ARE CITIZENS FIT FOR
DEMOCRACY?
Pippa Norris
Harvard University
Harvard University www.pippanorris.com
STRUCTURE
Can citizens judge the health of democratic governance?
|
Evidence for mass against elite evaluations
|
|
|
III.
Democratic governance Corruption Human rights Do mass and elite evaluations correlate?
|
IV.
Rational and informed evaluations by public?
|
Best judge of their own interests?
Or technical ‘elite’ judgments preferable?
www.pip
ppanorris.com
|
II.
6/8/2008
I.
Complex and far from straightforward relationship
Discussion and conclusion |
Where mass or elite diverge, which evaluations are more e e ass o e te d e ge,
c e a uat o s a e o e
reliable, valid, accurate, credible, and legitimate standards?
2
I. CAN CITIZENS JUDGE THE
HEALTH OF THEIR OWN
DEMOCRACY?
Democratic audit
Democratic audit
E.g. Britain, g
Canada, Sweden, Australia
Elite evaluations
Representative public opinion
public opinion surveys
E.g. World g
Values Survey, Afrobarometer
'Expert' perceptual
perceptual surveys
E.g. TI g
Corruption Perception Index
Composite indicators
www.pippanorris.com
Public evaluations
6/8/2008
Diagnostic tools EE.g. KK Good g KK Good
Governance
4
II EVIDENCE OF MASS AND
II. E
ELITE EVALUATIONS
MANY CROSS‐NATIONAL SURVEYS GAUGE
PUBLIC EVALUATIONS OF DEMOCRACY
Frequency
Total nations
(latest survey)
1970
Bi‐annual
27
Approx. 5 years 92
Annual
38
Module every 5 years
d l
31
1990
Irregular
19
New Europe Barometers
1991
Irregular
16
Afrobarometer
1999
Annual
18
Latino‐barometer
1995
Annual
18
Asian barometer
Asian barometer
2001
Annual
17
Arab Barometer
2005
Annual
5
The European Social Survey (ESS)
2002
Biennial
21
Transatlantic Trends
2002
Annual
13
The Pew Global Attitudes Survey
2002
Irregular
54
Gallup International Voice of the People
2002
Annual
60
Euro‐barometer and related studies
European Values/ World Values Study
International Social Survey Program (ISSP)
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems d f l
l
(CSES)
Comparative National Election Study
1981‐1983
1985
1996‐2001
www.pip
panorris.com
Series started
6/8/2008
Series
Global‐barometers, including:
6
WORLD VALUES SURVEY
|
(Q163): (Q
) “How democratically is this country being governed today? y
y
gg
y
|
Again, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that it is ‘not at all democratic’ and 10 means that it is ‘completely democratic’, what position would you choose?” (2005 wave)
Public evaluations of human rights
bl
l
fh
h
|
|
|
www.pip
ppanorris.com
|
Public evaluations of democratic governance
6/8/2008
|
“(Q164) How much respect is there for individual human rights nowadays in this country? Do you feel there is A great deal of respect for individual human rights (4) Fairly much
Do you feel there is.. A great deal of respect for individual human rights (4), Fairly much respect (3), Not much respect (2), or No respect at all (1)?” (1995‐2005)
Public perceptions of corruption
|
Q200 201: “Please
Q200‐201:
Please tell me for each of the following statements whether you think tell me for each of the following statements whether you think
it can always be justified (1), never be justified (10), or something in‐between, using this card…
y Cheating on taxes if you have a chance..
y Someone accepting a bribe
S
ti
b ib in the course of their duties.”
i th
f th i d ti ”
7
SELECTED ‘ELITE’ EVALUATIONS
Liberal democracy
Corr HR
Corruption
Constitution Participatory Contested Perception
al democracy
democracy
Index
democracy
Polity IV Vanhanen
Przeworski et Transparency
al./ Cheibub International
and Gandhi
Source
Freedom House Core attributes
Political rights Democracy and civil and liberties
autocracy
Human
Rights
CingranelliRichards
Electoral competition and electoral participation
Contestation Perceptions of
of executive corruption
and legislature
100‐point 00 po
scales
Continuous
Dichotomous c o o ous Continuous
classification global ranking scales
Measuremen
easu e e Continuous 7‐
o
uous
t of point scales attributes
for each
Continuous o
uous
20‐point scale
Annual l
A
1972 t d t
1972 to date
Observations
1800 t 1999 1810 to 2000
1800 to 1999
1810 t 2000 1946 to 2002
1946 t 2002 1995 to date
6/8/2008
Democracy
Measures
practices in
13 types of
human rights
1981 2006
1981-2006
8
III CORRELATION BETWEEN
III. C
MASS AND ELITE VIEWS?
