Examining Citizen Preferences for different types of democracy: A Survey-Based Analysis of who should be the primary decision-maker at the local level

Representative democracy relies on the belief among voters that they have the power to affect political actors and events, with recurring election cycles being the main avenue of legitimization of the political system. However, throughout Western political history, citizens have often expressed frustration with formal politics and a reported lack of responsiveness on the part of political elites. While the phenomenon is a recurring theme in the history of established democracies since the interwar period of the early 20th century, albeit under different names, recently there have been signs of acceleration observable in declining voter turnouts, the electoral success of populist and authoritarian parties and a widening of the perceived cleavage between the politically rich and politically poor, particularly among populations outside large metropolitan areas. In response, various government and political institutions across Europe have suggested the introduction of participatory initiatives that allow citizens more direct involvement in political decision-making, particularly at the regional and local levels. Despite a growing body of literature, the level of acceptance of such schemes among the general public remains undetermined, with conflicting research findings depending on the political, cultural and historical context within which they take place. Yet more limited is work examining citizen preferences for different types of democracy more directly. The present paper proposes to examine such preferences for democracy among citizens, when it comes to the local level of governance by examining responses to the question of who should be making decisions (citizens, politicians or experts), offering respondents three 10-point scales with the aforementioned actors being presented in pairs (i.e. Citizens [0] – Politicians [10]; Citizens [0] – Experts [10]; Politicians [0] – Experts [10]). In order to achieve this aim, we make use of a relatively large-scale survey conducted in 2022 in 10 European countries (Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and the UK) with roughly 3,000 respondents per case. Preliminary analyses using clustering techniques suggests the, persistent between countries, existence of four distinct patterns of responses, accounting for roughly half of the sample: two cohorts with a preference for citizen primacy but differing views concerning the politicians-experts pair and an additional two cohorts who, by contrast, are mistrustful of citizens, although of the latter, one is additionally more inclined toward technocracy, additionally preferring that experts make decisions over politicians. When it comes to the remaining plurality of the sample, little can be inferred, since they provided undifferentiated responses, perhaps indicating lack of understanding of the question asked or preference for the status quo. The paper subsequently proceeds to examine a number of variables used to predict category membership, including demographics, political orientation and attitudes (e.g. ideology, interest, efficacy) and trust in institutions and other citizens.