English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article deals with legitimacy of democracy and its relationship to trust in political institutions in the Czech Republic. The introduction includes a recapitulation of the theories concerning the legitimacy of democracy, and on the conditions necessary for this legitimacy, which is what the subject of this article is then built upon. The author distinguishes between support for democracy as a form of government, and satisfaction with the development of democracy in a (particular) country, and searches for the factors which this depends on. As explanatory factors, the author first tests trust in institutions, then political culture and personal characteristics. The analysis showed that the legitimacy of democracy and the evaluation of the development of democracy are not in the Czech Republic mutually independent, and that they depend more on political culture than on trust in the institutions being researched. For the legitimacy of democracy, a significant effect was traced only in the case of trust in NATO – an institution that also became a value in the political culture. With the evaluation of the development of democracy, trust in institutions was more strongly felt – a significant effect was revealed by an analysis of the social welfare system, the army and the media. It is clear that the evaluation of the performance of institutions is rather more reflected in the system efficacy of the democracy than in the legitimacy of democracy as a system of government. Czech Sociological Review, 2001, Vol. 9 (No. 1: 13-33) Once the totalitarian regimes in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe had collapsed many people at that time posed the question as to whether the democracy that had been introduced into these countries would be strong and lasting or weak and also threatened with collapse. What influences the strength of democracy? Undoubtedly an entire series of institutional and systemic conditions apply. According to Linz and Stepan [1996] no modern polis can be a democracy if it is not a state, if it lacks a free and lively civil society, if it is not an autonomous political society, if it does not guarantee and protect civil rights, if it does not possess a bureaucracy working for the government, and if it does not have an economic society. In addition to institutional and systemic conditions, democracy requires support on the part of its citizens – their trust in its legitimacy. Many people perceive democracy in two manners: as an ideal that must be striven toward, and as an existing form of government in a specific political system [Dahl 2000]. Trust in the legitimacy of democracy has two levels: general – democracy is the best (or the ‘least bad’) form of government among many; and specific – democracy in a particular country is despite its failings and insufficiencies a better form of government than any others that could be set up in the given country [Diamond 1998]. *) This article was supported by grant GA ČR (No. 403/99/1129). **) Direct all correspondence to: Klára Vlachová, Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Jilská 1, 110 00 Praha 1, e-mail vlachova@soc.cas.cz Czech Sociological Review, IX, (1/2001) 14 In contemporary democracies it is common for citizens to feel dissatisfied with the way in which democracy works in their country, and at the same time to be convinced that democracy is still the best form of government [Diamond 1998]. According to how democratic a country is (and how democratic its citizens are) dissatisfaction with democracy may lead to two results: citizens may opt in favour of an undemocratic regime for their country,1 or they may give preference to introducing democratic reforms. If trust in democracy is dependent on how people evaluate the democracy in their country, then it is not in itself a value, it is rather a means for ensuring the effective functioning of democracy. It is not real legitimacy – autonomous legitimacy [Maravall 1997: 203] that consolidates democracy, but instrumental legitimacy. Only when support for democracy has become unconditional and independent of the particular functioning of the democracy is it possible to consider a democracy as being consolidated. A democracy is consolidated not only when its support is unconditional, but also when it is shared by all the main political groups and movements. Support for democracy takes shape on three levels [Dalton 1998]: Affective orientation Evaluations Community National pride Sense of national identity Best nation to live in Regime: its principles Democratic values Democracy best form of government Regime: political process Participatory norms Political rights Evaluation of rights Satisfaction with democratic process Regime: political institution Institutional expectations Support party government Output expectations Performance judgement Trust in institutions Trust party system Trust bureaucracy Authority Identify with party Candidate evaluations Party support General support Specific support One of the levels giving rise to support for democracy is the institutional one. Institutions are legitimate as long as citizens judge them to be suitable, which means the best possible ones for their society [Lipset 1981]. In one opinion, dissatisfaction with the performance of institutions can cause a long-term weakening of the trust of some citizens in democracy.2 But, clearly, “no institution can avoid criticism from some sectors of the population. Consensus is the ridiculous claim of totalitarian regimes.” [Dogan 1998: 16]. Both in old and in new democracies a weakening trust – ‘confidence gap’ – is referred to [Lipset and Schneider 1983]. But it is difficult to distinguish the weak popularity and legitimacy 1) The temporary restriction of democracy in Nigeria in the 1980s, in Thailand in 1991, or in Peru in 1992, accompanied by the expectation that the ensuing structural reforms would facilitate an improvement in the functioning of democracy. 2) Institutions must be capable of managing political conflict and must be democratic. Almond and Verba [1963] emphasise the degree of democracy of the structures of authority in the society. If these structures – the family, church, unions etc. – are democratic, then there is a greater likelihood that the country will also be democratic. Klára Vlachová: The Legitimacy of Democracy and Trust in the Political Institutions in the CR 15 of an institution and trust in it, from the weak popularity of its office-holders and trust in them. Citizens are frequently dissatisfied with those who represent an institution [Dalton 1998]. The weak popularity of the representatives of a certain institution does not necessarily mean a lack of trust in the institution itself. Rose, Mischler and Haerpfer [1997] claim that in order for a democracy to function efficiently it is not necessary for there to also be a high degree of trust in politics or even in institutions. The research that was carried out in the post-communist countries (The New Democracies Barometer) shows that the majority of the population has no trust in any of the fifteen political and social institutions. The highest level of trust is generally directed at the president, the armed forces and the church, though the last two mentioned here do not receive the trust of even half of the population. In the Czech Republic according to this research from 1995, the most trust is placed in the media, followed by the government, the president, the armed forces, the court system, the police, political parties, the church, and parliament [Gabriel 2000].3 If one considers what the alternative to trust in an institution is, it clearly is not distrust, but rather scepticism. Merkl [1988] believes that the ideal democratic culture is neither blindly trusting nor hostilely rejecting, but rather inquisitive and sceptical. Those who are dissatisfied may (reputedly) be good democrats who are simply interested in improving democracy. And as the manner in which people perceive the performance of a political system has changed during recent decades, the crisis in the degree of trust is primarily a sign of continuing political maturity and advancement [Dahl 2000]. Although the opinion continues to be raised claiming there is a relationship between trust in institutions and democratic legitimacy, the dominant view is that the legitimacy of democracy is to a certain degree independent of the performance of institutions. Dissatisfaction with the performance of institutions does not weaken the loyalty of citizens toward the existing regime. Responsibility for the unsatisfactory performance of institutions can in a democracy be ascribed to an entire series of sources: the economic system, the international situation, the government, employers, unions, etc. It is possible to change the government, but it is not necessary to change the regime. Dissatisfaction with institutions is entirely compatible with democracy. When we speak of institutions whose legitimacy, or even only the affective orientations and evaluations directed toward which, are capable of having an influence on the legitimacy of democracy, we are above all referring to political institutions, in particular to the tripartite of state power: the executive – the president, the government, state administration in general, and the army and the police in particular; the legislature – parliament; and the judiciary – courts. Others generally included as being relevant in this case are the powerful and influential institutions characteristic of a civil society – the church, the media, unions, and in some cases political parties and businesses. This list goes to show that both political and economic institutions are relevant. It is not possible to discuss the legitimacy of a regime today without examining its socio-economic system [Linz 1988, Burkhart 2000]. Thus even those institutions that may be a part of both state administration and civil society – such

The Legitimacy of Democracy and Trust in the Political Institutions in the Czech Republic