Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:24:34.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legitimacy from above: the partisan foundations of support for the political system in democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2012

Christopher J. Anderson  and
Aida Just
Christopher J. Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Aida Just*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Bilkent University, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey
*
*E-mail: aidap@bilkent.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate the partisan foundations of political legitimacy. We argue that the goals parties pursue shape their supporters’ views about the political system via the messages they communicate about the desirability of the political system. Combining public opinion survey data collected in 15 democracies with data on the goal orientations and policy positions of 116 political parties, we find that office-seeking parties take more positive positions toward the status quo of the political regime than policy-seeking parties. Moreover, we find that these positions have consequences. Specifically, supporters of parties with more positive positions toward the system report systematically higher levels of support than supporters of parties that communicate more negative views. Taken together, these findings suggest that political parties play an active role in shaping citizens’ views of the political system and that office-seeking parties in particular mobilize consent among citizens in contemporary democracies.

Keywords

legitimacypolitical partiesrepresentation
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , November 2013 , pp. 335 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. (2001), Party Competition and Responsible Party Government, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Adams, J., Ezrow, L.Somer-Topcu, Z. (2011), ‘Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties’ policy statements during elections’, American Journal of Political Science 55(2): 370–382.Google Scholar
Aldrich, J.H. (1995), Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Almond, G.A.Verba, S. (1963), The Civic Culture, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Anderson, C.J.Guillory, C.A. (1997), ‘Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems’, American Political Science Review 91(1): 66–82.Google Scholar
Anderson, C.J.Singer, M.M. (2008), ‘The sensitive left and the impervious right’, Comparative Political Studies 41(4–5): 564–599.Google Scholar
Anderson, C.J.Tverdova, Y.V. (2003), ‘Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies’, American Journal of Political Science 47(1): 91–109.Google Scholar
Anderson, C.J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T.Listhaug, O. (2005), Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, K.Nickerson, D.W. (2009), ‘Modeling certainty with clustered data: a comparison of methods’, Political Analysis 7(2): 177–190.Google Scholar
Balch, G.I. (1974), ‘Multiple indicators in survey research: the concept sense of political efficacy’, Political Methodology 1(1): 1–43.Google Scholar
Baum, C.F. (2006), An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using Stata, College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. (2004), ‘Models of electoral system change’, Electoral Studies 23(3): 363–389.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. (2007), ‘The electoral laws as political consequences: explaining the origins and change of electoral institutions’, Annual Review of Political Science 10: 363–390.Google Scholar
Benoit, K.Laver, M. (2006), Party Policy in Modern Democracies, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benoit, K.Laver, M. (2007), ‘Estimating party policy positions: comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis’, Electoral Studies 26(1): 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, K., Laver, M.Mikhaylov, S. (2009), ‘Treating words as data with error: uncertainty in text statements of policy positions’, American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 495–513.Google Scholar
Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nadeau, R.Nevitte, N. (2001), ‘Measuring party identification: Britain, Canada, and the United States’, Political Behavior 23(1): 5–22.Google Scholar
Budge, I. (1994), ‘A new spatial theory of party competition: uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally’, British Journal of Political Science 24(4): 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I.Farlie, D.J. (1977), Voting and Party Competition, London and New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Budge, I., Crewe, I.Farlie, D.J. (eds) (1976), Party Identification and Beyond, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Budge, I., Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J.Tanenbaum, E. (2001), Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bunce, V. (2003), ‘Rethinking recent democratization: lessons from the postcommunist experience’, World Politics 55(2): 167–192.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Gurin, G.Miller, W.E. (1954), The Voter Decides, Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E.Stokes, D.E. (1960), The American Voter, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E.Stokes, D.E. (1966), Elections and the Political Order, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carsey, T.M.Layman, G.C. (2006), ‘Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate’, American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 464–477.Google Scholar
Clarke, H.D., Dutt, N.Kornberg, A. (1993), ‘The political economy of attitudes toward policy and society in western European democracies’, Journal of Politics 55(4): 998–1021.Google Scholar
