Periodic Reporting for period 4 - NEW_DEMOCRACY (Meeting Great Expectations Through Democratic Innovations)
Período documentado: 2023-11-01 hasta 2024-10-31
All across Europe democratic political systems are confronted with a citizenry that questions the democratic legitimacy of their political system. Widespread distrust in political actors and institutions, declining electoral
turnout and the popularity of populist and anti-establishment candidates and parties are just a few indications of this societal challenge. Interestingly, this discontent is by no means paralleled by eroding support for
democratic principles as this support is stronger than ever before. Therefore, several scholars interpreted this discontent as a demand for democratic innovation and pointed to citizen involvement in the political decisionmaking
process as a potential solution to address this democratic legitimacy deficit.
The key objective of this project was to study in depth whether, and if so how, citizen involvement in the political decision-making process affects democratic legitimacy. In a first step, citizens’ expectations for participatory
and deliberative procedures were studied. Obtaining reliable knowledge on whether citizens want these procedures, and if so, what is driving this demand is crucial. It allows to assess whether democratic innovations
have the potential to alleviate the democratic legitimacy deficit, and how these should be designed. To this end, large-scale cross-national surveys in over 20 European countries was triangulated with qualitative
interviews and novel survey data. In a second step, the effect of these participatory and deliberative procedures on democratic legitimacy was studied. The focus is on democratic legitimacy as it is perceived by citizens (e.g. citizens’ political trust, losers’ consent). To address the question of effects, observational data was gathered using (panel) surveys and experiments. As a result, this project generates new fundamental knowledge on whether and how democratic innovations strengthen democratic legitimacy.
turnout and the popularity of populist and anti-establishment candidates and parties are just a few indications of this societal challenge. Interestingly, this discontent is by no means paralleled by eroding support for
democratic principles as this support is stronger than ever before. Therefore, several scholars interpreted this discontent as a demand for democratic innovation and pointed to citizen involvement in the political decisionmaking
process as a potential solution to address this democratic legitimacy deficit.
The key objective of this project was to study in depth whether, and if so how, citizen involvement in the political decision-making process affects democratic legitimacy. In a first step, citizens’ expectations for participatory
and deliberative procedures were studied. Obtaining reliable knowledge on whether citizens want these procedures, and if so, what is driving this demand is crucial. It allows to assess whether democratic innovations
have the potential to alleviate the democratic legitimacy deficit, and how these should be designed. To this end, large-scale cross-national surveys in over 20 European countries was triangulated with qualitative
interviews and novel survey data. In a second step, the effect of these participatory and deliberative procedures on democratic legitimacy was studied. The focus is on democratic legitimacy as it is perceived by citizens (e.g. citizens’ political trust, losers’ consent). To address the question of effects, observational data was gathered using (panel) surveys and experiments. As a result, this project generates new fundamental knowledge on whether and how democratic innovations strengthen democratic legitimacy.
To gain insight into support for participatory and deliberative procedures, we analysed existing and developed novel survey questions. We conducted qualitative laddering interviews in the context of participatory budgeting processes in different trust contexts. Previous studies often surveyed individuals’ opinions about different competing models of democracy (“representative” vs. “direct” vs “deliberative” models) which often include the replacing of representatives. We developed and fielded survey questions that study participatory procedures as additions to representative democracy rather than replacements. We gathered insight into public support for participatory and deliberative processes. Support for direct democratic instruments (e.g. a referendum) is generally higher than deliberative instruments (e.g. a citizen assembly). Support is an attitude with a stable core and a dynamic component that reacts to the environment e.g. context, issue, … . While this stable part has been well-explained, the dynamic part was understudied. We moved away from model thinking (i.e. representative/deliberative/direct/.. democratic models as competition and people supporting one or another) and refocused on the problems people see and that processes try to address and when to use which process and in which combinations. The results of these studies were published in the European Journal of Political Research and the British Journal of Political Research (e.g. Werner, Felicetti & Marien 2020; Van Dijk, Werner, Marien, forthcoming; Werner & Jacobs, 2022; Werner 2020).
To gain insight into the effect of participatory and deliberative procedures on perceived democratic legitimacy, we conducted panel studies and experiments. We reflected extensively on the contributions and challenges connected to experimental methods in this field (Muradova 2020; Werner & Muradova, 2022). The results of these studies were published amongst others in the European Journal of Political Research, European Political Science Review, British Journal of Political Research, Political Studies, Electoral Studies (e.g. Dryzek et al 2019; Kern, Marien, Muradova forthcoming, Elkink et al 2020; Muradova & Arceneaux 2022; Muradova 2020; Pow, van Dijk, Marien 2020; Werner & Marien 2020; Werner & Jacobs 2022; van Dijk & Lefevere 2022).
