The crisis of democracy in recent years is often associated with a deficit in representation. Citizens who do not feel represented, it is argued, become less satisfied with democracy and more alienated from the political system, while holding lower levels of trust and political efficacy. In case of a continuous representational deficit, citizens may lose their faith in democracy altogether. Although a vast literature connects representation to various aspects of the democratic crisis, we still do not know – what is it about representation that affects citizens’ more diffuse support for democracy? Many studies measure representation by levels of (left-right) ideological congruence between voters and elites (parties and governments). This measure of substantive representation may not be the most relevant when studying the representational deficit and its impact on the crisis of democracy. People may feel represented – or not – in a way that levels of ideological congruence cannot capture. Their subjective judgment of the degree to which they are represented may have a greater effect on their support of the democratic political system. Recent research highlights the influence of changes in subjective social status on voting for populist right parties among certain societal groups (Gidron and Hall 2017). Similarly, subjective perceptions of political representation by citizens may be more relevant for understanding recent developments in the crisis of democracy in Western countries. In order to examine which explains better the crisis of democracy – subjective perceptions of representation or ideological congruence – this paper utilizes items from CSES modules 2 and 3 to analyze the effect of each on satisfaction with democracy, alienation and political engagement.
