Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review 2019, 55(4): 419-444 | DOI: 10.13060/00380288.2019.55.4.472

Popular Support for Direct Democracy: Analysis of the Heterogeneity of Political Attitudes in the Czech Republic

Tomáš Dvořák
Fakulta sociálních věd, Univerzita Karlova, Praha

This paper focuses on the sources of popular support for direct democracy in the Czech Republic. The analysis first replicates the standard approaches used in previous scholarly research, testing theories of cognitive mobilisation and alienation using the standard regression modelling approach. The results are, however, somewhat inconclusive, as have been the results of previous empirical research in other European countries. It is hypothesised that one reason for this could be data heterogeneity. Both tested concepts could be valid, but for different social groups, resulting in overall inconclusive results. Therefore, latent class analysis (LCA) is then used to show that in the Czech Republic direct democracy is supported both by people alienated from politics and by those satisfied with democracy and democratic governance. The results of empirical analysis show that support for direct democracy in the Czech Republic cannot be explained by any one theory and that different concepts apply to different groups. The article represents a methodological innovative step in the empirical study of sources of popular support for direct democracy.

Keywords: direct democracy, latent class analysis, public opinion, alienation, cognitive mobilisation

Published: August 1, 2019Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Dvořák, T. (2019). Popular Support for Direct Democracy: Analysis of the Heterogeneity of Political Attitudes in the Czech Republic. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review55(4), 419-444. doi: 10.13060/00380288.2019.55.4.472.
Download citation