Colomer, J.M. (2005), ‘It's parties that choose electoral systems (or, Duverger's laws upside down’, Political Studies 53(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, P.E.Pierce, R. (1986), Political Representation in France, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (1996), Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Western Democracies, 2nd edn., Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (1999), ‘Political support in advanced industrial democracies’, in P. Norris (ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–77.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (2004), Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J.Weldon, S. (2007), ‘Partisanship and party system institutionalization’, Party Politics 13(2): 179–196.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Enelow, J.M.Hinich, M.J. (eds) (1984), The Spatial Theory of Voting, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, R.S.Romero, D.W. (1990), ‘Candidate equilibrium and the behavioral model of the vote’, American Political Science Review 84(4): 1103–1126.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P. (1981), Retrospective Voting in American National Elections, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, C.H. (1984), ‘Issue preferences, socialization, and the evolution of party identification’, American Journal of Political Science 28(3): 459–478.Google Scholar
Franklin, C.H.Jackson, J.E. (1983), ‘The dynamics of party identification’, American Political Science Review 77(4): 957–973.Google Scholar
Fuchs, D., Guidorossi, G.Svenson, P. (1995), ‘Support for the democratic system’, in H.-D. Klingemann and D. Fuchs (eds), Citizens and the State, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 323–353.Google Scholar
Fuchs, D.Klingemann, H.-D. (1995), ‘Citizens and the state: a changing relationship?’, in H.-D. Klingemann and D. Fuchs (eds), Citizens and the State, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Gabel, M.Scheve, K. (2007), ‘Estimating the effect of elite communications on public opinion using instrumental variables’, American Journal of Political Science 51(4): 1013–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, B. (1999), ‘What do we know about democratization after twenty years?’, Annual Review of Political Science 2: 115–144.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, B.Weissberg, R. (1978), ‘Elections and the mobilization of popular support’, American Journal of Political Science 22(1): 31–55.Google Scholar
Golder, M. (2003), ‘Explaining variation in the success of extreme right parties in Western Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 36(4): 432–466.Google Scholar
Goren, P. (2005), ‘Party identification and core political values’, American Journal of Political Science 49(4): 881–896.Google Scholar
Green, D.P., Palmquist, B.Schickler, E. (2002), Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identity of Voters, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Harmel, R.Robertson, J.D. (1986), ‘Government stability and regime support: a cross-national analysis’, Journal of Politics 48(4): 1029–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, R.Torney, J. (1967), The Development of Political Attitudes in Children, Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Hibbing, J.R.Theiss-Morse, E. (1995), Congress as Public Enemy, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, S. (1994), ‘Party identification compared across the Atlantic’, in W.E. Miller, M.K. Jennings and T.E. Mann (eds), Elections at Home and Abroad. Essays in Honor of Warren E. Miller, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 93–121.Google Scholar
Holmberg, S. (2003), ‘Are political parties necessary?’, Electoral Studies 22(2): 287–299.Google Scholar
Holmberg, S. (2007), ‘Partisanship reconsidered’, in R.J. Dalton and H.-D. Klingemann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 557–570.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. (1992), ‘Party identification measures in the Anglo-American context: a national survey experiment’, American Journal of Political Science 36(2): 542–559.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. (2006), ‘Party identification: unmoved mover or sum of preferences?’, Annual Review of Political Science 9: 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, W.G. (1988), ‘The impact of party identification on issue attitudes’, American Journal of Political Science 32(3): 643–661.Google Scholar
Katz, R.Mair, P. (1995), ‘Changing models of party organization and party democracy: the emergence of the cartel party’, Party Politics 1(1): 5–27.Google Scholar
Kim, H.M., Powell, G.B.Fording, R.C. (2010), ‘Electoral systems, party systems, and ideological representation: an analysis of distortion in western democracies’, Comparative Politics 42(2): 167–185.Google Scholar
Kirchheimer, O. (1966), ‘The Transformation of the Western European party systems’, in J. LaPalombara and M. Weiner (eds), Political Parties and Political Development, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 177–200.Google Scholar
Klingemann, H.-D. (1999), ‘Mapping political support in the 1990s: a global analysis’, in P. Norris (ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Budge, I., Bara, J.McDonald, M.D. (2006), Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990–2003, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, J.W. (2003), ‘Political cynicism and third party support in American presidential elections’, American Politics Research 31(1): 48–65.Google Scholar
Koole, R. (1996), ‘Cadre, catch-all or cartel? A comment on the notion of the cartel party’, Party Politics 2(4): 507–527.Google Scholar
Lane, R.E. (1959), Political Life. Why People Get Involved in Politics, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Laver, M. (1997), Private Desires, Political Action, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Laver, M.Hunt, W.B. (1992), Policy and Party Competition, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Layman, G.C.Carsey, T.M. (2002), ‘Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate’, American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 786–802.Google Scholar
Lenz, G.S. (2009), ‘Learning and opinion change, not priming: reconsidering the priming hypothesis’, American Journal of Political Science 53(4): 821–837.Google Scholar
Levi, M. (1997), Consent, Dissent and Patriotism, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, M.Stokes, L. (2000), ‘Political trust and trustworthiness’, Annual Review of Political Science 3: 475–507.Google Scholar
