Advertisement

Critical citizenship at work: the intriguing combination of democratic and epistocratic criticism of representation in French public opinion

  • David CopelloEmail author
Original Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

The crisis of representative democracy has been at the core of extensive research in contemporary political science. However, empirical works have mostly highlighted sceptical attitudes, and few studies have focused on critical citizens’ aspirations. This article explores the combined support for random selection and skills-testing of decision-makers in French public opinion. Drawing on data from the CEVIPOF 2017 French electoral survey, it discusses: (1) the level of concern and support for such institutional changes; (2) the intriguing convergence of both top-down and bottom-up criticism of the representative system; (3) the impact of education and (4) the impact of political preferences on attitudes towards random selection and skills-testing of representatives. We find that education has a negative effect on both variables, and that classical political variables (Left–Right scale) have a nonlinear impact. The stronger impact on variables is provided by critical citizenship types, defined by satisfaction/dissatisfaction with current democracy and aspirations for change.

Keywords

Critical citizenship Random selection Representative democracy Epistocracy Radical democracy Political competence 

Notes

References

  1. Adeleye, G. 1983. The purpose of dokimasia. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 24 (4): 295–306.Google Scholar
  2. Blondiaux, L. 2008. Le nouvel esprit de la démocratie: actualité de la démocratie participative. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  3. Bonin, H. 2017. Sur la «nature» du tirage au sort en politique: dialogue entre hasard et élection. Politique et Sociétés 36 (1): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Questions de politique. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 16 (1): 55–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brennan, J. 2016. Against democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cervera-Marzal, M., and Y. Dubigeon. 2013. Démocratie radicale et tirage au sort. Raisons Politiques 50: 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coffé, H., and A. Michels. 2014. Education and support for representative, direct and stealth democracy. Electoral Studies 35: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J., and A. Fung. 2004. Radical democracy. Swiss Journal of Political Science 10 (4): 23–34.Google Scholar
  9. Crouch, C. 2004. Post-democracy. Malden: Polity.Google Scholar
  10. Cusso, R., and C. Gobin. 2008. Du discours politique au discours savant: le changement politique mis hors débat? Mots. Les langages du politique 88: 5–11.Google Scholar
  11. Dalton, R. 2007. The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping american politics. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  12. Delannoi, G. 2011. Le tirage au sort: une approche démocratique. Esprit 8: 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delannoi, G. 2019. Le tirage au sort: comment l’utiliser. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  14. Delannoi, G., and O. Dowlen (eds.). 2010. Sortition: Theory and practice. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Delannoi, G., O. Dowlen, and P. Stone. 2013. The lottery as a democratic institution. Dublin: Policy Institute, Trinity College Dublin.Google Scholar
  16. Dumoulin, L., S. La Branche, C. Robert, and P. Warin. 2005. Le recours aux experts: raisons et usages politiques. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  17. Elster, J. 1984. Ulysses and the sirens: Studies in rationality and irrationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Elster, J. 2000. Ulysses unbound: Studies in rationality, precommitment, and constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Estlund, D.M. 2008. Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gaxie, D. 1978. Le cens caché: inégalités culturelles et ségrégation politique. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  21. Habermas, J. 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Highton, B. 2009. Revisiting the relationship between educational attainment and political sophistication. The Journal of Politics 71 (4): 1564–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jabko, N. 2001. Expertise et politique à l’âge de l’euro: la Banque centrale européenne sur le terrain de la démocratie. Revue Française de Science Politique 51 (6): 903–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leighninger, M. 2006. The next form of democracy: How expert rule is giving way to shared governance and how politics will never be the same. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  25. López-Rabatel, L., and Y. Sintomer. 2019. Introduction. L’histoire du tirage au sort en politique : instruments, pratiques, théories. Participations Hors Série(HS): 9–34.Google Scholar
  26. Luskin, R.C. 1990. Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior 12 (4): 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manin, B. 1995. Principes du gouvernement représentatif. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.Google Scholar
  28. Manin, B., and L. Blondiaux. 2002. L’idée de démocratie délibérative dans la science politique contemporaine: introduction, généalogie et éléments critiques. Politix 57: 37–55.Google Scholar
  29. Mayer, N. 2002. Les dimensions de la confiance. In La démocratie à l’épreuve. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po (P.F.N.S.P.).Google Scholar
  30. Muxel, A. 2002. La participation politique des jeunes: soubresauts, fractures et ajustements. Revue française de science politique 52 (5): 521–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muxel, A. 2018. Politiquement jeune. Paris: L’Aube.Google Scholar
  32. Norris, P. 2011. Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nye, J.S., P. Zelikow, and D.C. King. 1997. Why people don’t trust government. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pélabay, J., and R. Sénac. 2019. French critical citizens: Between philosophical enthusiasm and political uncertainty. French Politics 17(4).Google Scholar
  35. Rancière, J. 1995. La mésentente: politique et philosophie. Paris: Galilée.Google Scholar
  36. Rancière, J. 2005. La haine de la démocratie. Paris: La Fabrique.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Restier-Melleray, C. 1990. Experts et expertise scientifique: le cas de la France. Revue française de science politique 40 (4): 546–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sintomer, Y. 2011. Petite histoire de l’expérimentation démocratique: tirage au sort et politique d’Athènes à nos jours. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  39. Talpin, J. 2019. Le tirage au sort démocratise-t-il la démocratie ? Ou comment la démocratie délibérative a dépolitisé une proposition radicale. Participations Hors Série: 453–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tiberj, V. 2004. Compétence et repérage politiques en France et aux États-Unis: une contribution au modèle de «l’électeur raisonnant». Revue française de science politique 54 (2): 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Calle de Paul GuinardMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations