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

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

"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.