Ideas such as ‘political trust,’ ‘democratic values,’ ‘political disaffection,’ and ‘systems support’ are far from simple. Their measurement is not straightforward. And the thoughtful interpretation of the underlying meaning of the evidence is even more complicated. This chapter seeks to establish and clarify the conceptual framework, an important first step before examining both longitudinal trends and cross-national evidence. This chapter first identifies the idea of levels and components of systems support, drawing upon the seminal work of David Easton. It then builds and extends these concepts further by outlining the core idea of democratic deficits, reflecting the ambivalent tensions between aspirations for democracy and judgments about its performance. The deficit arises, in essence, because many citizens today believe that it is important to live in a democratic state, yet they remain dissatisfied when evaluating how democracy works. If this attitudinal syndrome translates into actions and behavior – an issue explored in the final section of this book – then any deficit is potentially an important resource for mobilizing social movements seeking to deepen participation, accountability, and transparency within liberal democracies, as well as encouraging popular demands for reform in autocratic states.

THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF SYSTEMS SUPPORT

Ideas about support for the political system are too often muddied in the literature; for example, when distinguishing citizens' orientations toward government and parliaments, common language often skims over, or fails to acknowledge, important distinctions such as those concerning ideas of institutional confidence (which can be understood to represent belief in the capacity of an agency to perform effectively), trust (reflecting a rational or affective belief in the benevolent motivation and performance capacity of another party), skepticism (or suspended judgment), and cynicism (meaning jaded negativity).