How citizens evaluate the legitimacy of direct vote and representation-based decision-making: Findings from the focus groups on adoption of the Euro and acceptance of refugees
{"title":"How citizens evaluate the legitimacy of direct vote and representation-based decision-making: Findings from the focus groups on adoption of the Euro and acceptance of refugees","authors":"Zuzana Scott, Lucie Lomičová, Jan Šerek","doi":"10.5964/jspp.6895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How should political decisions be made to ensure a high level of legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary citizens? In order to answer this question, we conducted six focus groups (N = 29) with adults (20-78 years old). We analyzed data using a thematic analysis, within the essentialist/realist framework and focused on the explicit meanings of the data. Two specific issues were explored: the adoption of the Euro and acceptance of Syrian orphan refugees. The bottom-up analysis revealed that participants considered two strategies of political decision-making (direct vote and representation based) and discussed the pros and cons of each process in detail. The results point out the importance of public deliberation, transparency, and the source of decision-making in evaluating the overall legitimacy of decisions-making process. Further, unlike popular belief that citizens are thirsty for direct democracy our results suggest that people are rather hesitant about placing big decisions into the hands of ordinary citizens, nor do they want to be burdened with making decisions about issues that might not affect them directly. Rather, people described representation-based decisions as legitimate if condition of transparency, deliberation, and trust in politicians is met.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6895","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
How should political decisions be made to ensure a high level of legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary citizens? In order to answer this question, we conducted six focus groups (N = 29) with adults (20-78 years old). We analyzed data using a thematic analysis, within the essentialist/realist framework and focused on the explicit meanings of the data. Two specific issues were explored: the adoption of the Euro and acceptance of Syrian orphan refugees. The bottom-up analysis revealed that participants considered two strategies of political decision-making (direct vote and representation based) and discussed the pros and cons of each process in detail. The results point out the importance of public deliberation, transparency, and the source of decision-making in evaluating the overall legitimacy of decisions-making process. Further, unlike popular belief that citizens are thirsty for direct democracy our results suggest that people are rather hesitant about placing big decisions into the hands of ordinary citizens, nor do they want to be burdened with making decisions about issues that might not affect them directly. Rather, people described representation-based decisions as legitimate if condition of transparency, deliberation, and trust in politicians is met.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Social and Political Psychology (JSPP) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal (without author fees), published online. It publishes articles at the intersection of social and political psychology that substantially advance the understanding of social problems, their reduction, and the promotion of social justice. It also welcomes work that focuses on socio-political issues from related fields of psychology (e.g., peace psychology, community psychology, cultural psychology, environmental psychology, media psychology, economic psychology) and encourages submissions with interdisciplinary perspectives. JSPP is comprehensive and integrative in its approach. It publishes high-quality work from different epistemological, methodological, theoretical, and cultural perspectives and from different regions across the globe. It provides a forum for innovation, questioning of assumptions, and controversy and debate. JSPP aims to give creative impetuses for academic scholarship and for applications in education, policymaking, professional practice, and advocacy and social action. It intends to transcend the methodological and meta-theoretical divisions and paradigm clashes that characterize the field of social and political psychology, and to counterbalance the current overreliance on the hypothetico-deductive model of science, quantitative methodology, and individualistic explanations by also publishing work following alternative traditions (e.g., qualitative and mixed-methods research, participatory action research, critical psychology, social representations, narrative, and discursive approaches). Because it is published online, JSPP can avoid a bias against research that requires more space to be presented adequately.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
