Whatever it Takes? Winning, Procedural Violations and Perceptions of Democratic Legitimacy

Recent examples like Boris Johnsons’ choice to prorogue parliament in the UK, the impeachment trial in the US or the juridical reform in Poland have shown that some political elites have no qualms about bending the rules of the democratic game just to have it their way. But will citizens reject these procedural violations and punish the respective elites? The impression from media coverage and public opinion polling is that, just like politicians, citizens will accept procedural violations as long as they get their desired outcome. Indeed, we know from procedural fairness research that the favourability of the outcome strongly shapes citizens evaluations of the legitimacy of the process. However, past research has focused on how increases in process quality can improve the legitimacy perceptions of decisions losers. We know little about whether and when winners will play their part and reject flawed processes. This function is critical in maintaining fair democratic procedures. This paper addresses this timely question using original survey data and experimental data collected in the UK in 2019 and 2020. First, we demonstrate how substantial the gaps in acceptance of questionable processes were between different political camps in the course of the Brexit proceedings in the fall of 2019. Second, we investigate experimentally the conditions under which citizens will reject or accept procedural flaws.