权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Power-Sharing and Voting: Conflict, Accountability and Electoral Behaviour at the 2015 Northern Ireland Assembly Election

权力分享和投票：2015 年北爱尔兰议会选举中的冲突、问责和选举行为

基本信息

批准号：
ES/L005808/1
负责人：
John Garry
金额：
$ 61.06万
依托单位：
Queen's University Belfast
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2015
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2015 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FL005808%2F1
关键词：
Power Sharing Voting Conflict Accountability

项目摘要

When citizens in Northern Ireland cast their vote in the 2015 Northern Ireland Assembly election, almost two decades will have passed since the Good Friday/ Belfast Agreement of 1998 established devolution and power-sharing. Thus, a rigorous analysis of the 2015 Assembly election will allow us to carefully consider the impact of the 'peace process' and the associated implementation of power-sharing governing structures. We investigate whether power-sharing has actually led to good quality electoral democracy for the people of Northern Ireland or has instead merely cemented and strengthened ethnic divisions. In our investigation, we address a number of specific questions: 1/ Have the power-sharing institutions maintained or reduced the importance of ethno-national (Protestant British versus Catholic Irish) campaigning and voting at election time? In our study we compare the strength of ethno-national voting over the 1998-2015 period by linking our proposed 2015 study to earlier ESRC funded studies in 1998 and 2003. We assess whether there has been an increase over time in 'cross bloc' voting (Protestants giving lower preference votes to nationalist parties, or Catholics giving lower preference votes to unionist parties). Also, we assess whether the importance of ethno-national ideology (voting on the basis of nationalist versus unionist beliefs) has become more or less important over time. We, furthermore, compare ethno-national ideology to non-conflict ideologies (such as economic left-right views or moral liberal-conservative views). 2/ Is electoral accountability possible? If there is only one party in government, it is easy for voters to identify who to hold responsible for government performance. In coalition governments it is harder for voters to clearly see which party to blame if things are going badly (or reward if things are going well). This difficulty is particularly acute when all of the parties are in Government and none are in Opposition, as is the case in Northern Ireland. We assess whether it is actually possible for voters to hold decision-makers to account in such a context. 3/ Is there an emotional basis to voting? Following on from questions 1 and 2 we assess the conditions under which voters rely on either ethno-national voting or peformance-based voting. We investigate the role of emotions and assess whether anger is associated with voting on the basis of the ethno-national conflict while fear is associated with performance-based voting. 4/ Does power-sharing discourage participation? Does the absence of a clear Opposition lead to reluctance to engage in politics? Also, does the sense that powersharing benefits one community over the other lead to alienation from politics, or non-electoral forms of political protest?5/ What are Northern Ireland citizens' attitudes to political reform (such as developing a strong Opposition that would hold the Government to account, or the regulation of sensitive cultural matters such as flag flying and parades)? How do citizens form such attitudes? Why is it that disagreement with suggested reform can spiral into violent street protest?Answering these questions is important for understanding how democracy operates in the sensitive setting of Northern Ireland. The answers are also important for our broader understanding of how to respond to violent ethnic conflict around the world. The 'Northern Ireland Model' is often held up as an impressive example of successful power-sharing and peace building. Our analysis will provide a detailed critique of the quality of electoral democracy in the Northern Ireland example that will be important for peace builders around the world (including organisations such as the United Nations). We will also maximise the relevance of our work for ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland, second level school teachers and students, Northern Ireland newspapers, documentary makers, and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

当北爱尔兰公民在2015年北爱尔兰议会选举中投票时，距离1998年《耶稣受难日/贝尔法斯特协议》确立权力下放和权力分享已经过去了近20年。因此，对2015年议会选举的严格分析将使我们能够仔细考虑“和平进程”的影响以及与之相关的权力分享治理结构的实施。我们调查权力分享是否真的为北爱尔兰人民带来了高质量的选举民主，或者只是巩固和加强了种族分裂。在我们的调查中，我们探讨了一些具体问题：权力分享机构是否维持或降低了种族-民族（英国新教对爱尔兰天主教）竞选活动和选举时投票的重要性？在我们的研究中，我们通过将我们提出的2015年研究与早期ESRC资助的1998年和2003年的研究联系起来，比较了1998-2015年期间民族投票的强度。我们评估“跨集团”投票是否随着时间的推移而增加（新教徒给予民族主义政党较低的优先选票，或天主教徒给予统一主义政党较低的优先选票）。此外，我们还评估了民族-国家意识形态（基于民族主义与联合主义信仰的投票）的重要性随着时间的推移是否变得更重要或更不重要。此外，我们还将种族-国家意识形态与非冲突意识形态（如经济左右翼观点或道德自由-保守观点）进行了比较。是否有可能问责选举？如果政府只有一个政党，选民很容易确定谁对政府的表现负责。在联合政府中，如果事情进展不好，选民很难清楚地看到该责怪哪一方（如果事情进展顺利，选民也很难清楚地看到该奖励哪一方）。当所有政党都在政府而没有一个反对党时，这一困难就特别严重，北爱尔兰就是这种情况。我们评估在这种情况下，选民是否真的有可能让决策者承担责任。投票是否有情感基础？继问题1和问题2之后，我们评估了选民依赖民族投票或基于表现投票的条件。我们调查了情绪的作用，并评估了愤怒是否与基于民族冲突的投票有关，而恐惧是否与基于表现的投票有关。权力分享会阻碍参与吗？缺乏明确的反对党会导致不愿参与政治吗？同样，权力分享使一个社区比另一个社区受益的感觉是否会导致与政治或非选举形式的政治抗议的疏远？5 .北爱尔兰公民对政治改革的态度如何（例如发展一个能使政府承担责任的强大反对派，或对诸如升旗和游行等敏感文化事项的管制）？公民是如何形成这种态度的？为什么对改革建议的异议会演变成暴力的街头抗议？回答这些问题对于理解民主如何在敏感的北爱尔兰环境中运作非常重要。这些问题的答案对于我们更广泛地理解如何应对世界各地的种族暴力冲突也很重要。“北爱尔兰模式”经常被视为权力分享与和平建设的成功典范。我们的分析将提供对北爱尔兰选举民主质量的详细批评，这对世界各地（包括联合国等组织）的和平建设者很重要。我们还将最大限度地发挥我们的工作对北爱尔兰普通公民、二级学校教师和学生、北爱尔兰报纸、纪录片制作人和北爱尔兰议会的相关性。