References

  1. Alaminos, A., C. Penalva. 2012. The cognitive mobilization index. SAGE Open, https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012440437. Go to original source...
  2. Anderson, C., E. Goodyear-Grant. 2010. "Why are highly informed citizens sceptical of referenda?" Electoral Studies 29 (2): 227-238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2009.12.004. Go to original source...
  3. Bengtsson, Å., M. Mattila. 2009. "Direct democracy and its critics: Support for direct democracy and 'stealth' democracy in Finland." West European Politics 32 (5): 1031-1048, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380903065256. Go to original source...
  4. Berinsky, A. J. 2005. "The perverse consequences of electoral reform in the United States." American Politics Research 33 (4): 471-491, https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X04269419. Go to original source...
  5. Best, H., C. Wolf. 2014. The SAGE handbook of regression analysis and causal inference. London: SAGE Publications, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288146. Go to original source...
  6. Budge, I. 1996. New Challenge of Direct Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  7. Bowler, S., T. Donovan, J. A. Karp. 2007. "Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies." Political Research Quarterly 60 (3): 351-362, https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907304108. Go to original source...
  8. Cappella, J. N., K. H. Jamieson. 1997. Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Coffé, H., A. Michels. 2014. "Education and support for representative, direct and stealth democracy." Electoral Studies 35: 1-11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.03.006. Go to original source...
  10. Craig, S. C., A. Kreppel, J. G. Kane. 2001. "Public Opinion and Support for Direct Democracy: A Grassroots Perspective." Pp. 25-46 in Referendum democracy. Palgrave Macmillan UK, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403900968_2. Go to original source...
  11. Criado, H., F. Herreros. 2007. "Political support: Taking into account the institutional context". Comparative Political Studies 40 (12): 1511-1532, https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006292117. Go to original source...
  12. Dalton, R. J. 1984. "Cognitive mobilization and partisan dealignment in advanced industrial democracies." The Journal of Politics 46 (1): 264-284, https://doi.org/10.2307/2130444. Go to original source...
  13. Dalton, R. J. 1999. "Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies." Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government 57. Go to original source...
  14. Dalton, R. J. 2013. The apartisan American: dealignment and changing electoral politics. CQ Press.
  15. Dalton, R. J., W. P. Burklin, A. Drummond. 2001. "Public Opinion and Direct Democracy." Journal of Democracy 12 (4): 141-153. Go to original source...
  16. Donovan, T., J. A. Karp. 2006. "Popular support for direct democracy." Party Politics 12 (5): 671-688, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068806066793. Go to original source...
  17. Dvořák, T., J. Zouhar, J. Novák. 2017. "The Effect of Direct Democracy on Turnout: Voter Mobilization or Participatory Momentum?" Political Research Quarterly 70 (2): 433-448, https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917698043. Go to original source...
  18. Dvořák, T. 2018. "The use of local direct democracy in the Czech Republic: how NIMBY disputes drive protest behaviour." Local Government Studies 44 (3): 329-349, https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2018.1433661. Go to original source...
  19. Farnsworth, S. J., S. R. Lichter. 2003. The nightly news nightmare: Network television's coverage of US presidential elections, 1988-2000. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  20. Gilljam, M., P. Pesonen, O. Listhaug. 1998. "The referendum in representative democracies." Pp. 284-306 in A. T. Jenssen, P. Pesonen, M. Gilljam. To join or not to join: Three Nordic referendums on membership in the European Union. Scandinavian University Press North America.
  21. Gregor, M., M. L. Smith. 2013. "Civic initiatives in the context of legal uncertainty." Journal of Theoretical Politics 25 (1): 36-62, https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629812446504. Go to original source...
  22. Hibbing, J. R., E. Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth democracy: Americans' beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613722. Go to original source...
  23. Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: University Press, https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691186740. Go to original source...
  24. Inglehart, R., C. Welzel. 2005. Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790881. Go to original source...
  25. Kumlin, S., I. Stadelmann-Steffen, A. Haugsgjerd. 2018. "Trust and the Welfare State." Pp. 385 in The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274801.013.8. Go to original source...
  26. Kumlin, S. 2007. "Overloaded or undermined? European welfare states in the face of performance dissatisfaction." Pp. 80-116 in S. Svallfors (ed.). The Political Sociology of the Welfare State: Institutions, Social Cleavages, and Orientations. Stanford: Stanford University Press, https://doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9780804754354.003.0003. Go to original source...
  27. Lebedová, E. 2014. "Voliči, stranická polarizace a její vývoj od roku 1993." Naše společnost (Our Society) 12 (1): 3-14, https://doi.org/10.13060/1214438X.2014.1.12.88. Go to original source...
  28. Leininger, A. 2015. "Popular Support for Direct Democracy in Europe." ECPR Joint Sessions.
  29. Linde, J., J. Ekman. 2003. "Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics." European Journal of Political Research 42 (3): 391-408, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00089. Go to original source...
  30. Linek, L. 2010. Zrazení snu? Struktura a dynamika postojů k politickému režimu a jeho institucím a jejich důsledky. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství (SLON).
  31. Muthén, B., B. O. Muthén. 2009. Statistical analysis with latent variables. Hoboken: Wiley.
  32. Nový, M. 2016. "Explaining turnout in local referenda in the Czech Republic: does a NIMBY question enhance citizen engagement?" East European Politics 32 (4): 487-504, https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2016.1183486. Go to original source...
  33. Schuck, A. R., C. H. de Vreese. 2011. "Public support for referendums: The role of the media." West European Politics 34 (2): 181-207, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2011.546566. Go to original source...
  34. Schuck, A. R., C. H. de Vreese. 2015. "Public support for referendums in Europe: A cross-national comparison in 21 countries." Electoral Studies 38: 149-158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.02.012. Go to original source...
  35. Sirovátka, T., M. Guzi, S. Saxonberg. 2018. "Satisfaction with democracy and perceived performance of the welfare state in Europe." Journal of European Social Policy, 0958928718757685.
  36. Smith, M. L. 2011. "The uneasy balance between participation and representation: local direct democracy in the Czech Republic." Pp. 33-35 in Local Direct Democracy in Europe. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92898-2_2. Go to original source...
  37. Shore, J. 2018. The Welfare State and the Democratic Citizen. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93961-2. Go to original source...
  38. Söderlund, P. 2008. "Retrospective voting and electoral volatility: A Nordic perspective." Scandinavian Political Studies 31 (2): 217-240, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00203.x. Go to original source...
  39. Vreese, C. H. de, M. Elenbaas. 2008. "Media in the game of politics: Effects of strategic metacoverage on political cynicism." The International Journal of Press/Politics 13 (3): 285-309, https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208319650. Go to original source...
  40. Webb, P. 2013. "Who is willing to participate? Dissatisfied democrats, stealth democrats and populists in the United Kingdom." European Journal of Political Research 52 (6): 747-772, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12021. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.