Measuring Democracy on an Individual Level – Challenges and Solutions

The paper targets the methodological challenges of measuring democracy on an individual level. Building on own empirical research on perceptions of democracy, the paper identifies several challenges for assessing democracy as perceived by individuals. Beneath a discussion of quantitative measures on individual level data like the ESS module on democracy or the Afrobarometer measures, the paper assesses the possibility of qualitative endeavors and how these can look like. Building on the work by Goertz (2006) and Wedeen (2004) as well as existent research of the Democracy Barometer, the proposed paper identifies multidimensionality, connections between elements as well as problems for aggregation of concepts as important elements to be respected in qualitative and quantitative research. Researchers underline the multidimensionality of democracy (Dahl 1989; Coppedge et al. 2011). This multidimensionality means that there is not one democratic ideal within society but several. This is reflected on the research on the quality of democracy (Lauth and Schlenkrich 2018; Bühlmann et al. 2014). The approach on the quality of democracy not only assesses simultaneously degrees of democracy, but also types of democracy. According to the multidimensional concept, democracy consists of different dimensions like control, equality and freedom to take one example (Beetham 1994) that are more or less developed in different political systems. The dimensions include among others elections, equal participation or individual liberties. The concept is in sharp contrast to the very general way, without differentiation that many international surveys use for evaluating democracy (Canache et al. 2001; Ferrin and Kriesi 2016; Boese 2019). As a consequence there are only few studies that use multidimensional concepts of democracy (Ferrin 2012; Ferrin and Kriesi 2016; Kriesi and Morlino 2016; Bengtsson and Christensen 2016; Heyne 2018). As democracy takes different forms in different countries, perceptions of democracy are different as well (Heyne 2018), another argument why multidimensional measures are necessary. Based on own research I identify another challenge, that is connections between different elements. Own interviews not only showed that interviewees easier talk about elements of democracy than about democracy in general, but also that different elements get connected in different way. One example is the monopoly of power of the state. While some actors see the monopoly of power as important for democracy as extremism can be fought, a different perspective sets it in conflict towards individual freedoms. It becomes thus important to account for different connections as part of future research, because it shows meaning construction on an individual level. Aggregation is another important challenge. Already Goertz (2006) discussed on necessary and sufficient conditions, a discussion later continued under the label of the quality of democracy or in international indexes where different indicators form dimensions. I propose however an inductive reading. The problem of connections of elements as outlined above makes aggregation difficult because the same element can be regarded from different perspectives with different meaning. A simple aggregation towards two, three or four dimensions depending on the perspective subsumes different meanings under the same label undermining validity of individual level measures.