Party System Institutionalization, Partisan Affect, and Satisfaction with Democracy

Citizens’ attitudes about the political parties in their countries have been linked to their overall satisfaction with their democracy, with those feeling great love (hate) for parties feeling more (less) satisfied with the democracy. Such strong positive and negative emotions require time and clear targets to form. This study demonstrates that the influence of interparty affect is greater where the party system has institutionalized. Where the public can be familiar with the parties, their positions, and their relative status in the party system, citizens’ attitudes toward the democracy are more informed by their feelings about the parties in the system. This article draws on 20 years of surveys from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. It demonstrates that the positive effect of positive party affect is greater in institutionalized party systems, while the negative effect of negative party affect is not. This article thus contributes to political science’s understanding of affective polarization, the benefits of party system institutionalization, and popular democratic commitment

Electoral Outcomes and Support for Westminster Democracy

It is well established that those who supported the winning side in elections report greater specific democratic support – they are more satisfied with the functioning of their democracy – than those who supported the losing side. This literature, however, has focused almost exclusively on winning the presidency or premiership. This project extends that literature to incorporate the effect of district election victories and defeats on citizens’ democratic opinions using post-election surveys in three Westminster-style democracies: Australia, Canada, and Great Britain. It also includes two indicators of democratic institutional support: believing it matters for whom people vote and believing it matters who is in power. It finds that district-level results moderate the win-loss satisfaction gap induced by national election results. Winning in the constituency offsets the negative effect of electoral defeat; among national winners, however, the district result has limited impact on democratic attitudes. Constituency-level victories are less effective at mitigating the effect of national defeat on more diffuse democracy support

Dismantling New Democracies: The Case of Tunisia

After a decade as the stand-out democracy of the Middle East, Tunisia took an anti-democratic turn in July 2021 with President Kaïs Saïed’s self-coup. Using a survey fielded in the weeks after these reforms, this article documents the substantial support for liberal institutions and civil rights in Tunisia. Democracy itself, on the other hand, is not so strongly supported. The study thus identifies potential for democratic backsliding in Tunisia through the strategic implementation liberal but anti-democratic actions. Other would-be authoritarians could follow Saïed’s model of strategic regression to autocratize their regimes

Enemy Mine: Negative Partisanship and Satisfaction with Democracy

Polarization has increased in recent decades, including emotional distance between partisans. While positive partisan identity has been linked to the absorption of democratic norms and democratic satisfaction, this article addresses the impact of negative partisanship on citizens’ satisfaction with the functioning of their democracies. Employing two measures of negative partisanship – dislike for a party and unwillingness to ever vote for a party – the article finds that negative partisanship is linked to lower satisfaction with democracy, particularly negative partisanship for major parties. It also finds that respondents’ sentiments towards other parties moderate the experience of electoral outcomes; the win/loss satisfaction gap is greater for negative partisans. Defeat is more strongly tied to satisfaction for negative partisans of governing parties. Coalition membership, on the other hand, is more valuable to them. This relationship raises concerns that increasing rates of negative partisan identity reduces democratic commitment, undermining democratic stability

Just Like the Others: Party Differences, Perception, and Satisfaction with Democracy

A robust literature on citizens’ satisfaction with democracy argues that system satisfaction is based on the policy outcomes that citizens anticipate from electoral results. A tacit assumption in this research is that there are differences between the parties and that citizens are aware of the ideological and preference diversity in their political environment. Some citizens, however, fail to perceive these differences. Using a multi-national set of post-election surveys, regression analysis, and propensity score matching, perceived party difference is shown to substantially impact citizens’ systemic satisfaction. Those who believe all parties are the same are substantially less satisfied with the functioning of their democracy. The negative effect of perceived party homogeneity is mitigated by closeness to a political party and sense of representation. By manipulating the public’s reserve of democratic satisfaction, this perception of party homogeneity threatens democratic stability

Effect of Religious Legislation on Religious Behavior: The Ramadan Fast

State laws compelling citizens to comply with elements of religious law – also known as religious legislation – are globally pervasive. Previous research has well documented the incidence of myriad examples of religious legislation. These laws’ practical effect on citizens’ behavior, however, has been less examined. This article looks at the effect of one piece of religious legislation: state laws enforcing the Ramadan fast. It demonstrates that the use of state power to sanction violations of religious law significantly increases citizens’ compliance with this religious law

Democratic commitment in the Middle East: A conjoint analysis

Polls from the Middle East/North Africa show high support for democracy. However, the veracity of this support has been called into question. This study uses a conjoint analysis to show that citizens support democratic institutions, as well as favoring an effective welfare state and a state religion. The results demonstrate that support for elected governance is not contingent on the state's providing economic benefits; citizens are more likely to favor participatory government at each level of economic outcome. Interest in incorporating religion in the state, however, is contingent on the political and economic profile described; the contingent effects suggest interest in Islamic governance is, at least partly, instrumental. Although pro-democracy public opinion alone does not secure democratization, it creates fertile ground for future democratization movements

Measuring Ethnodoxy in Egypt and Morocco

Ethnodoxy is the conceptual linkage of an ethnic group with a particular religion. It has been previously documented in Slavic Orthodox communities. This study uses Arabic-language surveys in Egypt and Morocco to measure this ethno-religious linkage among Arab Muslims. It develops a parsimonious survey scale for measuring ethnodoxy. It also demonstrates that ethnodox and non-ethnodox Egyptians and Moroccans have different political preferences, both for regime type and for the role of religion in politics

Taurek, numbers and probabilities

In his paper, “Should the Numbers Count?" John Taurek imagines that we are in a position such that we can either save a group of five people, or we can save one individual, David. We cannot save David and the five. This is because they each require a life-saving drug. However, David needs all of the drug if he is to survive, while the other five need only a fifth each.Typically, people have argued as if there was a choice to be made: either numbers matter, in which case we should save the greater number, or numbers don't matter, but rather there is moral value in giving each person an equal chance of survival, and therefore we should toss a coin. My claim is that we do not have to make a choice in this way. Rather, numbers do matter, but it doesn't follow that we should always save the greater number. And likewise, there is moral value in giving each person an equal chance of survival, but it doesn't follow that we should always toss a coin.In addition, I argue that a similar approach can be applied to situations in which we can save one person or another, but the chances of success are different