Winners And Losers In The Presidential Elections Of 2014: The Impact Of Defeat At The Ballot Box On Satisfaction With And Support For Democracy In Brazil

Q4 Environmental Science
M. D. S. S. Braga, G. Ávila
{"title":"Winners And Losers In The Presidential Elections Of 2014: The Impact Of Defeat At The Ballot Box On Satisfaction With And Support For Democracy In Brazil","authors":"M. D. S. S. Braga, G. Ávila","doi":"10.1590/1807-01912016223550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the last two decades of the 20th century, democracy has established itself as a hegemonic regime in many parts of the world. Theoretically, these democracies function according to constitutional precepts originating in normative consensus resulting from negotiations between political forces that legitimate the choice of representatives. In other words, a minimal consensus on the rules of the game must exist and, subsequently, adherence to the outcomes by all the players involved. Consequently, one of the signals of how legitimate a democracy is lies in the behavior of its losers. Given this democratic principle, this article seeks to answer two questions, with Brazilian democracy as a case study. The first asks if the defeat at the ballot box in 2014 affected the degree of satisfaction with and support for democracy among the losers in Brazilian democracy. In other words, did losing the election induce the losers to go beyond criticisms of the elected government to attack the democratic regime itself and, therefore, the “rules of the game”? The second question, which is more explanatory, seeks to identify the conditions under which the gap between winners and losers, in terms of support for the democratic regime, widens or narrows. The main conclusion is that the losers in elections are more unsatisfied with the functioning of democracy than the winners, although there are no differences with regard to commitment to democracy. This result occurs even when controlling for different demographic, social, and individual characteristics, including the evaluation of Dilma Rousseff’s government and the rejection of the Workers’ Party (PT).","PeriodicalId":38571,"journal":{"name":"Scopus: Journal of East African Ornithology","volume":"128 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1590/1807-01912016223550","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scopus: Journal of East African Ornithology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-01912016223550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In the last two decades of the 20th century, democracy has established itself as a hegemonic regime in many parts of the world. Theoretically, these democracies function according to constitutional precepts originating in normative consensus resulting from negotiations between political forces that legitimate the choice of representatives. In other words, a minimal consensus on the rules of the game must exist and, subsequently, adherence to the outcomes by all the players involved. Consequently, one of the signals of how legitimate a democracy is lies in the behavior of its losers. Given this democratic principle, this article seeks to answer two questions, with Brazilian democracy as a case study. The first asks if the defeat at the ballot box in 2014 affected the degree of satisfaction with and support for democracy among the losers in Brazilian democracy. In other words, did losing the election induce the losers to go beyond criticisms of the elected government to attack the democratic regime itself and, therefore, the “rules of the game”? The second question, which is more explanatory, seeks to identify the conditions under which the gap between winners and losers, in terms of support for the democratic regime, widens or narrows. The main conclusion is that the losers in elections are more unsatisfied with the functioning of democracy than the winners, although there are no differences with regard to commitment to democracy. This result occurs even when controlling for different demographic, social, and individual characteristics, including the evaluation of Dilma Rousseff’s government and the rejection of the Workers’ Party (PT).
2014年总统选举的赢家和输家:投票失败对巴西民众对民主的满意度和支持的影响
在20世纪的最后20年里,民主在世界许多地方确立了自己的霸权政权地位。从理论上讲,这些民主国家是根据宪法规定运作的,这些规定是由政治力量之间的谈判产生的规范性共识产生的,这些协商使代表的选择合法化。换句话说,必须就游戏规则达成最低限度的共识,然后所有参与者都遵守游戏结果。因此,衡量一个民主制度是否合法的信号之一,就在于它的失败者的行为。鉴于这一民主原则,本文试图回答两个问题,并以巴西民主为例进行研究。第一个问题是,2014年的选举失败是否影响了巴西民主制度中的失败者对民主的满意度和支持程度。换句话说,选举失败是否会促使失败者超越对民选政府的批评,转而攻击民主政权本身,从而攻击“游戏规则”?第二个问题更具解释性,旨在确定在支持民主制度方面赢家和输家之间差距扩大或缩小的条件。主要的结论是,选举中的失败者比胜利者对民主的运作更不满意,尽管在对民主的承诺方面没有差别。即使控制了不同的人口、社会和个人特征,包括对迪尔玛·罗塞夫政府的评价和对工人党(PT)的拒绝,这一结果也会出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scopus: Journal of East African Ornithology
Scopus: Journal of East African Ornithology Environmental Science-Ecology
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of East African Ornithology has been published since 1977 by the Bird Committee of the East Africa Natural History Society. Originally titled Scopus, the addition of Journal of East African Ornithology began with our January 2018 issue. The journal is published Open Access twice a year, typically in January and July. Authors retain copyright and their work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Our copyright and licensing agreement only applies from January 2018 onwards, and does not apply to previously published issues. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信