What is the nature of citizens’ democratic commitment in contemporary democracies and can we count on citizens to protect democracies when needed? Within this workshop, we aim to foster a deeper understanding of what it means for citizens to be committed democrats, the contexts under which democratic commitments may fall short or can be strengthened, and the importance of these attitudes for democratic stability. We focus in particular on the impact of affective polarisation in shaping and undermining democratic support. In doing so, this workshop addresses two central challenges to contemporary democracies: (Deficits in) democratic commitment and (affective) polarisation.
There is a long tradition of literature emphasising that the survival of democracies rests upon its citizens (Claassen 2020; Diamond 1999; Easton 1975; Lipset 1959). But do citizens actually possess the strong and principled democratic commitments to uphold democracy? Recent studies cast doubt and suggest that citizens behave like ‘questionnaire-democrats’: Supportive of democracy in surveys but willing to trade-off democratic principles when they clash with their political interests (eg Graham and Svolik 2020; Kalmoe and Mason 2022). These findings have sparked a renewed interest in citizens’ role and willingness to resist democratic erosion, especially in light of broader trends of autocratisation and internal attacks on (established) democracies (Lührmann and Lindberg 2023; Papada et al. 2023).
Many scholars are pointing towards affective polarisation as the central explanation for anti-democratic attitudes. Theoretically, affective polarisation can drive citizens to apply a partisan double standard and to condone democratic transgressions by their own party (Frederiksen 2024; Kingzette et al. 2021). However, empirical evidence on the impact of affective polarisation on democratic support is mixed (Broockman et al. 2022; Harteveld et al. 2023; Voelkel et al. 2023) leading scholars to explore other relevant drivers, such as democratic rationalisation (Krishnarajan 2023), varying conceptions of democracy (Wunsch et al. 2023), or winning/losing divides (Mazepus and Toshkov 2021) as well as potential interventions to boost democratic support, eg through democratic innovations (Boulianne 2019).
This workshop aims to connect scholars in this burgeoning field to explore the nature, drivers, and consequences of citizens’ democratic commitment.
Boulianne, S. (2019). Building faith in democracy: Deliberative events, political trust and efficacy. Political Studies, 67(1), 4–30.
Broockman, D.E., Kalla, J.L., & Westwood, S.J. (2022). Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not. American Journal of Political Science, 67(3), 808-828.
Claassen, C. (2020). Does public support help democracy survive? American Journal of Political Science, 64(1), 118-134.
Diamond, L. (1999). Developing Democracy: Towards consolidation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Easton, D. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 435-457.
Frederiksen, K.V.S. (2024). Do partisanship and policy agreement make citizens tolerate undemocratic behavior? The Journal of Politics, 766-781.
Graham, M.H., and Svolik, M.W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 392-409.
Harteveld, E., Berntzen, L.E., Kokkonen, A., Kelsall, H., Linde, J., and Dahlberg, S. (2023). The (alleged) consequences of affective polarization: A survey experiment in 9 countries. [preprint].
Kalmoe, N.P., and Mason, L. (2022). Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kingzette, J., Druckman, J.N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J.B. (2021). How affective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public Opinion Quarterly, 85(2), 663-677.
Krishnarajan, S. (2023). Rationalizing democracy: The perceptual bias and (un)democratic behavior. American Political Science Review, 117(2), 474-496.
Lipset, S.M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69-105.
Lührmann, A., and Lindberg, S.I. (2023). A third wave of autocratization is here: What is new about it? Democratization, 26(7), 1095-1113.
Mazepus, H., and Toshkov, D. (2021). Standing up for democracy? Explaining citizens’ support for democratic checks and balances. Comparative Political Studies, 55(8), 1271-1297.
1: What does it mean to be a committed democrat?
2: When do citizens trade-off democracy and does affective polarization drive anti-democratic sentiments?
3: To what extent can citizens’ democratic commitments help maintain democratic stability?
4: Which interventions can strengthen citizens’ democratic commitment?
1: Conceptualizing democratic commitment on the citizen level
2: The drivers of (anti-)democratic attitudes
3: The impact of affective polarization on democratic commitment
4: The consequences of (deficits in) democratic commitment
5: Interventions to strengthen democratic commitment
6: We aim for a balanced workshop in terms of topics, career stages, geographical provenience, and gender
7: Methodologically, we welcome theoretical, qualitative, mixed-methods, and quantitative research
