Religion and Support for Democracy: A Cross-National Test of the Mediating Mechanisms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Religion can be a source of undemocratic attitudes but also a contributor to democratic norms. This article argues that different dimensions of religiosity generate contrasting effects on democratic attitudes through different mechanisms. The private aspect of religious belief is associated with traditional and survival values, which in turn decrease both overt and intrinsic support for democracy. The communal aspect of religious social behaviour increases political interest and trust in institutions, which in turn typically lead to more support for democracy. Results from multilevel path analyses using data from fifty-four countries from Waves 4 and 5 of the World Values Survey suggest there is some regularity in mechanisms responsible for the effect of religiosity on democratic support that extend beyond religious denomination.
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012
Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (email: Pazit.BenNun@mail.huji.ac.il); Department of International Relations, Yasar University, respectively. Earlier drafts were presented at the 2009 MPSA and the 2011 Israeli Political Science Association conferences. The authors wish to thank these audiences and the Journal's editors and five anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. An online appendix with supplementary tables is available at http://www.journals.cambridge.org/jps.10.1017/S0007123412000427.
1 Adorno, Theodor W., Frenkel-Brunswik, ElseLevinson, Daniel J. and Sanford, Nevitt R., The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper & Row, 1950)Google Scholar
Neiheisel, Jacob R.Djupe, Paul A. and Sokhey, Anand E., ‘Veni, Vidi, Disseri: Churches and the Promise of Democratic Deliberation’, American Politics Research, 20 (2008), 1–31Google Scholar
4 Guth, James L., Jelen, Ted G., Kellstedt, Lyman A.Smidt, Corwin E. and Wald, Kenneth D., ‘The Politics of Religion in America: Issues for Investigation’, American Politics Quarterly, 16 (1988), 357–97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leege, David C. and Data’, Lyman A. Kellstedt. ‘Religious Worldviews and Political Philosophies: Capturing Theory in the Grand Manner through Empirical, Leege, in David C. and Kellstedt, Lyman A. eds, Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1993)Google Scholar
Kellstedt, Lyman A., Green, John C.Guth, James L. and Smidt, Corwin E., ‘Is There a Culture War? Religion and the 1996 Election’ (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., 1997)Google Scholar
Smidt, Corwin E.Kellstedt, Lyman A. and Guth, James L., ‘The Role of Religion in American Politics: Explanatory Theories and Associated Analytical and Measurement Issues’, in Corwin Smidt, Lyman A. Kellsted, and James L. Guth, eds, Oxford Handbook on Religion and American Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 3–42Google Scholar
5 Bloom, Pazit Ben-Nun and Arikan, Gizem, ‘A Two-Edged Sword: The Differential Effect of Religious Belief and Religious Social Context on Attitudes towards Democracy’, Political Behavior, 34 (2012), 249–76 Google Scholar
Bloom, Pazit Ben-Nun and Arikan, Gizem, ‘Priming Religious Belief and Religious Social Behaviour Affect Support for Democracy’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research (forthcoming)Google Scholar
9 Bellah, Robert N., ‘The New Religious Consciousness and the Crisis of Modernity’, in Charles Y. Bloch and Robert N. Bellah, eds, The New Religious Consciousness (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), pp. 133–52 Google Scholar
10 Wald, Kenneth D. and Smidt, Corwin E., ‘Measurement Strategies in the Study of Religion and Politics’, in David C. Leege and Lyman A. Kellstedt, eds, Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1993), pp. 26–49Google Scholar
Kellstedt, Green, Guth, and Smidt, ‘Is There a Culture War?’; Smidt, Kellstedt and Guth, ‘The Role of Religion in American Politics’Google Scholar
15 Putnam, Bowling Alone.
16 Norris, Democratic Phoenix.
18 Schwartz, Shalom, ‘Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries’, in Mark P. Zanna, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (New York: Academic Press, 1992), pp. 1–65Google Scholar
Schwartz and Huismans, ‘Value Priorities and Religiosity in Four Western Religions’; Sonia Roccas and Shalom Schwartz, ‘Church–State Relations and the Associations of Religiosity with Values: A Study of Catholics in Six Countries’, Cross-Cultural Research, 31 (1997), 356–75 Google Scholar
22 Vassilis Saroglou, Vanessa Delpierre and Rebecca Dernelle, ‘Values and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Schwartz's Model’, Personality and Individual Differences, 37 (2004), 721–34.
