Interaction Effects: The Cinderella of the Democratic Systems Approach

The recent shift towards a systems approach provides much needed conceptual tools for studying democracies (in particular Warren 2017). One particular benefit lies in providing a framework to systematically conceive systems that are combinations of various practices and institutions – rather than building a theory around a particular set of practices and corresponding institutions. However, the literature currently fails to systematically conceptualize the nature of these combinations, i.e. the interaction effects of the practices and institutions: 1.) Works that systematically conceptualize interactions between components neglect their mutual effects. For instance, the systems turn in deliberative theory brought attention to linking components (e.g. Parkinson 2006; Parkinson/Bächtiger 2019). This led to conceptualizing interaction in terms of transmissions and sequencing, among others. Yet, they do not elaborate if and how components change after they are linked to one another. 2.) Works that account for interaction effects do not conceptualize them systematically. They lack a) theorizing types of interaction effects, b) assessing interaction effects of systemic components, and c) conceptualizing the relationship between different components for serving democratic functions. For instance, Warren (2017) highlights beneficial effects of sequencing the two practices deliberation and voting; he also points to mechanisms of representation undermining deliberation. Yet, he does not investigate whether affecting beneficially and undermining are major types of interaction effects, or even the only types. Similarly, the missing discussion about the effect of voting before deliberating – as often done to agree on an agenda –, or how deliberation undermines representation highlights that interaction effects are only partially assessed. The importance of having a conceptual frame for assessing how components interact and how they serve democratic functions is most evident on the level of institutions. For instance, institutionalizing a deliberative mini-public to give counsel to parliament in an existing system adds deliberation in one component to the system (cf. Beauvais/Warren 2018). Similarly, adding referendums to representative systems induces citizens to deliberate on the ballot issue (cf. Kriesi 2005). But whether the overall system better serves democratic functions depends on effects on other components: How do representatives and parties change? And consequently, is the net-effect on deliberative quality of the overall system positive? So far, the systemic approach provides no tools for systematically addressing these questions. Drawing on theoretical and empirical research, this paper stresses that including interaction effects is crucial for developing a holistic systemic approach to democratic theory. I outline the conceptual shortcomings by discussing specific interaction effects of participatory and representative institutions. I contribute to conceptualizing interaction effects by 1.) providing a theoretical frame conceptualizing how components affect each other and how they affect the overall functioning of the democratic system, and 2.) identifying types of interactions in practice.