Ideology and Deliberation: An Analysis of Public Support for Deliberative Practices in Finland

The introduction of deliberative practices has been proposed as a method for revitalizing representative democracies suffering from decreasing political involvement and increasing fragmentation (Dryzek, 2000; Grönlund, Bächtiger, & Setälä, 2014; Parkinson & Mansbridge, 2012). Some scholars, however, question whether citizens are willing to engage in deliberative practices (Bartels, 2003; Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 2002; Posner, 2004). A related concern is that deliberative practices may not appeal equally to all groups of citizens, and consequently jeopardize the principle of inclusion of all relevant arguments and experiences in deliberation (Young, 2000). Whether deliberative practices can help revitalize democracy partly depends on the extent to which support for these practices is related to ideological predispositions. Previous studies suggest that ideological predispositions systematically influence individual attitudes toward public involvement in political processes (Bengtsson & Mattila, 2009; Dalton & Welzel, 2014; Inglehart, 1997; Kriesi, 2010). If a corresponding pattern were to be found for deliberative practices, the result could be detrimental to the deliberative focus on inclusiveness. An ideological bias among supporters might translate into overrepresentation of certain ideological perspectives in deliberative events. Furthermore, if support for deliberative practices depends on strong ideological predispositions, the prospective participants in deliberation are likely to behave like activists—eager to pursue their established goals by any means necessary (Mackuen, Wolak, Keele, & Marcus, 2010, p. 440)—rather than deliberative citizens, who are considerate, balanced, open-minded, and willing to compromise (Levine & Nierras, 2007; MacKuen et al., 2010). If the composition of deliberative events is ideologically unrepresentative, it can also result in harmful group composition effects that affect the final outcome (Baek, Wojcieszak, & Delli Carpini, 2012; Barabas, 2004; Gastil, Black, & Moscovitz, 2008). It is therefore important to establish how ideological predispositions shape attitudes toward the use of deliberative practices in society.