Recent research on citizen process preferences has highlighted three different models of decision making: representation, participation and stealth democracy. However, the meanings of the two alternatives to the prevailing representative model have not been fully explored. What do citizens have in mind when distinguishing between participatory and stealth models of democracy? Using survey data from several Western European countries, the article explores one distinction within preferences for each of the models: the preference for more referendum-based versus dynamic responsiveness-based solutions on the participatory side and for expert-based versus business-based solutions on the stealth side. The article ends by exploring the impact of left-right ideology and education upon these preferences. The explanatory power of the variables is greater for understanding the internal distinction of the stealth model than the participatory one.
AllenNBirchS (2015) Process preferences and British public opinion: Citizens’ judgements about government in an era of anti-politics. Political Studies63(2): 390–411.
2.
AndersonCGoodyear-GrantE (2010) Why are highly informed citizens sceptical of referenda?Electoral Studies29(2): 227–238.
3.
ArnoldCFranklinMN (2012) Introduction: Issue congruence and political responsiveness. West European Politics35(6): 1217–1225.
4.
BaiocchiGGanuzaE (2016) Popular Democracy: The Paradox of Participation. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
5.
BengtssonA (2012) Citizens’ perceptions of political processes: A critical evaluation of preference consistency and survey items. Revista Internacional De Sociología70: 45–64.
6.
BengtssonAChristensenH (2014) Ideals and actions: Do citizens’ patterns of political participation correspond to their conceptions of democracy?Government and Opposition51(2): 234–260.
7.
BengtssonAMattilaM (2009) Direct democracy and its critics: Support for direct democracy and ‘stealth’ democracy in Finland. West European Politics32(5): 1031–1048.
8.
BengtssonAWassH (2011) The representative role of MPs: A citizen perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies34: 143–167.
9.
BertsouEPastorellaG (2015) Technocracy: A citizens’ perspective. Paper presented at the ECPR general conference, Montreal, August.
10.
BorgSGrönlundK (2011) Finnish National Election Study 2011 (dataset), Version 2.1 (2013-01-22). Tampere: Finnish Social Science Data Archive.
11.
BrunclíkM (2015) The rise of technocratic cabinets: What we know, and what we should like to know. Austrian Journal of Political Science44(3): 57–67.
12.
CarmanCJ (2006) Public preferences for parliamentary representation in the UK: An overlooked link?Political Studies54: 103–122.
13.
CloseCKelbelCVan hauteE (2017) What citizens want in terms of intra-party democracy: Popular attitude towards alternative candidate selection procedures. Political Studies47(4): 641–658.
14.
CofféHMichelsA (2014) Education and support for representative, direct and stealth democracy. Electoral Studies35: 1–11.
15.
CollingwoodL (2012) Levels of education and support for direct democracy. American Politics Research40(4): 571–602.
16.
DaltonRJ (2007) Partisan mobilization, cognitive mobilization and the changing American electorate. Electoral Studies26(2): 274–286.
17.
Del RíoANavarroCJFontJ (2016) Ciudadanía, políticos y expertos en la toma de decisiones políticas: la percepción de las cualidades de los actores políticos important [Citizens, Politicians and Experts in Political Decision-Making: The Importance of Perceptions of the Qualities of Political Actors]. Reis154: 83–102.
18.
ESS Round 6: European Social Survey Round 6 Data (2012) Data File Edition 2.2 (NSD-Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC). London: ESS.
19.
FerrinMKriesiH (2016) How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
FontJWojcieszakMNavarroCJ (2015) Participation, representation and expertise: Citizen preferences for political decision-making processes. Political Studies63: 153–172.
21.
FoxJAndersenR (2006) Effect displays for multinomial and proportional-odds logit models. Sociological Methodology36(1): 225–255.
GanglA (2007) Examining citizens’ beliefs that government should run like business. Public Opinion Quarterly71(4): 661–670.
24.
GherghinaSGeisselB (2017): Linking democratic preferences and political participation: Evidence from Germany. Political Studies. 65(1S): 24–42.
25.
HibbingJRTheiss -MorseE (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
KitscheltH (1988) Left-libertarian parties: Explaining innovation in competitive party systems. World Politics4(2): 194–234.
27.
KlingemannHD (2014) Dissatisfied democrats: Evidence from old and new democracies. In: DaltonRWelzelC (eds) The Civic Culture Transformed: From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.116–157.
28.
LavezzoloSRamiroL (2017) Stealth democracy and the support for new and challenger parties. European Political Science Review. Epub ahead of print 4May. DOI: 10.1017/S1755773917000108.
29.
LequesneCRivaudP (2003) The committees of independent experts: Expertise in the service of democracy?Journal of European Public Policy10(5): 695–709.
30.
McDonnellDValbruzziM (2014) Defining and classifying technocrat-led and technocratic governments. European Journal of Political Research53(4): 654–671.
31.
RapeliL (2016) Public support for expert decision-making: Evidence from Finland. Politics36(2): 142–152.
32.
RieraPFranklinM (2016) Types of liberal democracy and generational shifts: How citizens’ views of democracy differ across generational cohorts. In: FerrínMKriesiH (eds) How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.111–129.
33.
RossLGreeneDHouseP (1977) The ‘false consensus effect’: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology13(3): 279–301.
34.
SchoultzA (2015) The ideological foundation of citizens preferences for political decision-making processes. Paper presented at the ECPR joint sessions of workshops, Warsaw, 29 March–2 April.
35.
SmithG (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
StokerGHayC (2012) Comparing folk theories of democratic politics: Stealth and sunshine. Paper presented at political studies association conference, Belfast, 3–5 April.
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.
