptability of Soviet Welfare-State Authoritarianism’. In Ryavec, Karl W., ed. Soviet Society and The Communist Party. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 3–25.Google Scholar
Butler, D. E. and Stokes, Donald E., 1974. Political Change in Britain. London: Macmillan, 2nd ed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchill, Winston, 1947. House of Commons. Hansard, 11 November 1947, col. 206.Google Scholar
Cook, Linda J., 1993. The Soviet Social Contract and Why It Failed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., 1970. After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell, 1988. Citizen Participation in Western Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
*Duch, Raymond M., 1993. ‘Tolerating Economic Reform: Popular Support for Transition to a Free Market in the Former Soviet Union’, American Political Science Review, 87, 3, 590–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckstein, Harry, 1988. ‘A Culturalist Theory of Political Change’, American Political Science Review, 82, 3, 789–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission, 1996. Central and Eastern Eurobarometer, No. 6. Brussels: European Commission DG X.Google Scholar
Finifter, Ada W. and Mickiewicz, Ellen, 1992. ‘Redefining the Political System of the USSR: Mass Support for Political Change’, American Political Science Review, 86, 4, 857–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, S. E., 1962. The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Freedom House, 1994. ‘1994 Freedom Around the World’, Freedom Review, 25, 1, 5–41.Google Scholar
Friedrich, C. J. and Brzezinski, Z., 1965. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. Boston: Harvard University Press, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Furtak, Robert K., ed., 1990. Elections in Socialist States. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Gati, Charles, 1996. ‘The Mirage of Democracy’, Transition, 2, 6, 22 March.Google Scholar
Gastil, Raymond D., 1987. Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., 1993. ‘Perceived Political Freedom in the Soviet Union’, Journal of Politics, 55, 4, pp. 936–74.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., Duch, Raymond M. and Tedin, Kent L., 1992. ‘Democratic Values and the Transformation of the Soviet Union’, Journal of Politics, 54, 2, 329–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Jeffrey W., 1991. ‘Continuity and Change in Russian Political Culture’, British Journal of Political Science, October: 393–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helliwell, John F., 1994. ‘Empirical Linkages between Democracy and Economic Growth’, British Journal of Political Science, 24, 2, 225–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermet, Guy, Rouquie, Alain and Rose, Richard, eds., 1978. Elections without Choice. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higley, John and Gunther, Richard, eds., 1992. Elites and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P., 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkeles, Alex, ed., 1991. On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Jowitt, Kenneth, 1992. New World Disorder: the Leninist Extinction. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald and Kiewiet, D. R., 1981. ‘Sociotropic Politics: the American Case’, British Journal of Political Science, 11, 129–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, 1995. Party Systems in East Central Europe: Consolidation or Fluidity? Glasgow: University of Strathclyde Studies in Public Policy, No. 241.Google Scholar
Kornberg, Allan and Clarke, Harold, 1992. Citizens and Community: Political Support in a Representative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laitin, David, 1995. ‘The Civil Culture at 30’, American Political Science Review, 89, 1, 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laredo, Jorge Buendia, Przeworski, Adam and Stokes, Susan C., 1996. Public Opinion of Economic Reforms: Poland, Peru, Mexico. Chicago: University of Chicago Center on Democracy.Google Scholar
Linz, Juan J., 1975. ‘Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes’. In Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., eds., Handbook of Political Science, vol. 3. Reading: Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 175–411.Google Scholar
Lipset, S. M., 1960. Political Man. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
MacKuen, Michael B., Erickson, Robert S. and Stimson, James A., 1992. ‘Peasants or Bankers? The American Electorate and the U.S. Economy’, American Political Science Review, 86: 597–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishler, William and Rose, Richard, 1996. ‘Trajectories of Fear and Hope’, Comparative Political Studies, 28, 4, 553–58.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., Reisinger, William M. and Hesli, Vicki L., eds., 1993. Public Opinion and Regime Change: the New Politics of Post-Soviet Societies. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Palma, Giuseppe di, 1990. To Craft Democracies: An Essay on Democratic Transitions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reform in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry, 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard, 1992. ‘Escaping from Absolute Dissatisfaction: a Trial-and-Error Model of Change in Eastern Europe’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 4, 4, 371–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Richard, 1995. ‘Mobilizing Demobilized Voters in Post-Communist Societies’, Party Politics, 1, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Richard, 1995a. ‘Freedom as a Fundamental Value’, Internatioal Social Science Journal, No. 145, 457–471.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard, 1995b. ‘Adaptation, Resilience and Destitution: Alternative Responses to Transition in the Ukraine’, Problems of Post-Communism, 42, 6, 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Richard, 1996. What Is Europe? A Dynamic Perspective. New York and London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard, 1996a. ‘Ex-Communists in Post-Communist Societies’, Political Quarterly, 67, 1, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Richard and Haerpfer, Christian, 1994. New Democracies Barometer III: Learning from What is Happening. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde Studies in Public Policy No. 230.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard and Mishler, William, 1994. ‘Mass Reaction to Regime Change in Eastern Europe’, British Journal of Political Science, 24, 2, 159–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Richard and Mishler, William, 1996. ‘Representation and Leadership in Post-Communist Political Systems’, Journal of Communist and Transition Studies, 12, 2.Google Scholar
Ruble, Blair, 1987. ‘The Social Dimensions of Perestroyka’, Soviet Economy, 3, 2, 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni, 1976. Parties and Party Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni, 1987. The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni, 1993. ‘Totalitarianism, Model Mania and Learning from Error’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 5, 1, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitter, P. C. and Karl, Terry Lynn, 1991. ‘What Democracy Is … and Is Not’, Journal of Democracy, 2, 2, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1952. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: George Allen & Unwin, 4th ed.Google Scholar
Share, Donald, 1985. ‘Two Transitions: Democratization and the Evolution of the Spanish Socialist Left’, West European Politics, 8, 1, 82–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A., 1979. ‘Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations’, American Economic Review, 69, 4, 493–513.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., 1993. ‘The New Look in Public Opinion Research’. In Finifter, Ada W., ed., The State of the Discipline II. Washington DC: American Political Science Association, 219–246.Google Scholar
Waller, Michael, 1995. ‘Adaptation of the former Communist Parties of East-Central Europe’, Party Politics, 1, 4, 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Stephen, ed., 1990. ‘Elections in Eastern Europe’, a special issue of Electoral Studies, 9, 4, 275–366.Google Scholar
WIIW (Wiener Institut fuer Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche), 1995. Transition Countries: Economic Developments. Vienna: WIIW, Part I.Google Scholar
Williamson, John, ed., 1994. The Political Economy of Policy Reform. Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar