This study measures support for the basic rights, liberties, and practices associated with polyarchy in 12 Latin American democracies. Specifically, it identifies five profiles of support for polyarchy’s core values and norms—public contestation, inclusive participation, limits on executive authority, and institutional checks and balances. Although citizens who fit the polyarch profile accept all of polyarchy’s principles, those who fit one of the four mixed support profiles (power constrainer, power checker, power delegator, power restrainer) accept only some of them while rejecting other core democratic principles. Long-run factors emphasized by modernization and cultural theories (e.g., education, wealth, political engagement) are closely associated with the polyarch support profile. However, short-range performance factors (e.g., economic perceptions; crime, discrimination, and corruption victimization; voting for losing presidential candidates; presidential approval) may better explain why citizens fit one particular mixed profile over another and particularly explain willingness to delegate authority to the executive at the expense of other institutions.
AlmondG. A.VerbaS. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
AndersonC. J.BlaisA.BowlerS.DonovanT.ListhaugO. (2005). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
BasáñezM.ParásP. (2001). Color and democracy in Latin America. In CampR. A. (Ed.), Citizen views of democracy in Latin America (pp. 139-153). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
4.
BaviskarS.MaloneM. (2004). What democracy means to citizens—And why it matters. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe, 76, 3-23.
5.
BoothJ.SeligsonM. A. (2009). The legitimacy puzzle: Democracy and political support in eight Latin American nations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BrattonM.MattesR. B.Gyimah-BoadiE. (2005). Public opinion, democracy, and market reform in Africa. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CampR. (2001). Democracy through Latin American lenses. In CampR. A. (Ed.), Citizen views of democracy in Latin America (pp. 3-23). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
8.
CarnaghanE. (2007). Out of order: Russian political values in an imperfect world. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
9.
CarriónJ. F. (2008). Illiberal democracy and normative democracy: How is democracy defined in the Americas? In SeligsonM. A. (Ed.), Challenges to democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Evidence from the AmericasBarometer (pp. 21-46). Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development.
10.
CollierD.LevitskyS. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49, 430-451.
11.
ConverseP. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In ApterD. E. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
12.
CoppedgeM. (in press). Approaching democracy: Research methods in comparative politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CoppedgeM.AlvarezA.MaldonadoC. (2008). Two persistent dimensions of democracy: Contestation and inclusiveness. Journal of Politics, 70, 632-647.
14.
DahlR. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
DahlR. A. (1997). Toward Democracy– A Journey, Reflections, 1940-1997. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.
16.
DiamondL. (1999). Developing democracy: Towards consolidation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
17.
DiamondL. (2008). The democratic rollback: The resurgence of the predatory state. Foreign Affairs, 87(1), 36-48.
18.
DowleyK.SilverB. (2002). Social capital, ethnicity and support for democracy in the post-communist states. Europe-Asia Studies, 54, 505-527.
19.
DryzekJ. S.HolmesL. (2002). Post-communist democratization. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20.
DuchR. M. (1995). Economic chaos and the fragility of democratic transition in former communist regimes. Journal of Politics, 57, 121-158.
21.
DudaR.HartP. (1973). Pattern classification and scene analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley.
22.
EastonD. (1975). A reassessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5, 435-457.
23.
EspinalR.HartlynJ.Morgan KellyJ. (2006). Performance still matters: Explaining trust in government in the Dominican Republic. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 200-223.
24.
EvansG.WhitefieldS. (1995). The politics and economics of democratic commitment: Support for democracy in transition societies. British Journal of Political Science, 25, 485-514.
25.
FengY. (1997). Democracy, political stability and economic growth. British Journal of Political Science, 27, 391-418.
26.
GallieW. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167-198.
27.
GibsonJ. L.DuchR. M.TedinK. L. (1992). Democratic values and the transformation of the Soviet Union. Journal of Politics, 54, 329-371.
28.
GuntherR.Hsin-chiK. (2007). Value cleavages and partisan conflict. In GuntherR.PuhleH.MonteroJ. (Eds.), Democracy, intermediation, and voting on four continents (pp. 255-320). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
HuneeusC.MaldonadoL. (2003). Demócratas y nostálgicos del antiguo régimen [Democrats and Nostalgics for the Old Regime]. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 10(3), 9-50.
30.
