Abstract
Previous research has shown a steady decline of citizen’s political trust and growing skepticism towards key institutions of representative democracy. Political parties, which perform the crucial role of linking citizens to the political system, are in the eye of the storm: citizens are generally more distrusting towards parties than other social and political institutions. The relevant literature mentions that parties often implement intra-party democratization to remedy party distrust. This article examines whether democratic candidate selection processes actually affect party trust among voters. The analysis is based on the cases of Belgium and Israel, where politicians made a strong case for intra-party democracy in recent history. The results indicate that, while inclusive selectorates indeed increase trust levels, decentralization decreases trust towards parties in both countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
While the effect of selectorate on trust level is presented (and tested empirically) as a meso-level predictor, one can hypothesize that selectorate effect on trust levels will differ across individual respondents. As individual voters are the ones that react to the differing stimuli from the selection procedures, their individual characteristics might determine whether they respond to democratization of selection process positively (according to H1a), or negatively (according to H1b). This rationale is similar to the one presented by Van der Brug (2004) who argued that the degree to which issue ownership explains individual voters' electoral choices is dependent on ideology. Similarly, Vegetti (2014) demonstrate how partisanship affects the manner by which voters process information about parties, such that partisans are more likely to regard their preferred party as the most competent and the closest to them ideologically. These findings are especially important in light of our research design, whereby we nest voters within parties based on their support in the party. Given this rationale and our research design, voters may react positively to democratization, in light of their partisan support in the party. However, if Vegetti's rationale was at work, we should have seen no effect for democratization of the selectorate, as respondents were nested within the parties they supported irrespective of whether that party used primaries or a single leader to select its candidates. Nonetheless, given Vegetti's rationale it might be that if voters were asked to record their trust level towards each and every party in the system, our results might have been different. Unfortunately, neither the Israeli nor the Belgian surveys provide us with such detailed account of voters' trust levels towards all parties.
The legislative sessions for each country were chosen based on data availability of both, selection processes and survey data.
Note that two of the surveys (2003 and 2009) were conducted shortly after the elections took place. The 2006 survey, on the other hand, was in the field prior to the elections. Ideally we would have like to have an identical partisan vote question for all legislative terms. Moreover, the ideal type of a nesting question would have asked respondents in a post-election survey which party did they vote for in the elections, or in a pre-election survey it would have asked them if the elections were held today which party would they vote for. Indeed, the 2006 question falls squarely into this ideal type, but the 2003 and 2009 questions do not. Unfortunately the surveys contained no other information we could use to overcome this pitfall.
The response rate for the European Social Survey for 2008 stood at 58.9% and for 2010 stood at 53.4%. For the 1995, 1999, and 2003 elections, data from the Belgian General Election Study were used. This survey is a combination of panel data and random cross-sectional data on new respondents. This group of new respondents was added to include first time voters and to compensate for non-responses in the panel group. In 1995, the response rate was 65.4% for Flemishes and 51.3% for francophones. In 1999, these percentages were, respectively, 63.7% and 36.4%. Finally, in 2003, the reported response rates for both groups was 64.4% and 64.5%. The Israeli IDI surveys, do not specify, unfortunately, any information concerning response rates.
Since the outcome variable is ordinal we also estimated a two-level ordered logit hierarchical model, for each country (see the on-line appendix). Substantive results are similar to the ones presented in the paper, especially concerning the effect of selection processes, and we therefore chose to present the more easily interpretable results.
See online appendix for details.
In Israel, we could not include treatment contrast for both selectorate and centralization, as this led to perfect multicollinearity. Therefore, we only include contrast for the selectorate variable.
See: descriptive statistics in the on-line appendix.
The initiative to draft a model list was assigned to the bureau of the district party. Afterwards the national party board had the possibility to make a number of modifications to this list. Finally the assemblies of member delegates at the district level were expected to approve the model lists.
The initiative was still taken at the district level, where the majority of the district parties created an informal and highly exclusive list formation committee to coordinate the process. The first draft of the candidate list needed to be ratified by the bureau of the district party. Afterwards it was passed to the national level where the general assembly ratified the lists of all of the districts. In the final step, all members had the possibility to ratify or reject the proposed list through member polls at the district level.
Regrettably, the 1996 INES did not ask respondents the battery of questions about trust in institutions. We therefore, cannot directly ascertain the relationship between perceptions about primaries and citizens' trust in parties.
