It is often said that, “politics is the art of compromise.” University students are taught that politics is the process by which groups arrive at collective decisions and that this process that inherently involves bargaining and compromise (Crick 1962, Hay 2007). At the same time, political leaders regularly espouse their willingness to stand on principle when seeking votes. The concepts of ‘principles’ and ‘compromise’, of course, are linked to classic theories of representation – if, as Burke claimed, a parliament is inherently a chamber that is to engage in deliberation and discussion (Judge 1999), then MP’s must be free to bargain in legislating. Yet, at the same time, more recent research raises questions about public reactions to the representation of constituents’’ preferences in the law-making process. While sizeable majorities claim to think that “compromise” is a good thing, when constituents see examples of their elected representatives bargaining and compromising, they are quick to label their member as an ‘un-principled’ ‘flip-flopper’ (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 2002). This paper presents an initial analysis of how the public perceives and understands the role of compromise in political representation and decision-making. Using a unique experiment embedded in the 2011 Scottish Election Study, this study finds that the public hold parliaments (and MPs) to a different standard than they do other groups and organisations when assessing the value of compromise and standing on principle in decision-making. While compromise is valued for group decision-making, it is less valued in law-making. That said, when respondents are primed to first think about ‘ordinary groups’, they are more likely to also think that MPs should compromise. This study raises questions about how constituents perceive one of the most fundamental aspects of the political process and what these perceptions might mean for specific and diffused institutional trust.
