Political Support, Political Skepticism, and Political Stability in New Democracies

Abstract

Conventional wisdom holds that high levels of system support serve as an attitudinal barrier to democratic breakdown. In unconsolidated democracies, however, where democratic norms are regularly violated, the authors hypothesize that a healthy dose of political skepticism toward the political system, neither extreme rejection nor uncritical support of the system, would be associated with greater attitudinal resistance to breakdown in the form of a military coup. Using survey data from Peru, the authors confirm this expectation, showing that the relationship between system support and approval of military coups follows a V-curve pattern. This research fails to find support for the contention that a greater involvement in associational life or a greater degree of interpersonal trust predispose people to reject coups. The authors found other factors, such as rejection of the use of direct tactics for political purposes, support for the incumbent, and age, that are better predictors of coup support and rejection. S urvival of democracies over the long term has long been linked to their legitimacy. The prevailing scholarly view is that satisfaction with the performance of the political system and its institutions creates, over time, a reservoir of good will-a high level of diffuse support-that enables democratic regimes to survive when times are bad (Easton, 1965(Easton, , 1975Inglehart, 1988;Lipset, 1959;Norris, 1999). Studies have shown that in long-standing democratic systems, system support can be deep enough to allow these systems to weather even severe crises (Finkel, Muller, & Seligson, 1989;

Institutional Trust, Education, and Corruption: A Micro-Macro Interactive Approach

“…Most fundamentally, institutional trust has commonly been conceived of as a democratic good in and of itself as well as an important gauge of a democracy's political health (Dalton, 2004;Pharr and Putnam, 2000). A number of studies have also argued that a public's trust in the actors and institutions of political authority facilitates democratic consolidation in that institutionally-trusting individuals have been found to be more supportive of democratic principles (Seligson and Carrión, 2002). In addition, existing research underscores the importance of institutional distrust as a determinant of political participation, especially non-electoral participation such as protest activity and 4 political consumerism (Mishler and Rose, 2005;Micheletti et al, 2003).…”

A Spiral of Skepticism? The Relationship Between Citizens’ Involvement With Campaign Information to Their Skepticism and Political Knowledge

“…However, not all scholars believe that campaign information contributes to a more cynical, disengaged citizenry. For instance, political scientists have examined the concept of skepticism (Mishler & Rose, 1997; Seligson & Carrión, 2002). They operationalize skepticism via individuals’ responses to questions about their policy positions.…”

The Variant Effect of Decentralization on Trust in National and Local Governments in Asia

“…Political trust is widely defined as citizens' confidence and belief that political actors or institutions are 'producing outcomes consistent with their expectations' (Hetherington, 2005, p. 9;Levi and Stoker, 2000). Generally speaking, despite the multiplicity of governments, most scholarly attention has been paid to people's trust in national institutions, particularly the national government (Booth and Seligson, 2009, p. 41;Chanley et al, 2000;Kelleher and Wolak, 2007, p. 707;Mishler and Rose, 2001;Seligson and Carrión, 2002;Shi, 2001). The devolution revolution in government systems, however, has significantly elevated the importance of local government in terms of representation and policy implementation.…”