Many see responsiveness towards the majority as sufficient for democracy because no other policy position receives more support. By contrast, I argue that the primacy of the majority is normatively and empirically problematic. From a normative point of view a ‘good’ democracy not only needs to maximise the influence of the majority but must also protect minorities against oppression by the majority population. These two goals are difficult to reconcile when majorities and minorities have different policy preferences. From an empirical point of view, a lack of policy responsiveness towards minorities has real empirical consequences as it may endanger the legitimacy and stability of a democracy by decreasing the political support of minority groups. The empirical analyses with 28 minority groups confirm the risks of a lack of policy responsiveness: minorities exhibit less political support than majorities, partly because responsiveness towards them is lower.
AartsKThomassenJ (2008) Satisfaction with Democracy: Do Institutions Matter?Electoral Studies27 (1): 5–18.
2.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems. American Political Science Review91 (1): 66–81.
3.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerS. (2005) Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
BartelsLM (2008) Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BieberF (2008) Regulating Minority Parties in Central and South-Eastern Europe. In: ReillyBNordlundP (eds) Political Parties in Conflict-Prone Societies: Regulation, Engineering and Democratic Development. New York: United Nations University Press, pp.95–125.
6.
BormannN-CGirardinLHunzikerP. (2015) GROWup Research Front-End Documentation RFE Release 2.0. Zurich: ETH Zurich.
7.
BrighouseHFleurbaeyM (2010) Democracy and Proportionality. The Journal of Political Philosophy18 (2): 137–155.
BühlmannMHänniM (2012) Creating a ‘We-Feeling’ in Heterogeneous Nations: A Cross-Country Investigation of the Impact of Inclusion and Autonomy on the National Pride of Ethnic Minorities. Comparative Sociology11 (3): 325–353.
10.
CanacheDMondakJJSeligsonMA (2001) Meaning and Measurement in Cross-National Research on Satisfaction with Democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly65 (4): 506–528.
11.
CedermanL-EWimmerAMinB (2010) Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel?: New Data and Analysis. World Politics62 (1): 87–119.
12.
ChoW (2010) Citizens’ Perceptions of Government Responsiveness in Africa: Do Electoral Systems and Ethnic Diversity Matter?Comparative Political Studies43 (12): 1650–1674.
Cowell-MeyersKLangbeinL (2009) Linking Women’s Descriptive and Substantive Representation in the United States. Politics & Gender5 (4): 491–518.
15.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
DaltonRJ (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
DiamondLJMorlinoL (2004) An Overview. Journal of Democracy15 (4): 20–31.
18.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
19.
EastonD (1957) An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems. World Politics9 (3): 383–400.
20.
EastonD (1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York; London; Sydney, NSW, Australia: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
FearonJD (2003) Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country. Journal of Economic Growth8 (2): 195–222.
23.
GayC (2002) Spirals of Trust? The Effect of Descriptive Representation on the Relationship between Citizens and Their Government. American Journal of Political Science46 (4): 717–732.
24.
GigerNRossetJBernauerJ (2012) The Poor Political Representation of the Poor in a Comparative Perspective. Representation48 (1): 47–61.
25.
GilensM (2011) Policy Consequences of Representational Inequality. In: EnnsPKWlezienC (eds) Who Gets Represented?New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp.247–284.
26.
GilensM (2012) Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
27.
GuinierL (1991) No Two Seats: The Elusive Quest for Political Equality. Virginia Law Review77 (8): 1413–1514.
28.
GuinierL (1994) The Tyranny of the Majority. New York: The Free Press – A Division of Macmillan, Inc.
29.
HabyarimanaJHumphreysMPosnerDN. (2009) Coethnicity: Diversity and the Dilemmas of Collective Action. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
30.
Haider-MarkelDPQuerzeALindamanK (2007) Lose, Win, or Draw? A Reexamination of Direct Democracy and Minority Rights. Political Research Quarterly60 (2): 304–314.
31.
HänniM (2016) Presence, Representation and Impact: How Minority MPs Affect Policy Outcomes. Legislative Studies Quarterly. Epub ahead of print 11 May. DOI: 10.1111/lsq.12142.
32.
HoboltSBKlemmensenR (2007) Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies41 (3): 309–337.
33.
HorowitzDL (1985) Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
34.
IshiyamaJ (2001) Ethnopolitical Parties and Democratic Consolidation in Post-Communist Eastern Europe. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics7 (3): 25–45.
35.
KangS-GPowellGB (2010) Representation and Policy Responsiveness: The Median Voter, Election Rules, and Redistributive Welfare Spending. The Journal of Politics72 (4): 1014–1028.
36.
KymlickaW (1995) Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford; New York; Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
37.
LagosM (2003) Support for and Satisfaction with Democracy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research15 (4): 471–487.
38.
LeclercJ (2015) L’aménagement Linguistique Dans Le Monde. Available at: http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/ (accessed 8 July 2015).
39.
LiebermanESMcClendonGH (2012) The Ethnicity-Policy Preference Link in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparative Political Studies46 (5): 574–602.
40.
LijphartA (1969) Consociational Democracy. World Politics21 (2): 207–225.
41.
LijphartA (1984) Democracies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
LijphartA (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in 36 Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
43.
LindeJEkmanJ (2003) Satisfaction with Democracy: A Note on a Frequently Used Indicator in Comparative Politics. European Journal of Political Research42: 391–408.
44.
LiuAH (2011) Linguistic Effects of Political Institutions. The Journal of Politics73 (1): 125–139.
45.
LiuAHBairdVA (2012) Linguistic Recognition as a Source of Confidence in the Justice System. Comparative Political Studies45 (10): 1203–1229.
46.
MansbridgeJ (1999) Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’. The Journal of Politics61 (3): 628–657.
47.
Minorities at Risk Project (2009) Minorities at Risk Dataset. College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management.
48.
Minority Rights Group International (2014) Minority Rights Group International. Available at: http://www.minorityrights.org/ (accessed 15 November 2016).
49.
NorrisP (1999a) Institutional Explanations for Political Support. In: NorrisP (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.217–235.
50.
NorrisP (1999b) Introduction: The Growth of Critical Citizens. In: NorrisP (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.1–30.
51.
NorrisP (2004) Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52.
NorrisP (2011) Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
53.
OskarssonS (2010) Generalized Trust and Political Support: A Cross-National Investigation. Acta Politica45 (4): 423–443.
54.
PanCPfeilBS (2006) Minderheitenrechte in Europa. Handbuch Der Europäischen Volksgruppen, Band 2. Wien: Springer-Verlag.
55.
PowellGB (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
56.
PreuhsRR (2007) Descriptive Representation as a Mechanism to Mitigate Policy Backlash: Latino Incorporation and Welfare Policy in the American States. Political Research Quarterly60 (2): 277–292.
57.
RigbyEWrightGC (2011) Whose Statehouse Democracy? Policy Responsiveness to Poor versus Rich Constituents in Poor versus Rich States. In: EnnsPKWlezienC (eds) Who Gets Represented?New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp.189–222.
58.
RobertsA (2010) The Quality of Democracy in Eastern Europe: Public Preferences and Policy Reforms. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
59.
RossetJGigerNBernauerJ (2013) More Money, Fewer Problems? Cross-Level Effects of Economic Deprivation on Political Representation. West European Politics36 (4): 817–835.
60.
Ruiz-RufinoR (2013) Satisfaction with Democracy in Multi-Ethnic Countries: The Effect of Representative Political Institutions on Ethnic Minorities. Political Studies61 (1): 101–118.
61.
SanchezGRMorinJL (2011) The Effect of Descriptive Representation on Latinos’ Views of Government and of Themselves. Social Science Quarterly92 (2): 483–508.
62.
SeydB (2014) How Do Citizens Evaluate Public Officials? The Role of Performance and Expectations on Political Trust. Political Studies63: 73–90.
63.
SorokaSNWlezienC (2010) Degree of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
64.
StojanovicN (2006) Do Multicultural Democracies Really Require PR? Counterevidence from Switzerland. Swiss Political Science Review12 (4): 131–157.
Van CottDL (2005) Building Inclusive Democracies: Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Minorities in Latin America. Democratization12 (5): 820–837.
67.
WelgeR (2015) Union Citizenship as Demoi-Cratic Institution: Increasing the EU’s Subjective Legitimacy through Supranational Citizenship?Journal of European Public Policy22 (1): 56–74.
68.
ZollingerDBochslerD (2012) Minority Representation in a Semi-Democratic Regime: The Georgian Case. Democratization19 (4): 611–641.
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.