References
Bawn, K. 1993. The logic of institutional preferences: German electoral law as a social choice outcome. American Journal of Political Science 37 (4): 965–989.
Benedetto, G., and S. Hix. 2007. The rejected, the ejected, and the dejected: Explaining government rebels in the 2001-2005 British House of Commons. Comparative Political Studies 40 (7): 755–781.
Bernardi, L., G. Sandri, and A. Seddone. 2016. Challenges of political participation and intra-party democracy: Bittersweet symphony from party membership and primary elections in Italy. Acta Politica
Boix, C. 1999. Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review 93 (3): 609–624.
Cain, B., R.J. Dalton, and S. Scarrow (eds.). 2003. Democracy Transformed? The Expansion of Citizen Access in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Catterberg, G., and A. Moreno. 2005. The individual bases of political trust: Trends in new and established democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 18 (1): 31–48.
Channel 7. 2011. MK Ben-Ari: Only open primaries will restore the public’s trust. Chanel 7 report, 14 June, http://news.xoox.co.il/item_648777.htm. Accessed 5 May 2015.
Cross, W. 1996. Direct election of provincial party leaders in Canada, 1985–1995: The end of the leadership convention? Canadian Journal of Political Science 29 (2): 295–315.
Dalton, R.J. 1999. Political support in advanced industrial democracies. In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, ed. P. Norris, 57–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, R.J., and M. Wattenberg (eds.). 2000. Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, R.J. 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, R.J., and S.A. Weldon. 2005. Public images of political parties: A necessary evil? West European Politics 28 (5): 931–951.
De Luca, M., M.P. Jones, and M.I. Tula. 2002. Back rooms or ballot boxes? Candidate nomination in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies 35 (4): 413–436.
Devos, C., and T. Verstraete. 2002. Valsheid in geschrifte? Over kieshervorming en inspraak. Samenleving en Politiek 10 (9): 4–12.
Duverger, M. 1951. Les Partis Politiques. Paris: Colin.
Easton, D. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Gilliland, S.W. 1993. The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review 18 (4): 694–734.
Greene, Z.D., and M. Haber. 2015. The consequences of appearing divided: An analysis of party evaluations and vote choice. Electoral Studies 37: 15–27.
Harmel, R., and K. Janda. 1994. An integrated theory of party goals and party change. Journal f Theoretical Politics 6 (3): 259–287.
Hazan, R.Y. 2002. Candidate Selection. In Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting, ed. L. LeDuc, R.G. Niemi, and P. Norris, 108–126. London: Sage.
Hazan, R.Y., and G. Rahat. 2010. Democracy within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hix, S. 2002. Parliamentary behavior with two principals: Preferences, parties, and voting in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 688–698.
Huang, M.H., Y.T. Chang, and Y.H. Chu. 2008. Identifying sources of democratic legitimacy: A multilevel analysis. Electoral Studies 27 (1): 45–62.
Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Katz, R.S. 2013. Should we believe that improved intra-party democracy would arrest party decline? In The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy, eds. W.P. Cross and R.S. Katz. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kernell, G. 2013. Political party organizations, civic representation, and participation. In Representation: Elections and Beyond, ed. J.H. Nagel, and R.M. Smith, 114–136. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Klingemann, H.D. 1999. Mapping political support in the 1990s: A global analysis. In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, ed. P. Norris, 31–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lev, H. 2015. The New Likudniks Against Changing the System Chanel 7, April 26, http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/297250.
Linde, J., and J. Ekman. 2003. Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research 42 (3): 391–408.
Lundell, K. 2004. Determinants of candidate selection: The degree of centralization in comparative perspective. Party Politics 10 (1): 25–47.
Matland, R.E., and D.T. Studlar. 1996. The contagion of women candidates in single member district and proportional representation electoral systems: Canada and Norway. The Journal of Politics 58 (3): 707–733.
Miller, A.H., and O. Listhaug. 1990. Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science 20 (3): 357–386.
Miller, A.H., and O. Listhaug. 1999. Political performance and institutional trust. In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, ed. P. Norris, 204–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mishler, W., and R. Rose. 2005. What are the political consequences of trust? A test of cultural and institutional theories in Russia. Comparative Political Studies 38 (9): 1050–1078.
Mishler, W., and R. Rose. 2001. What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies 34 (1): 30–62.
