https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7984-5716
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Recent studies exploring public opinion on participatory democracy show that disadvantaged social groups tend to hold favourable views on participatory processes. At the same time, research has also found that these groups frequently express feelings of weak agency and lack of competence to make valuable contributions to political processes. How then is support for democratic participation to be understood, if people see themselves as unskilled and incapable agents? To address this question, a series of focus groups were conducted with young, middle-aged, and older Spanish adults in situations of socioeconomic disadvantage. Like other studies, the analysis found that the participants had positive views of participatory reforms, but this was modified by low levels of personal and collective agency (internal and external efficacy and horizontal mistrust). While some scholars argue that such ambivalence is coherent with populism, the analysis suggests that many participants (particularly younger and middle-aged adults) are keenly appreciative of the complexity of such proposals and that negativity relates to the implementation of participative processes without genuine redistribution of knowledge and power, as well as a lack of mechanisms to guarantee responsiveness and commitment to bottom-up democracy.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Ernesto Ganuza and Marta García de Paredes for their lucid suggestions on the early versions of this work.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Stealth Democracy.
2 Bengtsson and Mattila, “Direct Democracy”; Bowler, Donovan, and Karp, “Enraged or Engaged”; Webb, “Who is Willing”; and Coffé and Michels, “Education and Support”.
3 “Do the Rich”.
4 “Who Wants to Deliberate”.
5 “Sortition, Its Advocates”.
6 “Direct Democracy”.
7 Dalton, Burklin, and Drummond, “Public Opinion”.
8 Coffé and Michels, “Education and Support”.
9 Bowler, Donovan, and Karp., “Enraged or Engaged”; and Collingwood, “Levels of Education”.
10 Contradictory evidence is shown by Bowler and Donovan, “Democracy, Institutions and Attitudes”.
11 Font et al., ¿Democracia sigilosa?, Chapter 2.
12 “Wanting to be Heard”, 548.
13 Webb, “Who is Willing”.
14 Bengtsson and Mattila, “Direct Democracy”; Dalton, Burklin, and Drummond., “Public Opinion”; Bowler, Donovan, and Karp, “Enraged or Engaged”; and Coffé and Michels, “Education and Support”.
15 Del Río, Navarro, and Font, “Citizens, Politicians and Experts”; Ghergina and Geissel, “Support for Direct”; Bedock and Pilet, “Who Supports”; and “Enraged, Engaged”.
16 Talking Politics.
17 Shingles, “Black Consciousness”.
18 García-Espín and Ganuza, “Participatory Skepticism”.
19 Internal efficacy is understood as “the individual's perception of his or her own competence as a political actor” (See Pollock III, “The Participatory Consequences”, 403). External efficacy “refers to whether or not the individual perceives the political system as potentially responsive”.
20 Horizontal trust is defined as the concern about citizens’ morals, civic qualities, information, and education. See Navarro, “Procesos y confianza”.
21 Navarro, see note 20; and Gherghina and Geissel, “Support for Direct”.
22 Walsh, Jennings, and Stoke, “The Effects of Social Class Identification”; and Fernández-Ballesteros et al., “Determinants and Structural Relation”.
23 Canovan, “Trust the People”.
24 Webb, “Who is Willing”, 750.
25 Stoker and Hay, “Understanding and Challenging”.
26 See note 12.
27 "The Populist Zeitgeist".
28 Fung and Wright, “Deepening Semocracy”; Baiocchi and Ganuza, Popular Democracy; and Lupien, “Participatory Democracy”.
29 As Burawoy suggests in relation to production relationships. See in “The Roots of Domination”.
30 Font and Navarro, “Personal Experience”.
31 Díaz-Parra and Jover, “Social Movements in Crisis”.
32 Moscovici, Social Representations.
33 Morgan, "Focus Groups".
34 Stoker, Hay, and Barr, “Fast Thinking”.
35 See note 11 above.
36 Wright, Comprender las clases sociales.
37 The moderation guide can be read in the methodological appendix.
38 Yanow, “Interpretive Analysis”.
39 Social representations refer to the shared discourses that people create around a phenomenon (Moscovici, Social Representations).
40 See for example note 14.
41 Gherghina and Geissel, “Support for Direct”.
42 Gherghina and Geissel, “Linking Democratic Preferences”; and Bedock, “Citizens' Contrasting Aspirations”.
43 See note 11.
44 Font and Navarro, “Personal Experience”.
45 Fishman, Democratic Practice.
46 See note 18.
47 See note 12 above.
48 Bourdieu, “La représentation politique”.
49 Fraile, Ferrer, and Martín et al., Jóvenes.
50 See note 31.
51 See note 11 above.
52 Fernández-Martínez and Font, “The Devil”.
53 Torcal, “The Decline”.
54 See note 18.
55 Bedock and Pilet, “Enraged, Engaged”.
56 See note 24.
57 See note 28.
58 Ghergina and Geissel, “Support for Direct”, 13.
59 Bengtsson, “Citizens’ Perceptions”.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Patricia García-Espín
Patricia García-Espín is Lecturer in the University of Granada (Spain). She holds a PhD in Political Science from Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona (UAB). She obtained a BA in History from UAB and another in Political Analysis at Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville (Spain). Her research focuses on political participation, the effects and problems of participatory democracy, and the public opinion on participatory processes. She works with various qualitative methods (case-studies, focus groups and ethnography). Recently she has published “Las articulaciones de la participación. Una etnografía de la democracia directa” (CIS), and articules in Qualitative Sociology, Revista de Estudios Políticos, Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, Journal of Public Deliberation and Administration and Society.