Those sceptical of the competence of the ordinary citizens have often argued for some form of epistemic, Platonic rule by ‘wise’ experts. Using the 2011 Finnish National Election Study, this article compares popular support for representative democracy with expert democracy. The analysis is structured around two hypotheses. The competence hypothesis states that high political competence is negatively associated with support for expert decision making. The disillusionment hypothesis assumes that political disappointment is positively associated with such support. The study uses measures that are different from previous studies and finds much less support for stealth democracy. The results support the disillusionment hypothesis.
BengtssonÅ. (2012) ‘Citizens’ Perceptions of Political Processes: A Critical Evaluation of Preference Consistency and Survey Items’, Revista Internacional De Sociología70(2), pp. 45–64.
2.
BengtssonÅ.MattilaM. (2009) ‘Direct Democracy and Its Critics: Support for Direct Democracy and Stealth Democracy in Finland’, West European Politics32(5), pp. 1031–1048.
3.
CofféH.MichelsA. (2014) ‘Education and Support for Representative, Direct and Stealth Democracy’, Electoral Studies35(1), pp. 1–11.
4.
ConverseP.E. (1964) ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’ in ApterD. (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, New York: Free Press, pp. 206–261.
5.
DaltonR. (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
DaltonR.WeldonS. (2007) ‘Partisanship and Party System Institutionalization’, Party Politics13(2), pp. 179–196.
7.
EstlundD. (2003) ‘Why not Epistocracy?’ in ReshotkoN. (ed.), Desire, Identity and Existence: Essays in Honor of T.M. Penner, New York: Academic Press, pp. 53–69.
GallegoA. (2007) ‘Unequal Political Participation in Europe’, International Journal of Sociology37(4), pp. 10–25.
10.
HibbingJ.R.Theiss-MorseE. (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
HolstC. (2012) ‘What is Epistocracy? Dimensions of Knowledge-Based Rule’ in Andersen ØyenS.Lund-OlsenT.Sørensen VaageN. (eds.), Sacred Science? On Science and Its Interrelations with Religious Worldviews, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic, pp. 41–54.
12.
IsakhanB.StockwellS. (eds.) (2011) The Secret History of Democracy, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
KrohM. (2007) ‘Measuring Left-Right Political Orientation: The Choice of Response Format’, Public Opinion Quarterly71(2), pp. 204–220.
14.
MorrellM.E. (2003) ‘Survey and Experimental Evidence for a Reliable and Valid Measure of Internal Political Efficacy’, Public Opinion Quarterly67(4), pp. 589–602.
15.
PatemanC. (2012) ‘Participatory Democracy Revisited: APSA Presidential Address’, Perspectives on Politics10(1), pp. 7–19.
16.
RapeliL. (2013) The Conception of Citizen Knowledge in Democratic Theory, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
StubagerR. (2010) ‘The Development of the Education Cleavage: Denmark as a Critical Case’, West European Politics33(3), pp. 505–533.
18.
Van DethJ.W. (1990) ‘Interest in Politics’ in JenningsM.K.Van DethJ.W. (eds.), Continuities in Political Action, New York: De Gruyter, pp. 275–312.
19.
WebbP. (2013) ‘Who is Willing to Participate? Dissatisfied Democrats, Stealth Democrats and Populists in the United Kingdom’, European Journal of Political Research52(6), pp. 747–772.
20.
WestinenJ. (2013) ‘Valta Kansalle! Vai Asiantuntijoille? – Äänestäjäkunnan Näkemykset Päätöksenteon Järjestämisestä’, Aikuiskasvatus33(1), pp. 16–28.
21.
ZukinC.KeeterS.AndolinaM.JenkinsK.Delli CarpiniM.X. (2006) A New Engagement: Political Participation, Civic Life and the Changing American Citizen, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
