Does political mistrust lead to institutional disengagement? Much work in political science holds that trust matters for political participation, including recourse to the justice system. Scholars of judicial institutions, relying largely on survey research, argue that low trust decreases legal compliance and cooperation, threatening the rule of law. Legal consciousness and mobilization scholars, meanwhile, suggest that trust does not drive justice system engagement. However, their single-case study approach makes assessing the wider implications of their findings difficult. Based on an innovative comparative focus-group study in two uneven democratic states, Chile and Colombia, we show that trust is not the primary factor driving justice system engagement. Rather, people’s engagement decisions are shaped by their expectations and aspirations for their political system and by their politically constructed capacities for legal agency. Our study offers insights of relevance for analysts of various forms of political participation in uneven democratic states across the globe.
AytaçS.StokesS. (2019). Why bother?. Cambridge University Press.
3.
BazeleyP. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. SAGE Publications Ltd.
4.
BoothJ.,SeligsonM. (2009). The legitimacy puzzle in Latin America. University Press.
5.
BrinksD. M (2009). From legal poverty to legal agency: Establishing the rule of law in Latin America. Organization of American States.
6.
BrinksD. M (2012). La transformación del estado de derecho latinoamericano: capacidad del Estado y estado de derecho. Revista de ciencia política, 32(3), 561-583.
7.
BühlmannM.KunzR. (2011). Confidence in the judiciary: Comparing the independence and legitimacy of judicial systems. West European Politics, 34(2), 317-345.
8.
BumillerK. (1987). Victims in the shadow of the law: A critique of the model of legal protection. Signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12(3), 421-439.
9.
CaldeiraG. (1986). Neither the purse nor the sword: Dynamics of public confidence in the supreme court. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1209-1226.
10.
CannD.YatesJ. (2016). These estimable courts. Oxford University Press.
ClearyM.StokesS. (2009). Trust and democracy in comparative perspective. In CookK.LeviM.HardinR. (Eds.), Whom can we trust? (pp. 308-338). Russell Sage Foundation.
13.
CousoJ. (2011). Trying democracy in the shadow of an authoritarian legality: Chile’s transition to democracy and Pinochet’s Constitution of 1980. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 29, 393.
14.
CrozierM.HuntingtonS.WatanukiJ. (1975) The crisis of democracy (Vol. 70). New York University Press.
15.
CyrJ (2016). The pitfalls and promise of focus groups as a data collection method. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(2), 231-259.
16.
CyrJ. (2019). Focus groups for the social science researcher. Cambridge University Press.
17.
DaltonR. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices. Oxford University Press.
EwickP.SilbeyS. (1998). The common place of law. University of Chicago Press.
22.
FinifterA. W. (1970). Dimensions of political alienation. American Political Science Review, 64(2), 389-410.
23.
GabrielO. (2017). Participation and political trust. In ZmerliS.Van der MeerT. (Eds.), Handbook on Political Trust (pp. 302-315). Edward Elgar.
24.
GallagherM (2006). Mobilizing the law in China: “informed disenchantment” and the development of legal consciousness. Law & Society Review, 40(4), 783-816.
25.
GallagherJ.Restrepo SanínJ.HilbinkL.SalasV. (2019). Intersectional engagement and justice in Latin America. In APSA 2019 annual meeting, Washington DC, USA.
26.
GamsonW. (1968). Power and discontent. Dorsey.
27.
GamsonW. (1975). Social psychology and political behavior. In SouleGA.SouleJW. (Eds.), Political trust and its ramifications, Columbus, OH: Merrill. (pp. 40-55).
28.
GarcíaM.EspinosaJ. (2013). El derecho al Estado. Los Efectos Legalesdel Apartheid Institucional en Colombia. Centro de Estudios de Derecho, Justicia y Sociedad Dejusticia.
29.
GarcíaM.EspinosaJ. (2015). The geography of justice: assessing local justice in Colombia’s post-conflict phase. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 4(1), 1‐21.
30.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
31.
GibsonJ. (2008). Challenges to the impartiality of state supreme courts: Legitimacy theory and “new-style” judicial campaigns. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 59-75.
32.
GloppenS. (2006). Courts and social transformation: An analytical framework. In GargarellaR.DomingoP.RouxT. (Eds.), Courts and social transformation in new democracies. Routledge.
GurrT. (1970). Why men rebel. Princeton University Press.
35.
HendleyK. (2012). The puzzling non-consequences of societal distrust of courts: explaining the use of Russian courts. Cornell International Law Journal, 45(3), 517-567.
36.
HendleyK. (2017). Everyday law in Russia. Cornell University Press.
37.
HendleyK. (2018). To go to court or not? The evolution of disputes in Russia. In KurkchiyanM.KubalA. (Eds.), A sociology of justice in Russia (pp. 40-67). Cambridge University Press.
38.
HilbinkL.SalasV. (2021). Advancing human rights through legal empowerment of the poor. In DavisM.KjaerumM.LyonsA. (Eds.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Poverty. Edward Elgar Publishing.
39.
