A variety of factors affect citizens’ satisfaction with democracy. Based on Turkey’s political and economic context, as well as the existing literature, this study investigates the effect of four factors on people’s satisfaction with democracy in Turkey: citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy, being a political winner, citizens’ perceptions of electoral integrity, and ethnic identity. Regression analysis of a nationally representative survey reveals that political losers and those with negative perceptions of electoral integrity are less satisfied with democracy in Turkey, while people’s conceptualizations of democracy and ethnic identity do not have an effect on satisfaction with democracy. We conclude that, in Turkey, political polarization and negative perceptions of electoral integrity trigger a decline in citizens’ satisfaction with democracy, which requires the attention of policymakers.
AartsKThomassenJ (2008) Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter?Electoral Studies27(1): 5–18.
2.
AkboğaSŞahinO (2018) Perceptions of democracy in Turkey: Gender, ethnic, and religious dynamics. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society57(1): 1–28.
3.
AkkoyunluK (2017) Electoral integrity in Turkey: From tutelary democracy to competitive authoritarianism. In: BaşerBÖztürkAE (eds) Authoritarian Politics in Turkey: Elections, Resistance, and the AKP. London: I. B. Tauris, pp.47–63.
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.
6.
AndersonCJLoTempioAJ (2002) Winning, losing and political trust in America. British Journal of Political Science32(2): 335–351.
7.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerSDonovanTListhaugO (2005) Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
AppaduraiA (2017) Democracy fatigue. In: GeiselbergerH (ed.) The Great Regression. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, pp.1–12.
9.
ArielyG (2015) Democracy-assessment in cross-national surveys: A critical examination of how people evaluate their regime. Social Indicators Research121(3): 621–635.
10.
Aydın-DüzgitSBaltaE (2019) When elites polarize over polarization: Framing the polarization debate in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey59(1): 153–176.
11.
AygülC (2016) Electoral manipulation in March 30, 2014 Turkish local elections. Turkish Studies17(1): 181–201.
12.
AytaçESÇarkoğluAYıldırımK (2017) Taking sides: Determinants of support for a presidential system in Turkey. South European Society and Politics22(1): 1–20.
13.
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.
14.
BaviskarSMaloneMFT (2004) What democracy means to citizens: And why it matters. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe76: 3–23.
15.
BirchS (2012) Electoral Malpractice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
BlaisAGélineauF (2007) Winning, losing and satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies55(2): 425–441.
17.
BrattonMMattesR (2001) Support for democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or instrumental?British Journal of Political Science31(3): 447–474.
18.
CanacheD (2012) Citizens’ conceptualizations of democracy: Structural complexity, substantive content, and political significance. Comparative Political Studies45(9): 1132–1158.
ErdoganE (2016) Turkey: Divided We Stand. Washington, DC: German Marshall Fund.
28.
FerrinMKriesiH (2016) Introduction. In: FerrinMKriesiH (eds) How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1–21.
29.
Fortin-RittbergerJHarfstPDinglerSC (2017) The costs of electoral fraud: Establishing the link between electoral integrity, winning an election, and satisfaction with democracy. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties27(3): 350–368.
FukuyamaF (2015) Why is democracy performing so poorly?Journal of Democracy26(1): 11–20.
32.
GarnettHA (2019) On the front lines of democracy: Perceptions of electoral officials and democratic elections. Democratization26(8): 1399–1418.
33.
GoldV (2012) Partitioning ethnic groups and their members: Explaining variations on satisfaction with democracy in Africa. Peace Economics Peace Science and Public Policy18(3): 1–13.
34.
GöralÖSIşıkAKayaÖ (2013) The Unspoken Truth: Enforced Disappearances. Istanbul: Truth Justice Memory Center.
35.
HendersonA (2008) Satisfaction with democracy: The impact of winning and losing in Westminster systems. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties18(1): 3–26.
36.
HuangMChuYChangY (2013) Popular understanding of democracy and regime legitimacy. Taiwan Journal of Democracy9(1): 14771.
KarpJABanducciSABowlerS (2003) To know it is to love it? Satisfaction with democracy in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies22(3): 1–22.
39.
KimM (2009) Cross-national analyses of satisfaction with democracy and ideological congruence. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties19(1): 49–72.
40.
