Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-5sfl8 Total loading time: 0.701 Render date: 2022-12-03T08:41:21.012Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Religion and Support for Democracy: A Cross-National Test of the Mediating Mechanisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Abstract

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.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

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.

References

1 Adorno, Theodor W., Frenkel-Brunswik, ElseLevinson, Daniel J. and Sanford, Nevitt R., The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper & Row, 1950)Google Scholar

Gibson, James L., ‘The Political Consequences of Intolerance: Cultural Conformity and Political Freedom’, American Political Science Review, 86 (1992), 338–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hunsberger, Bruce, ‘Religion and Prejudice: The Role of Religious Fundamentalism, Quest and Right-Wing Authoritarianism’, Journal of Social Issues, 51 (1995), 113–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stark, Rodney, ‘Reconceptualizing Religion, Magic, and Science’, Review of Religious Research, 43 (2001), 101–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karpov, Vyacheslav, ‘Tolerance in the United States and Poland’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41 (2002), 267–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Putnam, Robert D., Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norris, Pippa and Inglehart, Ronald, Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyer, KatherineTope, Daniel and Price, Anne M., ‘Religion and Support for Democracy: A Cross-national Examination’, Sociological Spectrum, 28 (2008), 625–53 CrossRefGoogle 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), 131Google Scholar

3 Appleby, Scott R., The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000)Google Scholar

Philpott, Daniel, ‘Explaining the Political Ambivalence of Religion’, American Political Science Review, 101 (2007), 505–25 CrossRefGoogle 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. 342Google 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

6 Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford, The Authoritarian PersonalityGoogle Scholar

7 Norris, Pippa, Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Bratton, Michael and Mattes, Robert, ‘Support for Democracy in Africa: Intrinsic or Instrumental?’ British Journal of Political Science, 31 (2001), 447–74 CrossRefGoogle 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

Campbell, David E., ‘Religious Threat in Contemporary Presidential Elections’, Journal of Politics, 68 (2006), 104–15 CrossRefGoogle 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. 2649Google Scholar

Kellstedt, Green, Guth, and Smidt, ‘Is There a Culture War?’; Smidt, Kellstedt and Guth, ‘The Role of Religion in American Politics’Google Scholar

11 Kotler-Berkowitz, Laurence A., ‘Religion and Voting Behaviour in Great Britain: A Reassessment’, British Journal of Political Science, 31 (2001), 523–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dekker, Paul and Halman, Loek, The Values of Volunteering: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Bloom, Ben-Nun and Arikan, , ‘A Two-Edged Sword’Google Scholar

13 Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford, The Authoritarian PersonalityGoogle Scholar

Gibson, ‘The Political Consequences of Intolerance’; Karpov, ‘Tolerance in the United States and Poland’Google Scholar

14 Neiheisel, Djupe and Sokhey, ‘Veni, Vidi, Disseri’Google Scholar

15 Putnam, Bowling Alone.

16 Norris, Democratic Phoenix.

17 Peres, Yochanan and Yuchtman-Yaar, Eppie, Trends in Israeli Democracy: The Public's View (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1992)Google Scholar

Campbell, ‘Religious Threat in Contemporary Presidential Elections’Google Scholar

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. 165Google Scholar

19 Inglehart, Ronald and Welzel, Christian, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Schwartz, Shalom and Huismans, Sipke, ‘Value Priorities and Religiosity in Four Western Religions’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 58 (1995), 88107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Rokeach, Milton, ‘Value Systems and Religion’, Review of Religious Research, 11 (1969), 223CrossRefGoogle 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

Roccas, Sonia, ‘Religion and Value Systems’, Journal of Social Issues, 61 (2005), 747–59 CrossRefGoogle 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).

24 Wald, Kenneth D.Owen, Dennis E. and Hill, Samuel S., ‘Churches as Political Communities’, American Political Science Review, 82 (1988), 531–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Djupe, Paul A. and Gilbert, Christopher G., ‘The Resourceful Believer: Generating Civic Skills in Church’, Journal of Politics, 68 (2006), 116–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Jelen, Ted G. and Wilcox, Clyde eds, Religion and Politics in Comparative Perspective: The One, the Few, and the Many (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.

29 Anderson, Christopher J. and Guillory, Christine A., ‘Political Institutions and Satisfaction With Democracy’, American Political Science Review, 91 (1997), 6681CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Brechon, Pierre, ‘Influence of Religious Integration on Attitudes: A Comparative Analysis of European Countries’, Revue Française de Sociologie, 45 (2004/5), 2648CrossRefGoogle 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

32 Easton, David, ‘A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support’ British Journal of Political Science, 5 (1975), 435–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diamond, Larry, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1999)Google Scholar

Norris, Pippa, Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Inglehart, Ronald, ‘How Strong is Mass Support for Democracy – And How Can We Measure it?’ Political Science and Politics, 36 (2003), 51–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inglehart, Ronald and Welzel, Christian, ‘Political Culture and Democracy: Analyzing Cross-Level Linkages’, Comparative Politics, 36 (2003), 6179CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Welzel, Christian, ‘Are Levels of Democracy Affected by Mass Attitudes? Testing Attainment and Sustainment Effects on Democracy’, International Political Science Review, 28 (2007), 397424CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963)CrossRefGoogle 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

Radu, Michael, ‘The Burden of Eastern Orthodoxy’, Orbis, 42 (1998), 283300CrossRefGoogle 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

Bratton, Michael, ‘Briefing: Islam, Democracy, and Public Opinion in Africa’, African Affairs, 102 (2003), 493501CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marsh, Christopher, ‘Orthodox Christianity, Civil Society, and Russian Democracy’, Demokratizatsiya, 13 (2005), 449–62 CrossRefGoogle 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

51 Kaplan, David and Elliot, Pamela R., ‘A Didactic Example of Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling Applicable to the Study of Organizations’, Structural Equation Modeling, 4 (1997), 124CrossRefGoogle 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.

54 Dalton, Russell J. and Ong, Nhu-Ngoc T., ‘Authority Orientations and Democratic Attitudes: A Test of the Asian Values Hypothesis’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 6 (2005), 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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’.

58 Hicks, Loue E., ‘Some Properties of Ipsative, Normative and Forced-Choice Normative Measures’, Psychological Bulletin, 74 (1970), 167–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 Fischer, Ronald, ‘Standardization to Account for Cross-Cultural Response Bias’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35 (2004), 263–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.

67 MacKinnon, David P.Fairchild, Amanda J. and Fritz, Matthew S., ‘Mediation Analysis’, Annual Review of Psychology, 58 (2007), 593614CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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’.

71 Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, pp. 142–3Google Scholar

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.

73 McCargo, Duncan, ‘Buddhism, Democracy, and Identity in Thailand’, Democratization, 11 (2004), 155–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 Stepan, Alfred, ‘Religion, Democracy and the “Twin Tolerations”’, Journal of Democracy, 11 (2000), 3757CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.

77 Catterberg, Gabriela and Moreno, Alejandro, ‘The Individual Bases of Political Trust: Trends in New and Established Democracies’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18 (2006), 3148CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Supplementary material: File

Bloom Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Bloom Supplementary Material(File)
File 75 KB
33
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Religion and Support for Democracy: A Cross-National Test of the Mediating Mechanisms
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Religion and Support for Democracy: A Cross-National Test of the Mediating Mechanisms
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Religion and Support for Democracy: A Cross-National Test of the Mediating Mechanisms
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *