AARERE CITIZENSCITIZENS FITFIT FORFOR

DEMOCRACYDEMOCRACY??Pippa NorrisHarvard UniversityHarvard University www.pippanorris.com

STRUCTURE

I. Can citizens judge the health of democratic 

6/8/2

governance?Rational and informed evaluations by public?

Best judge of their own interests?

008www.pip

Or technical ‘elite’ judgments preferable?

II. Evidence for mass against elite evaluationsDemocratic governance 

ppanorris.com

Corruption  Human rights 

III. Do mass and elite evaluations correlate?Complex and far from straightforward relationship

IV. Discussion and conclusion Where mass or elite diverge, which evaluations are more e e ass o e te d e ge, c e a uat o s a e o ereliable, valid, accurate, credible, and legitimate standards? 2

I. CI. CANAN CITIZENSCITIZENS JUDGEJUDGE THETHE

HEALTHHEALTH OFOF THEIRTHEIR OWNOWN

DEMOCRACYDEMOCRACY??

6/8/2

Diagnostic tools  

008www.pip

Public evaluations Elite  evaluations

panorris.com

Democratic auditRepresentative  public opinion

'Expert' perceptual Composite Democratic audit

E.g. Britain, 

public opinion surveys

E.g. World 

perceptual surveys

E.g. TI 

indicators

E g KK GoodgCanada, Sweden, 

Australia

gValues Survey, Afrobarometer

gCorruption 

Perception Index

E.g. KK Good Governance

4

II EII EVIDENCEVIDENCE OFOF MASSMASS ANDANDII. EII. EVIDENCEVIDENCE OFOF MASSMASS ANDAND

ELITEELITE EVALUATIONSEVALUATIONS

MANY CROSS‐NATIONAL SURVEYS GAUGEPUBLIC EVALUATIONS OF DEMOCRACY

6/8/2

Series Series started Frequency Total nations(latest survey) 008

www.pip

Euro‐barometer and related studies 1970 Bi‐annual 27

European Values/ World Values Study 1981‐1983 Approx. 5 years   92

International Social Survey Program (ISSP) 1985 Annual 38

d f l l d l

panorris.com

Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES)

1996‐2001 Module every 5 years 31

Comparative National Election Study 1990 Irregular 19

Global‐barometers, including:

New Europe Barometers 1991 Irregular 16

Afrobarometer 1999 Annual 18

Latino‐barometer 1995 Annual 18

Asian barometer 2001 Annual 17Asian barometer 2001 Annual 17

Arab Barometer 2005 Annual 5

The European Social Survey (ESS) 2002 Biennial 21

Transatlantic Trends 2002 Annual 136The Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2002 Irregular 54

Gallup International Voice of the People 2002 Annual 60

WORLD VALUES SURVEYPublic evaluations of democratic governance

(Q163): “How democratically is this country being governed today? 

6/8/2(Q ) y y g g y

Again, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that it is ‘not at all democratic’ and 10 means that it is ‘completely democratic’, what position would you choose?” (2005 wave)

bl l f h h

008www.pip

Public evaluations of human rights“(Q164) How much respect is there for individual human rights nowadays in this country? 

Do you feel there is A great deal of respect for individual human rights (4) Fairly much

ppanorris.com

Do you feel there is.. A great deal of respect for individual human rights (4), Fairly much respect (3), Not much respect (2), or No respect at all (1)?” (1995‐2005)

Public perceptions of corruptionQ200‐201: “Please tell me for each of the following statements whether you thinkQ200 201:  Please tell me for each of the following statements whether you think it can always be justified (1), never be justified (10), or something in‐between, using this card…

Cheating on taxes if you have a chance..

S ti b ib i th f th i d ti ”Someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties.” 7

SELECTED ‘ELITE’ EVALUATIONS

6/8/2Democracy Corr HR 008

Democracy HRLiberal 

democracyConstitution

al democracy

Participatory democracy

Contested democracy

Corruption Perception

Index

Human Rights

Source Freedom House 

Polity IV  Vanhanen Przeworski et al./ Cheibub and Gandhi

Transparency International

Cingranelli-Richards

Core  Political rights  Democracy  Electoral  Contestation  Perceptions of Measures

attributes and civil liberties

and autocracy

competition and electoral participation

of executive and legislature

corruption practices in 13 types of human rights

Measuremen Continuous 7‐ Continuous  100‐point  Dichotomous  Continuous Continuous easu e et of attributes

o uouspoint scales for each

o uous20‐point scale

00 poscales

c o o ousclassification global ranking scales

A l 1972 t d t 1800 t 1999 1810 t 2000 1946 t 2002 1995 to date 1981 20068Annual 

Observations1972 to date 1800 to 1999 1810 to 2000 1946 to 2002 1995 to date 1981-2006

III CIII CORRELATIONORRELATION BETWEENBETWEENIII. CIII. CORRELATIONORRELATION BETWEENBETWEEN

MASSMASS ANDAND ELITEELITE VIEWSVIEWS??•Democracy

•Human rights

•Corruption

MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF DEMOCRACY DIFFERl ( l d) N of countries

