Citizens’ attitudes about the political parties in their countries have been linked to their overall satisfaction with their democracy, with those feeling great love (hate) for parties feeling more (less) satisfied with the democracy. Such strong positive and negative emotions require time and clear targets to form. This study demonstrates that the influence of interparty affect is greater where the party system has institutionalized. Where the public can be familiar with the parties, their positions, and their relative status in the party system, citizens’ attitudes toward the democracy are more informed by their feelings about the parties in the system. This article draws on 20 years of surveys from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. It demonstrates that the positive effect of positive party affect is greater in institutionalized party systems, while the negative effect of negative party affect is not. This article thus contributes to political science’s understanding of affective polarization, the benefits of party system institutionalization, and popular democratic commitment.
AbramowitzAWebsterSW (2018) Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology39: 119–135.
2.
AbramowitzAWebsterS (2016) The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of US elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies41: 12–22.
3.
AldrichJHAustinBKrishnamurthyAMadanNRenbergKMRidgeHM (2020) Does a partisan public increase democratic stability?Research Handbook on Political Partisanship. Edward Elgar Publishing.
4.
AndersonCJ (2002) Good Questions, Dubious Inferences, and Bad Solutions: Some Further Thoughts on Satisfaction with Democracy. Binghamton, NY: Binghamton University.
5.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems: 66–81.
6.
BielasiakJ (2002) The institutionalization of electoral and party systems in postcommunist states. Comparative Politics189–210.
7.
BlaisAMorin-ChasséAlSinghSP (2017) Election outcomes, legislative representation, and satisfaction with democracy. Party Politics23(no. 2): 85–95.
8.
BolleyerNRuthSP (2018) Elite investments in party institutionalization in new democracies: a two-dimensional approach. The Journal of Politics80(1): 288–302.
9.
BoxellLGentzkowMShapiroJM (2020) Cross-country Trends in Affective Polarization. National Bureau of Economic Research.
10.
BryanMLJenkinsSP (2016) Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale. European Sociological Review32(1): 3–22.
11.
ÇakırS (2021) Does Party Ambivalence Decrease Voter Turnout? A Global Analysis. Party Politics.
12.
CanacheDMondakJJSeligsonMA (2001) Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly65(4): 506–528.
13.
CaruanaNJMichael McGregorRStephensonLB (2015) The power of the dark side: Negative partisanship and political behaviour in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique771–789.
14.
ChiaramonteAEmanueleV (2017) Party system volatility, regeneration and de-institutionalization in Western Europe (1945–2015). Party Politics23(4): 376–388.
15.
ChiaramonteAEmanueleV (2019) Towards turbulent times: measuring and explaining party system (de-) institutionalization in Western Europe (1945–2015). Italian Political Science Review49(1): 1–23.
16.
ConversePE (1969) Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies2(2): 139–171.
17.
CoppedgeMGerringJ, et al. (2020) V-dem Codebook V10" Varieties of Democracy. V-Dem) Project.
18.
CuriniLJouWMemoliV (2012) Satisfaction with democracy and the winner/loser debate: The role of policy preferences and past experience. British Journal of Political Science241–261.
19.
CruzCKeeferPScartasciniC (2021) The Database of Political Institutions 2020 (DPI2020). DOI: 10.18235/0003049
20.
DahlbergSLindeJonasHolmbergS (2015) Democratic discontent in old and new democracies: Assessing the importance of democratic input and governmental output. Political Studies63: 18–37.
21.
DahlbergSLindeJonas (2016) Losing happily? The mitigating effect of democracy and quality of government on the winner–loser gap in political support. International Journal of Public Administration39(9): 652–664.
22.
DaltonRJWeldonS (2007) Partisanship and party system institutionalization. Party Politics13(2): 179–196.
23.
DruckmanJNLevenduskyMS (2019) What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?Public Opinion Quarterly83(1): 114–122.
24.
EastonD (1975) A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British journal of political science5(4): 435–457.
25.
HernándezEAnduizaEGuillemR (2021) Affective polarization and the salience of elections. Electoral Studies69: 102203.
26.
HickenAMartinez KuhontaE (eds), (2015) Party system institutionalization in Asia: democracies, autocracies, and the shadows of the past. Cambridge University Press.
27.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
28.
IyengarSWestwoodSJ (2015) Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science59(3): 690–707.
29.
KuenziMLambrightG (2001) Party system institutionalization in 30 African countries. Party Politics7(4): 437–468.
30.
KnudsenE (2021) Affective Polarization in Multiparty Systems? Comparing Affective Polarization Towards Voters and Parties in Norway and the United States. Scandinavian Political Studies44(1): 34–44.
31.
LindeJEkmanJ (2003) Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research42(3): 391–408.
32.
LindeJPetersY (2020) Responsiveness, support, and responsibility: How democratic responsiveness facilitates responsible government. Party Politics26(3): 291–304.
33.
LuhisteK (2014) Social protection and satisfaction with democracy: A multi-level analysis. Political Studies62(4): 784–803.
34.
MainwaringS (2016) Party system institutionalization, party collapse and party building. Government and Opposition51(4): 691–716.
35.
MainwaringSBizzarroFPetrovaA (2018) Party System Institutionalization, Decay, and Collapse” in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MainwaringSScullyT (1995) Introduction: Party Systems in Latin America” in. Scott Mainwaring and Timothy Scully. 1-34. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
37.
MainwaringSTorcalM (2006) Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization. Handbook of Party Politics11(6): 204–227.
38.
MayerSJ (2017) How negative partisanship affects voting behavior in Europe: Evidence from an analysis of 17 European multi-party systems with proportional voting. Research & Politics4(no. 1): 2053168016686636.
39.
MayneQHakhverdianA (2017) Ideological congruence and citizen satisfaction: Evidence from 25 advanced democracies. Comparative Political Studies50(6): 822–849.
40.
McGregorRStephensonLB (2015) Negative partisanship in a multi-party system: the case of Canada. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties25(3): 300–316.
41.
MedeirosMNoëlA (2014) The forgotten side of partisanship: Negative party identification in four Anglo-American democracies. Comparative Political Studies47(7): 1022–1046.
42.
Piñeiro RodríguezRRosenblattF (2020) Stability and incorporation: Toward a new concept of party system institutionalization. Party Politics26(2): 249–260.
43.
ReiljanA (2020) Fear and Loathing across Party Lines” (also) in Europe: Affective Polarisation in European Party Systems. European Journal of Political Research59(2): 376–396.
44.
RidgeHM (2021) Electoral outcomes and support for Westminster democracy. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties1–20.
45.
RidgeHM (2020) Enemy Mine: Negative Partisanship and Satisfaction with Democracy. Political Behavior1–25.
46.
RidgeHM (2021) Just like the others: Party differences, perception, and satisfaction with democracy. Party Politics1354068820985193.
47.
RoseRMishlerW (1998) Negative and positive party identification in post-communist countries. Electoral Studies17(2): 217–234.
48.
RussoLMayerSJ (2021) Divide and Conquer: Disentangling Negative Partisanship and Affective Polarization.
49.
ScarrowSEGezgorB (2010) Declining memberships, changing members? European political party members in a new era. Party Politics16(6): 823–843.
50.
ShefferLior. (2020) Partisan in-group bias before and after elections. Electoral Studies67: 102191.
51.
ThamesFCRobbinsJW (2007) Party System Institutionalization and the Level of Democracy Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
52.
VanBIngridPMPoguntkeT (2012) Going, going,… gone? The decline of party membership in contemporary Europe. European Journal of Political Research51(1): 24–56.
53.
VlachováK (2001) Party identification in the Czech Republic: inter-party hostility and party preference. Communist and Post-Communist Studies34(4): 479–499.
54.
WagnerM (2020) Affective Polarization in Multiparty Systems. Electoral Studies.
55.
WellsJMKrieckhausJ (2006) Does national context influence democratic satisfaction? A multi-level analysis. Political Research Quarterly59(4): 569–578.
56.
WestwoodSJIyengarSWalgraveS, et al. (2018) The tie that divides: Cross‐national evidence of the primacy of partyism. European Journal of Political Research57(2): 333–354.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
