A new study published in Political Behaviour reveals that citizens who benefit from political decisions often fail to challenge undemocratic processes, potentially threatening democratic stability. The research, conducted through three studies in the United Kingdom, examines how citizens respond to violations of democratic norms when outcomes align with their preferences. Eri Bertsou (Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of St. Gallen (HSG)) is a co-author of this publication.
Elections and policy conflicts create winners and losers among citizens. Traditionally, democratic legitimacy depended on the behaviour of losers. This study focuses on the behaviour of winners and argues that safeguarding democracy also rests on the vigilance and restraint of those who gain from political decisions and elections.
The study finds that even in an established democracy like the UK, there is a significant gap between how winners and losers perceive democratic norm violations. When confronted with deeply flawed democratic processes, only 58% of winners believed the decision should be challenged, compared to 80% of losers.
At a time when democratic norms are under pressure worldwide, this research demonstrates that safeguarding democracy depends not only on the consent of losers, which was the traditional focus of democratic legitimacy. Democratic survival depends on the vigilance and restraint of the citizens who stand to gain from political decisions.
Key Findings:
• The research demonstrates a clear perception gap between winners and losers across major policy issues, including immigration policy, climate policy, and relations with the European Union.
• As democratic violations increase in number (from one to four), winners become more likely to challenge outcomes, with rejection rates rising from 47.3% to 58.0%.
• Citizens who are deeply invested in specific policy issues are less likely to exercise restraint when on the winning side, helping explain why polarized issues can facilitate elite behaviors that undermine democratic norms.
• The study reveals ideological differences in democratic restraint: citizens with conservative (right-wing) ideology and Conservative Party voters are less able to exercise restraint compared to those on the left and Labour Party voters.
Despite some encouraging signs that repeated democratic violations do increase winners’ likelihood of rejecting outcomes, the study highlights concerning trends. Even in cases of multiple democratic violations, more than 40% of winners still accept flawed processes.
The implications of these findings extend beyond British democracy to other established democracies, including the United States, where political winners’ commitment to democratic principles remains crucial for maintaining democratic stability.
