The Meanings of Democracy among Mass Publics
- PDF / 8,344,696 Bytes
- 73 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 58 Downloads / 188 Views
The Meanings of Democracy among Mass Publics Nicholas T. Davis1 · Kirby Goidel2 · Yikai Zhao3 Accepted: 10 October 2020 © Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract In this paper, we illustrate that composite views about democracy vary significantly within and across national populations. Using World Values Survey data, we use latent class analysis to demonstrate that composite views of democracy display only modest consensus across country contexts. Although the features of procedural democracy are widely viewed as a cornerstone of democracy, their perceived importance and the way that they interact with substantive features varies considerably across and within democratic countries. These findings encourage caution when analyzing cross-national mass opinion about democracy. In particular, latent variable modeling using pooled survey data should pay careful attention to the unique permutations that democracy takes in the minds of citizens. Keywords Democracy · Latent class analysis · Public opinion
1 Introduction Perhaps no question has animated contemporary political science more than how (and whether) citizens understand democracy. Historically, democracy is linked to self-determination and the “consent of the governed” (Sabine 1937). Yet, the shape that such consent takes remains contested, while the word “democracy” remains intentionally ambiguous in its public use and subject to scholarly dispute (Prothro and Grigg 1960).
Paper presented previously at the 2019 annual meeting of the European Political Science Association in Belfast, Ireland, June 20–22, 2019. We would like to thank Abraham Ritov and Katherin Ackermann for their helpful comments. Any remaining errors are the fault of the authors. * Kirby Goidel [email protected] Nicholas T. Davis [email protected] Yikai Zhao [email protected] 1
Department of Political Science, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
2
Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843‑4348, USA
3
Department of Communication, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843‑4234, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
N. T. Davis et al.
One common attempt to categorize the meanings of democracy involves accounting for its production of political goods, a blend of institutional outputs, priorities, and structures (Pennock 1966; Almond et al. 2004).1 “Minimalist” definitions emphasize voting, majority rule, and competitive elections with the consent of the governed rooted in the selection of competing elites (Schumpeter 1942; Dahl 1971). In minimal democracies, the public interest is theoretically secured by elite calculations that one set of ruling elites will some day be replaced another (Przeworski 1999). Substantive and deliberative democratic theorists, in contrast, include not just the consent of the governed but also condition what democratic processes must look like and what democratic outcomes must achieve. Democratic processes must be deliberative or participatory (Habermas 1989; Pateman 2012) and democratic outcomes must be democra
Data Loading...
