Deliberative or Populist Political Discourse: A Citizen’s Point of View

According to deliberative democratic theory, political decision-making processes should be based on a deliberative discourse, in which political actors listen to each other, reasonably justify their positions, show mutual respect and are willing to arrive at a rationally motivated consensus (e.g. Steenbergen et al., 2003). Theorists argue that this type of discourse leads to better-informed preferences (Fishkin, 1995) and more legitimate decision-making (Cohen, 1989). Yet the increasing mediatization puts constraints on the deliberative quality of political discourse . As Wyss et al. (2015, p. 639) state, “in order to grab media attention, politicians increasingly follow the precepts of media logic and use polarization and simplification strategies”. This generally leads to a simplification of the political discourse, which contrasts the prescription of a high-quality discourse from a deliberative point of view. This simplification of political discourse is also a prominent characteristic of the discourse of the many increasingly popular populist parties in several Western democracies (e.g. Jagers & Walgrave, 2007). Therefore, the question arises how citizens react to these radically different types of discourse. Despite the theoretical potential of deliberative discourse for democratic systems, it is unclear how citizens react to this type of discourse. Populists make use of a different more simplistic, direct discourse that is often assumed to appeal to the electorate at large (Jagers & Walgrave, 2007). There are some indications a populist style of communication could persuade and inform citizens in a less deliberative, but possibly more appealing way. This communication style was for instance found to affect political leaders’ perceived legitimacy (Bos et al., 2012). Yet it is unclear how citizens evaluate different types of discourses, and how these influence their voting decisions. In order to tackle these vital questions, an experimental design was developed in which public justifications and political communication styles (deliberative and populist) are manipulated. Its effects on voting intention are investigated, which is expected to run through the persuasiveness of the argument and the evaluation of the candidate (trustworthiness and competence). Adopting this citizen perspective allows to investigate the potential of the normative principles of deliberative democracy in real-world political discourse. Bos, L., van der Brug, W., & de Vreese, C. (2012). An experimental test of the impact of style and rhetoric on the perception of right-wing populist and mainstream party leaders. Acta Politica, 48(2), pp. 192-208. Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. Hamlin & P. Pettit (Eds.). The good polity (pp. 17-34). Oxford: Blackwell. Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The Voice of the People. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jagers, J., & Walgrave, S. (2007). Populism as political communication style. European Journal of Political Research, 46(3), pp. 319-345. Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation. Comparative European Politics, 1(1), pp. 21-48. Wyss, D., Beste, S., & Bächtiger, A. (2015). A decline in the quality of debate? Swiss Political Science Review, 21(4), pp. 636-653.