Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T02:42:51.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Citizens’ preferences for liberal democracy and its deformations: evidence from Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2022

Pascal D. König Open the ORCID record for Pascal D. König [Opens in a new window]
Pascal D. König*
Affiliation:
Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA and Department of Political Science, TU Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper sheds light on the prevalence and the correlates of citizen support for liberal democracy and four of its deformations: a populist, a technocratic, a post-democratic, and a majoritarian-relativist conception of democracy. Using original survey data from a representative German online panel, the findings provide systematic evidence on the multifaceted nature of citizens’ democratic preferences. Only few citizens are, for instance, populist without also being liberal democrats, and many endorse two or more deformations of liberal democracy simultaneously. Yet, these forms of overlap are not arbitrary but conform to conceptually posited relative affinities between these deformations. The examined conceptions of democracy furthermore differ in their associations with political support, ideology, education, and political interest. In addition to offering novel empirical insights, the findings also highlight why some measures may underestimate the complexity of democratic preferences.

Keywords

conceptions of democracycitizenssurveypolitical attitudespolitical supportGermany
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , August 2022 , pp. 367 - 385
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Consortium for Political Research

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

Abts, K. and Rummens, S. (2007), ‘Populism versus democracy’, Political Studies 55(2): 405–424.10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00657.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackermann, M., Ackermann, K. and Freitag, M. (2019), ‘The personality of stealth democrats: how traits shape attitudes towards expert-based governments’, West European Politics 42(3): 573–592.10.1080/01402382.2018.1530494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akkerman, A., Mudde, C. and Zaslove, A. (2014), ‘How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters’, Comparative Political Studies 47(9): 1324–1353.10.1177/0010414013512600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, N. and Birch, S. (2015), ‘Process preferences and British public opinion: citizens’ judgements about government in an Era of anti-politics’, Political Studies 63(2): 390–411.10.1111/1467-9248.12110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, M.M., White, S., Berdahl, L., and McGrane, D. (2016), ‘Are Canadians stealth democrats? An American idea comes north’, American Review of Canadian Studies 46(1): 55–73.10.1080/02722011.2016.1154880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, Å. (2012), ‘Citizens’ perceptions of political processes. A critical evaluation of preference consistency and survey items’, Revista Internacional de Sociología 70(Extra_2): 45–64.10.3989/ris.2012.01.29CrossRefGoogle 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): 1031–1048.10.1080/01402380903065256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhard, L. and Hänggli, R. (2018), ‘Who holds populist attitudes? Evidence from Switzerland’, Swiss Political Science Review 24(4): 510–524.10.1111/spsr.12326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertsou, E. and Caramani, D. (2020), ‘People haven’t had enough of experts: technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine European democracies’, American Journal of Political Science Online First: 1–19.Google Scholar
Bertsou, E. and Pastorella, G. (2017), ‘Technocratic attitudes: a citizens’ perspective of expert decision-making’, West European Politics 40(2): 430–458.10.1080/01402382.2016.1242046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, C. and Accetti, C.I. (2017), ‘Populism and technocracy: opposites or complements?’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20(2): 186–206.10.1080/13698230.2014.995504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, I., Groenen, P.J.F. and Mair, P. (2013), Applied Multidimensional Scaling, Berlin: Springer. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-31848-1 (Accessed October 8, 2015).10.1007/978-3-642-31848-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramani, D. (2017), ‘Will vs. reason: the populist and technocratic forms of political representation and their critique to party government’, American Political Science Review 111(01): 54–67.10.1017/S0003055416000538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, R.E. and Singer, M.M. (2011), ‘Support for Polyarchy in the Americas’, Comparative Political Studies 44(11): 1500–1526.10.1177/0010414011407471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castanho Silva, B., Andreadis, I., Anduiza, E., Blanuša, N., Morlet Corti, Y., Delfino, G., Rico, G., Ruth-Lovell, S.P., Spruyt, B., Steenbergen, M. and Littvay, L. (2018). ‘Public opinion surveys: a new scale’, in Hawkins, K.A., Carlin, Ryan E., Littvay, L. and Kaltwasser, C.R. (eds), The Ideational Approach to Populism: Concept, Theory, and Analysis, Routledge Studies in Extremism and Democracy, London; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 150–177.10.4324/9781315196923-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castanho Silva, B., Vegetti, F. and Littvay, L. (2017), ‘The elite is up to something: exploring the relation between populism and belief in conspiracy theories’, Swiss Political Science Review 23(4): 423–443.10.1111/spsr.12270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceka, B. and Magalhães, P. C. (2020), ‘Do the rich and the poor have different conceptions of democracy? Socioeconomic status, inequality, and the political status quo’, Comparative Politics, 52(3): 383–412.10.5129/001041520X15670823829196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffé, H. and Michels, A. (2014), ‘Education and support for representative, direct and stealth democracy’, Electoral Studies 35: 1–11.10.1016/j.electstud.2014.