23 Ronald Inglehart, ‘Postmodernization Erodes Respect for Authority, but Increases Support for Democracy’, in Pippa Norris, ed., Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
26 Putnam, Bowling Alone.
27 Neiheisel, Djupe and Sokhey, ‘Veni, Vidi, Disseri’.
28 The religious are a majority in the United States but each religious group is a minority.
30 Mishler, William and Rose, Richard, ‘Trust, Distrust and Skepticism: Popular Evaluations of Civil and Political Institutions in Post-Communist Societies’, Journal of Politics, 59 (1997), 418–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bean, Clive S., ‘Citizen Confidence in Social and Political Institutions in a Changing World’ (paper presented at the Social Change in the Twenty-first Century Conference, Brisbane, 2003)Google Scholar
31 Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, ‘Mapping Political Support in the 1990s: A Global Analysis’, in Pippa Norris, ed., Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1999)Google Scholar
Welzel, Christian, ‘Are Levels of Democracy Affected by Mass Attitudes? Testing Attainment and Sustainment Effects on Democracy’, International Political Science Review, 28 (2007), 397–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, ‘A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support’; Russell J. Dalton, ‘Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies’, in Norris, ed., Critical Citizens, pp. 57–77Google Scholar
Diamond, Developing Democracy; Michael Bratton, Robert Mattes and E. Gyimah-Boadi, Public Opinion, Democracy, and Market Reform in Africa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar
Inglehart, ‘How Strong is Mass Support for Democracy’; Norris, Democratic DeficitGoogle Scholar
35 Moreno, Alejandro and Welzel, Christian, ‘How Values Shape People's Views of Democracy: A Global Comparison’ (presented at the Mapping and Tracking Global Cultural Change Conference, Center for the Study of Democracy, University of Califortnia, Irvine, 2011, available at http://www.democracy.uci.edu/files/democracy/docs/conferences/2011/Moreno%20Welzel_Chapter.pdf, Accessed 13.08.2012Google Scholar
36 Inglehart, ‘How Strong is Mass Support for Democracy?’ Andreas Schedler and Rodolofo Sarsfield, ‘Democrats with Adjectives: Linking Direct and Indirect Measures of Democratic Support’, European Journal of Political Research, 46 (2007), 637–59Google Scholar
37 Schedler and Sarsfeld, ‘Democrats with Adjectives’.
38 Bratton and Mattes, ‘Support for Democracy in Africa’.
39 Moreno and Welzel, ‘How Values Shape People's Views of Democracy’; Norris, Democratic Deficit.
40 Klingemann, ‘Mapping Political Support in the 1990s’; Moreno and Welzel, ‘How Values Shape People's Views of Democracy’; Norris, Democratic Deficit.
41 Norris, Pippa, ‘Institutional Explanations for Political Trust’, in Norris, ed., Critical Citizens, pp. 217–35Google Scholar
Qi, Lingling and Shin, Doh Chull, ‘How Mass Political Attitudes Affect Democratization: Exploring the Facilitating Role Critical Democrats Play in the Process’, International Political Science Review, 32 (2011), 245–62Google Scholar
42 Norris, Critical Citizens; Norris, Democratic Deficit; Welzel, ‘Are Levels of Democracy Affected by Mass Attitudes?’.
43 Kedourie, Elie, Democracy and Arab Political Culture (London: Frank Cass, 1994)Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996)Google Scholar
Tessler, Mark, ‘Do Islamic Orientations Influence Attitudes toward Democracy in the Arab World? Evidence from Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Algeria’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 43 (2002), 229–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 Schwartz and Huismans, ‘Value Priorities and Religiosity in Four Western Religions’.
45 Schwartz and Huismans, ‘Value Priorities and Religiosity in Four Western Religions’.
46 Ben-Nun Bloom and Arikan, ‘A Two-Edged Sword’.
47 Saroglou, Delpierre, and Dernelle, ‘Values and Religiosity’.
48 Wald, Owen and Hill, ‘Churches as Political Communities’.
49 Ersin Kalaycioglu, ‘Islam, Secularism, and Democracy: Insights from Turkish Politics’ (paper presented at the 67th Annual Midwest Conference, Chicago, 2010).
