Voters usually differ in their assessment of the regime’s legitimacy, depending on their status as winners or losers. However, how wide or narrow the winner–loser gap is also depends on the quality of democratic institutions. Using survey data from 18 Latin American countries, this research provides evidence that winners and losers respond differently to the quality of democracy. While most research is concerned with the losers’ consent, this study shows that the winners express more favorable assessments of the supply of freedoms, even in regimes where democracy is weak or undermined by the deliberate efforts of the political authorities. Instead, in their perception of freedoms, losers are more willing to acknowledge if the quality of democracy improves or declines. These results suggest that the potential consequences of the winner–loser gap for regime stability are highly dependent on the democratic attributes of the political context.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems. The American Political Science Review91 (1): 66–81.
2.
AndersonCJLoTempioAJ (2002) Winning, Losing and Political Trust in America. British Journal of Political Science32 (2): 335–351.
3.
AndersonCJTverdovaYV (2001) Winners, Losers, and Attitudes about Government in Contemporary Democracies. International Political Science Review22 (4): 321–338.
4.
AndersonCJTverdovaYV (2003) Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes toward Government in Contemporary Democracies. American Journal of Political Science47 (1): 91–109.
5.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerS, et al. (2005) Loser’s Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
AvritzerL (2017) The Rousseff Impeachment and the Crisis of Democracy in Brazil. Critical Policy Studies11 (3): 352–357.
7.
BanducciSAKarpJA (2003) How Elections Change the Way Citizens View the Political System: Campaigns, Media Effects and Electoral Outcomes in Comparative Perspective. British Journal of Political Science33 (3): 443–467.
8.
BeethamD (2013) The Legitimation of Power. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
BlaisAGélineauF (2007) Winning, Losing and Satisfaction with Democracy. Political Studies55 (2): 425–441.
10.
BlaisAMorin-ChasséASinghSP (2017) Election Outcomes, Legislative Representation, and Satisfaction with Democracy. Party Politics23 (2): 85–95.
11.
BowlerSDonovanT (2007) Reasoning About Institutional Change: Winners, Losers and Support for Electoral Reforms. British Journal of Political Science37 (3): 455–476.
12.
CeobanuAMWoodCHRibeiroL (2010) Crime Victimization and Public Support for Democracy: Evidence from Latin America. International Journal of Public Opinion Research23 (1): 56–78.
13.
ChristmannP (2018) Economic Performance, Quality of Democracy and Satisfaction with Democracy. Electoral Studies53: 79–89.
CoppedgeMLindbergSSkaaningS-E, et al. (2016) Measuring High Level Democratic Principles Using the V-Dem Data. International Political Science Review37 (5): 580–593.
17.
CórdovaA (2009) Methodological Note: Measuring Relative Wealth Using Household Asset Indicators. In: ProjectLAPO (ed.) Americas Barometer Insights Series No. I0806. Available at: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/I0806en_v2.pdf
18.
CuriniLJouWMemoliV (2012) Satisfaction with Democracy and the Winner/Loser Debate: The Role of Policy Preferences and Past Experience. British Journal of Political Science42 (2): 241–261.
19.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
DahlRA (1989) Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
DahlbergSHolmbergS (2014) Democracy and Bureaucracy: How Their Quality Matters for Popular Satisfaction. West European Politics37 (3): 515–537.
22.
DahlbergSLindeJ (2016) Losing Happily? The Mitigating Effect of Democracy and Quality of Government on the Winner–Loser Gap in Political Support. International Journal of Public Administration39 (9): 652–664.
23.
DiamondL (1999) Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
24.
EsaiassonP (2011) Electoral Losers Revisited—How Citizens React to Defeat at the Ballot Box. Electoral Studies30 (1): 102–113.
25.
FoaRSMounkY (2017) The Signs of Deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy28 (1): 5–15.
26.
FuchsDRollerE (2018) Conceptualizing and Measuring the Quality of Democracy: The Citizens’ Perspective. Politics and Governance6 (1): 22–32.
27.
HanSMChangECC (2016) Economic Inequality, Winner-Loser Gap, and Satisfaction with Democracy. Electoral Studies44: 85–97.
28.
HoxJJMoerbeekMvan de SchootR (2018) Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. New York: Routlegde.
29.
KlingemannH-D (2014) Dissatisfied Democrats: Democratic Maturation in Old and New Democracies. In: DaltonRJWelzelC (eds) The Civic Culture Transformed: From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.116–157.
30.
LelkesY (2016) Winners, Losers, and the Press: The Relationship between Political Parallelism and the Legitimacy Gap. Political Communication33 (4): 523–543.
31.
LevitskyS (2018) Latin America’s Shifting Politics: Democratic Survival and Weakness. Journal of Democracy29 (4): 102–113.
32.
LevitskySLoxtonJ (2013) Populism and Competitive Authoritarianism in the Andes. Democratization20 (1): 107–136.
33.
LevitskySWayLA (2010) Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
LinzJJStephanA (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
35.
LühisteK (2013) Social Protection and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Multi-Level Analysis. Political Studies62 (4): 784–803.
36.
MagalhãesPC (2014) Government Effectiveness and Support for Democracy. European Journal of Political Research53 (1): 77–97.
37.
MagalhãesPC (2016) Economic Evaluations, Procedural Fairness, and Satisfaction with Democracy. Political Research Quarterly69 (3): 522–534.
38.
MainwaringS (2012) From Representative Democracy to Participatory Competitive Authoritarianism: Hugo Chávez and Venezuelan Politics. Perspectives on Politics10 (4): 955–967.
39.
MainwaringSPérez-LiñánA (2015) Cross-Currents in Latin America. Journal of Democracy26 (1): 114–127.
40.
ManinBPrzeworskiAStokesS (1999) Elections and Representation. In: PrzeworskiAStokesSManinB (eds) Democracy, Accountability and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.29–55.
41.
MartiniSQuarantaM (2019) Political Support among Winners and Losers: Within- and Between-Country Effects of Structure, Process and Performance in Europe. European Journal of Political Research58 (1): 341–361.
42.
MayneQGeißelB (2018) Don’t Good Democracies Need “Good” Citizens? Citizen Dispositions and the Study of Democratic Quality. Politics and Governance6 (1): 33–47.
43.
MoehlerDC (2009) Critical Citizens and Submissive Subjects: Election Losers and Winners in Africa. British Journal of Political Science39 (2): 345–366.
44.
MoehlerDCLindbergSI (2009) Narrowing the Legitimacy Gap: Turnovers as a Cause of Democratic Consolidation. The Journal of Politics71 (4): 1448–1466.
45.
NadeauRBlaisA (1993) Accepting the Election Outcome: The Effect of Participation on Losers’ Consent. British Journal of Political Science23 (4): 553–563.
46.
NadeauRBélangerÉAtikcanEÖ (2019) Emotions, Cognitions and Moderation: Understanding Losers’ Consent in the 2016 Brexit Referendum. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. Epub ahead of print 12April. DOI: 10.1080/17457289.2019.1604528.
NunesFMeloCR (2017) Impeachment, Political Crisis and Democracy in Brazil. Revista de Ciencia Política37 (2): 281–304.
49.
Pérez-LiñánAMainwaringS (2013) Regime Legacies and Levels of Democracy: Evidence from Latin America. Comparative Politics45 (4): 379–397.
50.
PickelSBreustedtWSmolkaT (2016) Measuring the Quality of Democracy: Why Include the Citizens’ Perspective?International Political Science Review37 (5): 645–655.
51.
PrzeworskiA (2005) Democracy as an Equilibrium. Public Choice123 (3–4): 253–273.
52.
QuarantaM (2018) How Citizens Evaluate Democracy: An Assessment Using the European Social Survey. European Political Science Review10 (2): 191–217.
53.
RichTS (2015) Losers’ Consent or Non-Voter Consent? Satisfaction with Democracy in East Asia. Asian Journal of Political Science23 (3): 243–259.
54.
SamuelsDJShugartMS (2010) Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
SingerM (2018) Delegating Away Democracy: How Good Representation and Policy Successes Can Undermine Democratic Legitimacy. Comparative Political Studies51 (13): 1754–1788.
56.
SinghSKarakoçEBlaisA (2012) Differentiating Winners: How Elections Affect Satisfaction with Democracy. Electoral Studies31 (1): 201–211.
57.
TeorellJCoppedgeMLindbergS, et al. (2019) Measuring Polyarchy Across the Globe, 1900–2017. Studies in Comparative International Development54 (1): 71–95.
58.
WagnerAFSchneiderFHallaM (2009) The Quality of Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy in Western Europe—A Panel Analysis. European Journal of Political Economy25 (1): 30–41.
59.
WarrenM (2014) Accountability and Democracy. In: BovensMGoodinRSchillemansT (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.39–54.
60.
WeylandK (2013) The Threat from the Populist Left. Journal of Democracy24 (3): 18–32.
61.
ZechmeisterEJ (2017) The Supply of Basic Liberties in the Americas. In: CohenMJLupuNZechmeisterEJ (eds) The Political Culture of Democracy in the Americas, 2016/2017. Vanderbilt, TE: USAID, Vanderbilt University, LAPOP-Americas Barometer, pp.27–47.
62.
ZmerliSNewtonK (2008) Social Trust and Attitudes Toward Democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly72 (4): 706–724.
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.
