Palavras-chave
Como Citar
Resumo
Não há um consenso claro sobre se as atitudes de apoio à democracia, de um lado, e a cidadania democrática, de outro, constituem um único domínio atitudinal, ou se são empiricamente distintas uma da outra. Em estudos empíricos de atitudes e comportamentos na Bulgária, Chile, Grécia, Hong Kong, Hungria, Itália, Espanha e Uruguai, encontramos provas claras de que essas atitudes são conceitual e empiricamente distintas, formando três dimensões atitudinais diferentes: apoio difuso à democracia, satisfação com o desempenho da democracia e indiferença política (que podem ser divididas ainda nos clássicos clusters “interno” e “externo” de eficácia). Esses três grupos têm correlatos comportamentais bem diferentes: a insatisfação leva a votos contra o partido que está no poder; uma falta de apoio difuso ao sistema está associada ao voto nos partidos antidemocráticos; e a indiferença leva a um baixo envolvimento dos cidadãos na política democrática. Não encontramos provas consistentes de que o apoio difuso à democracia (um componente chave da legitimidade do regime) dependa da satisfação com o desempenho da democracia.
Abstract
There is no clear consensus whether attitudes supportive of democarcy and democratic citizenship constitute a single attitudinal domain, or are empirically distinct from each other.In empirical studies os attitudes and behavior in Bulgaria, Chile, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Italy, Spain and Uruguay, we find clear evidence that such attitudes ares both conceptually and empirically distinct, forming three different attitudinal performance of democracy, and political disaffection.These threee clusters have distinctly different behavioral correlates: disatisfaction leads to votes against the incumbent party; a lack of diffuse system support is associated with votes for anti-democratic parties; and disaffection leads to low citizen involvement in democratic politics. We find no consistent evidence that diffuse support for democracy is dependent on satisfaction with the performance of democracy.
Key words: democracy, support for democracy, satisfaction, political involvement, electoral behavior
Referências
AGÜERO, Felipe. 1999. “Second Round Needed to Break Virtual Tie in Chilean Presidential Elections.” Update, 15 de dezembro. Coral Gables, Fl., The Dante Fascell North-South Center.
AGÜERO, Felipe. 2000. “Second Round in Chile: Lagos Wins Third Consecutive Presidential Term (2000-2006) for Concertación.” Update, janeiro. Coral Gables, Fl., The Dante B. Fascell North-South Center.
ALMOND, Gabriel e Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
ANDERSSON, Christopher J. e Christine A. Guillory. 1997. “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” American Political Science Review, 91, 66-81.
BALCH, George I. 1974. “Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept ‘Sense of Political Efficacy’.” Political Methodology, 1, 1-43.
CAVAROZZI, Marcelo. 1992. “Patterns of Elite Negotiation and Confrontation in Argentina and Chile.” In Higley e Gunther 1992.
CITRIN, Jack. 1972. Political Disaffection in America: 1958-1968. Dissertação de Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley.
CRAIG, Stephen C., Richard G. Niemi e Glenn E. Silver. 1975. “Political Efficacy and Trust: A Report on the NES Pilot Study Items.” Political Behavior, 12, 289-314.
DAHL, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, Yale University Press.
DIAMANDOUROS, P. Nikiforos. 1986. “Regime Change and the Prospects for Democracy in Greece: 1974-1983.” In O’Donnell, Schmitter e Whitehead 1986.
DIPALMA, Giuseppe. 1970. Apathy and Participation: Mass Politics in Western Societies. Nova York, The Free Press.
EASTON, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Nova York, John Wiley.
ENCARNACIÓN, Omar G. 2000. “Beyond Transitions: The Politics of Democratic Consolidation.” Comparative Politics, 32, 479-498.
EVANS, Geoffrey e Stephan Whitefield. 1995. “The Politics and Economics of Democratic Commitment: Support for Democracy in Transition Societies.” British Journal of Political Science, 25, 485-514.
FARAH, Barbara G., Samuel H. Barnes e Felix Heunks. 1979. “Political Dissatisfaction.” In Samuel H. Barnes, Max Kaase et al., eds., Political Action : Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies. Beverly Hills, Sage.
FUCHS, Dieter e Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 1995. “Citizens and the State: A Relationship Transformed.” In Hans-Dieter Klingemann e Dieter Fuchs, eds., Citizens and the State. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FUCHS, Dieter, Giovanna Guidorossi e Palle Svensson. 1995. “Support for the Democratic System.” In Hans-Dieter Klingemann e Dieter Fuchs, eds., Citizens and the State. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
GABRIEL, Oscar W. 1995. “Political Efficacy and Trust.” In Jan W. van Deth e Elinor Scarbrough, eds., The Impact of Values. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
GAMSON, William A. 1968. Power and Discontent. Homewood, Il., Dorsey Press.
GIBSON, James L. 2000. “Changes in Russian Attitudes toward Democratic and Economic Reform: Results from a 1996-2000 Panel Survey.” Reunião da American Political Science Association, Washington, 31 de agosto-3 de setembro.
GILLESPIE, Charles Guy. 1992. “The Role of Civic-Military Pacts in Elite Settlements and Elite Convergence: Democratic Consolidation in Uruguay.” In Higley e Gunther 1992.
GUNTHER, Richard. 1992. “Spain: The Very Model of the Modern Elite Settlement.” In Higley e Gunther 1992.
GUNTHER, Richard, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros e Hans-Jürgen Puhle. 1995. The Politics of
Democratic Consolidation: Southern Europe in Comparative Perspective. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
GUNTHER, Richard, Hans-Jürgen Puhle e P. Nikiforos Diamandouros. 1995. “Introduction.” In Gunther, Diamandouros e Puhle 1995.
HAHN, Jeffrey. 1991. “Continuity and Change in Russian Political Culture.” British Journal of Political Science, 21, 393-421.
HIGLEY, John e Richard Gunther, eds. 1992. Elites and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe. Cambridge e Nova York, Cambridge University Press.
JENNINGS, M. Kent e Richard G. Niemi. 1974. The Political Character of Adolescence. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
KUAN Hsin-chi. 1999. “Election without Political Clout.” In Kuan Hsin-chi, Lau Siu-kai, Louie Kinshuen e Timothy Ka-ying Wong, eds., Power Transfer and Electoral Politics: The First Legislative
Election in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Hong Kong, The Chinese University Press.
KUAN Hsin-chi e Lau Siu-kai. 2000. “Intermediation Environments and Election in Hong Kong.” Democratization, 7, 65-89.
LINZ, Juan J. 1978a. “Crisis, Breakdown and Reequilibration.” In Juan J. Linz e Alfred Stepan, eds., The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
LINZ, Juan J. 1978b. “Legitimid y eficacia en la evolución de los regimes politicos.” In Problemas del subdesarrollo. Granada, Caja General de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Granada.
LINZ, Juan J. 1988. “Legitimacy of Democracy and the Socioeconomic System.” In Mattei Dogan, ed., Comparing Pluralist Democracies. Boulder, Westview Press.
LINZ, Juan J. e Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Conssolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore e Londres, Johns Hopkins University Press.
LOEWENBERG, Gerhard. 1971. “The Influence of Parliamentary Behavior on Regime Stability.” Comparative Politics, 3, 170-95.
LÓPEZ PINTOR, Rafael. 1995. “El descontento politico en las sociedades informadas de Europa.” Boletín Informativo de la Fundación Juan March, 255, 3-12. Madri, Fundación Juan March.
MARAVALL, José María e Julián Santamaria. 1986. “Political Change in Spain and the Prospects for Democracy.” In O’Donnell, Schmitter e Whitehead 1986.
MISHLER, William e Richard Rose. 1999. “Learning Democracy: The Dynamics of Popular Support for Post-Communist Regimes.” Reunião da American Political Science Association, Atlanta, setembro de 1999.
MONTERO, José Ramón, Richard Gunther e Mariano Torcal. 1997. “Democracy in Spain: Legitimacy, Discontent and Disaffection.” Studies in Comparative International Development, 32, 124-160.
MONTERO, José Ramón, Richard Gunther e Mariano Torcal. 1998. “Actitudes hacia la democracia en España: legitimidad, descontento y
desafección.” Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 83, 9-49.
MONTERO, José Ramón, Richard Gunther e Mariano Torcal. 1999. “La démocracie em Espagne: legitimité, mécontentement et désaffection.” Révue Française de Science Politique, 49, 171-204.
MORLINO, Leonardo e José Ramón Montero. 1995. “Legitimacy and Democracy in Southern Europe.” In Gunther, Diamandouros e Puhle, eds.
MULLER, Edward N. e Thomas O. Jukam. 1977. “On the Meaning of Political Support.” American Political Science Review, 71, 1561-95.
O’DONNELL, Guillermo, Philippe C. Schmitter e Laurence Whitehead, eds. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Southern Europe. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
PRZEWORSKI, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
SLOMCZYNSKI, Kazimierz e Goldie Shabad. 1999. “Partisan Preferences and Democratic Commitments in Poland.” Reunião da American Political Science Association, Atlanta, setembro de 1999.
TIRONI, Eugenio e Felipe Agüero. 1999. “Sobrevivirá el actual paisaje politico chileno?” Estudios Politicos, 74, 151-169.
TÓKA, Gábor. 1995. “Political Support in East-Central Europe.” In Hans-Dieter Klingemann e Dieter Fuchs, eds., Citizen and the State.
TORCAL, Mariano. A sair. Political Disaffection in New Democracies: Spain in Comparative Perspective. Dissertação de Ph.D., Ohio State University.
TORCAL, Mariano e Scott Mainwaring. 2000. “The Political Re-Crafting of Social Bases of Party Competition: The Case of Chile 1973-1995.” Reunião Annual da Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 26-29 de abril.
VASSILEV, Rossen. 2000. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation in Post-Communist Bulgaria. Dissertação de Ph.D., Ohio State University.
A Opinião Pública utiliza a licença do Creative Commons (CC), preservando assim, a integridade dos artigos em ambiente de acesso aberto.
Downloads
