IPOL final Flashcards
Democratic elections
- Competitive
- Free and fair
- Inclusive instead of exclusive
- Periodic
Functions of democratic elections
§ Recruiting politicians
§ Making governments
§ Providing representation
§ Influencing policy
§ Educating voters
§ Building legitimacy
§ Strengthening elites
Pluralist/Majority Electoral Systems
First-past-the-post: This system elects the candidate with the most votes in a single round. Originating in the UK, it promotes stable majority governments but can marginalize smaller parties.
Two-round: Voters may have a second chance if no candidate secures a majority in the first round, increasing voter choice but adding election costs. It’s used in French presidential elections.
Alternative vote: Voters rank candidates by preference. Developed in Australia, it allows greater expression of voter preferences but can be complex to count.
Mixed Electoral Systems
Parallel systems: Combines proportional and majoritarian systems with separate seats, balancing proportional representation with geographic representation. Used in Japan and Russia.
Mixed-member-proportional: Blends proportionality with direct representatives in a single system, as seen in Germany, providing fairer representation for smaller parties.
PR Electoral Systems
List: Parties gain seats proportionate to votes, using closed or open lists. Common in Europe, it boosts party diversity but can lead to fragmented legislatures.
Single transferable vote (STV): Voters rank candidates, with a system of redistribution ensuring proportionality. Used in Ireland, it provides personalized but complex representation.
Advantages and Disadvantages: Majority vs. Proportional Representation Systems
Majority Systems
Advantages: Tend to create stable, single-party governments; simpler to understand and count.
Disadvantages: Can marginalize smaller parties and lead to “wasted votes,” reducing representation diversity.
Proportional Representation Systems
Advantages: Reflects a wider range of political opinions, allowing smaller parties fairer representation.
Disadvantages: Often results in coalition governments, which can be less stable and lead to complex decision-making processes.
Psychological Model
Voters support a political party consistently, often from habit or socialization. Originating from American political science, it highlights party loyalty but can overlook individual candidate qualities.
Sociological Model
Suggests voting is influenced by social group affiliations, like class or religion, emphasizing identity politics. Pioneered in the mid-20th century, it captures demographic voting trends but may oversimplify individual choice.
The Rational-Choice (Economic) Model
Voters make choices based on self-interest and policy preferences. Emerging from economic theory, it rationalizes voter behavior but may ignore emotional factors.
The Dominant-Ideological Model
Claims media and dominant cultural narratives shape voter choice, often aligning with elite interests. Relevant in critiques of mass media influence, it suggests voters are swayed by societal power structures.
Strategic voting
Occurs when individuals vote not for their favourite candidate but for one more likely to win or to prevent an undesired outcome. Originating from game theory, it highlights the tactical dimension of voting but can reduce genuine choice expression
Trustee Model of Representation
In this model, elected officials act according to their own judgment and expertise rather than following constituents’ specific wishes. The concept dates back to British philosopher Edmund Burke, who argued representatives should prioritize national interest. It emphasizes political autonomy but can lead to disconnects between representatives and voters, impacting trust in democratic systems.
Delegate Model of Representation
Representatives act strictly according to the wishes of their constituents, prioritizing their demands above personal views. Stemming from democratic theories emphasizing direct representation, it promotes voter accountability. This model strengthens voter control over representatives but may limit politicians’ flexibility to act on complex issues.
Mandate Model of Representation
Representatives are seen as carrying out the agenda on which they campaigned, effectively delivering a “mandate” given by voters. Rooted in 19th-century electoral theory, it aligns closely with the concept of party platforms and manifestos. It validates party-based promises, helping voters hold parties accountable, but may ignore shifts in public opinion post-election.
Partisan Dealignment
This term describes a trend where voters become less loyal to political parties, leading to weaker party affiliation. Identified in the late 20th century in Western democracies, it reflects rising voter independence. It has led to increased electoral volatility, making elections more unpredictable and influencing party strategy.
