Trends in perception, as well as comparison, does tell a good story. In many ways it’s a superior method of data gathering on democracy than the standard method of defining democracy as whatever the Nordics are doing, and then grading everyone based on how closely they follow that.
Direct comparison of perception of democracy by people who have lived in both countries would be much clearer evidence of differences in democracy itself.
However, the raw perception of democracy without any other reference to other democracies does not allow for comparison/measurement of democracy itself but rather indicates how happy individuals feel within their current democracy.
The data is a good story and it does encode information, but that information is more significantly influenced by culture, current events, and overall happiness of the populace than it is by “level of democracy”
I’m curious what you even think democracy is? Like what is more democratic vs less democratic? It’s kind of a strange word. Like to me democracy would be the idea that a government should generally do as its people desire. There can be many ways this is accomplished. I think we all agree on that. Elections vary in how they function country to country. The mechanics of them that is.
To me though I don’t really see the issue with measuring it based on how the people in that country feel about it. If the idea of democracy is that those very people should have their views represented, then is them feeling as if their views are represented not evidence of a more democratic outcome?
Look at it in the reverse. Would you make the arguement for example: “Well yes Country B’s people generally feel as if their country is less democratic, but they simply do not know what they are talking about. The democratic process is doing a great job of representing their views. Even if they do not think so.”
It’s a bit contradictory isn’t it? Unless you would have some other definition of democracy, which is why I asked that earlier in my reply. Maybe it would make more sense to me if you explained what you see democracy as.
If you follow the comment chain you’ll see me and cowbee talk about how subjective the term “democracy” is.
However, we can illustrate my point using proof by counter example. It is entirely possible to imagine two countries with the same government structure (and hence “democracy”) but with different answers to this kind of survey.
Imagine two nearly identical countries each with corrupt governments having the exact same structure and culture etc. The only major difference between them is that in one of the countries, a recent scandal has occurred which was able to bring to light deep seated corruption and criminal activity of many public figures, whereas similar acts are being committed by the govt. of the other country, but none of it has been brought so fully to light yet.
The citizens of the former country are likely to rank their “democracy” lower than the citizens of the latter would rate their own, despite the fact both governments have equal amounts of corruption. Hence, surveys of popular opinion of democracy are not directly indicative of the “level of democracy” or level of corruption or fidelity etc. etc… QED.
Thank you, this really cleared up for me why we view this differently.
You said, “It is entirely possible to imagine two countries with the same government structure (and hence “democracy”)”
I do not personally view a government structure as relevant to the level of democracy within a nation. I look at it purely through the lens of if people within that country are happy with the outcome or not. As their happiness with the outcome is the evidence, to me, of their best interests being met. That is what I see as ‘democracy’.
I do also see your point about recent scandals or other major news events perhaps having an outsized effect on peoples answers to questions like these. As people tend to answer emotionally rather than rationally. I do think it is quite easy to compensate for this though. You would simply need to look at data over a long period of time. While a scandal may cause a shift in the numbers if you look over many years you can see the overall sentiment, which is more likely to reflect the actual material conditions of the nation as it can be averaged out to remove these outliers.
Sure. When I mean comparison, I mean in trends. If a country scores lower in one year while another scores higher, and this trend repeats, it’s a sign of improving and decaying conditions. Democracy isn’t really something you can measure directly, which makes the entire subject pretty muddy.
that’s why I put quotes around “level of democracy.” If everyone in a country had to vote directly for any and all government action, that is kind of the purest democracy possible, but it would not be a very effective method of government especially for large countries.
In order to rank democracy in a meaningful way, one would need to decide on what the desired outcomes of a “good” democracy are and which outcomes are most important etc. which would make the scale subjective.
Even that would not be democratic, as it ignores the role of ownership of production and distribution. In a capitalist economy, such would still be subject to the same mechanisms preventing bourgeois democracy from following the will of the proletariat.
