Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What drives process preferences? The role of perceived qualities of policymakers and party preferences

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Acta Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article analyzes factors which explain support for the representative model and its two main alternatives: direct democracy and technocracy. It discusses the role played by two understudied explanatory factors: perceptions relating to the personal qualities of the different actors involved in decision-making (i.e. representatives, citizens and experts) and electoral support for mainstream parties (PSOE and PP) and new parties (Ciudadanos and Podemos). We rely on two Spanish surveys from 2011 and 2015. The results show that both perceived qualities and party preferences are linked to support for the three decision-making models. The emergence of new parties in 2015 has reshaped the connection between party choice and process preferences and has made this relationship stronger.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Throughout this article, we use interchangeably the concepts of participation and direct democracy as well as technocrats and experts for referring to these alternative or complementary models, despite not necessarily being the same in the reality.

  2. In this stealth model, empathetic and non-selfish politicians would make decisions in collaboration with independent experts or successful entrepreneurs. Citizen direct involvement would not be necessary.

  3. See:https://www.ara.cat/politica/Ciutadans-utopia-tecnocratica_0_1808219310.html.

  4. For more technical details, see:https://www.cis.es/cis/export/sites/default/-Archivos/Marginales/2860_2879/2860/Ft2860.pdf.

  5. Andalusia /rest of Spain: PSOE = 34.5/30; PP = 18/21; IU = 5/3. In addition, correlations between dependent and independent variables go on the same direction: when they are significant in both samples, the correlation is always in the same direction for each pair of variables.

  6. Podemos was created in 2014, obtaining five representatives (7.98% of votes) in the European elections of that year. In 2015, Podemos presented candidacies in coalition with other political forces like IU (different coalitions were made in different local contexts), obtaining 134 representatives in regional parliaments (including 15 in Andalusia) and 42 members of national parliament (12.67%). Ciudadanos was launched in 2006 in Catalonia. At national level, Ciudadanos presented a candidature for the 2008 national election (obtaining 0.18%). Ciudadanos’ extension outside Catalonia accelerated in the 2014 European elections with two representatives (3.16%), and in 2015 with 1,527 representatives in local elections, 93 representatives in regional parliaments (including 9 in Andalusia) and 40 representatives in national government (13.94%).

  7. A higher polarization appears in 2015 for the three democratic models, especially in the lowest values.

  8. These corresponded to the National General Elections of 2008 in one case and regional elections of 2015 in the other. Voting for the PP and the PSOE was available in both cases. Ciudadanos only appears in 2015. In 2011 IU appears, while in 2015, we grouped together the voters of Podemos and IU, which have similar attitudes, using the label of the coalition they formed later that same year (UP; Unidos Podemos). We use Podemos to refer both Podemos and Unidos Podemos.

  9. In general, literature on presidential popularity includes a capacity factor which incorporates the level of information (Mondak 1995; Cwalina and Falkowski 2016). However, to provide a better justification about the comparability between “well-informed” in 2011 and “be capable” in 2015, we made some checks (not shown). We compared the effect of “citizens are capable” and “people are not enough informed to make important political decisions.” Results show a similar behavior of these explanatory factors in relation to our dependent variables: support for referendums (positive and significant association, in both cases); support for experts (negative association, not significant, in both) and support for politicians (positive association, in both, only significant for capacity).

  10. Some changing relationships include the disappearance of the (negative) relationship between left and technocracy or the appearing relationship between age and support to the direct democratic mode.

  11. For example, Rapeli (2016) has used a single 11-point scale to measure support for politicians (0) and experts (10).

References

  • Allen, N., and S. Birch. 2014. Tempests and teacups: Politicians’ reputations in the wake of the expenses scandal. In The political costs of the 2009 British MPs’ Expenses Scandal, 132–152. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, N., and S. Birch. 2015. Process preferences and British public opinion: Citizens' judgements about government in an era of anti-politics. Political Studies 63 (2): 390–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexiadou, D. 2018. Technocratic government and economic policy. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics, ed. W. Thompson. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anduiza, E., A. Gallego, and J. Muñoz. 2013. Turning a blind eye: Experimental evidence of partisan bias in attitudes toward corruption. Comparative Political Studies 46 (12): 1664–1692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkerman, A., C. Mudde, and A. Zaslove. 2014. How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters. Comparative Political Studies 47 (9): 1324–1353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedock, C., and Pilet, J.B. 2018. “Could representative democracy be reformed?: A citizens’ perspective”, Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Cyprus.