Resemblance Model of Representation
This model suggests that representatives should reflect the demographics and experiences of the population they represent. Emerging from theories on identity politics, it aims for a more inclusive form of representation. It can improve representation for marginalized groups, though critics argue it may overemphasize identity over expertise.
Class Dealignment
This concept indicates the weakening link between social class and party preference, with voters less likely to vote according to class interests. Observed as societies became more socially mobile, especially since the 1970s, as economic and social changes blurred class distinctions. Class dealignment impacts traditional party bases, forcing parties to appeal to broader or more diverse groups.
A constituency
a body of voters in a specific area who elect representatives to a legislative body. Rooted in representative democracy, it allows localized representation in government. Constituencies are crucial for democratic engagement, ensuring that elected officials are accountable to specific groups of people.
quasi-legal
actions or decisions that are not strictly legal but are made or enforced by an entity with some legal authority or influence
A catch-all party strategy
refers to a political approach where a party seeks to appeal to a broad range of voters across different social groups, ideologies, and interests rather than focusing on a specific constituency. This strategy emerged in the mid-20th century, notably in Western democracies, as parties aimed to expand their voter base beyond traditional strongholds by moderating their policies and adopting more centrist positions. The catch-all strategy can increase a party’s electoral chances by broadening its appeal, but it may dilute its ideological coherence and alienate core supporters.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy
is a political theory proposed by sociologist Robert Michels, which suggests that all organizations, regardless of how democratic they may initially appear, eventually develop oligarchic structures where power becomes concentrated in the hands of a small elite. Michels developed this idea in the early 20th century after observing political parties and trade unions, arguing that as organizations grow in size and complexity, leadership becomes necessary and inevitably leads to a concentration of power. This law highlights the tension between democratic ideals and the realities of organizational management, emphasizing that true democracy may be unachievable in large, structured organizations.
Factionalism
refers to the division of a group or political organization into smaller, often competing subgroups or factions, each with its own interests, goals, or beliefs. The term has been used in political theory to describe internal conflicts within parties, movements, or states, where rival factions struggle for power or influence. Originating from the concept of “factions” discussed by early political thinkers like James Madison in the U.S. Federalist Papers, factionalism can destabilize organizations or governments, but it can also promote debate and diversity of thought. However, unchecked factionalism may lead to fragmentation, weakening the unity or effectiveness of a grou
Direct action
illegal or unconstitutional action that refers to a form of political protest or activism where individuals or groups take immediate, often confrontational measures to achieve their goals, bypassing traditional political channels like voting or lobbying. The concept emerged prominently in the 19th and 20th centuries, especially within labor movements and civil rights struggles, where groups sought to directly challenge authority through strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, or other forms of civil disobedience. Direct action is seen as a powerful tool for bringing attention to social issues and pressuring authorities, though it can be controversial due to its potential for disruption and the risk of escalating tensions.
civil disobedience
direct action to make an explicit point justified by moral principles and with acceptance of legal consequences
descriptive vs substantiated representation
Descriptive representation refers to the idea that elected representatives should mirror the demographic characteristics of the population they represent, such as gender, race, or socioeconomic status. This concept gained traction in the 20th century, particularly in discussions around identity politics and calls for greater diversity in political bodies. Descriptive representation aims to ensure that all social groups have a voice in political decision-making, though critics argue it may focus too much on identity rather than policy expertise or effectiveness.
Substantive representation, on the other hand, focuses on the extent to which elected representatives advocate for and enact policies that align with the interests, needs, and values of their constituents. This model prioritizes the policy actions of representatives, regardless of their demographic background. Substantive representation is critical for ensuring that all voters, especially marginalized groups, are effectively represented in government, but it can be challenging to measure the true alignment of policies with constituent preferences.
association/ interest groups
an organized group of ppl that aims to influence policies or actions of government through lobbying and advocacy
political party
an organized group of ppl that aims to form the government, usually through elections
social movement
the loosely organized group of people that aim to collectively achieve a social goal/ social change
Cartel parties
are political parties that, rather than competing openly for broad public support, form mutually beneficial arrangements with each other and rely heavily on state resources for funding and support. The concept, developed by political scientists Richard Katz and Peter Mair in the 1990s, reflects how many established parties in advanced democracies have shifted from grassroots organizations to elite-led institutions that protect their interests within the political system. Cartel parties tend to limit competition by creating barriers for new parties, and by relying on public funding rather than membership contributions, they often grow distant from ordinary voters. This trend can lead to voter disengagement and scepticism toward the political establishment.