HirschmannA.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Harvard University Press.
40.
HoughM.JacksonJ.BradfordB. (2013). Trust in justice and the legitimacy of legal authorities: topline findings from a European comparative study. In HoughM.KerezsiK.SnackenS. (Eds.), The routledge handbook of European criminologyRoutledge.
41.
HullK. (2003). The cultural power of law and the cultural enactment of legality: the case of same-sex marriage. Law & Social Inquiry, 28(3), 629-657.
LehoucqE.TaylorW. K. (2020). Conceptualizing legal mobilization: how should we understand the deployment of legal strategies?. Law & Social Inquiry, 45(1), 166-193.
49.
LeviM.StokerL. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual review of political science, 3(1), 475-507.
50.
MarienS.HoogheM. (2011). Does political trust matter? An empirical investigation into the relation between political trust and support for law compliance. European Journal ofPolitical Research, 50(2), 267-291.
51.
McCannM (1994). Rights at work. University of Chicago Press.
52.
MerryS. (1990). Getting justice and getting even. University of Chicago Press.
53.
MorganD. (2012). Focus groups and social interaction. The Sage handbook of interview Research 2.
54.
MounkY. (2018). The people vs democracy. Harvard University Press.
55.
NewtonK. (2007). Social and political trust. In DaltonR.J.KlingemannHD (Eds.), The oxford handbook of political behaviorOxford University Press.
56.
NielsenL. B. (2000). Situating legal consciousness: experiences and attitudes of ordinary citizens about law and street harassment. Law & Society Review, 34, 1055.
57.
NielsenL. (2004). The work of rights and the work rights do: A critical empirical approach. Blackwell Publishing.
58.
NivetteA. (2016). Institutional ineffectiveness, illegitimacy, and public support for vigilantism in Latin America. Criminology, 54(1), 142-175.
59.
NorrisP. (1999). Institutional explanations for political support. Critical citizens. Oxford University Press.
60.
NorrisP. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.
61.
O’DonnellG. (1993). On the state, democratization and some conceptual problems: A Latin American view with glances at some postcommunist countries. World Development, 21(8), 1355-1369.
62.
O’DonnellG. (2001). Democracy, law, and comparative politics. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), 7-36.
63.
RobertsJ.StalansL. (1997). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Westview Press.
64.
RothsteinB.StolleD. (2008). The state and social capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Comparative Politics, 40(4), 441-459.
65.
SalzmanR.RamseyA. (2013). Judging the judiciary: Understanding public confidence inLatin American courts. Latin American Politics and Society, 55(1), 73-95.
66.
SandefurR. L. (2008). Access to civil justice and race, class, and gender inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 339-358.
67.
SaratA. (1990). "The law is all over": power, resistance and the legal consciousness of thewelfare poor. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 2, 343-379.
68.
ShinglesR. (1981). Black consciousness and political participation: the missing link. American Political Science Review, 75(1), 76-91.
69.
SilbeyS. S. (2005). After legal consciousness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 323-368.
70.
SmulovitzC. (2010). Judicialization in Argentina: Legal culture or opportunities and support structures. Cultures of legality (pp. 234-253). Cambridge University Press.
71.
StokesD (1962). Popular evaluations of government: an empirical assessment. In ClevelandH.LasswellHD. (Eds.) Ethics and bigness (pp. 61-72). Harper.
72.
Task Force on Justice. (2019). Justice for all – the report of the task force on JusticeConference version. Center on International Cooperation.
73.
TaylorW. (2018). Ambivalent legal mobilization: perceptions of justice and the use of the Tutela in Colombia. Law & Society Review, 52, 337-367.
74.
TylerT. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
75.
TylerT. (2009). Legitimacy and criminal justice: The benefits of self-regulation. Journal of Criminal Law, 7(1), 307-359.
76.
TylerT.HuoY. (2002). Trust in the law. Russell Sage Foundation.
77.
TylerT. R.JacksonJ. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 78-95.
78.
UslanerE. (2017). Political trust, corruption, and inequality. In ZmerliS.Van der MeerT. (Eds.), Handbook on Political Trust (pp. 302-315). Edward Elgar.
79.
Van der MeerT. (2017). Political trust and the “crisis of democracy”. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press.
80.
WilkinsonS. (1998). Focus groups in feminist research: Power, interaction, and the co-construction of meaning. In Women’s studies international forum (Vol. 21(1), pp. 111-125). Pergamon.
81.
WoodE. (2003). Insurgent collective action and civil war in El Salvador. Cambridge University Press.
82.
ZemansF. (1982). Framework for analysis of legal mobilization: A decision-making model. Law and Social Inquiry, 7(4), 989-1071.
83.
ZemansF. (1983). Legal mobilization: The neglected role of the law in the political system. The American Political Science Review, 77(3), 690-703.
84.
ZmerliS.CastilloJ. (2015). Income inequality, distributive fairness and political trust in Latin America. Social Science Research, 52, 179-192.
85.
ZuckermanE. (2021). Mistrust. W. W. Norton.
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.