To gain insight into the effect of participatory and deliberative procedures on perceived democratic legitimacy, we conducted panel studies and experiments. We reflected extensively on the contributions and challenges connected to experimental methods in this field (Muradova 2020; Werner & Muradova, 2022). The results of these studies were published amongst others in the European Journal of Political Research, European Political Science Review, British Journal of Political Research, Political Studies, Electoral Studies (e.g. Dryzek et al 2019; Kern, Marien, Muradova forthcoming, Elkink et al 2020; Muradova & Arceneaux 2022; Muradova 2020; Pow, van Dijk, Marien 2020; Werner & Marien 2020; Werner & Jacobs 2022; van Dijk & Lefevere 2022).
Two research questions guided the project “Is there a societal demand for participatory and deliberative procedures? (RQ1)” and “Can participatory and deliberative procedures increase perceived democratic legitimacy? (RQ2)” We conducted (panel) surveys, experiments and qualitative interviews.
By studying the societal demand for participatory democratic innovation such as participatory budgeting, referendums and deliberative minipublics, using a novel bottom-up citizen perceptive, we were able to break new ground in several ways. We introduced new explanations to better understand public opinion on these procedures, such as the anticipated outcome of a specific process. Using a problem-based model, we theorized and empirically showed the different problems different people perceive in democracies today and how their evaluation of the ability of specific procedures to address these problems shapes their process preferences and the potential of these processes to tackle dissatisfaction with politics. Results reveal for instance the public is not overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the problem-solving potential of deliberative procedures, and they believe they are better suited to address some problems (listening to citizens) than others (efficiency). We also showed people hold different opinions towards different processes, for instance some referendums are more supported than other referendums, and developed an explanatory model.
We developed an evaluation framework to better assess the effect of participatory and deliberative procedures. Rather than studying the effect of participatory processes in isolation, we argue that we should compare the effect of participatory processes to the status quo of representative decision-making. They do not need to be perfect, but they need to be better than what we have i.e. do these procedures generate higher legitimacy perceptions? Second, rather than comparing outcome to process effects, we argue it is more useful to zoom in on the reactions of decision losers to representative and participatory procedures. Do they perceive a decision-making processes as more legitimate when a participatory process was used? (See Werner and Marien 2020 in the British Journal of Political Science). Furthermore, we shed light on the conditions under which participatory and deliberative procedures boost or undermine legitimacy perceptions (e.g. consequentiality, repeated loss, inclusivity) and offer insights into how to obtain loser’s consent. As a result, this project generates novel fundamental knowledge on whether and how democratic innovations strengthen democratic legitimacy.
By studying the societal demand for participatory democratic innovation such as participatory budgeting, referendums and deliberative minipublics, using a novel bottom-up citizen perceptive, we were able to break new ground in several ways. We introduced new explanations to better understand public opinion on these procedures, such as the anticipated outcome of a specific process. Using a problem-based model, we theorized and empirically showed the different problems different people perceive in democracies today and how their evaluation of the ability of specific procedures to address these problems shapes their process preferences and the potential of these processes to tackle dissatisfaction with politics. Results reveal for instance the public is not overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the problem-solving potential of deliberative procedures, and they believe they are better suited to address some problems (listening to citizens) than others (efficiency). We also showed people hold different opinions towards different processes, for instance some referendums are more supported than other referendums, and developed an explanatory model.
We developed an evaluation framework to better assess the effect of participatory and deliberative procedures. Rather than studying the effect of participatory processes in isolation, we argue that we should compare the effect of participatory processes to the status quo of representative decision-making. They do not need to be perfect, but they need to be better than what we have i.e. do these procedures generate higher legitimacy perceptions? Second, rather than comparing outcome to process effects, we argue it is more useful to zoom in on the reactions of decision losers to representative and participatory procedures. Do they perceive a decision-making processes as more legitimate when a participatory process was used? (See Werner and Marien 2020 in the British Journal of Political Science). Furthermore, we shed light on the conditions under which participatory and deliberative procedures boost or undermine legitimacy perceptions (e.g. consequentiality, repeated loss, inclusivity) and offer insights into how to obtain loser’s consent. As a result, this project generates novel fundamental knowledge on whether and how democratic innovations strengthen democratic legitimacy.