Styles of Leadership
Laissez-faire Leadership: minimal intervention, delegates authority, fosters harmony but risks coordination issues.
Transactional Leadership: hands-on, focused on practical goals, party unity, compromise; risks appearing unprincipled.
Transformational Leadership: visionary and ideological, seeks to mobilize support for a personal mission; hinges on leader’s resonance with public narratives.
strongman leadership
operate in a ‘grey zone’ between democracy and what can be seen as ‘soft’ authoritarianism, their distinctively ‘strong’ governing style being as much a strategy to maintain electoral support as a means of neutralizing political opposition. Strongman leaders also tend to favour a style of international diplomacy in which disputes are typically dealt with on a basis of leader-to-leader interaction (an example of this being the 2018 nuclear summit in Singapore between President Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (see p. 433)). Finally, strongman politics is deeply controversial. While many believe that it is entirely driven by personal ambition and tends towards tyranny and the flouting of conventional political norms, others argue that it satisfies a longing for more decisive leadership and amounts to the rejection of the politics of compromise and dithering.
An assembly committee
is a specialized group within a legislative assembly or parliament tasked with examining specific issues, drafting legislation, or overseeing government actions. Committees are formed to handle detailed work that is impractical for the full legislative body to manage, such as reviewing policy proposals, conducting hearings, or investigating particular matters. Originating in early parliamentary systems, committees enhance efficiency and allow for more in-depth scrutiny of issues, often drawing on members with relevant expertise. Assembly committees play a critical role in refining legislation, holding officials accountable, and ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered in the legislative process.
Madisonian democracy
is a model of governance based on the ideas of James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, who emphasized a system of checks and balances and the separation of powers to prevent any one faction or branch of government from becoming too powerful. In The Federalist Papers, particularly Federalist No. 10 and No. 51, Madison argued that a large republic with competing interests would protect individual rights by diluting the influence of any single group. This model underpins the U.S. Constitution, fostering a system where different branches and levels of government can check each other’s powers, thus reducing the risk of tyranny. Madisonian democracy remains foundational in modern democratic theory, though critics argue it can slow decision-making and lead to governmental gridlock.
Executive aggrandizement
refers to the gradual expansion of executive power, often at the expense of other branches of government, such as the legislative and judicial branches. This process can occur through measures like bypassing checks and balances, undermining judicial independence, or weakening legislative oversight. The concept has been discussed extensively in political science, particularly in the context of democratic erosion or authoritarian drift, where leaders consolidate authority through seemingly legal means rather than outright coups. While executive aggrandizement may allow for swift decision-making, it poses risks to democratic institutions by concentrating power in the executive and diminishing accountability.
adversary politics
a style of politics characterized by an antagonistic relationship between major parties that turns political life into an ongoing electoral battle. Parliamentary debate thus becomes a ‘continuous polemic’ before what is seen as the ‘bar of public opinion’.
constitution
A constitution is, broadly, a set of rules, written and unwritten, that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various government institutions, regulate the relationships between them, and define the relationship between the state and the individual. The balance between written (legal) and unwritten (customary or conventional) rules varies from system to system. The term ‘constitution’ is also used more narrowly to refer to a single, authoritative document (a ‘written’ constitution), which aims to codify major constitutional provisions; it constitutes the highest law in the land.
statute law
Law that is enacted by the legislature.
codified constitution
- one document that is of the highest order
- laws are difficult to amend or abolish
- is is justiciable meaning that all political bodies must be subject to the authority of the courts and, in particular, a supreme or constitutional court.
uncodified constitution
The absence of a codified document implies, most importantly, that the legislature enjoys sovereign or unchallengeable authority, meaning that bodies such as the UK Parliament and the Knesset in Israel are able to function as the ultimate arbiters of the constitution: the constitution means what they say it means.