  • Bjånesøy, L., and E. Ivarsflaten. 2016. What kind of challenge? Right-wing populism in contemporary Western Europe. In Democratic transformations in Europe. Challenges and opportunities, ed. Y. Peters and M. Tatham, 33–50. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, Å. 2012. Citizens’ perceptions of political processes. A Critical evaluation of preference consistency and survey items. Revista Internacional de Sociología 70 (2): 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, Å., and M. Mattila. 2009. Direct democracy and its critics: Support for direct democracy and ‘stealth’democracy in Finland. West European Politics 32 (5): 1031–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, A. 2011. Platform or personality? The role of party leaders in elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S., D. Denemark, T. Donovan, and D. McDonnell. 2017. Right-wing populist party supporters: Dissatisfied but not direct democrats. European Journal of Political Research 56 (1): 70–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chironi, D., and R. Fittipaldi. 2017. Social movements and new forms of political organization: Podemos as a hybrid party. Partecipazione e Conflitto 10 (1): 275–305. https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v10i1p275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, H.S., and Å. von Schoultz. 2019. Ideology and deliberation: An analysis of public support for deliberative practices in Finland. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 31: 178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Close, C., C. Kelbel, and E. van Haute. 2017. What citizens want in terms of intra-party democracy: Popular attitudes towards alternative candidate selection procedures. Political Studies 65 (3): 646–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffé, H., and A. Michels. 2014. Education and support for representative, direct and stealth democracy. Electoral Studies 35: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingwood, L. 2012. Levels of education and support for direct democracy. American Politics Research 40 (4): 571–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cwalina, W., and A. Falkowski. 2016. Morality and competence in shaping the images of political leaders. Journal of Political Marketing 15 (2–3): 220–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R.J., W.P. Burklin, and A. Drummond. 2001. Public opinion and direct democracy. Journal of Democracy 12 (4): 141–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • del Río, A., C.J. Navarro, and J. Font. 2016. Citizens, politicians and experts in political decision-making: The importance of perceptions of the qualities of political actors. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas (REIS) 154 (1): 83–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esaiasson, P., M. Persson, M. Gilljam, and T. Lindholm. 2019. Reconsidering the role of procedures for decision acceptance. British Journal of Political Science 49: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Martínez, J.L., and J. Font Fábregas. 2018. The devil is in the detail: What do citizens mean when they support stealth or participatory democracy? Politics 38 (4): 458–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Font, J., C. Navarro, M. Wojcieszak, and P. Alarcón. 2012. ¿"Democracia sigilosa" en España?: Preferencias de la ciudadanía española sobre las formas de decisión política y sus factores explicativos. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Font, J., M. Wojcieszak, and C.J. Navarro. 2015. Participation, representation and expertise: Citizen preferences for political decision-making processes. Political Studies 63: 153–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Espín, P., and E. Ganuza. 2017. Participatory skepticism: Ambivalence and conflict in popular discourses of participatory democracy. Qualitative Sociology 40 (4): 425–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Espín, P., E. Ganuza, and S. De Marco. 2017. Assemblies, referendums or consultations? Social representations of citizen participation. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 157: 45–64. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.157.45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherghina, S., and B. Geissel. 2017. Linking democratic preferences and political participation: Evidence from Germany. Political Studies 65: 24–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, J.R., and E. Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, S., H. Kriesi, and G. Vidal. 2018. Old versus new politics: The political spaces in Southern Europe in times of crises. Party Politics 24 (1): 10–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, W., G. Stoker, and J. Twyman. 2016. The dimensions and impact of political discontent in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs 69 (4): 876–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D.R. 1986. Presidential character revisited. In Political cognition, ed. R.R. Lau and D.O. Sears, 233–255. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, H. 2005. Direct democratic choice: The Swiss experience. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lago, I., and F. Martínez. 2011. Why new parties? Party Politics 17 (1): 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavezzolo, S., and L. Ramiro. 2018. Stealth democracy and the support for new and challenger parties. European Political Science Review 10: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorente Fontaneda, J., and I. Sánchez-Vítores. 2018. Disaffection at the ballot box: The 2015 general election in Spain. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 161: 41–62. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.161.41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonnell, D., and M. Valbruzzi. 2014. Defining and classifying technocrat-led and technocratic governments. European Journal of Political Research 53 (4): 654–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Rosón, M.D.M. 2016. I prefer the corrupt one: A profile of citizens who choose dishonest but competent politicians. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 153: 77–92. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.153.77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J.J. 1995. Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. The Journal of Politics 57 (4): 1043–1069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosca, L., and M. Quaranta. 2017. Voting for movement parties in Southern Europe: The role of protest and digital information. South European Society and Politics 22 (4): 427–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, C. 2012. Procesos y confianza política: ¿quiénes deben ser virtuosos? In Democracia sigilosa en España, 83–98.

