While support for the essential norms of liberal electoral democracy is high in almost all developed democracies, there is arguably also a gap between democratic aspirations and democratic practice, leading to dissatisfaction among citizens. We argue that citizens may hold very different normative conceptions of democracy which are equally compatible with support for liberal democracy, but lead to different expectations where institutional design and democratic practice are concerned. Satisfaction with democracy may thus depend on congruence between such normative conceptions and institutionally entrenched norms. Drawing on survey data from Germany with a comprehensive item battery on attitudes towards democratic decision-making, we identify four distinct factors leading to disagreements over democratic decision-making. We explore how these are related to personality, styles of cognition and political attitudes, and show that different expectations arise from them, such that regime support is affected by the normative conception(s) of democratic decision-making individuals subscribe to.
AdornoTWFrenkel-BrunswikELevinsonDJet al. (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Bros.
2.
AkkermanAMuddeCZasloveA (2013) How Populist Are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters. Comparative Political Studies47 (9): 1324–1353.
3.
BakkerBNRooduijnMSchumacherG (2015) The Psychological Roots of Populist Voting: Evidence from the United States, the Netherlands and Germany. European Journal of Political Research55 (2): 302–320.
4.
BartelsLM (2009) Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BengtssonAMattilaM (2009) Direct Democracy and Its Critics: Support for Direct Democracy and ‘Stealth’ Democracy in Finland. West European Politics32 (5): 1031–1048.
6.
BengtssonAWassH (2010) Styles of Political Representation: What Do Voters Expect?Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties20 (1): 55–81.
7.
BosnjakMDannwolfTEnderleTet al. (2017) Establishing an Open Probability-based Mixed-mode Panel of the General Population in Germany: The GESIS Panel. Social Science Computer Review. Epub ahead of print 14March2017. DOI: 10.1177/0894439317697949.
8.
CacioppoJTPettyRE (1982) The Need for Cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology42 (1): 116–131.
9.
CanacheD (2012) The Meanings of Democracy in Venezuela: Citizen Perceptions and Structural Change. Latin American Politics and Society54 (3): 95–122.
10.
CarlinRESingerMM (2011) Support for Polyarchy in the Americas. Comparative Political Studies44 (11): 1500–1526.
11.
CarmanCJ (2006) Public Preferences for Parliamentary Representation in the UK: An Overlooked Link?Political Studies54 (1): 103–122.
12.
ChirumboloA (2002) The Relationship between Need for Cognitive Closure and Political Orientation: The Mediating Role of Authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences32 (4): 603–610.
13.
CofféHMichelsA (2014) Education and Support for Representative, Direct and Stealth Democracy. Electoral Studies35 (1): 1–11.
14.
CohenJ (1997) Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy. In: BohmanJRehgW (eds) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.407–438.
15.
CondraMB (1992) The Link between Need for Cognition and Political Interest, Involvement, and Media Usage. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior29 (3–4): 13–18.
16.
ConnollyWE (1993 [1974]) The Terms of Political Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
17.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
DaltonRJ (1999) Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
DaltonRJ (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
DaltonRJBürklinWDrummondA (2001) Public Opinion and Direct Democracy. Journal of Democracy12 (4): 141–153.
21.
DinesenPTNørgaardASKlemmensenR (2014) The Civic Personality: Personality and Democratic Citizenship. Political Studies62 (S1): 134–152.
DryzekJSBerejikianJ (1993) Reconstructive Democratic Theory. American Political Science Review87 (1): 48–60.
24.
EastonD (1967) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley.
25.
EstlundD (1990) Democracy without Preference. The Philosophical Review99 (3) 376–424.
26.
FerrinMKriesiH (2016) How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
FontJAlacronP (2011) The Role of Personality in the Explanation of Preferences for Democratic Processes. In: Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey. Paper presented at the AECPA Conference, 7–9 September 2011, Murcia.
28.
FontJWojcieszakMNavarroCJ (2015) Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes. Political Studies63 (S1): 153–172.
29.
FuchsD (1999) The Democratic Culture of Unified Germany. In: NorrisP (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.123–145.
30.
FuchsDRollerE (2006) Learned Democracy? Support of Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. International Journal of Sociology36 (3): 70–96.
31.
GerberASHuberGADohertyDet al. (2011) Personality traits and participation in political processes. The Journal of Politics73 (03): 692–706.
32.
GESIS (2017) GESIS Panel – Standard Edition (GESIS Data Archive, ZA5665 Data file, version 17.0.0). Cologne: GESIS.
33.
HabermasJ (1996) Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
34.
HartHLA (2012 [1961]) The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
HibbingJRTheiss-MorseE (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
KiewietdeJongeCP (2013) Political Learning and Democratic Commitment in New Democracies. PhD Thesis, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.
37.
LandwehrC (2015) Democratic Meta-Deliberation: Towards Reflective Institutional Design. Political Studies63 (S1): 38–54.
38.
LuhmannN (1983) Legitimation durch Verfahren. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
39.
MajoneG (1996) Temporal Consistency and Policy Credibility: Why Democracies Need Non-Majoritarian Institutions. Robert Schumann Centre Working Paper, 96(57). Florence: European Union Institute.
40.
MuddeCKaltwasserCR (2012) Populism and (Liberal) Democracy: A Framework for Analysis. In: MuddeCKaltwasserCR (eds) Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or Corrective for Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1–26.
41.
NorrisP (1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OlsonM (1982) The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation and Social Rigidities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
RawlsJ (1999 [1971]) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
45.
RossetJGigerNBernauerJ (2016) I the People? Self-Interest and Demand for Government Responsiveness. Comparative Political Studies. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015621078 (accessed 17 August 2017).
46.
SackBC (2016) Regime Change and the Convergence of Democratic Value Orientations through Socialisation: Evidence from Reunited Germany. Democratisation24 (3): 444–462.
47.
SchäferA (2013) Liberalisation, Inequality and Democracy’s Discontent. In: SchäferAStreeckW (eds) Politics in the Age of Austerity. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.169–195.
48.
SchoenHSchumannS (2007) Personality traits, partisan attitudes, and voting behavior. Evidence from Germany. Political Psychology28 (4): 471–498.
49.
SpruytBKeppensGVan DroogenbroeckF (2016) Who Supports Populism and What Attracts People to It?Political Research Quarterly69 (2): 335–346.
50.
WarrenMEPearseH (2008) Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
WebbP (2013) Who Is Willing to Participate? Dissatisfied Democrats, Stealth Democrats and Populists in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Political Research52 (6): 747–772.
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.