6/8/2

Correlation 

with public 

evaluations of 

Sig. (2‐tailed) N. of countries

008www.pip

democracy

Liberal Democracy (Freedom House) .234 .151 39

ppanorris.com

Participatory Democracy (Vanhanen) .025 .883 36

Constitutional Democracy (Polity) 022 .895 38Constitutional Democracy  (Polity) .022

Contested Democracy  (Cheibub and 

Gandhi )

.097 .557 39

Note: Public evaluations of democracy are the mean national scores derived from the World Values Survey 2005‐7 (Q163): “How democratically is this country being governed today? Again, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that it is ‘not at all democratic’ and 10 means that it is ‘completely democratic’, what position would you choose?”Sources: Freedom House. 2007. Freedom in the World 2007.Washington, DC: Freedom House. www.freedomhouse.org; Monty Marshall and Keith Jaggers. 2003. Polity IV

10Sources: Freedom House. 2007. Freedom in the World 2007.Washington, DC: Freedom House. www.freedomhouse.org; Monty Marshall and Keith Jaggers. 2003. Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800‐2003. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity/; Tatu Vanhanen. 2000. ‘A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810‐1998.’ Journal of Peace Research 37(2): 251‐265; Jose Cheibub and Jennifer Gandhi. 2004. ’A six‐fold measure of democracies and dictatorships.’ Unpublished paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

6/8/2008www.pipppanorris.com

11Notes: Freedom House rating of liberal democracy, 2005 (7‐point scale of civil liberties and political rights with the score reversed, so that more democratic = high). WorldValues Survey 2005‐7 Q163: “How democratically is this country being governed today? Again, using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means that it is ‘not at all democratic’ and

10 means that it is ‘completely democratic’, what position would you choose?” Sources: Freedom House World Values Survey 2005‐7.

MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS DIFFER…

6/8/2

Correlation Sig. (2‐tailed)Physical Integrity Rights Index .211 008

www.pip

y g y g

Disappearances .166

Extrajudicial killings .114Political imprisonment .142 ppanorris.com

Political imprisonment .142Torture .277 **

Empowerment Rights Index .222Freedom of Association .072Freedom of Movement .128Freedom of Movement .128

Freedom of Speech .154Political Participation Rights .138

Freedom of religion .140Worker’s rights 144Worker s rights .144Women’s economic rights .306 **

Women’s political rights .452 **

Women’s social rights .348 **

12Notes:World Values Survey 1995‐2005 Q:164: “How much respect is there for individual human rights nowadays in this country? Do you feel there is.. A greatdeal of respect for individual human rights (4), Fairly much respect (3), Not much respect (2), or No respect at all (1)?” 77 nations Sources: David L. Cingranelliand David L. Richards 2004. The Cingranelli‐Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Database Coder Manual. http://ciri.binghamton.edu/; World Values Survey 2005‐7.

MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS DIFFER6/8/2008

www.pipppanorris.com

13Notes: World Values Survey 2005‐7 Q:164: How much respect is there for individual human rights nowadays in this country? Do you feel there is.. A greatdeal of respect for individual human rights (4), Fairly much respect (3), Not much respect (2), or No respect at all (1)?” Sources: David L. Cingranelli and DavidL. Richards 2004. The Cingranelli‐Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Database Coder Manual. http://ciri.binghamton.edu/; World Values Survey 2005‐7.

MASS AND ELITE EVALUATIONS OF CORRUPTION DIFFER…6/8/2008

www.pipppanorris.com

ld l “ l ll f h f h f ll h h h k l b f d( ) b14Notes:World Values Survey 2005‐7 Q200‐201: “Please tell me for each of the following statements whether you think it can always be justified(1), never be justified (10), or something in‐between, using this card…Cheating on taxes if you have a chance.”Sources: World Values Survey 2005‐7; Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2005

AS DO MASS AND ELITE PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION6/8/2008

www.pipppanorris.com

ld l “ l ll f h f h f ll h h h k l b f d( ) b f d15Notes:World Values Survey 2005‐7 Q200‐201: “Please tell me for each of the following statements whether you think it can always be justified(1), never be justified (10), or something in‐between, using this  card…Someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties.”Sources: World Values Survey 2005‐7; Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2005

IV. DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSION

WHY DIFFERENCE?

Polls give false reading? 

6/8/2g gPublic in repressive states feels unable to express honest sentiments in opinion polls?

Irrational public/‘False consciousness’?

008www.pip

Irrational public/‘False consciousness’?Public deluded by regime propaganda? 

Relative judgments?

ppanorris.com

j gPublic expectations too high or too low? Critical citizens…

Complex and technical concepts? Public ill‐informed, esp. where they lack direct experience of democracy and HR

Or ‘expert’ elite indicators are wrong…?Or expert elite indicators are wrong…?17

CONCLUSIONS

Mass and elite evaluations often divergeg

Where this occurs, analysts need to decide which provide more valid and reliable judgments

www.pip

Elite evaluations may have greater credibility for the international community

ppanorris.com

Mass evaluations (public opinion surveys in countries with freedom of speech) have greater legitimacy for national policymakersnational policymakers

More details: www.pippanorris.com

18