InglehartR.WelzelC. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
KapsteinE. B.ConverseN. (2008). The fate of young democracies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
KingG.KeohaneR. O.VerbaS. (1994). Designing social inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
LagosM. (2008). The democracy barometers: Latin America’s diversity of views. Journal of Democracy, 19(1), 111-125.
34.
LipsetS. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53, 69-105.
35.
LipsetS. M. (1981). Political man. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
McCloskeyH. (1964). Consensus and Ideology in American Politics. American Political Science Review58(2), 361-382.
37.
McCoyJ. (2006). International response to democratic crisis in the Americas, 1990-2005. Democratization, 13, 756-775.
38.
MillerA. H.HesliV. L.ReisingerW. M. (1997). Conceptions of democracy among mass and elite in post-Soviet societies. British Journal of Political Science, 27, 157-190.
39.
MishlerW.RoseR. (2002). Learning and re-learning regime support: The dynamics of post-communist regimes. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 5-36.
40.
MoehlerD. (2009). Critical citizens and submissive subjects: Election losers and winner in Africa. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 345-366.
41.
MorenoA. (2001). Democracy and mass belief systems in Latin America. In CampR. A. (Ed.), Citizen views of democracy in Latin America (pp. 27-50). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
42.
MorenoD. (2008). National identity and ethnic minorities in the Americas. In SeligsonM. A. (Ed.), Challenges to democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Evidence from the AmericasBarometer (pp. 177-194). Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development.
43.
NorrisP. (1999). Conclusions: The growth of critical citizens and its consequences. In NorrisP. (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance (pp. 257-272). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44.
OttemoellerD. (1998). Popular perceptions of democracy: Elections and attitudes in Uganda. Comparative Political Studies, 31, 98-124.
45.
Pérez-LiñánA. (2007). Presidential impeachment and the new political instability in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
46.
PowersN. (2001). Grassroots expectations of democracy and economy: Argentina in comparative perspective. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
47.
ProthroJ. W.GriggC. M. (1960). Fundamental principles of democracy: Bases of agreement and disagreement. Journal of Politics, 22, 276-294.
48.
PrzeworskiA.AlvarezM. E.CheibubJ. A.LimongiF. (2000). Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49.
PuddingtonA. (2007). The pushback against democracy. Journal of Democracy, 18(2), 125-137.
50.
RoystonP. (2005). Multiple imputation of missing values: Update of ice. Stata Journal, 5, 527-536.
51.
RubinD. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley.
52.
SchedlerA.SarsfieldR. (2007). Democrats with adjectives: Linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support. European Journal of Political Research, 46, 637-659.
53.
SchedlerA.SarsfieldR. (2009). Demócratas Iliberales: Configuraciones Contradictorias de Apoyo a la Democracia en México [Illiberal Democrats: Contradictory Configurations of Support for Democracy in Mexico]. Espiral, 44, 123-159.
54.
SeligsonM. A. (2001). Costa Rican exceptionalism: Why the Ticos are different. In CampR. A. (Ed.), Citizen views of democracy in Latin America (pp. 90-106). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
55.
SeligsonM. A. (2002). The Impact of Corruption on Regime Legitimacy: A Comparative Study of Four Latin American Countries. Journal of Politics64(2), 408-433.
56.
SeligsonM. A. (2007). The rise of populism and the left in Latin America. Journal of Democracy, 18(3), 81-95.
57.
SeligsonM. A.CarriónJ. F. (2002). Political support, political skepticism, and political stability in new democracies: An empirical examination of mass support for coups d’état in Peru. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 58-82.
58.
SteenbergenM. R.JonesB. S. (2002). Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 218-237.
59.
TomzM.WittenbergJ.KingG. (2001). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Retrieved from http://gking.harvard.edu
60.
United Nations Development Programme. (2004). La Democracia en América Latina: Hacia una Democracia de Ciudadanas y Ciudadanos [Democracy in Latin America: Towards a Citizens’ Democracy]. New York, NY: Aguilar, Altea, Taurus, Alfaguara, S.A.
61.
WalkerL. D. (2009). Delegative democratic attitudes and institutional support in Central America. Comparative Politics, 44, 83-101.
62.
Weitz-ShapiroR. (2008). The local connection: Local government performance and satisfaction with democracy in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 285-308.