Trends in perception, as well as comparison, does tell a good story. In many ways it’s a superior method of data gathering on democracy than the standard method of defining democracy as whatever the Nordics are doing, and then grading everyone based on how closely they follow that.
Direct comparison of perception of democracy by people who have lived in both countries would be much clearer evidence of differences in democracy itself.
However, the raw perception of democracy without any other reference to other democracies does not allow for comparison/measurement of democracy itself but rather indicates how happy individuals feel within their current democracy.
The data is a good story and it does encode information, but that information is more significantly influenced by culture, current events, and overall happiness of the populace than it is by “level of democracy”
I’m curious what you even think democracy is? Like what is more democratic vs less democratic? It’s kind of a strange word. Like to me democracy would be the idea that a government should generally do as its people desire. There can be many ways this is accomplished. I think we all agree on that. Elections vary in how they function country to country. The mechanics of them that is.
To me though I don’t really see the issue with measuring it based on how the people in that country feel about it. If the idea of democracy is that those very people should have their views represented, then is them feeling as if their views are represented not evidence of a more democratic outcome?
Look at it in the reverse. Would you make the arguement for example: “Well yes Country B’s people generally feel as if their country is less democratic, but they simply do not know what they are talking about. The democratic process is doing a great job of representing their views. Even if they do not think so.”
It’s a bit contradictory isn’t it? Unless you would have some other definition of democracy, which is why I asked that earlier in my reply. Maybe it would make more sense to me if you explained what you see democracy as.
If you follow the comment chain you’ll see me and cowbee talk about how subjective the term “democracy” is.
However, we can illustrate my point using proof by counter example. It is entirely possible to imagine two countries with the same government structure (and hence “democracy”) but with different answers to this kind of survey.
Imagine two nearly identical countries each with corrupt governments having the exact same structure and culture etc. The only major difference between them is that in one of the countries, a recent scandal has occurred which was able to bring to light deep seated corruption and criminal activity of many public figures, whereas similar acts are being committed by the govt. of the other country, but none of it has been brought so fully to light yet.
The citizens of the former country are likely to rank their “democracy” lower than the citizens of the latter would rate their own, despite the fact both governments have equal amounts of corruption. Hence, surveys of popular opinion of democracy are not directly indicative of the “level of democracy” or level of corruption or fidelity etc. etc… QED.
Thank you, this really cleared up for me why we view this differently.
You said, “It is entirely possible to imagine two countries with the same government structure (and hence “democracy”)”
I do not personally view a government structure as relevant to the level of democracy within a nation. I look at it purely through the lens of if people within that country are happy with the outcome or not. As their happiness with the outcome is the evidence, to me, of their best interests being met. That is what I see as ‘democracy’.
I do also see your point about recent scandals or other major news events perhaps having an outsized effect on peoples answers to questions like these. As people tend to answer emotionally rather than rationally. I do think it is quite easy to compensate for this though. You would simply need to look at data over a long period of time. While a scandal may cause a shift in the numbers if you look over many years you can see the overall sentiment, which is more likely to reflect the actual material conditions of the nation as it can be averaged out to remove these outliers.
Sure. When I mean comparison, I mean in trends. If a country scores lower in one year while another scores higher, and this trend repeats, it’s a sign of improving and decaying conditions. Democracy isn’t really something you can measure directly, which makes the entire subject pretty muddy.
that’s why I put quotes around “level of democracy.” If everyone in a country had to vote directly for any and all government action, that is kind of the purest democracy possible, but it would not be a very effective method of government especially for large countries.
In order to rank democracy in a meaningful way, one would need to decide on what the desired outcomes of a “good” democracy are and which outcomes are most important etc. which would make the scale subjective.
Even that would not be democratic, as it ignores the role of ownership of production and distribution. In a capitalist economy, such would still be subject to the same mechanisms preventing bourgeois democracy from following the will of the proletariat.