The science of positive law
also known as jurisprudence or legal positivism, is a field of study that examines the nature of law as it exists in a society, focusing on laws that are created by human authorities rather than moral or natural principles. This approach is most closely associated with thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, who argued that laws are valid not because they are morally just, but because they are enacted by legitimate authorities and are enforced by institutions. The science of positive law seeks to analyze and systematize legal norms, practices, and their enforcement mechanisms, providing a clear framework for understanding how laws operate within a given society. Its relevance lies in its emphasis on the legal system as a set of rules that must be followed, regardless of their moral content, which can lead to debates about the relationship between law and justice.
Laws
Soft law: Law that is not binding and cannot be enforced; quasi- legal instruments that impose only moral obligations.
Hard law: Law that is enforceable and so establishes legally binding obligations.
the ‘harm principle’
The “harm principle” is a concept in political philosophy introduced by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty (1859). It states that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to others, and not to protect individuals from themselves or to promote their own good. Mill argued that individuals should have the freedom to act however they choose unless their actions directly harm others. This so-called ‘harm principle’ can be justified in two ways. First, it reflects the fact that human beings will only grow or develop if they enjoy the widest possible scope for unconstrained action, allowing them to make their own moral decisions. Second, a wider sphere for freedom promotes healthy debate and discussion, so advancing the cause of reason and promoting social progress.
Due process
refers to the legal principle that individuals are entitled to fair and impartial treatment through the judicial system, ensuring that their rights are protected under the law. Originating from the Magna Carta in 1215 and later enshrined in constitutional frameworks like the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, it guarantees protections such as the right to a fair trial, notice of legal proceedings, and an opportunity to be heard. Due process is fundamental to safeguarding individual freedoms against arbitrary state actions and ensuring justice, but debates often arise over its interpretation, particularly in balancing security and liberty.
Judicial activism
refers to the practice where judges interpret the law and constitution in a manner that actively shapes public policy or addresses societal issues, often going beyond the literal application of statutes. The concept gained prominence in the 20th century, particularly in the United States, with landmark rulings like Brown v. Board of Education, where the judiciary took an assertive role in advancing civil rights. Advocates see judicial activism as a necessary tool for addressing injustices and adapting the law to modern realities, while critics argue it undermines the separation of powers by allowing judges to impose their own views rather than deferring to elected lawmakers.
populist constitutionalism
Populist constitutionalism refers to a legal and political approach where constitutional principles are interpreted or restructured to align with the will of “the people,” often emphasizing direct democracy and challenging elite institutions. It is associated with populist movements that critique traditional checks and balances, favouring majoritarian rule and a stronger connection between government and popular sentiment. The concept has gained prominence in the 21st century, with leaders in countries like Hungary, Poland, and Turkey reshaping constitutional frameworks to reflect populist agendas. While it claims to empower ordinary citizens, populist constitutionalism often raises concerns about eroding judicial independence, minority rights, and the long-term stability of democratic systems: the manipulative construction of la voluntad constituyente, the contention that only a part of the people is the real people (often now at least symbolically privileging indigenous communities at the expense of mestizos, or making the “hidden majority” the only authentic people [Stavrakakis et al., 2016]); the exception detail and rigidity of the new constitutions; and the tendency further to develop constitutions in order to keep populists in power (most visible in the reign of Nicolás Maduro).
geopolitics
Geopolitics is an approach to foreign policy analysis that understands the actions, relationships and significance of states in terms of geographical factors such as location, climate, natural resources, physical terrain and population.
‘Federalist Papers’
published between 1787 and 1789. They emphasized the importance of establishing a strong centralized government while, at the same time, preserving state and individual freedoms.
reasons for states to become federal
- historical reasons, federations have often been formed by the coming together of a number of established political communities that nevertheless wish to preserve their separate identities and, to some extent, their autonomy
- geographical reasons, states are really big and hard to manage
- international affairs (Germany had enemy from Austria and France, ECSC had a threat of soviet union etc)
Administrative federalism
A style of federalism in which central government is the key policy-maker, and provincial government is charged with responsibility for policy implementation.
