Linking democratic preferences and political participation: evidence from Germany

An extensive body of literature discusses the disaffection of citizens with representative democracy and highlights increasing citizens’ preferences for political decision-makers beyond elected politicians. But so far, little research has been conducted to analyse the relations between citizens’ respective preferences and their political behaviour. To address this void in the literature, our article investigates the extent to which citizens’ preferences for certain political decision-makers (politicians, citizens or expert) have an impact on their retrospective and prospective political participation. Our analysis draws on data from a survey conducted in autumn of 2014 on a probability representative sample in Germany. Results indicate that respondents favouring politicians as decision-makers focus mainly on voting. Those who favour citizens as decision-makers are more willing to get involved in participatory procedures, while those inclined towards expert decision-making show mixed participation

The Future of Self-Governing, Thriving Democracies

This book offers a new approach for the future of democracy by advocating giving citizens the power to deliberate and to decide how to govern themselves. Innovatively building on and integrating components of representative, deliberative and participatory theories of democracy with empirical findings, the book provides practices and procedures that support communities of all sizes to develop their own visions of democracy. It re-vitalizes and re-infuses the ‘democratic spirit’ going back to the roots of democracy as an endeavour by, with and for the people, and should inspire us in our search for the democracy we want to live in. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students in democracy, democratic innovations, deliberation, civic education, and governance and further for policy-makers, civil society groups and activists. It encourages us to reshape democracy based on citizens’ perspectives, aspirations, and preferences

The Future of Self-Governing, Thriving Democracies

This book offers a new approach for the future of democracy by advocating giving citizens the power to deliberate and to decide how to govern themselves. Innovatively building on and integrating components of representative, deliberative and participatory theories of democracy with empirical findings, the book provides practices and procedures that support communities of all sizes to develop their own visions of democracy. It re-vitalizes and re-infuses the ‘democratic spirit’ going back to the roots of democracy as an endeavour by, with and for the people, and should inspire us in our search for the democracy we want to live in. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students in democracy, democratic innovations, deliberation, civic education, and governance and further for policy-makers, civil society groups and activists. It encourages us to reshape democracy based on citizens’ perspectives, aspirations, and preferences

An alternative to representation: explaining preferences for citizens as political decision-makers

Extensive scholarly attention is devoted to citizens’ preferences for alternative models of political decision-making. However, few efforts were made to identify who these citizens are and why they display a certain preference. To address this void in the literature, our article analyzes the determinants of preferences for citizens as decision-makers. It uses individual-level data from a 2014 survey on a probability representative sample in Germany and tests the effects of political attitudes toward institutions of representative democracy, interest in politics, and civic involvement. It controls for consumption of political news, education, and age

Saward's Concept of the Representative Claim Revisited: An Empirical Perspective

Representation is a process of making, accepting, or rejecting representative claims (Disch, 2015; Saward, 2014). This groundbreaking insight challenged the standard assumption that representative democracy can be reduced to elections and activities of elected representatives (Pitkin, 1967). It broadened the scope of representative democracy to encompass representation activities beyond those authorized by elections, transformed our thinking and provided a new perspective, putting claims and their reception into the center. This paradigm shift erased the distinction between elected and non-elected representatives and disclosed the potential of non-elected actors' claims to represent (Andeweg, 2003; Kuyper, 2016; Rosanvallon & Goldhammer, 2008; Saward, 2006, 2009; Van Biezen & Saward, 2008). In spite of this lively debate, we identify an important gap in the literature: while this paradigmatic shift inspired many authors, conceptual frameworks that can be applied for systematic empirical analysis of real-life cases are missing. In this article, we fill this gap and propose frameworks for assessing and validating a variety of real-life claims. Our study provides empirical substance to the ongoing theoretical debates, helping to translate the mainly theoretical 'claim approach' into empirical research tools. It helps to transform the conventional wisdom about what representation can (not) be and shines a new light on the potential future of (claims on) representation

