IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v12y2024a8754.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Limited Congruence: Citizens’ Attitudes and Party Rhetoric About Referendums and Deliberative Practices

Author

Listed:
  • Sergiu Gherghina

    (Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Glasgow, Scotland)

  • Brigitte Geissel

    (Department of Political Science, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany)

  • Fabian Henger

    (Department of Political Science, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany)

Abstract

Both citizens and political parties refer to novel participatory practices in the contemporary crisis of representative democracy. Survey data indicate a growing demand for such practices within the electorate, while political parties have also begun discussing them more frequently. However, previous studies on citizens’ attitudes and parties’ discourse on democratic innovations rarely speak to each other. It remains unclear whether citizens’ attitudes and parties’ discourse are congruent. This article seeks to address this gap in the literature and analyses the extent to which political parties reflect citizens’ attitudes towards referendums and citizens’ deliberation in their manifestos. We cover 15 political parties in Germany and the UK. Our analysis uses party manifesto data between 2010 and 2024, and data from surveys conducted on national representative samples. Our findings reveal that political parties and citizens rarely have congruent approaches towards referendums and deliberative practices. People’s enthusiasm about referendums is hardly reflected in parties’ rhetoric, but the latter reacts gradually to the public appetite for deliberation. There are visible differences between opposition parties and those in government.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergiu Gherghina & Brigitte Geissel & Fabian Henger, 2024. "Limited Congruence: Citizens’ Attitudes and Party Rhetoric About Referendums and Deliberative Practices," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v12:y:2024:a:8754
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.8754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/8754
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.8754?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Curini, Luigi & Jou, Willy & Memoli, Vincenzo, 2012. "Satisfaction with Democracy and the Winner/Loser Debate: The Role of Policy Preferences and Past Experience," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 241-261, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luis Guirola & Gonzalo Rivero, 2022. "Polarization contaminates the link with partisan and independent institutions: evidence from 138 cabinet shifts," Working Papers 2237, Banco de España.
    2. Gustavo Gouvêa Maciel & Luís de Sousa, 2018. "Legal Corruption and Dissatisfaction with Democracy in the European Union," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 653-674, November.
    3. Ankush Goyal & Rajender Kumar, 2022. "Does Social Welfare Programmes Influence Households Trust in Local Administration and Their Political Participation? Evidence from the MGNREG Scheme in India," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 16(3), pages 602-617, December.
    4. Barbara Dluhosch & Daniel Horgos & Klaus W. Zimmermann, 2016. "EU enlargement and satisfaction with democracy: a peculiar case of immiserizing growth," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 273-298, September.
    5. Christiansen, Petter, 2018. "Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 305-318.
    6. Diogo Ribeiro & Mara Madaleno & Anabela Botelho, 2022. "Determinants of voter turnout," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 6(S1), pages 73-84, July.
    7. Selim Jurgen Ergun & M. Fernanda Rivas & Máximo Rossi, 2019. "Satisfaction with democracy in Latin America: Do the characteristics of the political system matter?," Revista Desarrollo y Sociedad, Universidad de los Andes,Facultad de Economía, CEDE, vol. 83(9), pages 353-383, July.
    8. Ziller, Conrad & Helbling, Marc, 2019. "Antidiscrimination Laws, Policy Knowledge and Political Support," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 49(3), pages 1027-1044.
    9. Mario Quaranta & Sergio Martini, 2017. "Easy Come, Easy Go? Economic Performance and Satisfaction with Democracy in Southern Europe in the Last Three Decades," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 659-680, March.
    10. Marlene Mauk, 2022. "Electoral integrity matters: how electoral process conditions the relationship between political losing and political trust," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1709-1728, June.
    11. Nicholas Charron & Victor Lapuente & Andres Rodriguez-Pose, 2022. "Uncooperative Society, Uncooperative Politics or Both? Trust, Polarisation, Populism and COVID-19 Deaths across European regions," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2204, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2022.
    12. Gloria Danqiao Cheng & Serena Does & Margaret Shih, 2024. "Partisan differences in perceived levels of democracy across presidential administrations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    13. Andrea Ceron & Vincenzo Memoli, 2016. "Flames and Debates: Do Social Media Affect Satisfaction with Democracy?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 225-240, March.
    14. Henrik Serup Christensen, 2019. "Boosting Political Trust with Direct Democracy? The Case of the Finnish Citizens’ Initiative," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 173-186.
    15. Christiansen, Petter, 2020. "The effects of transportation priority congruence for political legitimacy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 61-76.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v12:y:2024:a:8754. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.