Replication Data for: Are Democratic Innovations Legitimate to the Broader Public? Evidence from Survey Experiments in Ghana

“Democratic innovations,” which enhance citizen participation in decision-making processes, have been proposed to address challenges faced by many democracies. Only recently has research studied these innovations’ legitimacy among the public, which is of importance if innovations are to be viable remedies for democracy’s problems. This paper advances this literature with survey experiments conducted in Ghana. Ghanaians ascribe higher legitimacy to citizen deliberative bodies (mini-publics), open participatory processes, and citizen-elite deliberation processes relative to the status quo. These processes generate more legitimacy among those who do not favor the process outcome. Ghanaians were most favorable toward citizen-elite deliberation, viewing it as more fair, democratic, and likely to ameliorate partisan tensions. I suggest that this is because citizen-elite deliberation is most consistent with Ghanaian understandings of democratic accountability. This highlights the importance of context in shaping democratic reforms’ legitimacy, with implications for theory and reform design.

能够提升公民决策参与度的‘民主创新’（Democratic innovations），被学界提出作为解决诸多民主体制所面临治理难题的可行方案。直至近年，学界才开始探究此类创新在公众中的合法性认知——若要使民主创新成为解决民主体制弊病的切实可行方案，这一认知至关重要。本研究依托在加纳开展的调查实验（survey experiments），拓展了该领域的研究边界。相较于现行民主体制现状，加纳民众对公民协商机构（citizen deliberative bodies，又称微型公共论坛mini-publics）、开放式参与流程以及公民-精英协商流程赋予了更高的合法性评价。相较于现行体制，此类流程在不支持该流程最终结果的民众群体中同样能获得更高的合法性认可度。加纳民众对公民-精英协商流程最为青睐，认为该流程更具公平性与民主性，且更有可能缓解党派对立紧张局势（partisan tensions）。笔者认为，这是由于公民-精英协商流程最契合加纳民众对民主问责制（democratic accountability）的认知理念。该研究凸显了情境因素在塑造民主改革合法性过程中的重要性，同时为相关理论研究与改革方案设计提供了启示。