Transforming democracy? Connecting studies on citizens preferences for different models of democracy and on reforms of representative democracy

Debates about the decline of political trust and the growing dissatisfaction of citizens towards the way democracy is working have been prominent over the last decades (Norris 2011; Armingeon and Guthman, 2014; Thomassen, 2016). An interesting development over the last 15 years has been the idea that this ‘crisis of democracy’ would be associated to growing interest for institutional reforms and models of democracy that would move away from the pure logic of representative democracy based upon election and representation. First, a series of studies have shown that a range of institutional reforms have been initiated as a way to respond to the growing public discontent towards the way democracy is working. In one of the seminal studies on the topic, Dalton, Scarrow and Cain (2004), for instance, connected the growing interest in reforms offering citizens a broader range of opportunities to participate to policy-making to the decline in satisfaction with democracy. A few year later, Bedock (2017) connected a wide range of institutional reforms (federalism, direct democracy, deliberative democracy) to the growing concern among politicians with citizens’ political disenchantment. Other studies have shown that technocratic ministers were also often appointed as a reaction to moments of economic or political crisis with the hopes of restoring support for political institutions (Costa Pinto, Cotta and Tavares de Almeida, 2018; Wratil and Pastorella, 2018). Remaining within the logic of representative democracy, Renwick and Pilet (2016) found that electoral reforms that are reducing the role of parties (personalizing reforms) are more likely to be passed when political trust is very low. Intraparty reforms have also been connected to the need for parties to counter the crisis of legitimacy that is affecting representative democracy and its actors, including parties (Ignazi, 2020.). Theses connections are also made by the burgeoning number of studies examining citizens’ process preferences, and that are showing that support for alternatives to representative democracy among citizens is found especially among citizens who are more politically dissatisfied. It is the case, for example, for support for referendums, which tends to be stronger among the politically dissatisfied (Schuck and De Vreese, 2015). The same link has been made in studies about support for deliberative democracy (Gherghina and Geissel, 2019; Bedock and Pilet, 2020), as well as for technocracy (Bertsou 2021; Bertsou and Pastorella 2017, Chiru and Enyedi 2021). Recently, scholars have explored the possibility that declining satisfaction with democracy might spark preferences for non-democratic alternatives to representative democracy (Foa and Mounk, 2016; Mauk, 2020). Yet, the literatures on alternatives to representative democracy as well as on reforms that remain within the representative logic have developed in siloes, often with limited dialogue between them. Many pieces have been published on direct democracy, on deliberative and participatory democracy, on technocracy, on intra-party reforms, on electoral reforms, and even on autocratic regimes. They all make the link with political dissatisfaction as premises for institutional change, but they are rarely opening the dialogue between the different alternatives to representative democracy. There have been a few exceptions over recent years. A few studies have tried to compare citizens’ support for shifting power to citizens and experts at the expense of elected politicians (Font, Wojcieszak and Navarro, 2015; Gherghina and Geissel, 2019). Some authors have also underlined similarities between support for technocratic government and authoritarian attitudes (Webb, 2013; Chiru and Enyedi, 2021). There have also been recent analyses on populist citizens who simultaneously favor greater use of direct democracy and having stronger political leaders (Taggart, 2000; Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, 2002). The best example of attempts to connect the literature on the various models of government would be the recent study of Hibbing, Theiss-Morse, Hibbing and Fortunato (2021) who have studied, with an integrated framework, the preferences of US citizens for eight models of governance that could work as complements or as alternatives to representative democracy. Nevertheless, for the most part, scholars working on those various models of government work in isolation. The goal of the proposed section would precisely be to foster dialogue between scholars working on representative democracy (and its reforms), on intra-party democracy, on direct democracy, on participatory and deliberative democracy, on technocracy or on autocratic regimes. Such a dialogue would provide a better understanding of what these models have in common; whether citizens hold preferences for specific models or support any alternative to politics as usual; which aspects of these models appeal most to citizens; whether citizens prefer a combination of the model or, rather, just one of them; how they are implemented in a variety of countries, and how they could be connected to broader theoretical debates in democratic theory. The section hopes to gather a list of panels that would facilitate the emergence of a common research agenda for scholars from those various fields of study. Potential panels The section aims at attracting panel proposals from various fields of study looking at reforms of representative democracy (electoral reforms, party reforms, decentralization, …) and at alternatives to representative democracy (direct, deliberative and participatory democracy, technocracy, non-democratic alternatives, …). Panel proposals could come from scholars working on representative democracy, party politics, direct democracy, participatory and deliberative democracy, technocracy, or autocratic regimes. Priorities would be given to panel proposals that are making an explicit link between those models of government, either regarding their determinants, their core characteristics, their implementation, their impact on politics and policies, or their theoretical and normative implications. Another element of diversity that the section is seeking for is to host panels covering a wide variety of countries and of political systems. In particular, the section will combine studies from consolidated and newer democracies, from different continents, and from different types of democracy (majoritarian, consensual, and so on).