Why Should We Care About Citizens' Perceptions of Democracy?

Traditionally, policymakers, governmental agencies, international organizations, and funders have relied on expert analysts of democracy and the data they produce to inform their actions. Experts’ assessments can therefore significantly impact matters such as funding or aid, which, in turn, can have substantial effects on people’s lives. However, the recently published Perceptions of Democracy Survey (PODS) report reveals a significant gap between expert assessments and the perceptions of ordinary people regarding democracy. The report points to a difficult but important question: are expert methods for evaluating democratic performance failing to get the full picture?  Are expert assessments missing what people truly care about in their democratic systems?

What Are Experts Missing?

Source: Colin Lloyd, 2021. @Unsplash

Perhaps an important question to ask ourselves when thinking of these gaps in democracy assessment is: what are experts missing in their assessments and why? Beyond differing understandings of concepts and areas of focus, other reasons for this gap could be found in the difference in the timeframes and sources that experts and ordinary people use for their assessments. Experts focus on long term and general processes, and comparative trends, and seek data from legitimate, verifiable, and standardized sources. People, on the other hand, get their information in social media, TV shows, newspapers, and daily interactions with friends, family, and neighbors. More importantly, people form their opinions through their own experiences with key issues such as security, access to basic services, cost of living, etc. 
While experts care about objectivity and comparability, people care about information that makes sense in their context and aligns with their values, which are often linked to their local communities. For example, if the people in your community have historically experienced police discrimination and mistreatment, you are unlikely to seek police help and will instead find other ways to protect yourself or solve problems. This attitude towards the police will likely prevail even if your country ranks high on rule of law and predictable enforcement and even if you have never personally suffered from police mistreatment and discrimination.
Another possible explanation can be that experts tend to look at the performance of institutions and institutionalized processes, while citizens, especially marginalized communities, experience democracy through other means and sources, precisely because they are marginalized by these same institutions. For example, it would be irrelevant to observe how professional the court system in a given country is if people cannot access them. Likewise, there is not much point in understanding how efficient and trustworthy voting machines can be if the population that will use them doesn’t care to vote because they feel that candidates do not represent them. Thus, there are a great many things that relate to a democracy’s functioning and delivering that cannot be (only) found in the mechanics of its institutionalized apparatus.

Key Takeaways

Public views of what constitutes a good government, or a fair election can vary greatly depending on a community's historical experiences with the judicial system, levels of tolerance to corruption, or experiences with institutionalized racism or political violence. At the same time, the aspects of democracy that mean the most to regular citizens are those that have to do with their immediate reality, especially in contexts of crisis, insecurity, poverty or armed conflicts. In this sense, understanding how democracy works and how it performs is greatly connected to the lived experiences and cultural contexts of the people within those democracies. This underscores the need to include the study of perceptions and experiences to democracy evaluations.
But why should experts pay attention to public perceptions of democracy, especially those of minorities? Experts need to pay attention to citizens’ perceptions of democracy because they highlight how democracy is being experienced daily. Delivering on democratic quality requires understanding democracy from the perspective of those most affected by changes in democratic systems—regular citizens. Without understanding their concerns, priorities and interests, we cannot create successful political agendas, legislation, or investment that speak to the people, leaving room for less democratic agendas to take advantage of this void. Further, without understanding minority perceptions, we fail to identify which aspects of our democracy are failing to reach certain communities or even systematically excluding them. 
While experts have traditionally focused on big-picture and comparative analysis and democratic institutional performance, we must remember that democracy is driven, above all, by people’s willingness to support, tolerate or completely change their governments. These decisions are profoundly shaped by their lived experiences and perceptions of governance.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the institutional position of International IDEA, its Board of Advisers or its Council of Member States.