How do the labels left and right take on meaning in new democracies? Existing explanations point to the universality of the left–right scheme or, reversely, emphasize regionally dominant social cleavages. We propose an alternative legacy-focused theory based on two observations: Dictatorships are not ideologically neutral and are negatively evaluated by most citizens and elites after democratization. These premises lead us to expect that when the authoritarian regime is associated with the left (right), the citizens of a new democracy will display an antileft (antiright) bias in their left–right self-identification. We test this hypothesis across Latin American and European new democracies. We find significant bias, which in the case of new democracies following left-wing regimes is concealed due to intercohort heterogeneity. Although older cohorts denote a positive bias, cohorts born after Stalin’s era denote negative bias against the left. Consistent with our expectations, repression exacerbates this bias whereas indoctrination mitigates it. Finally, we look at how these biases apply to party preferences. The findings have important implications for understanding authoritarian legacies and party system development in new democracies.
AdamsJ.EzrowL.Somer-TopcuZ. (2011). Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties’ policy statements during elections. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 370-382.
2.
AdlerN. (2012). Keeping faith with the party: Communist believers return from the Gulag. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
AlvarezM.CheibubJ. A.LimongiF.PrzeworskiA. (1996). Classifying political regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 31(2), 3-36.
5.
AmesB.SmithA. E. (2010). Knowing left from right: Ideological identification in Brazil, 2002-2006. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 2(3), 3-38.
6.
ArendtH. (1973). The origins of totalitarianism (Vol. 244). London, England: Penguin Classics.
7.
ArianA.ShamirM. (1983). The primarily political functions of the left-right continuum. Comparative Politics, 15, 139-158.
8.
BølstadJ.DinasE. (2017). A categorization theory of spatial voting: How the center divides the political space. British Journal of Political Science, 47, 829-850.
9.
BansakK.HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD. (2016). How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science, 354, 217-222.
10.
BarberáP.BauerP. C.AckermannK.VenetzA. (2017). Is the left-right scale a valid measure of ideology? Individual-level variation in associations with “left” and “right” and left-right self-placement. Political Behavior, 39, 553-583.
BobbioN. (1996). Left and right: The significance of a political distinction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
13.
BoixC.StokesS. C. (2003). Endogenous democratization. World Politics, 55, 517-549.
14.
BoothJ. A.SeligsonM. A. (1984). The political culture of authoritarianism in Mexico: A reexamination. Latin American Research Review, 19, 106-124.
15.
BoothJ. A.SeligsonM. A. (2009). The legitimacy puzzle in Latin America: Political support and democracy in eight nations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
BradyH. E. (2011). The art of political science: Spatial diagrams as iconic and revelatory. Perspectives on Politics, 9, 311-331.
17.
BrandenbergerD. (2014). Propaganda state in crisis: Soviet ideology, indoctrination, and terror under Stalin, 1927-1941. London, England: Yale University Press.
18.
BrandsH. (2010). Latin America’s cold war. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
BrownleeJ. (2007). Authoritarianism in an age of democratization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
CarlinR. E.SingerM. M. (2011). Support for polyarchy in the Americas. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1500-1526.
21.
ChenJ.XuY. (2017). Information manipulation and reform in authoritarian regimes. Political Science Research and Methods, 5, 163-178.
22.
ClaassenC.TuckerP.SmithS. S. (2015). Ideological labels in America. Political Behavior, 37, 253-278.
DavenportC. (2007). State repression and political order. Annual Review Political Science, 10, 1-23.
25.
DesaiR. M.OlofsgårdA.YousefT. M. (2009). The logic of authoritarian bargains. Economics & Politics, 21, 93-125.
26.
DevineC. J. (2015). Ideological social identity: Psychological attachment to ideological in-groups as a political phenomenon and a behavioral influence. Political Behavior, 37, 509-535.
27.
DinasE. (2017). Political socialisation and regime change: How the right ceased to be wrong in post-1974 Greece. Political Studies, 65, 1000-1020.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65, 135-150.
30.
DoyleD. (2011). The legitimacy of political institutions explaining contemporary populism in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1447-1473.
31.
EkmanJ.LindeJ. (2005). Communist nostalgia and the consolidation of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 21, 354-374.
32.
Escribà-FolchA. (2013). Repression, political threats, and survival under autocracy. International Political Science Review, 34, 543-560.
33.
