This thesis shows that citizens whose policy concerns are higher on political elites' agendas are more likely to be satisfied with democracy and to vote in elections. It develops a theoretical framework to explain the influence of the previously neglected variable priority congruence on democratic satisfaction and turnout and provides empirical evidence for it. The thesis thereby makes significant contributions to our knowledge about the ingredients of democratic legitimacy. Previous research shows that political representation, as measured by proximity between citizens' and elites' policy positions, is linked to democratic satisfaction. In this thesis, it is argued that congruence in priorities has a similar effect because citizens are likely to perceive elites who emphasise their concerns as responsive to societal needs and public opinion. The empirical analyses suggest that democratic satisfaction is indeed influenced by priority congruence, yet less so amongst more politically sophisticated individuals as well as in younger democracies and countries with lower levels of democracy and governance. These differences are probably due to variation in citizens' expectations towards elite behaviour and the democratic system. Elite attention to citizens' concerns moreover influences their decision to turn out in elections. If voters' issue priorities are salient in the campaign, they are likely to perceive the election to be more important. Moreover, they will find it easier to evaluate parties and make their vote choice. These mechanisms are shown to be less relevant amongst partisans, since party attachment mobilises voters and facilitates their vote choice. Again, previous policy-based explanations of turnout focus on positions, largely ignoring priorities. The hypotheses are tested through statistical analysis of data from voter and candidate surveys as well as media content analyses. The data come from all 27 European Union countries in 2009, whereby several hypotheses are only tested in Germany due to data availability.

In this dissertation, I investigate two key questions: 1) What are the specific conditions under which economic inequality undermines democratic legitimacy; and 2) How does inequality map onto individuals’ perceptions of fairness and subsequently affect satisfaction with democracy and trust in political institutions? I first argue that individuals’ perceptions of distributive unfairness are key factors whereby economic inequality undermines democratic legitimacy. Inequality - and subsequent perceptions that the economic distribution is unfair - undermine political support by signaling that the democratic process is not functioning properly and by challenging people’s normative expectations about what democracy should do in practice. I next draw from a diverse literature on social and political psychology, as well as governance quality, to derive new hypotheses about how people form their fairness judgments and use them to evaluate democracy. Right-leaning and upper-class individuals should be less upset with inequality in the first place, but even when these individuals perceive distributive unfairness, they should be less likely to express political dissatisfaction as a result. Additionally, the context in which individuals form their fairness perceptions should condition the relationship between fairness judgments and political support. In a context of good governance, individuals should be less likely to perceive inequality as unfair, and subsequently less likely to express political dissatisfaction for any perceived distributive unfairness in society. Governance quality provides alternative evidence that democracy is in fact functioning properly and should allay citizens’ concerns about inequality and distributive unfairness, at least when it comes to evaluating democratic legitimacy. To test my theory and hypotheses, I take a mixed-methods approach that combines large-N analysis of public opinion data and original survey experiments. To contextualize my quantitative results, I draw on motivating examples from original open-ended surveys, newspapers, and elite interviews. In the first empirical chapter, I conduct a multilevel analysis of data from 18 Latin American and show that perceptions of distributive unfairness are negatively correlated with trust in government and satisfaction with democracy, yet good governance significantly mitigates this negative relationship. In the second empirical chapter, I use original survey experiments in Argentina, Mexico, and the US to show that perceptions of distributive unfairness are key causal factors linking inequality to political dissatisfaction. In the third empirical chapter, I use a second set of survey experiments to investigate how governance quality moderates the relationship between inequality and political support. When individuals are presented with information about declining corruption, they are less likely to perceive their country’s income distribution as unfair, and less likely to link inequality to political dissatisfaction.

The effect that different electoral systems have on political participation is a widely discussed and researched topic in social sciences. However, this thesis has examined the relationship between western countries' ballot structures and electoral systems and satisfaction with democracy. By using statistical tools such as SPSS, this thesis has conducted a comparative quantitative analysis that aimed to investigate if ballot structures and electoral systems affect western citizens' satisfaction with democracy. The result is presented with the help of graphical tools, such as tables and diagrams to make it easier for the reader to understand the result. The result concluded that Western countries which have implemented a proportional electoral system do have higher levels of satisfaction with democracy among their citizens, compared to western countries that have implemented majoritarian electoral systems. Further, this thesis has concluded that ballot structures do not affect western citizens' satisfaction with democracy in any significant way.

Empirical findings about political behaviour cast doubt on prevailing theories of democracy. The overwhelming majority of democratic theories either implicitly or explicitly imply the necessity of widespread public participation. However, this involvement is more frequently referred to as public participation in the democratic process than as popular support. This paper questions if democracy can even be discussed without considering how popular support affects democracy. According to research, a healthy democracy system will give people a bigger say in deciding on the important issues that affect their lives. To react to the needs and views of their populace, democracies all over the world need a more robust democratic theoretic model of democracy measurement, which includes a normative criterion of popular support for democracy. Democracy should be viewed as requiring widespread support in order to be defined as democratic.

This thesis deals with differences in the level of satisfaction with democracy between populists and non-populists in eleven Western European countries the past twenty years, with the common denominator that they all have experienced the electoral success of a populist radical-right party and a population increasingly expressing distrust and dissatisfaction with democracy. The thesis is based on a definition of populism in which it is regarded as a threat to democracy, and moreover, the thesis explores whether there are any significant differences in the level of satisfaction with democracy and whether these differences changes as time passes between these two voter groups.  The results of the analysis, which is carried out quantitively, strengthens the theoretical expectations, proving that there is a significant negative correlation between being populist and level of satisfaction with democracy, and that the effect becomes stronger as time passes. The results also align with the perception that societal changes such as modernization and globalization has contributed to the growth of new voter groups who express their dissatisfaction with democracy by opposing the establishment, thus turning to the political alternatives.

No description available.