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouch, C. (2004), Post-Democracy, Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1998), Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. 26. print. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (1984), ‘Cognitive mobilization and Partisan dealignment in advanced industrial democracies’, The Journal of Politics 46(1), 264–284.10.2307/2130444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (2008), Citizen Politics. Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Washington: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, D. and Roose, H. (2021), ‘Unpacking populism: using correlational class analysis to understand how people interrelate populist, pluralist, and elitist attitudes’, Swiss Political Science Review, 27(2): 476–495.10.1111/spsr.12463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, D. (1975), ‘A re-assessment of the concept of political support’, British Journal of Political Science 5(4): 435–457.10.1017/S0007123400008309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellenbroek, V., Meijers, M.J., and Krouwel, A. (2021), ‘Populist but pluralist? Populist attitudes and preferences for political pluralism in parliament and government’, Parliamentary Affairs, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab041 Google Scholar
Fatke, M. (2019), ‘The personality of populists: how the Big Five traits relate to populist attitudes’, Personality and Individual Differences 139, 138–151.10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Martínez, J.L. and Font, J. (2018), ‘The devil is in the detail: what do citizens mean when they support stealth or participatory democracy?’, Politics 38(4): 458–479.10.1177/0263395717741799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Vázquez, P., Lavezzolo, S. and Ramiro, L. (2022), ‘The technocratic side of populist attitudes: evidence from the Spanish case’, West European Politics, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2022.2027116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrín, M. and Hernández, E. (2021), ‘Preferences for consensus and majoritarian democracy: long- and short-term influences’, European Political Science Review 13(2): 209–225.10.1017/S1755773921000047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Font, J., Wojcieszak, M. and Navarro, C.J. (2015), ‘Participation, representation and expertise: citizen preferences for political decision-making processes’, Political Studies, 63(1_suppl): 153–172.10.1111/1467-9248.12191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherghina, S. and Geissel, B. (2017), ‘Linking democratic preferences and political participation: evidence from Germany’, Political Studies 65(1_suppl): 24–42.10.1177/0032321716672224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. L. (2001), ‘The Russian dance with democracy’, Post-Soviet Affairs 17(2): 101–128.10.1080/1060586X.2001.10641497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, G., Kronick, D., Levendusky, M. and Meredith, M. (2022), ‘The Majoritarian threat to liberal democracy’, Journal of Experimental Political Science 9(1): 36–45.10.1017/XPS.2020.44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyne, L. (2019), ‘The making of democratic citizens: how regime-specific socialization shapes Europeans’ expectations of democracy’, Swiss Political Science Review 25(1): 40–63.10.1111/spsr.12338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, J.R. and Theiss-Morse, E. (2002), Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, J. R, Theiss-Morse, E., Hibbing, M.V. and Fortunato, D. (2021), ‘Who do the people want to govern?’, Party Politics Online First: 1–12.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005), Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ish-Shalom, P. (2016), ‘Conceptualizing democratization and democratizing conceptualization: a virtuous circle’, in Hobson, C. and Kurki, M. (eds.), Conceptual Politics of Democracy Promotion, London: Routledge, pp. 38–52.Google Scholar
Jacobs, K., Akkerman, A. and Zaslove, A. (2018), ‘The voice of populist people? Referendum preferences, practices and populist attitudes’, Acta Politica 53(4): 517–541.10.1057/s41269-018-0105-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, R.S. and Mair, P. (1995), ‘Changing models of party organization and party democracy: the emergence of the Cartel party’, Party Politics 1(1): 5–28.10.1177/1354068895001001001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, P.D. and Siewert, M.B. (2021), ‘Off balance: systematizing deformations of liberal democracy’, International Political Science Review 42(5): 690–704.10.1177/0192512120915721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, P.D., Siewert, M.B. and Ackermann, K. (2021), ‘Conceptualizing and measuring citizens’ preferences for democracy – taking stock of three decades of research in a fragmented field’, Comparative Political Studies Online First.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H., Saris, W. and Moncagatta, P. (2016), ‘The structure of Europeans’ views of democracy’, in Ferrín, M. and Kriesi, H. (eds.), How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 64–89.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198766902.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, T. (2014). Human Rights and Democracy: The Precarious Triumph of Ideals, London; New Delhi; New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Landwehr, C. and Steiner, N.D. (2017), ‘Where democrats disagree: citizens’ normative conceptions of democracy’, Political Studies 65(4): 786–804.10.1177/0032321717715398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, P. (2009), Representative versus Responsible Government, Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.Google Scholar
Medvic, S. (2019), ‘Explaining support for stealth democracy’, Representation 55(1): 1–19.10.1080/00344893.2019.1581076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merkel, W. (2004), ‘Embedded and defective democracies’, Democratization 11(5): 33–58.10.1080/13510340412331304598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohrenberg, S., Huber, R.A. and Freyburg, T. (2019), ‘Love at first sight? Populist attitudes and support for direct democracy’, Party Politics Online First: 1–12.Google Scholar