  • Neblo, M.A., K.M. Esterling, R.P. Kennedy, D.M. Lazer, and A.E. Sokhey. 2010. Who wants to deliberate—and why? American Political Science Review 104 (3): 566–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orriols, Ll, and G. Cordero. 2016. The breakdown of the Spanish two-party system: The Upsurge of Podemos and Ciudadanos in the 2015 General Election. South European Society and Politics 21 (4): 469–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavía, J.M., A. Bodoque, and J. Martín. 2016. The birth of a new party: Podemos, a hurricane in the Spanish crisis of trust. Open Journal of Social Sciences 4 (09): 67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapeli, L. 2016. Public support for expert decision-making: Evidence from Finland. Politics 36 (2): 142–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riera, P., P. Barberá, R. Gómez, J.A. Mayoral, and J.R. Montero. 2013. The electoral consequences of corruption scandals in Spain. Crime, Law and Social Change 60 (5): 515–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riera, P., and M. Franklin. 2016. Types of liberal democracy and generational shifts: How citizens’ views of democracy differ across generational cohorts. In How Europeans view and evaluate democracy, ed. M. Ferrín and H. Kriesi, 111–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodon, T., and M.J. Hierro. 2016. Podemos and Ciudadanos shake up the Spanish Party System: The 2015 local and regional elections. South European Society and Politics 21 (3): 339–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Teruel, J., A. Barrio, and O. Barberà. 2016. Fast and furious: Podemos’ quest for power in multi-level Spain. South European Society and Politics 21 (4): 561–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Teruel, J., and M. Jerez. 2018. The selection and deselection of technocratic ministers in democratic Spain. In Technocratic ministers and political leadership in European democracies, ed. A. Costa, M. Cotta, and P. Tavares. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, A., P. Müller, C. Schemer, D.S. Wirz, M. Wettstein, and W. Wirth. 2017. Measuring populist attitudes on three dimensions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 30 (2): 316–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A., C.J. Tolbert, and A.M. Keller. 2010. Electoral and structural losers and support for a national referendum in the US. Electoral Studies 29 (3): 509–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tronconi, F. 2018. The Italian Five Star Movement during the crisis: towards normalisation? South European Society and Politics 23 (1): 163–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermolen, K. 2017. Stealth democracy revisited: Reconsidering preferences for less visible government. Political Research Quarterly 70 (3): 687–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verge, T. 2007. Modelos alternativos de participación ciudadana en los partidos políticos españoles: un estudio del PSOE, el PP e IU. Revista Española de Ciencia Política 17: 155–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, G. 2018. Challenging business as usual? The rise of new parties in Spain in times of crisis. West European Politics 41 (2): 261–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Carlos II de Madrid (UC3M), Getafe, Madrid, Spain

    José Luis Fernández-Martínez

  2. Departament de Ciències Polítiques I Socials, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Plaça de La Mercè, 10, 08002, Barcelona, Spain

    Pau Alarcón Pérez

  3. Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (IESA-CSIC), Campo Santo de los Mártires, 7, 14004, Córdoba, Spain

    Joan Font Fábregas

Authors
  1. José Luis Fernández-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pau Alarcón Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joan Font Fábregas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Luis Fernández-Martínez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernández-Martínez, J.L., Alarcón Pérez, P. & Font Fábregas, J. What drives process preferences? The role of perceived qualities of policymakers and party preferences. Acta Polit 57, 117–142 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-020-00176-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-020-00176-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation