Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T09:58:05.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Support for Deliberative mini-Publics among the Losers of Representative Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2023

Jean-Benoit Pilet Open the ORCID record for Jean-Benoit Pilet [Opens in a new window] ,
Camille Bedock Open the ORCID record for Camille Bedock [Opens in a new window] ,
David Talukder Open the ORCID record for David Talukder [Opens in a new window]  and
Sacha Rangoni
Jean-Benoit Pilet*
Affiliation:
CEVIPOL, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
Camille Bedock
Affiliation:
CNRS, Sciences Po Bordeaux, Bordeux, France
David Talukder
Affiliation:
CEVIPOL, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium POLIS, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Sacha Rangoni
Affiliation:
CEVIPOL, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium
*
Corresponding author: Jean-Benoit Pilet; Email: Jean-Benoit.Pilet@ulb.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The literature on deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) establishes a link between political dissatisfaction and support for DMPs. However, little is known about the sources of political dissatisfaction that trigger this support. Our research tackles this specific question and claims that citizen dissatisfaction is rooted in a position of ‘losers of representative democracy’, which leads citizens to be more open to reforms that move away from the representative model. Building on the literature on loser's consent, we focus on the effect of voting for a party not associated with the government and of descriptive and substantive (under)-representation in support of DMPs. We rely on a comparative survey conducted across fifteen Western European countries. Supporters of opposition parties and those who are badly represented, both descriptively and substantively, are more supportive of DMPs. These findings have important implications for understanding the public appeal for deliberative democracy instruments.

Keywords

deliberative mini-publics (DMPs)deliberative democracysortitionrepresentative democracylosers
Type
Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 2024 , pp. 295 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abizadeh, A (2021) Counter-majoritarian democracy: Persistent minorities, federalism, and the power of numbers. American Political Science Review 115, 742–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, CJ et al. (2005) Losers’ Consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 240 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnesen, S and Peters, Y (2018) The legitimacy of representation: How descriptive, formal, and responsiveness representation affect the acceptability of political decisions. Comparative Political Studies 51, 868–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, LM (2018) Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 344 pp.Google Scholar
Bedock, C and Panel, S (2017) Conceptions of democracy, political representation and socio-economic well-being: Explaining how French citizens assess the degree of democracy of their regime. French Politics 15, 389–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedock, C and Pilet, J-B (2020) Enraged, engaged, or both? A study of the determinants of support for consultative vs. binding mini-publics. Representation 59, 1–21.Google Scholar
Bedock, C and Pilet, J-B (2021) Who supports citizens selected by lot to be the main policymakers? A study of French citizens. Government and Opposition 56, 485–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beiser-McGrath, LF et al. (2022) Parliament, people or technocrats? Explaining mass public preferences on delegation of policymaking authority. Comparative Political Studies 55, 527–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, Å and Christensen, HS (2016) Ideals and actions: Do citizens’ patterns of political participation correspond to their conceptions of democracy? Government and Opposition 51, 234–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, Å and Mattila, M (2009) Direct democracy and its critics: Support for direct democracy and ‘stealth’ democracy in Finland. West European Politics 32, 1031–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereni, L and Lépinard, É (2004) “Women are not a category”: The strategies of parity legitimization in France. Revue francaise de science politique 54, 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertsou, E (2022) Bring in the experts? Citizen preferences for independent experts in political decision-making processes. European Journal of Political Research 61, 255–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertsou, E and Caramani, D (2022) People haven’t had enough of experts: Technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine European democracies. American Journal of Political Science 66, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertsou, E and Pastorella, G (2017) Technocratic attitudes: A citizens’ perspective of expert decision-making. West European Politics 40, 430–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A and Gélineau, F (2007) Winning, losing and satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies 55, 425–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulianne, S (2018) Mini-publics and public opinion: Two survey-based experiments. Political Studies 66, 119–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M and Wille, A (2017) Diploma Democracy: The Rise of Political Meritocracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 248 pp.Google Scholar
Bowler, S and Donovan, T (2007) Reasoning about institutional change: Winners, losers and support for electoral reforms. British Journal of Political Science 37, 455–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S and Donovan, T (2019) Perceptions of referendums and democracy: The referendum disappointment gap. Politics and Governance 7, 227–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S, Donovan, T and Karp, JA (2007) Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies. Political Research Quarterly 60, 351–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceka, B and Magalhães, PC (2020) Do the rich and the poor have different conceptions of democracy? Socioeconomic status, inequality, and the political status quo. Comparative Politics 52, 383–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, HS (2020) How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis. European Political Science Review 12, 239–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, HS and von Schoultz, Å (2019) Ideology and deliberation: An analysis of public support for deliberative practices in Finland. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 31, 178–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, T (1994) Democratic equality and the problem of persistent minorities. Philosophical Papers 23, 169–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffé, H and Michels, A (2014) Education and support for representative, direct and stealth democracy. Electoral Studies 35, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curato, N et al. (2021) Deliberative Mini-Publics: Core Design Features. Bristol: Policy Press, 178 pp.Google Scholar
Dahl, RA (2008) Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 397 pp.Google Scholar
Dassonneville, R (2022) Voters Under Pressure: Group-Based Cross-Pressure and Electoral Volatility. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Río, A, Navarro, CJ and Font, J (2016) Citizens, politicians and experts in political decision-making: The importance of perceptions of the qualities of political actors. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociologicas 1, 83–100.Google Scholar
Elff, M et al. (2021) Multilevel analysis with Few clusters: Improving likelihood-based methods to provide unbiased estimates and accurate inference. British Journal of Political Science 51, 412–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, C (2012) Understanding economic biases in representation: Income, resources, and policy representation in the 110th House. Political Research Quarterly 65, 938–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, L and Xezonakis, G (2011) Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies 44, 1152–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrer, B and Zingher, JN (2019) A global analysis of how losing an election affects voter satisfaction with democracy. International Political Science Review 40, 518–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferland, B (2021) Policy congruence and its impact on satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies 69, 102204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Font, J, Wojcieszak, M and Navarro, CJ (2015) Participation, representation and expertise: Citizen preferences for political decision-making processes. Political Studies 63, 153–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Espín, P and Ganuza, E (2017) Participatory skepticism: Ambivalence and conflict in popular discourses of participatory democracy. Qualitative Sociology 40, 425–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherghina, S and Geissel, B (2020) Support for direct and deliberative models of democracy in the UK: Understanding the difference. Political Research Exchange 2, 1809474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherghina, S, Mokre, M and Miscoiu, S (2021) Introduction: Democratic deliberation and under-represented groups. Political Studies Review 19, 159–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giger, N, Rosset, J and Bernauer, J (2012) The poor political representation of the poor in a comparative perspective. Representation 48, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, S (2021) Just advisory and maximally representative: A conjoint experiment on non-participants’ legitimacy perceptions of deliberative forums. Journal of Deliberative Democracy 17, 56–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, S and Bächtiger, A (2022) Catching the ‘deliberative wave’? How (disaffected) citizens assess deliberative citizen forums. British Journal of Political Science 53, 1–9.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S, Wyss, D and Bächtiger, A (2020) Deliberating or thinking (twice) about democratic preferences: What German citizens want from emocracy. Political Studies 68, 311–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, RE (2008) Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice After the Deliberative Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 326 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, JD and Newman, B (2007) The unequal representation of Latinos and Whites. The Journal of Politics 69, 1032–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, JD, Newman, B and Wolbrecht, C (2012) A gender gap in policy representation in the U.S. Congress? Legislative Studies Quarterly 37, 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, SW, Klemmensen, R and Serritzlew, S (2019) Losers lose more than winners win: Asymmetrical effects of winning and losing in elections. European Journal of Political Research 58, 1172–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, JR et al. (2023) Who do the people want to govern? Party Politics 29, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, L, Bankert, A and Davies, C (2018) Expressive versus instrumental partisanship in multiparty European systems. Political Psychology 39, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, D and Kaufmann, W (2021) The right kind of participation? The effect of a deliberative mini-public on the perceived legitimacy of public decision-making. Public Management Review 23, 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquet, V, Niessen, C and Reuchamps, M (2022) Sortition, its advocates and its critics: An empirical analysis of citizens’ and MPs’ support for random selection as a democratic reform proposal. International Political Science Review 43, 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, BE et al. (1992) The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, JH and Banda, KK (2019) Perceived ideological distance and trust in Congress. Social Science Quarterly 100, 1810–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskimaa, V, Rapeli, L and Himmelroos, S (2023) Decision-makers, advisers or educable subjects? Policymakers’ perceptions of citizen participation in a Nordic democracy. Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12762Google Scholar
Kriesi, H (2020) Is there a crisis of democracy in Europe? Politische Vierteljahresschrift 61, 237–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landwehr, C and Harms, P (2020) Preferences for referenda: Intrinsic or instrumental? Evidence from a survey experiment. Political Studies 68, 875–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, B (1997) The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Már, K and Gastil, J (2023) Do voters trust deliberative minipublics? Examining the origins and impact of legitimacy perceptions for the citizens’ initiative review. Political Behavior 45, 975–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marié, A and Talukder, D (2021) ‘Think like me, and I will trust you’: The effects of policy opinion congruence on citizens’ trust in the parliament. Politics of the Low Countries 3, 258–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Palacios, J (2017) Inclusive local governance: Normative proposals and political practices. Local Government Studies 43, 577–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayne, Q and Hakhverdian, A (2017) Ideological congruence and citizen satisfaction: Evidence from 25 advanced democracies. Comparative Political Studies 50, 822–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OCDE (2020) Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. Paris: OCDE.Google Scholar
Paulis, E et al. (2020) The POLITICIZE dataset: An inventory of Deliberative Mini-Publics (DMPs) in Europe. European Political Science 20, 541–2.Google Scholar
