Holding Politicians Accountable: Experimental Results from a Polarised Context

The stability and functioning of democracy hinge on citizens not only holding pro-democratic attitudes but also acting upon their democratic commitment, particularly when political leaders or candidates breach norms. Existing literature shows that while voters consistently penalise norm violations, there is significant variability in how stringently they hold transgressors to account. Notably, voters often apply a double standard, forgiving norm violations by candidates aligned with their own political side, which challenges traditional notions of democratic accountability. This study aims to identify the factors that make voters more or less likely to hold politicians accountable for norm transgressions, with a special focus on partisan double standards. It considers the characteristics of the respondents, the transgressors, the political context, and the specific nature of the norm transgression. Socio-demographic characteristics and ideological positions of politicians substantially influence voter behaviour, with individual voter characteristics also playing a critical role. Previous findings suggest that conservatives, those with extreme ideological positions, strong partisans, and collective narcissists are more prone to apply partisan double standards. Certain political contexts, particularly highly polarised environments or high-stakes situations, further influence voter behaviour, often leading to the overlooking of transgressions by their own political side. We conducted three candidate-choice conjoint experiments in Hungary in 2024, just before the EU and municipal elections, with a representative sample of 519 individuals. The studies focused on norm transgressions related to sexual harassment, electoral fraud, and embezzlement. Hungary's polarised political landscape, marked by systematic corruption and anti-democratic tendencies, was expected to foster indifference toward norm violations and a higher propensity for partisan double standards. However, our findings revealed that: 1. A significant majority of Hungarian voters acted as committed democrats, consistently punishing norm violations on both sides. Candidates lose substantial vote shares for democratic norm violations such as forging signatures, workplace sexual harassment, and embezzlement. 2. Both government and opposition supporters are equally willing to punish candidates' misdeeds, with no significant partisan double standards observed. 3. The stakes of the elections, whether high or low, did not influence the application of partisan double standards. 4. Stronger public opinion polarisation did not provoke partisan double standards. 5. Beyond partisanship, individual variations significantly influenced the propensity to punish norm violations, with female voters, for example, punishing sexual harassment more severely than male voters. We argue that the results of the three studies underscore the importance of the informational environment and the type of information provided to voters. In experimental settings, information on the breach of norms is accurate, reliable and indisputable, compared to real-world scenarios, where the ambiguity and varying interpretations of norm transgressions complicate accountability. These findings suggest that while partisan identities influence accountability, the clarity and reliability of information play a crucial role in voter decision-making, highlighting the limitations of rationalising behaviour. These results challenge conventional wisdom about the influence of partisanship and polarisation on democratic accountability, highlighting the important roles of the information environment and the type of information provided to voters.