Saward’s Concept of the Representative Claim Revisited: An Empirical Perspective

Representation is a process of making, accepting, or rejecting representative claims (Disch, 2015; Saward, 2014). This groundbreaking insight challenged the standard assumption that representative democracy can be reduced to elections and activities of elected representatives (Pitkin, 1967). It broadened the scope of representative democracy to encompass representation activities beyond those authorized by elections, transformed our thinking and provided a new perspective, putting claims and their reception into the center. This paradigm shift erased the distinction between elected and non-elected representatives and disclosed the potential of non-elected actors’ claims to represent (Andeweg, 2003; Kuyper, 2016; Rosanvallon & Goldhammer, 2008; Saward, 2006, 2009; Van Biezen & Saward, 2008). In spite of this lively debate, we identify an important gap in the literature: while this paradigmatic shift inspired many authors, conceptual frameworks that can be applied for systematic empirical analysis of real-life cases are missing. In this article, we fill this gap and propose frameworks for assessing and validating a variety of real-life claims. Our study provides empirical substance to the ongoing theoretical debates, helping to translate the mainly theoretical ‘claim approach’ into empirical research tools. It helps to transform the conventional wisdom about what representation can (not) be and shines a new light on the potential future of (claims on) representation

Support for direct and deliberative models of democracy in the UK: understanding the difference

The models of direct and deliberative democracy are broadly considered the major alternatives to representative democracy. So far, the two models have been merged under the broad umbrella of participatory democracy and thus little is known about why citizens support direct democracy and/or deliberation. They are distinct procedures, driven by different logics and outcomes and this makes it likely that the preference for them rest on different premises. This article fills this gap in the literature and distinguishes between the models proposing two central arguments. First, we expect that several general determinants have a positive impact on the support for both direct democracy and deliberation because they are different from representative democracy. Second, we test the effect of specific determinants that drive people towards supporting more one of the two alternative models of democracy. We use individual level data from an original survey conducted in December 2018 on a representative sample of 1094 respondents in the UK. The results indicate that the supporters of direct democracy differ from those of deliberative democracy in several ways

Rethinking Representation: Representative Claims in Global Perspective

The established notion of political representation is challenged on multiple accounts—theoretically, conceptually, and empirically. The contributions to this thematic issue explore the constructivist turn as the means for rethinking political representation today around the world. The articles included here seek to reconsider representation by theoretically and empirically reassessing how representation is conceptualized, claimed and performed—in Western and non-Western contexts. In recognition that democratic representation in Western countries is in a process of fundamental transformation and that non-Western countries no longer aim at replicating established Western models, we look for representation around the world—specifically in: Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, China, and India. This enables us to advance the study of representative democracy from a global perspective. We show the limits and gaps in the constructivist literature and the benefits of theory-driven empirical research. Finally, we provide conceptual tools and frameworks for the (comparative) study of claims of representation

Explaining Political Efficacy in Deliberative Procedures - A Novel Methodological Approach

So far, not much research has been done explaining the change of political efficacy in deliberative procedures, and case studies or experiments prevail in the field. Quantitative, systematic studies of real-life cases are missing. This article contributes to filling this gap. It identifies factors which lead to increased group-related political efficacy in deliberative procedures applying an almost novel method, i.e. a quantitative meta-synthesis combining and aggregating data from case studies. The study focuses exemplarily on Germany. The findings indicate that an improvement of political efficacy is more likely when deliberative procedures take place in a municipality, which has institutionalized citizens’ involvement in a local ‘participatory plan’ (‘local constitution’) and provides respective staff

Putting the Demos Back Into the Concept of Democratic Quality

In this paper, we argue that the concept of democratic quality consists of two necessary, but independently insufficient, components. The first is an opportunity-structure component, which includes the institutional and structural opportunities that allow for democratic rule. The second is a citizen component, which refers to the ways in which citizens can and do breathe life into existing institutional opportunities for democratic rule. Based on work from political theory we show how different ontologies or models of democracy place different demands on citizens as much as they do on institutions. We demonstrate the need for quality-of-democracy research to engage with work in political behavior and political psychology, from which it has traditionally been disconnected. In doing so, we provide a parsimonious analytic framework for a theory-driven selection of indicators related to three key citizen dispositions: namely, democratic commitments, political capacities, and political participation. The paper ends with a brief discussion of important implications of our argument for the future study of democratic quality