Quango
An acronym for quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization: a public body staffed by appointees, rather than politicians or civil servants
Devolution
Devolution is the transfer of power from central government to subordinate regional institutions. Devolved bodies thus constitute an intermediate tier of government between central and local government. However, devolution differs from federalism in that devolved bodies have no share in sovereignty. In administrative devolution, regional institutions implement policies that are decided elsewhere. In legislative devolution (sometimes called ‘home rule’), devolution involves the establishment of elected regional assemblies that have policy-making responsibilities.
regionalism
a process through which geographical regions become significant political and/or economic units.
Security regionalism: Forms of transnational regional cooperation that are designed primarily to protect states from their enemies, both neighbouring and distant ones.
Political regionalism: Attempts by states in the same area to strengthen or protect shared values, thereby enhancing their image, reputation, and diplomatic effectiveness.
Economic regionalism: Forms of cooperation amongst states in the same region that are designed to create greater economic opportunities, usually by fostering trading links.
functionalism
The theory that social and political phenomena can be explained by their function within a larger whole, implying that regional integration occurs because it has functional advantages over state independence.
neo-functionalist spillover
refers to the process where integration in one sector of governance or policy naturally leads to further integration in other sectors, driven by the interconnectedness of modern political and economic systems. This concept originates from neo-functionalism, a theory of regional integration developed in the mid-20th century by thinkers like Ernst B. Haas. The “spillover” effect occurs when cooperation in areas such as economic trade necessitates integration in related areas, like monetary policy or political governance, to achieve full functionality. It has been central to explaining the deepening integration of the European Union, but critics argue it underestimates the role of political resistance and national sovereignty
vertical multilevel governance
supranationalism/ intergouvermentalism and decentralisation
horizontal
privatisation, public-private partnerships
proportionality
action of governments should fit the seriousness of the societal problem
polycentricity
a judicial or political structure of overlapping and competing structures (like in a federal political system)
“hollowing-out of the state”
The “hollowing-out of the state” refers to a process where the traditional functions and powers of the state are reduced or decentralized, often due to globalization, privatization, and the rise of non-state actors. First conceptualized in political sociology during the late 20th century, it highlights how states increasingly delegate responsibilities to private companies, international organizations, or regional bodies. This shift can lead to increased efficiency and specialization but also raises concerns about reduced state accountability, weakened national sovereignty, weakened legitimacy level and the erosion of public services. It reflects states’ challenges in maintaining authority in a globalized and neoliberal world.
intergovernmentslim
any form of interaction between states that takes place based on sovereign independence
supranationalism
any form of cooperation between states in which sovereignty is transferred to a higher autonomy than the nation-state
european parliament
+ budget= agenda-setting power, which means what money is directed to agenda-setting areas is important (has to agree with it)
+ co-legislator: 85 policy areas
+ appointment:
right to veto the proposed president-designate and the whole EC
direct role in appointing the president
EP interviews and appoints individual EC candidates
+ scrutiny
EC submits annual work programme to EP
Limited to an invitation to explain and justify decisions
+ Dismissal: right to dismiss the whole EC
European Commission
+ proposes legislation to the EP and council
+ manages and implements EU policies and budget
+ enforce European law (with the ECJ)
+ represents the EU on the international stage
constraining dissensus
refers to a political or societal situation where disagreements and divisions within a group or between stakeholders limit the scope for decision-making or collective action. The term is often used in the context of the European Union, where growing public skepticism and nationalist sentiment among member states constrain the ability of EU institutions to pursue deeper integration or reforms. Originating from theories of political integration and governance, constraining dissensus highlights how increased pluralism and diverse perspectives can challenge unified policies. While it reflects the importance of debate in democracy, it can also hinder progress on pressing issues requiring collective solutions.
Demoicracy
is a political concept that envisions governance shared by multiple distinct peoples (or “demoi”), emphasizing cooperation among diverse groups while maintaining their autonomy. The term is particularly associated with the European Union, where it describes a system that balances shared decision-making among member states with respect for national sovereignty. Originating from democratic theory, demoicracy challenges the traditional notion of a single sovereign demos by proposing a pluralistic approach to governance. It highlights the importance of unity in diversity, but critics argue that it may lead to inefficiency and difficulty in achieving consensus on common policies.
Copenhagen criteria
stipulate that states wishing to join the union must possess “stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.”
authoritarian equilibrium
refers to the stability that authoritarian regimes maintain by balancing key factors such as repression, co-optation of elites, and limited concessions to the public. This concept emerged from political science studies on non-democratic governance, highlighting how such regimes sustain power despite lacking democratic legitimacy. Authoritarian equilibrium often relies on controlling dissent through censorship, suppressing opposition, and maintaining loyalty through patronage or economic benefits. While this stability allows regimes to persist, it is fragile, as reliance on coercion and limited freedoms can eventually provoke unrest or collapse when cracks in the system emerge.
The Lisbon Treaty
signed in 2007 and effective from 2009, is a key agreement that reformed the institutional structure of the European Union (EU). It was signed by all 27 EU member states to replace the failed European Constitution and update previous treaties like the Maastricht and Nice Treaties. The treaty introduced major changes, such as creating a permanent President of the European Council, expanding the role of the European Parliament, and giving more power to national parliaments. It also established the Charter of Fundamental Rights as legally binding and simplified decision-making by extending qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers. The Lisbon Treaty aimed to make the EU more democratic, transparent, and effective in a rapidly changing global context, but it faced criticism for concentrating power at the EU level and being adopted without referendums in some countries.
The European Ombudsman
is an independent institution established in 1995 by the European Union to investigate complaints about maladministration by EU institutions and bodies. The Ombudsman’s role is to ensure that EU institutions, including the European Commission and European Parliament, act in a transparent, accountable, and efficient manner in their dealings with citizens. The position was created through the Maastricht Treaty as part of efforts to enhance the democratic functioning of the EU. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints from EU citizens, businesses, or residents regarding cases of poor administration, such as excessive bureaucracy, lack of transparency, or failure to follow EU law. The institution serves as an important check on the power of EU bodies, promoting fairness and ensuring that citizens’ rights are respected within the EU framework.
European directive
passes by the national legislative process, and each country can find their own way to reach the established goals. work only after embedded into national legislation
European regulation
does not pass by the national legislative process, but it works on a European level without having the need to be implemented at a local level
‘the narcissism of small differences’.
politicians maintained their adversarial rhetoric by dramatically overstating minor or technical divisions-> by abandoning both major issues and ‘big’ choices, electoral battles became less gripping and less meaningful
‘Anti-politics’
rejection of, and/or alienation from, conventional politicians and political processes, especially ‘mainstream’ political parties and established representative mechanisms. One manifestation of anti-politics is a decline in political engagement, as citizens turn away from politics and seemingly retreat into private existence. However, anti-politics has also spawned new forms of politics, which, in various ways, articulate disillusionment with established political structures and offer more ‘authentic’ alternatives.
Political participation
is the act of taking part in the formulation, passage or implementation of public policies. However, political participation takes place at very different levels. Citizens have been divided into ‘apathetics’ (who do not engage in formal politics), ‘spectators’ (who rarely participate beyond voting) and ‘gladiators’ (who fight political battles) (Milbrath and Goel, 1977). Conventional participation comprises a number of ‘modes’, notably voting, party campaigning, communal activity and contacting a representative or official about a particular personal matter.
Political trust
consists in the level of confidence people have in one another in discharging their civic responsibilities and, crucially, the confidence citizens have that politicians generally, and leaders in particular, will keep their promises and carry out their public duties honestly and fairly. In liberal theory, trust arises through voluntary contracts that we uphold through mutual self-interest.
