Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T16:35:31.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Democracy-Politics Paradox”

The Dynamics of Political Alienation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Gerry Stoker and
Mark Evans
Gerry Stoker*
Affiliation:
University of Canberral
Mark Evans*
Affiliation:
Centre for Citizenship, Globalization and Governance, University of Southampton, United Kingdom
*
gerry.stoker@canberra.edu.au
Mark.Evans@canberra.edu.au
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary political scientists have observed a democratic paradox that has crystallized around the disconnection between how citizens imagine their democracy and how politics is practiced. Citizens continue to believe in the values of liberal democracy but are increasingly disillusioned with how their political systems work and the politics that are practiced in the name of democracy. This article revisits the root causes of political alienation to better understand this democratic paradox. It provides both a conceptual understanding of political alienation and its domain of action and insights into how the concept can be operationalized and measured in empirical research. It argues that while democracy itself may not be in crisis, the politics on which its operation rests is in peril.

Keywords

citizensdemocracyempiricismmeasurementpolitical alienationpolitical engagement

Information

Type
Is Democracy in Crisis?
Information
Democratic Theory , Volume 1 , Issue 2: The Crisis of Democracy: Which Crisis? Which Democracy? , December 2014, pp. 26 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Democratic Theory 2014

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albertazzi, Daniele, and McDonnell, Duncan eds. 2008. Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Nicholas, and Sarah, Birch. 2014. Ethics and Integrity in British Politics: How Citizens Judge Their Politicians Conduct and Why it Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, Åsa, and Mattila, Mikko. 2009. “Direct Democracy and its Critics: Support for Direct Democracy and ‘Stealth’ Democracy in Finland.” West European Politics 32 (5): 1031–1048.10.1080/01402380903065256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: the Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2005. “The Social Transformation of Trust in Government.” International Review of Sociology 15 (1): 133–154.10.1080/03906700500038819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denters, Bas, and Peter, Geurts. 1993. “Aspects of Political Alienation: An Exploration of their Differential Origins and Effects.” Acta Politica 4: 445–469.Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1975. “Reassessment of the Concept of Political Support.” British Journal of Political Science 5 (4): 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Mark, Gerry Stoker, and Jamal, Nasir. 2013. “How do Australians Imagine Their Democracy? Australian Survey of Political Engagement Findings.” ANZSOG Institute for Governance, University of Canberra. http://www.governanceinstitute.edu.au/magma/media/upload/ckeditor/files/DEMOCRACY%20REPORT-%20UPDATED%20VERSION-27-6-13.pdf (accessed 11 April 2014).Google Scholar
Finifter, Ada W. 1970. “Dimensions of Political Alienation.” American Political Science Review 64: 389–410.10.2307/1953840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinders, Matthew. 2012. Defending Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansard, Society. 2012. “Audit of Political Engagement 9: The 2012 Report.” London: Hansard Society.Google Scholar
Hansard, Society. 2013. “Audit of Political Engagement 10: The 2013 Report.” London: Hansard Society.Google Scholar
Hay, Colin. 2007. Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth, Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: American Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, George E., Neuman, W. Russell, and Michael, MacKuen. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A., Kevin, M. Esterling, Ryan, P. Kennedy, David, M. J. Lazer, and Sokhey., Anand E. 2010. “Who Wants to Deliberate – And Why?” American Political Science Review 104 (3): 566–583.10.1017/S0003055410000298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa, ed. 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pharr, Susan J., and Putnam, Robert D eds. 2000. Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Tri-lateral Countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, Kevin. 2006. American Theocracy: the Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Seeman, Melvin. 1959. “On the Meaning of Alienation.” American Sociological Review 24: 783–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, Gerry. 2006. Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Torcal, Mariano, and José, R. Montero. 2006. Political Disaffection in Contemporary Democracies: Social Capital, Institutions and Politics. Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, James. D. 1981. “Political Disaffection.” Pp. 1–79 in The Handbook of Political Behaviour, ed. Long, Samuel L.. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar