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

“民主是民有、民治、民享的政府。”正如著名的亚伯拉罕·林肯所说，我们作为公民是民主的核心。每隔几年，我们就举行公平自由的选举，选出一个代表我们的政府，代表我们治理国家，保护我们的基本人权，并使每个人都能参与政治进程。我们每天都在——也许是无意识地——从生活在民主国家中受益。这包括，例如，政治归属自由，允许参与政治行动，言论自由和新闻自由。从历史上看，自认为是民主国家的国家从来没有像今天这样多，然而民主国家正在失去其公民的支持和信任。在英国，自20世纪50年代以来，选民投票率、对政治家和民主制度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。考虑到近年来的众多政治丑闻（例如，“党门”），这些趋势并不令人惊讶。然而，它们对民主的运作是有害的。与此同时，当选的政治家经常受到口头和/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侮辱性的。与过去相比，个人不太可能投票，而且似乎正在退出政治进程。但与此同时，个人可以通过侮辱或攻击自由地表达自己的意见。之前的研究已经探讨了从事这类行为的动机，但对这些事件的看法和理由的研究较少。普通民众如何看待这些事件？他们是正当的取决于谁攻击和谁被攻击？这些事件是对民主的损害，是民主内部可以接受的，还是保护民主所必需的？这项研究旨在探索个人如何感知和潜在地为对政治家和政党支持者的攻击辩护。具体而言，它考察了个人对暴力的道德辩护与他们对民主价值观的赞同和对民主身份的采用之间的关系。也就是说，对民主的重视如何影响我们对是非对错的认知我们如何对待社会上的其他人，以及我们如何对待民选官员？重视民主是否会导致一个更具包容性的群体认同，即创建一个基于共同民主价值观而不是特定政治观点的群体？民主身份是否会影响我们对使用政治暴力的判断？建议的研究将使用实验，问卷调查，访谈和大量数据分析的混合来探索这些问题。试点数据显示，一般来说，人们并不高度重视政治家，与无家可归者等其他社会群体相比，他们更能接受政治家受到伤害，而且受害者的政治说服证明伤害他们是合理的。它进一步表明，如果个人重视民主，他们会更平等地对待不同政治信仰的人，也就是说，他们对一种行为是否在道德上可接受的判断，较少受到受害者特征的影响。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，并有可能使我们找到加强民主的方法。

"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.