Linde, J.Ekman, J. (2003), ‘Satisfaction with democracy: a note on frequently used indicator in comparative politics’, European Journal of Political Research 42(3): 391–408.Google Scholar
Lipset, S.M. (1959), Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics, Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Lowe, W., Benoit, K., Mikhaylov, S.Laver, M. (2011), ‘Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 26(1): 123–155.Google Scholar
McDonald, M.D.Budge, I. (2005), Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A.H.Listhaug, O. (1990), ‘Political parties and confidence in government: a comparison of Norway, Sweden, and the United States’, British Journal of Political Science 20(3): 357–386.Google Scholar
Miller, A.H.Listhaug, O. (1999), ‘Political performance and institutional trust’, in P. Norris (ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support to Democratic Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 204–217.Google Scholar
Miller, E.W.Shanks, J.M. (1996), The New American Voter, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mishler, W.Rose, R. (1997), ‘Trust, distrust, and skepticism: popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies’, Journal of Politics 59(2): 419–451.Google Scholar
Mishler, W.Rose, R. (2001), ‘What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies’, Comparative Political Studies 34(1): 30–62.Google Scholar
Müller, W.C.Strøm, K. (1999), Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nadeau, R.Blais, A. (1993), ‘Accepting the election outcome: the effect of participation on loser's consent’, British Journal of Political Science 23(4): 553–563.Google Scholar
Newton, K. (1999), ‘Social and political trust’, in P. Norris (ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 169–187.Google Scholar
Newton, K.Norris, P. (2000), ‘Confidence in public institutions: faith, culture, or performance?’, in S.J. Pharr and R.D. Putnam (eds), Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries?, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 52–73.Google Scholar
Norris, P.(ed.) (1999), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2005), Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Orren, G. (1997), ‘Fall from grace: the public's loss of faith in government’, in J.S. Nye P.D. Jr., Zelikow and D.C. King (eds), Why People Don't Trust Government?, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 77–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paskeviciute, A. 2006. ‘Elections, policy representation, and system legitimacy in contemporary democracies’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Paskeviciute, A. (2009), ‘Party identification and system support in contemporary democracies’, in J. Bartle and P. Bellucci (eds), Political Parties and Partisanship: Social Identities and Individual Attitudes, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pharr, J.S.Putnam, R.D. (2000), Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling The Trilateral Countries?, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G.B. (1982), Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability and Violence, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G.B. (1986), ‘Extremist parties and political turmoil: two puzzles’, American Journal of Political Science 30(2): 357–378.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A. (2005), ‘Democracy as an equilibrium’, Public Choice 123(3-4): 253–273.Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. (1982), Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Robertson, D. (1976), A Theory of Party Competition, London and New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sanders, D., Burton, J.Kneeshaw, J. (2002), ‘Identifying the true party identifiers: a question wording experiment’, Party Politics 8(2): 193–205.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. (1942), Party Government, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. (1960), The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P.M.Hagendoorn, L. (2007), When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and Its Discontents in the Netherlands, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. (1963), ‘Spatial models of party competition’, American Political Science Review 57(2): 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, K. (1990), ‘A behavioral theory of competitive parties’, American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 565–598.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J.L., Walsh, P., Shamir, M., Barnum, D.G.Gibson, J.L. (1993), ‘Why politicians are more tolerant: selective recruitment and socialization among political elites in Britain, Israel, New Zealand, and the United States’, British Journal of Political Science 23(1): 51–76.Google Scholar
Torcal, M., Gunther, R.Ramon Montero, J. (2002), ‘Anti-party sentiments in Southern Europe’, in R. Gunther, J. Ramon Montero and J.J. Linz (eds), Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 257–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T.R. (1990), Why People Obey the Law, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Volkens, A. (2007), ‘Strengths and weaknesses of approaches to measuring policy positions of parties’, Electoral Studies 26(1): 108–120.Google Scholar
Volkens, A., Bara, J.Budge, I. (2009), ‘Data quality in content analysis: the case of the comparative manifestos project’, Historical Social Research – Historische Sozialforschug 34(1): 234–251.Google Scholar
Weingast, B.R. (1997), ‘The political foundations of democracy and the rule of law’, American Political Science Review 91(2): 245–263.Google Scholar
Wolinetz, S.B. (2002), ‘Beyond the catch-all party: approaches to the study of parties and party organization in contemporary democracies’, in R. Gunther, J. Ramon Montero and J.J. Linz (eds), Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 136–166.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. (1992), The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Anderson supplementary material

Appendix

Download Anderson supplementary material(File)
File 32.3 KB