直接民主、“公民投票”和军事统治:葡萄牙人对民主的规范性看法是多维的吗?

IF 0.2 Q3 Social Sciences
G. Adinolfi
{"title":"直接民主、“公民投票”和军事统治:葡萄牙人对民主的规范性看法是多维的吗?","authors":"G. Adinolfi","doi":"10.1386/PJSS.17.2.229_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In its annual report, Freedom House stresses how ‘[…] after years of major gains, the share of free countries has declined over the past decade, while the share of not free countries has risen’. In this depiction of the profound crisis of mainstream political parties, Portugal is a clear exception: unlike in Spain with Podemos, Italy with the Movimento 5 Stelle and Greece with Syriza, new anti-system parties did not find the political spaces in which to operate. However, we need to understand whether the absence of such parties in parliament corresponds with a matching absence in public opinion of support for forms of disfigured democracy and underlying factors. This article is based on quantitative methods and multilevel analysis. Findings indicate that in Portugal the normative view of democracy is consistent on many levels with that of Europeans in general: unanimous support for democracy (90%), alongside backing for different forms of democracy – direct democracy (80%), partial democracy (50%, plebiscitary and technocratic) and authoritarian rule (18%). Nevertheless, we can still detect differences in the underlying factors on the level of illegitimacy and cognitive and political mobilization.","PeriodicalId":51963,"journal":{"name":"Portuguese Journal of Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Direct democracy, ‘plebiscitarianism’ and military rule: Is the Portuguese normative view of democracy multidimensional?\",\"authors\":\"G. Adinolfi\",\"doi\":\"10.1386/PJSS.17.2.229_1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In its annual report, Freedom House stresses how ‘[…] after years of major gains, the share of free countries has declined over the past decade, while the share of not free countries has risen’. In this depiction of the profound crisis of mainstream political parties, Portugal is a clear exception: unlike in Spain with Podemos, Italy with the Movimento 5 Stelle and Greece with Syriza, new anti-system parties did not find the political spaces in which to operate. However, we need to understand whether the absence of such parties in parliament corresponds with a matching absence in public opinion of support for forms of disfigured democracy and underlying factors. This article is based on quantitative methods and multilevel analysis. Findings indicate that in Portugal the normative view of democracy is consistent on many levels with that of Europeans in general: unanimous support for democracy (90%), alongside backing for different forms of democracy – direct democracy (80%), partial democracy (50%, plebiscitary and technocratic) and authoritarian rule (18%). Nevertheless, we can still detect differences in the underlying factors on the level of illegitimacy and cognitive and political mobilization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Portuguese Journal of Social Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Portuguese Journal of Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1386/PJSS.17.2.229_1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Portuguese Journal of Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/PJSS.17.2.229_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自由之家在其年度报告中强调,“在多年的重大进展之后,自由国家的份额在过去十年中有所下降,而非自由国家的比例却有所上升”。在对主流政党深刻危机的描述中,葡萄牙是一个明显的例外:与西班牙的波德莫斯党、意大利的Movimento 5 Stelle党和希腊的激进左翼联盟不同,新的反体制政党没有找到运作的政治空间。然而,我们需要了解,议会中没有这样的政党,是否与公众舆论对各种形式的畸形民主和潜在因素的支持相对应。本文基于定量方法和多层次分析。调查结果表明,葡萄牙对民主的规范性看法在许多层面上与欧洲人的普遍看法一致:一致支持民主(90%),同时支持不同形式的民主——直接民主(80%)、部分民主(50%,公民投票和技术官僚制)和威权统治(18%)。尽管如此,我们仍然可以发现非法性以及认知和政治动员层面的潜在因素存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Direct democracy, ‘plebiscitarianism’ and military rule: Is the Portuguese normative view of democracy multidimensional?
In its annual report, Freedom House stresses how ‘[…] after years of major gains, the share of free countries has declined over the past decade, while the share of not free countries has risen’. In this depiction of the profound crisis of mainstream political parties, Portugal is a clear exception: unlike in Spain with Podemos, Italy with the Movimento 5 Stelle and Greece with Syriza, new anti-system parties did not find the political spaces in which to operate. However, we need to understand whether the absence of such parties in parliament corresponds with a matching absence in public opinion of support for forms of disfigured democracy and underlying factors. This article is based on quantitative methods and multilevel analysis. Findings indicate that in Portugal the normative view of democracy is consistent on many levels with that of Europeans in general: unanimous support for democracy (90%), alongside backing for different forms of democracy – direct democracy (80%), partial democracy (50%, plebiscitary and technocratic) and authoritarian rule (18%). Nevertheless, we can still detect differences in the underlying factors on the level of illegitimacy and cognitive and political mobilization.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Portuguese Journal of Social Science is a peer-reviewed cross-disciplinary journal focusing on research about Portuguese society by scholars of any nationality. However, the journal takes a broad view and accepts articles that are not exclusively devoted to the Portuguese case. We particularly welcome comparative studies. While the journal concentrates on research articles it operates a flexible policy in respect of other types of submission, including book reviews.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信