Umeå universitets logga

This study examines whether public attitudes of national belonging influence levels of democracy. We investigate how non-voluntary perceptions of national belonging–requirements of ancestral ties–affect the development across 63 countries over three decades. We analyze both the bottom-up effects of public attitudes and the top-down influence of political elites’ nationalist articulation. Our results show that countries where the majority holds a non-voluntary national identity tend to have lower levels of democracy. Furthermore, these challenges to democratic governance are amplified when non-voluntary national identity interacts with nationalist political articulation by elites. Longitudinal analyses reveal that countries with a stronger emphasis on non-voluntary identity experience a greater decline in formal democracy over time, suggesting an inherent incompatibility between non-voluntary national identity and democratic principles. By explicitly linking majority public attitudes about national belonging to democratic outcomes, our study offers new empirical insights into the relationship between national identity and democracy.

This article explores the social mechanisms connecting national identity and support for democracy. Our investigation centers on the mediating role of civic beliefs and participation, employing data sourced from the European Value Survey (EVS 2017), which encompasses a total of 36 countries. First, our findings reveal a positive effect of voluntary (civic) national identity and support for democracy and a negative effect of non-voluntary (ethnic) national identity on support for democracy. Second, mediation analysis shows that individuals with higher levels of voluntary national identity exhibit stronger civic beliefs and participation, contributing to pro-democracy attitudes. In contrast, we find that non-voluntary national identity is inversely associated with civic beliefs and participation, largely explaining the negative effect on support for democracy. Although the mediators do not entirely account for the relationship between national identity and pro-democracy attitudes, they are important in shaping the relationship.

This chapter focuses on group threat theory (Blumer 1958), one of the main sociological approaches used to explain prejudice toward minority groups. It examines the utility of the theory when applied to prejudice in the context of migration-generated diversity and analyzes how its original formulation by Blumer compares with the conceptualization of stigma by Link and Phelan (2001). Similarities and diff erences are drawn between Blumer's "four feelings" in prejudice and Link and Phelan's "four components" constitutive of stigma. Despite overlapping, complementary, and at time divergent arguments, using these two approaches in tandem may overcome the limitations of group threat theory and, in the process, advance research into anti-immigrant sentiment. In turn, it is posited that scholarship on stigma may gain from incorporating the concept of threat into its framework.

Background: National identity, the sense of belonging to a nation, significantly influences both unity and division within societies. It can be voluntary, based on shared beliefs, or non- voluntary, tied to ancestry. These aspects affect democracy in distinct ways. Further, national identity encompasses the attitudes and emotions that people hold towards their nation. This dissertation examines how national identity impacts democracy at both the individual and the societal level. Although the theoretical links between national identity and democracy are well-established, empirical research on these relationships remains scarce. This study seeks to address the gap by exploring the effects that various forms of national identity have on individual support for democracy and the level of formal democracy across different countries.

Data and Methods: This dissertation primarily uses cross-sectional data and employs a range of analytical techniques that include multilevel models, mediation analysis, and ordinary least squares regression. Data are sourced mainly from the European Values Study (EVS), the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), the Varieties of Democracy (V- Dem), and the Project Manifesto. The datasets offer comprehensive coverage of national identity and democracy, enabling a robust analysis of their interrelationships across various contexts and time periods.

Results: At the societal level, top-down nationalism driven by political elites and non-voluntary collective national identity among the populace negatively affect formal democracy. When top-down nationalism and non-voluntary national identity coexist, there is an interaction effect that further diminishes the level of formal democracy. At the individual level, a stronger emphasis on non-voluntary features of national identity correlates with lower support for democracy. Additionally, there is an interaction effect between the societal and individual levels, whereby higher levels of formal democracy amplify the negative relationship between non-voluntary identity and support for democracy. The negative impact of non-voluntary national identity on civic beliefs and participation largely explains its negative correlation with support for democracy. Taken together, the analyses underscore the detrimental impact of non- voluntary national identity on democracy, suggesting that fostering a democratic ethos requires promoting inclusive, voluntary aspects of national identity. No relationship was found between national attachment and the level of formal democracy.iConclusion

These results challenge classical and liberal nationalist views. They suggest that strong, shared national identities do not necessarily lead to positive democratic outcomes. Promoting inclusive, voluntary aspects of national identity aligns with core democratic values, such as political equality, whereas non-voluntary aspects of national identity do not. Thus, non-voluntary national identity seems to be an obstacle to democratic trajectories.

In this article, I explore whether, and if so how, national identity affects the level of formal democracy in a country. I theorize and then investigate four assumptions: (i) classical nationalist stances hold that national membership depends on the accident of origin and cultural markers learned by early socialization. This non-voluntary identity gives human beings a natural sense of belonging in society and fosters solidarity and trust that lead to better democracy; (ii) drawing on ideas about core values of ideal democracy the non-voluntarist national identity exhibits an inherent contradiction between in-group bias and intrinsic equality, which leads to lower levels of democracy; (iii) homogeneity in belief about what constitutes national belonging eases the dynamics between majority and minority, which benefits democracy; (iv) the presence of an in-group identity, understood as a shared fellow-feeling, boosts trust and solidarity and thereby benefits democracy. Individual-level data about national identity comes from International Social Survey Programme (ISSP, 2013). Data about democracy comes from Varieties of Democracy (Coppedge et al., 2021; Pemstein et al., 2021). Results indicate that higher levels of non-voluntarist features of national identity are strongly negatively correlated with levels of democracy and heterogeneity in beliefs about what constitutes national belonging relating to a higher level of liberal democracy.

This article analyzes the interplay between national identity and democracy. Multilevel models were tested using European Value Survey (EVS 2017), which includes 30 countries. On the individual level, emphasis on non-voluntary features of national identity, where national membership depends on the accident of origin, relates to lower support to democracy. At the country level, the level of actual democracy was taken into account (Varieties of Democracy 2017). In general, higher levels of actual democracy correlate with stronger support for democracy, yet, a high level of actual democracy amplifies the negative relationship between non-voluntary national identity and support for democracy. 

This study investigates the relationship between national identity and democracy. Specifically, it examines how non-voluntary identities, emphasizing common ancestral ties and physical traits, relate to the level of and development in formal democracy, across 63 countries over three decades. We explore both bottom-up effects of national identity and top-down influence of political elites’ nationalist articulation on democracy. The results provide support for the theoretical expectations linking non- voluntary national identity to lower levels of formal democracy. The challenges to democratic governance are further amplified by an interplay between non-voluntary national identity and nationalist political articulation. The longitudinal analyses reveal that countries with a strong non-voluntary national identity experience a greater decline in formal democracy over time, suggesting an inherent incompatibility between such forms of national identity and democracy. The relationship between national identity and formal democracy is a question deeply rooted within the realms of philosophy and political theory. Our study contributes by offering new empirical insights into this relationship.

This article explores the social mechanisms connecting national identity and support for democracy. Our investigation centers on the mediating role of civic beliefs and participation, employing data sourced from the European Value Survey (EVS 2017), which encompasses a total of 36 countries. First, our findings reveal a positive effect of voluntary (civic) national identity and support for democracy and a negative effect of non-voluntary (ethnic) national on support for democracy. Second, mediation analysis shows that individuals with higher levels of voluntary national identity exhibit stronger civic beliefs and engagement, contributing to pro-democracy attitudes. In contrast, we find that non-voluntary national identity is inversely associated with civic beliefs and participation, largely explaining the negative effect on support for democracy. Although the mediators do not entirely account for the relationship between national identity and pro-democracy attitudes, they are important in shaping the relationship.