Why is There an Elites-Masses Gap? A Socialisation Perspective

Both in public and academic debates, a growing divergence between elites and masses has been observed: This refers on the one side to an elites-masses gap in political attitudes and policy preferences (e.g. Müller et al. 2012; Elsässer et al. 2017). On the other side, political elites are described as ‘detached’ from normal citizens in the media and in polls, which show that citizens have only low levels of trust in politicians. Also the rise of populist parties has been explained by growing divergence and discontent of citizens with political elites (e.g. Mudde 2007). This elites-masses gap has been explained by the specific social background of elites and their common recruitment patterns (e.g. Bourdieu 2010; Gulbrandson 2012). Others attribute the divergence to processes of elite socialization (e.g. Dahrendorf 1965; Reiser et al. 2011; Best/Vogel 2014). In line with this, it also argued in this paper that the elites-masses-gap is a result – at least partly – of processes of legislative socialization. However, little attention has been paid to the processes and mechanisms, which lead to this elite-masses gap. Considering the high levels of disenchantment with politicians, this question is of high importance for representative democracies. What happens when normal citizens are becoming elite members? Which impact does it have on political attitudes and policy preferences? These research questions will be analyzed by taking up an actor-centered approach focusing on the perceptions and attitudes of the politicians. Empirically, it is based on a qualitative panel survey focusing on legislative socialization processes of all newly elected MPs in two German state parliaments (N=117). They have been interviewed face-to-face three times: directly after being elected for the first time, after their first year in parliament, and after the first legislative period. This allows reconstructing the mechanisms which lead to the elites-masses gap.