Peters, Y (2018) Democratic representation and political inequality: How social differences translate into differential representation. French Politics 16, 341–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Y and Ensink, SJ (2015) Differential responsiveness in Europe: The effects of preference difference and electoral participation. West European Politics 38, 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilet, J-B et al. (2022) Public support for deliberative citizens’ assemblies selected through sortition: Evidence from 15 countries. European Journal of Political Research 62, 873–902.Google Scholar
Pilet, JB (2023) Replication Data for: ‘Support for deliberative mini-publics among the losers of representative democracy’. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PEX9AR, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:EnrtDChsNlZ7zj20XHDRHA==[fileUNF]”Google Scholar
Pitkin, HF (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 323 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pow, J (2021) Mini-publics and the wider public: The perceived legitimacy of randomly selecting citizen representatives. Representation 59, 1–20.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A (2009) Conquered or granted? A history of suffrage extensions. British Journal of Political Science 39, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rangoni, S, Bedock, C and Talukder, D (2023) More competent thus more legitimate? MPs’ discourses on deliberative mini-publics. Acta Politica 58, 531–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reher, S (2018) Gender and opinion–policy congruence in Europe. European Political Science Review 10, 613–35.Google Scholar
Rojon, S and Pilet, J-B (2021) Engaged, indifferent, skeptical or critical? Disentangling attitudes towards local deliberative mini-publics in four Western European democracies. Sustainability 13, 10518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rojon, S, Rijken, AJ and Klandermans, B (2019) A survey experiment on citizens’ preferences for ‘vote–centric’ vs. ‘talk–centric’ democratic innovations with advisory vs. binding outcomes. Politics and Governance 7, 213–26.Google Scholar
Saunders, B (2010) Democracy, political equality, and majority rule. Ethics 121, 148–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, A (2012) Consequences of social inequality for democracy in western Europe. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 6, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuck, ART and de Vreese, CH (2015) Public support for referendums in Europe: A cross-national comparison in 21 countries. Electoral Studies 38, 149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, M (2017) Connecting deliberative mini-publics to representative decision making. European Journal of Political Research 56, 846–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, M and Smith, G (2018) Mini-publics and deliberative democracy. In Bächtiger, A. et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 300–314.Google Scholar
Severs, E, Celis, K and Erzeel, S (2016) Power, privilege and disadvantage: Intersectionality theory and political representation. Politics 36, 346–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S, Karakoç, E and Blais, A (2012) Differentiating winners: How elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies 31, 201–11.Google Scholar
Smith, DA, Tolbert, CJ and Keller, AM (2010) Electoral and structural losers and support for a national referendum in the U.S. Electoral Studies 29, 509–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stecker, C and Tausendpfund, M (2016) Multidimensional government-citizen congruence and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research 55, 492–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmueller, D (2013) How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches. American Journal of Political Science 57, 748–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talukder, D (2023) Challenging assumptions: Investigating measurement sensitivity in substantive representation and its effects on policy satisfaction. European Journal of Politics and Gender. https://doi.org/10.1332/251510821X16889871242153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talukder, D and Pilet, J-B (2021) Public support for deliberative democracy. A specific look at the attitudes of citizens from disadvantaged groups. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 34, 656–76.Google Scholar
Vandamme, P-É et al. (2018) Intercameral relations in a bicameral elected and sortition legislature. Politics & Society 46, 381–400.Google Scholar
van der Does, R and Kantorowicz, J (2022) Political exclusion and support for democratic innovations: Evidence from a conjoint experiment on participatory budgeting. Political Science Research and Methods 8, 1–9.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, L and Lefevere, J (2023) Can the use of minipublics backfire? Examining how policy adoption shapes the effect of minipublics on political support among the general public. European Journal of Political Research 62, 135–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vowles, J et al. (2002) Public opinion, public knowledge, and the electoral system. In Vowles, J et al. (ed.), Proportional Representation on Trial. Auckland: Auckland University Press, pp. 210–27.Google Scholar
Vrydagh, J, Devillers, S, Talukder, D, Jacquet, V and Bottin, J (2021) Les mini-publics en Belgique (2001-2018): expériences de panels citoyens délibératifs. Courrier hebdomadaire du CRISP 2477, 5–72.Google Scholar
Walsh, CD and Elkink, JA (2021) The dissatisfied and the engaged: Citizen support for citizens’ assemblies and their willingness to participate. Irish Political Studies 36, 647–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wängnerud, L (2009) Women in parliaments: Descriptive and substantive representation. Annual Review of Political Science 12, 51–69.Google Scholar
Warren, ME (2017) A problem-based approach to democratic theory. American Political Science Review 111, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, P (2013) Who is willing to participate? Dissatisfied democrats, stealth democrats and populists in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Political Research 52, 747–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, JP, Bowler, S and Lanoue, DJ (2000) Citizen opinion and constitutional choices: The case of the UK. Political Behavior 22, 241–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, H (2020) If I'll win it, I want it: The role of instrumental considerations in explaining public support for referendums. European Journal of Political Research 59, 312–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werner, H, Marien, S and Felicetti, A (2020) A problem-based approach to understanding public support for referendums. European Journal of Political Research 59, 538–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wojciechowska, M (2019) Towards intersectional democratic innovations. Political Studies 67, 895–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pilet et al. supplementary material

Pilet et al. supplementary material
Download Pilet et al. supplementary material(File)
File 3.8 MB