•Democracy
•Human rights
•Corruption
MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF DEMOCRACY DIFFER
Correlation l
(
l d)
Sig. (2‐tailed)
N of countries
N. of countries
with public 6/8/2008
evaluations of democracy
www.pip
ppanorris.com
Liberal Democracy
(Freedom House)
.234
.151
39
Participatory Democracy
(Vanhanen)
.025
.883
36
Constitutional Democracy (Polity)
Constitutional Democracy .022
022
.895
38
Contested Democracy .097
.557
39
(Cheibub and Gandhi )
Note: Public evaluations of democracy are the mean national scores derived from the World Values Survey 2005‐7 (Q163): “How democratically is this country being governed today? Again, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that it is ‘not at all democratic’ and 10 means that it is ‘completely democratic’, what position would you choose?”
Sources: Freedom House. 2007. Freedom in the World 2007.
Freedom House. 2007. Freedom in the World 2007. Washington, DC: Freedom House. www.freedomhouse.org; Monty Marshall and Keith Jaggers. 2003. Polity IV Washington, DC: Freedom House. www.freedomhouse.org; Monty Marshall and Keith Jaggers. 2003. Polity IV
Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800‐2003. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity/; Tatu Vanhanen. 2000. ‘A new dataset for measuring 10
democracy, 1810‐1998.’ Journal of Peace Research 37(2): 251‐265; Jose Cheibub and Jennifer Gandhi. 2004. ’A six‐fold measure of democracies and dictatorships.’ Unpublished paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
6/8/2008
www.pip
ppanorris.com
Notes: Freedom House rating of liberal democracy, 2005 (7‐point scale of civil liberties and political rights with the score reversed, so that more democratic = 11
high). World
Values Survey 2005‐7 Q163: “How democratically is this country being governed today? Again, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that it is ‘not at all democratic’ and
10 means that it is ‘completely democratic’, what position would you choose?” Sources: Freedom House World Values Survey 2005‐7.
MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS DIFFER…
y
g y g
Physical Integrity Rights Index
.211
Empowerment Rights Index
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Movement
Freedom of Movement
Freedom of Speech
Political Participation Rights
Freedom of religion
.166
.114
.142
.277 **
.222
.072
.128
.154
.138
.140
.144
144
.306 **
.452 **
.348 **
www.pip
ppanorris.com
Disappearances
Extrajudicial killings
Political imprisonment
Political imprisonment
Torture
Worker s rights
Worker’s
rights
Women’s economic rights
Women’s political rights
Women’s social rights
Sig. (2‐tailed)
6/8/2008
Correlation
Notes: World Values Survey 1995‐2005 Q:164: “How much respect is there for individual human rights nowadays in this country? Do you feel there is.. A great
12
deal of respect for individual human rights (4), Fairly much respect (3), Not much respect (2), or No respect at all (1)?” 77 nations Sources: David L. Cingranelli
and David L. Richards 2004. The Cingranelli‐Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Database Coder Manual. http://ciri.binghamton.edu/; World Values Survey 2005‐7.
MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS DIFFER
6/8/2008
www.pip
ppanorris.com
Notes: World Values Survey 2005‐7 Q:164: How much respect is there for individual human rights nowadays in this country? Do you feel there13
is.. A great
deal of respect for individual human rights (4), Fairly much respect (3), Not much respect (2), or No respect at all (1)?” Sources: David L. Cingranelli and David
L. Richards 2004. The Cingranelli‐Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Database Coder Manual. http://ciri.binghamton.edu/; World Values Survey 2005‐7.
MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF CORRUPTION DIFFER…
6/8/2008
www.pip
ppanorris.com
Notes: World Values Survey 2005‐7 Q200‐201: “Please tell me for each of the following statements whether you think it can always be justified(1), never be ld l
“ l
ll
f
h f h f ll
h h
h k
l
b
f d( )
b
14
justified (10), or something in‐between, using this card…Cheating on taxes if you have a chance.”
Sources: World Values Survey 2005‐7; Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2005
AS DO MASS AND ELITE PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION
6/8/2008
www.pip
ppanorris.com
Notes: World Values Survey 2005‐7 Q200‐201: “Please tell me for each of the following statements whether you think it can always be justified(1), never be justified ld l
“ l
ll
f
h f h f ll
h h
h k
l
b
f d( )
b
f d
15
(10), or something in‐between, using this card…Someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties.”
Sources: World Values Survey 2005‐7; Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2005
IV. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION
WHY DIFFERENCE?
Polls give false reading? g
g
y
Irrational public/‘False consciousness’?
Irrational public/‘False consciousness’?
y
|
Relative judgments?
j g
y
|
Public expectations too high or too low? Critical citizens…
Complex and technical concepts? y
|
Public deluded by regime propaganda? www.pip
ppanorris.com
|
Public in repressive states feels unable to express honest sentiments in opinion polls?
6/8/2008
|
Public ill‐informed, esp. where they lack direct experience of democracy and HR
Or expert elite indicators are wrong…?
Or ‘expert’ elite indicators are wrong…?
17
CONCLUSIONS
Mass and elite evaluations often diverge
g
|
Where this occurs, analysts need to decide which provide more valid and reliable judgments
|
Elite evaluations may have greater credibility for the international community
|
Mass evaluations (public opinion surveys in countries with freedom of speech) have greater legitimacy for national policymakers
national policymakers
|
More details: www.pippanorris.com
www.pip
ppanorris.com
|
18