KornbergAClarkeHD (1994) Beliefs about democracy and satisfaction with democratic government: The Canadian case. Political Research Quarterly47(3): 537–563.
41.
KumlinSEsaiassonP (2012) Scandal fatigue? Scandal elections and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe, 1977–2007. British Journal of Political Science42(2): 263–282.
42.
LindeJEkmanJ (2003) Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research42(3): 391–408.
43.
LuJ (2013) Democratic conceptions in East Asian societies: A contextualized analysis. Taiwan Journal of Democracy9(1): 117–145.
44.
LuJShiT (2015) The battle of ideas and discourses before democratic transition: Different democratic conceptions in authoritarian China. International Political Science Review36(1): 20–41.
45.
McAllisterIWhiteS (2015) Electoral integrity and support for democracy in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties25(1): 78–96.
46.
McCoyJRahmanTSomerM (2018) Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic politics. American Behavioral Scientist62(1): 16–42.
47.
MillerAHHesliVLReisingerWM (1997) Conceptions of democracy among mass and elite in post-Soviet societies. British Journal of Political Science27(2): 157–190.
48.
MounkY (2018) The People vs. Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
NadeauRBlaisA (1993) Accepting the election outcome: The effect of participation on losers’ consent. British Journal of Political Science23(4): 553–563.
50.
NorrisP (2000) Democratic divide? The impact of the internet on parliaments worldwide. Paper presented at the American political science association annual meeting, Washington, DC, 31 August–1 September.
51.
NorrisP (2014) Why Electoral Integrity Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
NorrisP (2019) Do perceptions of electoral malpractice undermine democratic satisfaction? The US in comparative perspective. International Political Science Review40(1): 5–22.
53.
NorrisPComaFMGrompingM (2015) The world’s flawed and failed contests: The year in elections, 2014 (The electoral integrity project). Available at: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications (accessed October 2019).
54.
NorrisPComaFMNaiAGrompingM (2016) The Year in Elections 2015. Sydney, NSW, Australia: University of Sydney.
55.
OECD (2017) Republic of Turkey constitutional referendum. OSCE/ODIHR limited referendum observation mission final report. Avaliable at:http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/turkey/324816 (accessed September 2019).
56.
ÖrselliE (2016) Türkiye’de Yargıya Güven [Trust in Judiciary in Turkey]. Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi.
PrzeworskiA (2004) Democracy and economic development. In: MansfieldEDSissonR (eds) Political Science and the Public Interest. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, pp.300–325.
60.
ReherS (2015) Explaining cross-national variation in the relationship between priority congruence and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research54(1): 160–181.
61.
RichTS (2015) Losers’ consent or non-voter consent? Satisfaction with democracy in east Asia. Asian Journal of Political Science23(3): 243–259.
62.
Ruiz-RufinoR (2013) Satisfaction with democracy in multi-ethnic countries: The effect of representative political institutions on ethnic minorities. Political Studies61(1): 101–118.
63.
SahinOAkbogaS (2019) Ethnic identity and perceptions of the police in Turkey: The case of Kurds and Turks. Policing and Society29(8): 985–1000.
64.
SchumpeterJA (2003) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London; New York: Routledge.
65.
ShinDCChoY (2010) How east Asians understand democracy from a comparative perspective. ASIEN116: 21–40.
66.
SinghSKarakoçEBlaisA (2012) Differentiating winners: How elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies31(1): 201–211.
67.
SomerM (2019) Turkey: The slippery slope from reformist to revolutionary polarization and democratic breakdown. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science681(1): 42–61.
68.
StebeJ (2012) Support for democracy and meanings for democracy: Equality and freedom. Teorija in Praksa49(3): 516–543.
69.
StocktonH (2006) Partisanship, ethnic identification, and citizen attitudes toward regime and government on Taiwan. Journal of Contemporary China15(49): 705–721.
70.
SzymanskiAUfelW (2018) Beyond vote rigging: Common patterns in de-democratizing regimes. Polish Political Science Yearbook47(4): 593–617.
71.
TesslerMJamalARobbinsM (2012) New findings on Arabs and democracy. Journal of Democracy23(4): 89–103.
WagnerASchneiderFHallaM (2009) The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in western Europe: A panel analysis. European Journal of Political Economy25(1): 30–41.