Mounk, Y. (2018), ‘The undemocratic dilemma’, Journal of Democracy 29(2): 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudde, C. (2004), ‘The populist zeitgeist’, Government and Opposition 39(4): 542–563.10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neblo, M.A., Esterling, K.M., Kennedy, R.P., Lazer, D.M.J. and Sokhey, A.E. (2010), ‘Who wants to deliberate—and why?’, American Political Science Review 104(3): 566–583.10.1017/S0003055410000298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. (2011), Democratic deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited, New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511973383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, M. (1997), ‘Truth and liberty: the present crisis in our culture’, The Review of Politics 59(1): 5–24.10.1017/S0034670500027133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Österman, M. and Robinson, D. (2022), ‘Educating democrats or autocrats? The regime-conditional effect of education on support for democracy’, Political Studies Online First: 1–23.Google Scholar
Pappas, T.S. (2016), ‘Distinguishing liberal democracy’s challengers’, Journal of Democracy 27(4): 22–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapeli, L. (2016), ‘Public support for expert decision-making: evidence from Finland’, Politics 36(2): 142–152.10.1111/1467-9256.12092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapeli, L. and von Schoultz, Å. (2021), ‘Personal or impersonal evaluations? Political sophistication and citizen conceptions of the democratic process’, Government and Opposition, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rico, G., Guinjoan, M. and Anduiza, E. (2017), ‘The emotional underpinnings of populism: how anger and fear affect populist attitudes’, Swiss Political Science Review 23(4): 444–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roßteutscher, S. et al. (2018), ‘Nachwahl-Querschnitt (GLES 2017)’, https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/sdesc2.asp?no=6801&db=e&doi=10.4232/1.13138 (Accessed December 12, 2018).Google Scholar
Rovira Kaltwasser, C. and Van Hauwaert, S.M. (2020). ‘The populist citizen: empirical evidence from Europe and Latin America’, European Political Science Review 12(1): 1–18.10.1017/S1755773919000262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedler, A. and Sarsfield, R. (2007), ‘Democrats with adjectives: linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support’, European Journal of Political Research 46(5): 637–659.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00708.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. (2006). ‘A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications’, Comparative Sociology 5(2–3): 137–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruyt, B., Keppens, G. and Van Droogenbroeck, F. (2016), ‘Who supports populism and what attracts people to it?’, Political Research Quarterly 69(2): 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruyt, B., Rooduijn, M. and Zaslove, A. (2021), ‘Ideologically consistent, but for whom? An empirical assessment of the populism-elitism-pluralism set of attitudes and the moderating role of political sophistication’, Politics Online First: 1–17.Google Scholar
Stoker, G. and Hay, C. (2017), ‘Understanding and challenging populist negativity towards politics: the perspectives of British citizens’, Political Studies 65(1): 4–23.10.1177/0032321715607511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsatsanis, E., Andreadis, I. and Teperoglou, E. (2018), ‘Populism from below: socio-economic and ideological correlates of mass attitudes in Greece’, South European Society and Politics 23(4): 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsesis, A. (2021), Free Speech in the Balance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Urbinati, N. (2014). Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hauwaert, S.M., Schimpf, C.H. and Azevedo, F. (2019), ‘The measurement of populist attitudes: testing cross-national scales using item response theory’, Politics Online First: 1–19.Google Scholar
Van Hauwaert, S.M. and Van Kessel, S. (2018), ‘Beyond protest and discontent: a cross-national analysis of the effect of populist attitudes and issue positions on populist party support’, European Journal of Political Research 57(1): 68–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanderMolen, K. (2017), ‘Stealth democracy revisited: reconsidering preferences for less visible government’, Political Research Quarterly 70(3): 687–698.10.1177/1065912917712478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, P. (2013), ‘Who is willing to participate? Dissatisfied democrats, stealth democrats and populists in the United Kingdom: who is willing to participate?’, European Journal of Political Research 52(6): 747–772.10.1111/1475-6765.12021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welzel, C. and Moreno Alvarez, A. (2014), ‘Enlightening people’, in Dalton, R.J. and Welzel, C. (eds.), The Civic Culture Transformed, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–88.10.1017/CBO9781139600002.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojcieszak, M. (2014), ‘Preferences for political decision-making processes and issue publics’, Public Opinion Quarterly 78(4): 917–939.10.1093/poq/nfu039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, M. (2021). ‘The political ideas underpinning political distrust: analysing four types of anti-politics’, Representation Online First, 1–22.Google Scholar
Wuttke, A., Schimpf, C. and Schoen, H. (2020). ‘When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: on the conceptualization and measurement of populist attitudes and other multidimensional constructs’, American Political Science Review 114(2): 356–374.10.1017/S0003055419000807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

König Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XH7SGP
Link
Supplementary material: File

König supplementary material

König supplementary material

Download König supplementary material(File)
File 75.1 KB