{"title":"Elite polarization — The boon and bane of democracy: Evidence from thirty democracies","authors":"Armin Seimel","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Democracy is under threat, while polarization is rising. Empirical evidence to understand a possible link between the two is mixed, with scholars finding elite polarization increases turnout but decreases democratic satisfaction. However, these mixed results span various samples and methodologies, including elite surveys and manifestos to capture elite polarization data, but they rarely address how citizens perceive this polarization. In response, I present a new individual-level measure of perceived elite polarization, revealing the complexities of individual perceptions of elite polarization that extend beyond macro elite polarization and is applicable to any party system. The results from applying this new measure confirms that higher perceptions of elite polarization can engage citizens but reduce satisfaction by testing effects on democratic satisfaction and turnout across 34 democracies over 25 years, in addition to panel data in the United Kingdom. However, higher perceptions of elite polarization also decrease the likelihood of people being simultaneously satisfied with democracy and voting. These findings indicate that high perceived elite polarization can be detrimental to democracy and emphasizes the complexity in individual perceptions of elite polarization, underscoring the need for further study.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"90 ","pages":"Article 102801"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000593/pdfft?md5=f9279e35d759631e362a1ad228ee5e48&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379424000593-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000593","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Democracy is under threat, while polarization is rising. Empirical evidence to understand a possible link between the two is mixed, with scholars finding elite polarization increases turnout but decreases democratic satisfaction. However, these mixed results span various samples and methodologies, including elite surveys and manifestos to capture elite polarization data, but they rarely address how citizens perceive this polarization. In response, I present a new individual-level measure of perceived elite polarization, revealing the complexities of individual perceptions of elite polarization that extend beyond macro elite polarization and is applicable to any party system. The results from applying this new measure confirms that higher perceptions of elite polarization can engage citizens but reduce satisfaction by testing effects on democratic satisfaction and turnout across 34 democracies over 25 years, in addition to panel data in the United Kingdom. However, higher perceptions of elite polarization also decrease the likelihood of people being simultaneously satisfied with democracy and voting. These findings indicate that high perceived elite polarization can be detrimental to democracy and emphasizes the complexity in individual perceptions of elite polarization, underscoring the need for further study.
期刊介绍:
Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.