EvansG.WhitefieldS. (1995). Social and ideological cleavage formation in post-communist Hungary. Europe-Asia Studies, 47, 1177-1204.
34.
EVS. (2016). European Values Study 2008: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2008). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4800 Data file Version 4.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.12458
35.
FitzpatrickS.LudtkeA. (2009). Energizing the everyday: On the breaking and making of social bonds in Nazism and Stalinism. In GeyerM.FitzpatrickS. (Eds.), Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared (chapter 7, pp. 266-301). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
FreedenM.SargentL. T.StearsM. (2013). The Oxford handbook of political ideologies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37.
GandhiJ. (2008). Political institutions under dictatorship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
GandhiJ.PrzeworskiA. (2007). Authoritarian institutions and the survival of autocrats. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 1279-1301.
39.
GeddesB. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years?. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 115-144.
40.
GeddesB.ZallerJ. (1989). Sources of popular support for authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 319-347.
41.
GentileM. (2013). Meeting the “organs”: The tacit dilemma of field research in authoritarian states. Area, 45, 426-432.
42.
GerschewskiJ. (2018). Legitimacy in autocracies: Oxymoron or essential feature?Perspectives on Politics, 16, 652-665.
43.
GherghinaS.KlymenkoL. (2012). Why look back? Citizens’ attitudes toward the communist regime in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Problems of Post-Communism, 59, 55-65.
44.
GillA. (1998). Rendering unto Caesar: The Catholic Church and the state in Latin America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
GrauvogelJ.SoestC. V. (2014). Claims to legitimacy count: Why sanctions fail to instigate democratisation in authoritarian regimes. European Journal of Political Research, 53, 635-653.
47.
Grzymala-BusseA. M. (2002). Redeeming the communist past: The regeneration of communist parties in East Central Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
HadeniusA.TeorellJ. (2007). Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 18, 143-157.
50.
HarbersI.de VriesC. E.SteenbergenM. R. (2013). Attitude variability among Latin American publics: How party system structuration affects left/right ideology. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 947-967.
51.
HuntingtonS. P. (1993). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century (Vol. 4). Norman: University of Oklahoma press.
IshiyamaJ. T. (1995). Communist parties in transition: Structures, leaders, and processes of democratization in Eastern Europe. Comparative Politics, 27, 147-166.
54.
KenezP. (1985). The birth of the state: Soviet methods of mass mobilization, 1917-1929. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
KitscheltH. (1995). Formation of party cleavages in post-communist democracies theoretical propositions. Party Politics, 1, 447-472.
56.
KitscheltH. (1999). Post-communist party systems: Competition, representation, and inter-party cooperation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
KlaiberJ. (2009). The church, dictatorships, and democracy in Latin America. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
58.
KnutsenO. (1995). Value orientations, political conflicts and left-right identification: A comparative study. European Journal of Political Research, 28, 63-93.
59.
KornetisK. (2013). Children of the dictatorship: Student resistance, cultural politics and the “long 1960s” in Greece (Vol. 10). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
60.
KuranT. (1997). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. London, England: Harvard University Press.
61.
LeninV. I. (1920). Report of the commission on the national and colonial questions. Collected Works, 31, 242-243.
62.
LenzG. S. (2012). Follow the leader?: How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. London, England: University of Chicago Press.
63.
LetkiN. (2002). Lustration and democratisation in East-Central Europe. Europe-Asia Studies, 54, 529-552.
64.
LevitskyS.WayL. (2013). The durability of revolutionary regimes. Journal of Democracy, 24(3), 5-17.
65.
LevitskyS.WayL. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66.
LinzJ. J. (2000). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. London, England: Lynne Rienner.
67.
LinzJ. J.StepanA. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore, PA: JHU Press.
68.
LohmannS. (1994). The dynamics of informational cascades: The Monday demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989–91. World Politics, 47, 42-101.
69.
LupuN. (2013). Party brands and partisanship: Theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 49-64.
70.
MagaloniB. (2006). Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico (Vol. 296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
71.
MahrA.NagleJ. (1995). Resurrection of the successor parties and democratization in East-Central Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 28, 393-409.
72.
MeyerA. G. (1966). The functions of ideology in the Soviet political system. Europe-Asia Studies, 17, 273-285.
73.
MishlerW.RoseR. (1996). Trajectories of fear and hope support for democracy in post-communist Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 28, 553-581.
74.
NeundorfA. (2010). Democracy in transition: A micro perspective on system change in post-socialist societies. The Journal of Politics, 72, 1096-1108.
