Why Do Politicians Not Act Upon Citizens’ Deliberations? Evidence From Iceland

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Studies Review Pub Date : 2023-09-09 DOI:10.1177/14789299231197157
Valgerður Björk Pálsdóttir, Sergiu Gherghina, Paul Tap
{"title":"Why Do Politicians Not Act Upon Citizens’ Deliberations? Evidence From Iceland","authors":"Valgerður Björk Pálsdóttir, Sergiu Gherghina, Paul Tap","doi":"10.1177/14789299231197157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Politicians are expressing increasing support for deliberative practices around the world. However, knowledge about their actions beyond expressing support is scarce. To address this gap in the literature, this article aims to explain why politicians do not pick up the results arising from deliberative practices and integrate them into their policies. Our analysis focuses on the 2019 deliberation in Iceland as the most likely case in which we would expect such a process to occur. We use original data from 25 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2021 with Icelandic MPs elected at the national level, which also cover all the party leaders of the eight parliamentary parties in the 2017–2021 term in office. The reflexive thematic analysis finds that, irrespective of their ideological affiliation, politicians are critical of deliberative practices both in procedural and substantive terms. They display a strong belief that political representation achieved through elections must be the rule of the democratic game. As such, deliberation is considered redundant since citizens already have many ways to participate in representative democracy.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231197157","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Politicians are expressing increasing support for deliberative practices around the world. However, knowledge about their actions beyond expressing support is scarce. To address this gap in the literature, this article aims to explain why politicians do not pick up the results arising from deliberative practices and integrate them into their policies. Our analysis focuses on the 2019 deliberation in Iceland as the most likely case in which we would expect such a process to occur. We use original data from 25 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2021 with Icelandic MPs elected at the national level, which also cover all the party leaders of the eight parliamentary parties in the 2017–2021 term in office. The reflexive thematic analysis finds that, irrespective of their ideological affiliation, politicians are critical of deliberative practices both in procedural and substantive terms. They display a strong belief that political representation achieved through elections must be the rule of the democratic game. As such, deliberation is considered redundant since citizens already have many ways to participate in representative democracy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么政治家不根据公民的意见行事?来自冰岛的证据
政界人士对世界各地的审议实践表达了越来越多的支持。然而,除了表示支持之外,对他们行动的了解很少。为了解决文献中的这一差距,本文旨在解释为什么政治家不接受审议实践产生的结果并将其纳入其政策。我们的分析重点是冰岛2019年的审议,这是我们预计这一过程最有可能发生的情况。我们使用了2021年对冰岛国家级当选议员进行的25次半结构化访谈的原始数据,这些访谈也涵盖了2017-2021年任期内八个议会政党的所有政党领导人。反身性专题分析发现,无论其意识形态归属如何,政治家在程序和实质方面都对审议实践持批评态度。他们表现出一种强烈的信念,即通过选举实现的政治代表权必须成为民主游戏的规则。因此,国民参与代议民主主义的方式已经很多,因此审议是多余的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Studies Review
Political Studies Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Political Studies Review provides unrivalled review coverage of new books and literature on political science and international relations and does so in a timely and comprehensive way. In addition to providing a comprehensive range of reviews of books in politics, PSR is a forum for a range of approaches to reviews and debate in the discipline. PSR both commissions original review essays and strongly encourages submission of review articles, review symposia, longer reviews of books and debates relating to theories and methods in the study of politics. The editors are particularly keen to develop new and exciting approaches to reviewing the discipline and would be happy to consider a range of ideas and suggestions.
期刊最新文献
Commissioned Book Review: David Cutts, Andrew Russell and Joshua Townsley, The Liberal Democrats: From Hope to Despair to Where? Commissioned Book Review: Anita R. Gohdes, Repression in the Digital Age–Surveillance, Censorship, and the Dynamics of State Violence Commissioned Book Review: Robin Attfield, The Ethics of the Climate Crisis Commissioned Book Review: Elena Llaudet and Kosuke Imai, Data Analysis for Social Science: A Friendly and Practical Introduction Partisanship, Social Desirability, and Belief in Election Fraud: Evidence from the 2022 US Midterm Elections
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1