Valuing democracy: The role of democracy as a superordinate identity in the justification of political violence

民主是人民的政府、人民的政府、人民的政府。正如著名的亚伯拉罕·林肯所说，我们作为公民处于民主的核心。每隔几年，我们就举行公平和自由的选举，选出一个代表我们、代表我们统治、保护我们的基本人权并使每个人都能参与政治进程的政府。每一天，我们都在--也许是无意识地--受益于生活在民主社会中。例如，这包括政治派别自由、允许参与政治行动、言论自由和新闻自由。从历史上看，认为自己是民主国家的国家从来没有像今天这样多，但民主国家正在失去公民的支持和信任。在联合王国，自1950年代以来，选民投票率、对政治家和民主机构的信任以及对民主的满意度一直在稳步下降。如今，约有一半的英国公民对民主的运作方式不满意。考虑到近年来的许多政治丑闻(例如Partygate)，这些趋势并不令人惊讶。然而，它们仍然对民主的运作造成了破坏。与此同时，当选的政客经常受到口头和/或身体上的骚扰。例如，国会议员收到的推文中有六分之一是辱骂的。与过去相比，个人投票的可能性更小，似乎正在退出政治进程。但与此同时，个人通过侮辱或攻击自由表达自己的观点。以前的研究已经探索了从事这类行为的动机，但对这些事件的感知和合理性的研究较少。普通市民如何看待这些事件？根据谁的攻击和谁的攻击，它们是正当的吗？这些事件是否对民主造成了损害，在一个民主国家内是可以接受的，甚至是保护民主的必要之举？这项研究旨在探索个人如何看待并可能为攻击政客和政党支持者辩护。具体地说，它考察了个人在道德上为暴力辩护与他们对民主价值观的认可和对民主身份的认同之间的关系。也就是说，重视民主如何影响我们对什么是错什么是对的看法，以及我们如何对待社会上的其他人，以及我们如何对待我们选出的官员？重视民主是否会导致更具包容性的群体认同，即基于共同的民主价值观而不是具体的政治观点创建一个群体？民主身份是否会影响我们对使用政治暴力的判断？这项拟议的研究将使用实验、问卷、访谈和大量数据分析的组合来探索这些问题。试点数据显示，平均而言，个人对政客的评价不高，与无家可归者等其他社会群体相比，他们发现政客受到伤害时更容易接受，受害者的政治信仰证明伤害他们是合理的。它进一步表明，如果个人重视民主，他们会更加平等地对待不同政治信仰的个人，即他们对一种行为在道德上是否可以接受的判断，较少受到受害者特征的驱动。从长远来看，更全面地了解重视民主如何影响道德判断和消除群体界限，可以帮助我们解释当前的政治气候，并有可能使我们能够制定加强我们民主的方法。

"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people." As the famous Abraham Lincoln quote states, we as citizens are at the core of democracy. Every few years we hold fair and free elections to choose a government which represents us, rules on our behalf, protects our basic human rights, and enables everyone to participate in the political process. Every day we are - maybe unconsciously - benefitting from living in a democracy. That includes, for example, freedom of political affiliation, being allowed to engage in political action, freedom of speech, and a free press. Historically, there have never been more countries self-identifying as a democracy than today, and yet democracies are losing the support and trust of their citizens. In the United Kingdom, voter turnout, trust in politicians and democratic institutions as well as satisfaction with democracy have been declining steadily since the 1950s. Today about half of UK citizens are not satisfied with the way democracy works. Considering the numerous political scandals in recent years (e.g., Partygate), these trends are not surprising. However, they are nonetheless damaging for the functioning of democracy. At the same time, elected politicians are frequently verbally and/or physically harassed. For example, one in six tweets received by MPs are abusive. Individuals are less likely to vote than in the past and seem to be withdrawing from the political process. But, at the same time, individuals freely express their opinions through insults or attacks. Previous research has explored motivation for engaging in this type of behaviour, yet the perception and justification of these incidents has been studied less. How do ordinary citizens perceive these incidents? Are they justifiable depending on who attacks and who is attacked? Are these incidents damaging for democracy, acceptable within a democracy, or even necessary to protect democracy?This research aims to explore how individuals perceive and potentially justify attacks on politicians and supporters of political parties. Specifically, it examines the relationship between individual's moral justification of violence and their endorsement of democratic values and adoption of a democratic identity. That is, how does valuing democracy impact our perception of what is wrong and what is right how we treat others in society, and how we treat our elected officials? Does valuing democracy lead to a more inclusive group identity, that is creating a group based on shared democratic values instead of specific political viewpoints? Does a democratic identity impact how we judge the use of political violence? The proposed research will use a mix of experiments, questionnaires, interviews, and mass data analyses to explore these questions. Pilot data shows that on average individuals do not highly value politicians, that they find it more acceptable when politicians are harmed compared to other social groups like homeless individuals and that political persuasions of victims justify harming them. It further shows that if individuals value democracy they treat individuals of different political persuasions more equally, that is their judgment of whether an act is morally acceptable or not, is less driven by characteristics of the victim. Obtaining a more comprehensive understanding of how valuing democracy impacts moral judgements and dissolves group boundaries can in the long term help us to explain the current political climate and potentially enable us to develop methods to strengthen our democracy.