Newton, K., and P. Norris. 2000. Confidence in public institutions: Faith, culture, or performance? In Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries, eds. S.J. Pharr and R.D. Putnam, 52–73. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Norris, P. (ed.). 1999. Critical Citizens: Global confidence in Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norris, P. 2004. Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’brien, D.Z., and Y. Shomer. 2013. A cross-national analysis of party switching. Legislative Studies Quarterly 39 (1): 111–141.
Pennings, P., and R.Y. Hazan. 2001. Democratizing candidate selection causes and consequences. Party Politics 7 (3): 267–275.
Pilet, J.B., and W. Cross (eds.). 2014. The Selection of Political Party Leaders in Contemporary Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Study. London: Routledge.
Put, G.J. 2015. Determinants of geographical representation on candidate lists in flexible-list systems: Lessons from the Belgian case. Politics 36 (2): 180–196.
Rahat, G., and R.Y. Hazan. 2001. Candidate selection methods: An analytical framework. Party Politics 7 (3): 297–322.
Ryan, A.M., and R.E. Ployhart. 2000. Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management 26 (3): 565–606.
Sandri, G., and A. Amjahad. 2015. Party membership and Intra-party democracy: How do members react to organizational change within political parties? The case of Belgium. The Open Journal of Sociopolitical Studies 8 (1): 190–214.
Scarrow, S.E. 2005. Political Parties and Democracy in Theoretical and Practical Perspectives: Implementing Intra-Party Democracy Washington DC: National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.
Scarrow, S.E. 1999. Parties and the expansion of direct democracy: Who benefits? Party Politics 5 (3): 341–362.
Shapira, A., O. Kenig, and R. Itzkovitch-Malka. 2010. Intra-party democracy: theory and practice in Israel’s party law. Working paper by the Israel Democracy Institute.
Shomer, Y. 2009. Candidate selection procedures, seniority, and vote-seeking behavior. Comparative Political Studies 42 (7): 945–970.
Shomer, Y. 2014. What affects candidate selection processes? A cross-national examination. Party Politics 20 (4): 533–546.
Shomer, Y., Put, G.J., and Gedalya-Lavy, E. (2016) Intra-Party Politics and Public Opinion: How Candidate Selection Processes Affect Citizens’ Satisfaction with Democracy. Political Behavior 38 (3): 509–534.
Sieberer, U. 2006. Party unity in parliamentary democracies: A comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (2): 150–178.
Scarrow, S.E., P. Webb, and D.M. Farrell. 2000. From social integration to electoral contestation: The changing distribution of power within political parties. In Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, ed. R.J. Dalton, and M.P. Wattenberg, 129–153. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slomczynski, K.M., and K. Janicka. 2009. Structural determinants of trust in public institutions: Cross-national differentiation. International Journal of Sociology 39 (1): 8–29.
Tavits, M. 2012. Organizing for success: Party organizational strength and electoral performance in Postcommunist Europe. The Journal of Politics 74 (1): 83–97.
Van Biezen, I., P. Mair, and T. Poguntke. 2012. Going, going,… gone? The decline of party membership in contemporary Europe. European Journal of Political Research 51 (1): 24–56.
Van der Brug, W. 2004. Issue ownership and party choice. Electoral Studies 23 (2): 209–233.
Van der Meer, T. 2010. In what we trust? A multi-level study into trust in parliament as an evaluation of state characteristics. International Review of Administrative Sciences 76 (3): 517–536.
Van der Meer, T., and P. Dekker. 2011. Trustworthy States, Trusting Citizens? A multilevel study into objective and subjective determinants of political trust. In Political Trust. Why Context Matters, ed. S. Zmerli, and M. Hooghe, 95–116. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Van Haute, E., and A. Gauja. 2015. Party Members and Activists. London: Routledge.
Vegetti, F. 2014. From political conflict to partisan evaluations: How citizens assess party ideology and competence in polarized elecitons. Electoral Studies 35: 230–241.
Verleden, F. 2013. De toegang tot de parlementaire elite. Politieke rekrutering en lijstvorming in België in historisch perspectief. Paper Presented at the Dutch-Belgian Politicologenetmaal, Ghent, 30-31 May.
Verter, Y. (1997). Likud Ministers are Angry: Netanyahu Deceived Us. Haaretz November 12, http://old.haaretz.co.il/arch/objects/pages/ArchPrintArticpel.jhtml.
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shomer, Y., Put, GJ. & Gedalya-Lavy, E. Does intra-party democracy affect levels of trust in parties? The cases of Belgium and Israel. Acta Polit 53, 167–183 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-017-0044-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-017-0044-2