- Citizens’ assessments of the core institutions of
the polity - Positive evaluation of the most relevant
attributes that make each political institution
trustworthy - Procedural justice and fairness
Political distrust
- Democracy requires citizens to trust the system, its core
values, and processes: legitimacy of the rules of the game - Democracy does not require citizens to have (blind)
confidence in specific actors and their actions within the
political system, it requires a certain degree of scepticism towards political actors - Disaffection with policy outputs and scepticism about
politicians are important incentives for citizens to become active politically
based on:
level of corruption, neutral government, proportional representation, economic performance compared to a country’s own past, specific periods of endemic corruption or political scandal, the occurrence of elections
Ideological polarisation
refers to the deepening division between political or social groups based on conflicting ideologies, values, or beliefs, often leading to a lack of compromise and heightened tensions. This phenomenon has been increasingly observed in democratic systems, particularly in the 21st century, as media fragmentation, social media algorithms, and political strategies amplify partisan differences. While polarization can clarify political choices and engage voters, it often undermines constructive dialogue, weakens democratic institutions, and creates gridlock in policymaking. It reflects how societal conflicts over identity, economics, or governance can become entrenched, posing challenges to social cohesion and political stability.
Affective polarisation
refers to the growing emotional divide and hostility between supporters of opposing political parties or groups, based not just on ideological differences but on feelings of dislike, distrust, and even hatred. Unlike ideological polarization, which centers on policy disagreements, affective polarization focuses on personal animosity, where individuals view members of opposing groups as threats or fundamentally incompatible. This phenomenon has intensified in recent years, particularly in highly partisan environments like the United States, driven by factors such as identity politics and echo chambers in media. Affective polarization undermines social cohesion and democratic discourse, making compromise and collaboration increasingly difficult.
Factual belief polarization
occurs when individuals from opposing groups interpret the same set of facts in entirely different ways, often aligning their understanding with their pre-existing beliefs or group identity. This type of polarization is rooted in cognitive biases, selective exposure to information, and partisan media, which reinforce divergent perceptions of reality. It has become especially prominent in climate change, vaccination, and election integrity debates. Factual belief polarization undermines public trust in shared sources of truth, complicates policy-making, and erodes the possibility of consensus on critical societal issues, posing significant challenges to democratic governance.
people do not agree on the basic facts of what should be normal and conventional in a society: climate change, vaccination, COVID etc-> elite-driven phenomenon
Indirect legitimacy
This departs from the assumption that the legitimacy of the EU and its institutions can at best be indirect; it thus depends on the legitimacy of the EU’s component states. The member states are pivotal in that they authorize and carry treaty reform.
Parliamentary legitimacy
Here the EU is based on a “dual legitimacy,” legitimated by governments represented in the Council and in the EP that is directly elected. What one could factor into this debate is the increasing role national parliaments play, especially after the Lisbon Treaty, in order to provide yet another source for democratic representation.
Technocratic legitimacy
According to the perspective of technocratic legitimacy, EU institutions are best legitimated through their ability to solve regulatory problems and as such increase the welfare of citizens.
Procedural legitimacy
According to the view of procedural legitimacy, legitimacy may be enhanced as long as certain procedures—such as transparency, balance of interests, proportionality, legal certainty, and consultation of stakeholders—are adhered to and as such public accountability increases.
why is civic disengagement happening
- political parties in many parts of the world appear to be failing in their traditional role as agents of popular mobilization and political participation (fewer people ‘identify’ with political parties than they once did, in the sense of having a psychological attachment or loyalty towards a party)-> partisan dealignment
- long-term decline in party membership across established democracies.
- ‘cheque book members’, who are prepared to pay their membership fees but are less inclined to attend regular meetings or, in particular, get involved in canvassing or campaigning.
- disillusionment and cynicism with mainstream politics has grown
-> upsurge in interest in pressure group politics, protest movements and the use of social media to facilitate political debate and activism.
The rise of what has been called the ‘new politics’
reflecting more fluid, participatory, non-hierarchical and, possibly, more spontaneous styles of political participation – has been linked, variously, to the emergence of postindustrial societies: anti-capitalists,