75.
NohlenD (2005a). Elections in the Americas: A data handbook: Volume 1 North America, Central America, and the Caribbean (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
76.
NohlenD. (2005b). Elections in the Americas: A data handbook: Volume 2 South America (Vol. 2). Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
77.
O’DonnellG.SchmitterP. C. (2013). Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
78.
PhilpottD. (2004). The catholic wave. Journal of Democracy, 15, 32-46.
79.
PierucciA. F. (1987). As bases da nova direita [The foundations of the new right]. Novos Estudos Cebrap [New Cebrap], 19, 26-45.
80.
PintoA. C.RezolaM. I. (2007). Political Catholicism, crisis of democracy and Salazar’s new state in Portugal. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 8, 353-368.
81.
Pop-ElechesG. (2008). A party for all seasons: Electoral adaptation of Romanian Communist successor parties. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 41, 465-479.
82.
Pop-ElechesG.TuckerJ. A. (2013). Associated with the past? Communist legacies and civic participation in post-communist countries. East European Politics and Societies, 27, 45-68.
83.
Pop-ElechesG.TuckerJ. A. (2014). Communist socialization and post-communist economic and political attitudes. Electoral Studies, 33, 77-89.
84.
Pop-ElechesG.TuckerJ. A. (2017). Communism’s shadow: Historical legacies and contemporary political attitudes. Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.
85.
Pop-ElechesG.TuckerJ. A. (2020). Communist Legacies and Left-Authoritarianism. Comparative Political Studies, 53(12), 1861-1889.
86.
PowerT. J.ZuccoC.Jr. (2009). Estimating ideology of Brazilian Legislative parties, 1990–2005: A research communication. Latin American Research Review, 44, 218-246.
87.
PrzeworskiA. (2000). Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990 (Vol. 3). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
88.
RemmerK. L. (1985). Exclusionary democracy. Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID), 20(4), 64-85.
89.
RicoG.JenningsM. K. (2016). The formation of left-right identification: Pathways and correlates of parental influence. Political Psychology, 37, 237-252.
90.
RobinsonN., 1995. Ideology and the collapse of the Soviet system: A critical history of Soviet ideological discourse. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
91.
RuedaD. (2018). Food comes first, then morals: Redistribution preferences, parochial altruism, and immigration in Western Europe. The Journal of Politics, 80, 225-239.
92.
SchmittH.HoboltS. B.PopaS. A.TeperoglouE. (2016). European parliament election study 2014. Voter study. GESIS data archive cologne. ZA5160 Data file Version 1.0. 0. doi: 10.4232/1.5160.
93.
SmithB. (2005). Life of the party: The origins of regime breakdown and persistence under single-party rule. World Politics, 57, 421-451.
94.
SoltF. (2016). The standardized world income inequality database. Social Science Quarterly, 97, 1267-1281.
95.
SpirovaM. (2008). The Bulgarian socialist party: The long road to Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 41, 481-495.
SvolikM. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
98.
TavitsM.LetkiN. (2009). When left is right: Party ideology and policy in post-communist Europe. American Political Science Review, 103, 555-569.
99.
TianoS. (1986). Authoritarianism and political culture in Argentina and Chile in the mid-1960’s. Latin American Research Review, 21, 73-98.
100.
TorcalM.MainwaringS. (2003). The political recrafting of social bases of party competition: Chile, 1973–95. British Journal of Political Science, 33, 55-84.
101.
TuckerJ. A. (2002). The first decade of post-communist elections and voting: What have we studied, and how have we studied it?Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 271-304.
102.
TuckerJ. A. (2006). Regional economic voting: Russia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, 1990-1999. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
103.
VegettiF.ŠirinicD. (2019). Left–right categorization and perceptions of party ideologies. Political Behavior, 41, 1-24.
104.
WhiteS. (2007). Communist nostalgia and its consequences in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. In LaneD. (Ed.), The transformation of state socialism (pp. 35-56). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
105.
WhiteS. (2010). Soviet nostalgia and Russian politics. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 1, 1-9.
106.
WhitefieldS. (2002). Political cleavages and post-communist politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 181-200.
107.
ZajdaJ. (1988). The moral curriculum in the Soviet school. Comparative Education, 24, 389-404.
108.
ZechmeisterE. (2006). What’s left and who’s right? A Q-method study of individual and contextual influences on the meaning of ideological labels. Political Behavior, 28, 151-173.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
