Testing the Churchill Hypothesis: Popular Support for Democracy and its Alternatives

Abstract

Whereas many studies of democratization evaluate it in idealist terms, Winston Churchill offered a relativist criterion, democracy being a lesser evil compared to other types of regime. Since everyone in a post-Communist society has lived in at least two different regimes, the New Democracies Barometer survey of post-Communist countries can ask people to evaluate five alternative regimes: a return to Communist rule, the army taking over, monarchy, rule by a strong leader, and decision making by economic experts. Factor analysis shows endorsement of three alternatives—the return to Communism, army rule, and personal dictatorship—form an authoritarianism scale. It also shows support for authoritarian rule is confined to a minority. Five hypotheses are tested to see what accounts for this. The political legacy of the past is more important than current government performance, economic attitudes, social structure differences, and national culture and traditions. Endorsement of economic technocrats making decisions is not related to authoritarianism; it reflects some national differences. Given the importance of experiencing both democratic and undemocratic regimes, the Churchill hypothesis does not apply in a country that has not yet attempted to introduce democratic institutions.

What Are the Political Consequences of Trust?

“…A political regime does not need to be fully democratic to be preferred by citizens over undemocratic alternatives (Rose & Mishler, 1996). Russians have firsthand experience with the current regime and its authoritarian predecessor and are able to compare the two.…”

In the Mood for Democracy? Democratic Support as Thermostatic Opinion

“…Indeed, researchers have argued that democratic satisfaction (if not quite democratic support) was eroded by the global economic recession of 2008 to 2010 (Armingeon and Guthmann 2014). Other studies have demonstrated a link between support for democracy and economic performance (Dalton 1994;Krieckhaus et al 2014;Magalhães 2014;Rose and Mishler 1996). Yet, in studies that include measures of both instrumental and intrinsic performance, it is the latter that is more important (Evans and Whitefield 1995;Rose, Mishler, and Haerpfer 1998;Mattes and Bratton 2007;Mattes, Denemark, and Niemi 2016a).…”

Government Effectiveness and Institutional Trust in Japan, South Korea, and China

“…The analyses also include demographic characteristics of respondents, such as gender, age, and education. Additionally, because numerous studies on political behavior have shown that individuals tend to evaluate their governmental institutions and political systems positively when they are happy about their personal finance or welfare, income satisfaction is added to the equation (e.g., see Carlsen, 2000; Clarke, Dutt, & Kornberg, 1993; Evans & Whitefield, 1995; Fiorina, 1981; Lewis‐Beck, 1988; Lewis‐Beck & Paldam, 2000; MacKuen, Erikson, & Stimson, 1992; McAllister, 1999; Powell, 1982; Powell & Whitten, 1993; Rose & Mishler, 1996; Tóka, 1995; Weatherford, 1987). In sum, the following hypotheses are tested:…”