50 Djupe and Gilbert, ‘The Resourceful Believer’; Ted G. Jelen and Marthe A. Chandler, ‘Communalism, Associationalism, and the Politics of Lifestyle’, Review of Religious Research, 38 (1996), 142–58Google Scholar
52 See Meyer, Tope and Price, ‘Religion and Support for Democracy’.
53 Eighteen of the countries appear in both datasets: Argentina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Moldova, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, Ukraine and the United States. Additional countries included in Wave 4 are: Albania, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Tanzania, and Uganda. Additional countries included in Wave 5 are: Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Cyprus, Georgia, Indonesia, New Zealand, Norway, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Thailand, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.
55 Confirmatory factor analysis provides empirical support for operationalizing these items as two different factors. The fit indices of the pooled items are lower compared to the fit statistics obtained from CFA of the last three items, and thus support a two-dimensional structure.
56 Moreno and Welzel, ‘How Values Shape People's Views of Democracy’, p. 1; Norris, Democratic DeficitGoogle Scholar
57 Moreno and Welzel, ‘How Values Shape People's Views of Democracy’.
60 Vijver, Fons J.R. Van de and Leung, Kwok, Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1997)Google Scholar
61 See Inglehart and Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy, Appendix B. We removed one item from each of the original measures, due to redundancy with one of our other variables (importance of God in life was used in religious belief; trust is highly correlated with a key mediator). Our versions of the values measures correlate highly with the original measures (r = 0.93 for rational-traditional values; r = 0.90 for self-expression-survival values).
62 GDP–PPP: Gross domestic product at purchasing power parity.
63 Rex B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd edn (New York: The Guilford Press, 2005)Google Scholar
64 Ben-Nun Bloom and Arikan, ‘A Two-Edged Sword’.
65 In the case of non-instrumental attitudes towards democracy (Model 1e), self-expression values have a positive effect while the effect of rational values is found to be null.
66 It seems that placing emphasis on material and physical security, but not traditionalism per se, is associated with a democratic understanding that deems bread and butter issues or redistribution as being essential to democracy.
68 Specifying and testing alternative path models does not necessarily indicate the correctness of the causal model but may at least provide a statistical basis for the evaluation of a theory-driven model with other alternative specifications. See Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, p. 99.
69 Piaget, Jean and Weil, Anne-Marie, ‘The Development in Children of the Idea of Homeland and Relations with Other Countries’, International Social Science Bulletin, 3 (1951), 561–78 Google Scholar
Sigel, Irving E. and Cocking, Rodney R., Cognitive Development from Childhood to Adolescence: A Constructivist Perspective (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977)Google Scholar
Hallahmi, Benjamin Beit- and Argyle, Michael, The Psychology of Religious Behavior, Belief, and Experience (London: Routledge, 1997)Google Scholar
70 Schwartz, ‘Universals in the Content and Structure of Values’.
72 Unfortunately, the number of observations for Hindus and Jews (in both waves), as well as Buddhists (in Wave 4) were too low to produce reliable results with multilevel analysis.
75 Still, because of the strong positive correlation between religious belief and social religious behavior, the extent to which the negative effect of belief will govern the positive effect of social religious behavior depends on the strength of individual's belief and frequency of participation. Thus, for the strongest believers (when belief = 1) the positive effect of behaviour is not strong enough to cancel out this negative effect even if the individual is a frequent participant (social behaviour = 1), but as belief weakens (when, say belief is 0.5), frequent participation may cancel out the negative effects that religiosity has on pro-democratic attitudes.
76 We would like to thank anonymous reviewer 1 for raising this point.
78 Almond and Verba, The Civic Culture; Adam Seligman, The Idea of Civil Society (New York: The Free Press, 1992)Google Scholar
79 Norris, Critical Citizens; Norris, Democratic Deficit.
80 Qi and Chull Shin, ‘How Mass Political Attitudes Affect Democratization’.
81 Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001)Google Scholar
82 Wald, Kenneth D. and Wilcox, Clyde, ‘Getting Religion: Has Political Science Rediscovered the Faith Factor?’ American Political Science Review, 100 (2006): 523–29Google Scholar
Künkler, Mirjam and Leininger, Julia, ‘The Multi-Faceted Role of Religious Actors in Democratization Processes: Empirical Evidence from Five Young Democracies’, Democratization, 16 (2009), 1058–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar