Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) Module 5 (English Version)

Itemtext:

Empfehlungen:

Befund zum Item:

14 respondents “strongly agree“ or “somewhat agree“ with this statement, while only two respondents (ID 01, 07) “strongly disagree” or “somewhat disagree”.

Those who agree with the statement believe they are sufficiently informed on most important political matters to be able, for example, to discuss them competently:

• “I believe that when it comes to most topics, or those topics that are most important to me, I know what I am talking about. For example, the refugee crisis or the emission scandal. I have my own opinion on those topics and would be able to discuss them.” (ID 04)
• “After all, I have been following political events for 55 years, reading the newspaper. I understand domestic policy with ease, and am also well informed on foreign policy. It is also my ambition to be able to understand this.”

The respondents mainly think of topics such as the refugee crisis, the environment, pension policy and TTIP while answering this item.

Both respondents who disagree with the item (ID 01, 07) explain that they have no interest in political matters and often find them to be too complex to talk about.

The respondents were also asked how they understood the answer option „weder noch” (“neither agree nor disagree”). Seven respondents think it is a sort of evasive option for those respondents who don’t care about the topic, do not have an opinion on it or cannot decide. Hence, they view it as a kind of “don’t know”-category. The remaining respondents interpret “weder noch” as “teils/teils” (“partially agree/partially disagree”), that is, as the answer option that those respondents would pick who partially agree and disagree with the statement. Two respondents (ID 05, 06) explicitly state that they would prefer the phrasing “teils/teils”, because “weder noch” would not fit in this context: “Weder noch is not correct here. Maybe partially understand? It is partially correct or I partially agree, something like that would be nice here. I know what ‘weder noch’ is supposed to mean, but it just does not sound right here.” (ID 06).

Thema der Frage:

Konstrukt:

Itemtext:

Empfehlungen:

Befund zum Item:

Six respondents “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree”, while five respondents “somewhat disagree” with this item. Three respondents “neither disagree nor agree” (ID 03, 08, 11) and two respondents (ID 01, 13) answer “don’t know”.

Respondent 01 explains her answer of “don’t know” with her lack of interest in politics and because she doesn’t know any politicians personally – and therefore cannot judge them. For this very same reason she also answers “don’t know” on item d). Respondent 13 would answer this item differently depending on whether the item is about politicians on the communal or federal level. As this is not specified in the item, she cannot answer this item (as well as item d)).

One of the three respondents who „neither agrees nor disagrees“ (ID 08) highlights the same argument and states that they cannot answer the item as they do not know any politicians personally. Therefore, this respondent uses the answer category of “neither agree nor disagree” as a “don’t know” answer (see findings item a). The other two respondents (ID 03, 11) partially agree and partially disagree with the statement (“At first they say they will raise the retirement pensions, and shortly after that you have to work longer. They care and then don’t care after all.”, ID 11)

Those six respondents who agree with the statement explain that they are wary of politicians, as they primarily think of their own interests and do not take into account the will of the people outside of electoral campaigns:

• “We might be allowed to vote regularly, but when it comes to topics that really are important, then groups of people decide who might not even be affected by it and there are no referendums.” (ID 02)
• “It seems to me as though first of all, they look out for themselves. Initially, it doesn’t matter what the people want. They don’t ask us, they deal with it among themselves.” (ID 04))
• “As of late I always think of lobbying when it comes to politicians. Or when you think of their pay raise, you get the feeling it overlooks the people and is only egoistical.” (ID 07)

On the other hand, those five respondents who do not agree with the statement have a positive attitude towards politicians and trust most of them:

• “At the moment I occasionally get the feeling that there are isolated incidents where they care more about their own interests. But I would say those are exceptions. Really, I have confidence in politics.” (ID 05)
• “I think that there are many who are very dedicated and who do care within their abilities. Of course there are some black sheep, as is always the case.” (ID 12)

Finally, the respondents were asked how they understood the phrase „sich um das Volk kümmern” (“care about the people“). Two kinds of interpretations emerge: Ten respondents think “caring about the people” means taking into account the will of the people (“Listening to the people, asking the people for their opinion. Responding to what the people want.”, respondent 04), whereas the remaining six respondents think of the preservation and enhancement of the welfare state (“To make sure, that the welfare state is maintained and performs as intended. For example, consider the pension system, where the inter-generation contract cannot be upheld. Or health insurance, taking steps to improve employee rights, and so on.”, ID 07).

Thema der Frage:

Konstrukt:

Itemtext:

Empfehlungen:

Befund zum Item:

Thema der Frage:

Konstrukt:

Itemtext:

Empfehlungen:

Befund zum Item:

Six respondents “strongly agree“ (ID 10, 11) or “somewhat agree” (ID 01, 04, 07, 16) with this statement, while five respondents “somewhat disagree” (ID 02, 05) or “strongly disagree” (ID 03, 12, 15). Four respondents answer with “neither agree nor disagree” (ID 06, 08, 09, 14), while one respondent “doesn’t know” (ID 13).

It is obvious that all respondents favor a strong leader in government („Someone with a clear-cut profile, who isn’t afraid to go against the current, even if there is resistance from their own party.”, ID 12). Some respondents (e.g. ID 07, 11) think of specific politicians, such as Angela Merkel, Helmut Schmidt or Lothar Späth, when hearing the term „strong leader“.

Respondent 13, who answered “don’t know” also agrees on the importance of a strong leader, however faces a “moral dilemma” due to the second part of the sentence “even if the leader bends the rules to get things done”.

Those respondents who agree with the statement explain that the end justifies the means:

• “If the decisions are right for the people, then sometimes they have to be made even if they are not quite within the framework. Here, the end justifies the means. If it is for the good of the country, it can be done occasionally.” (ID 04)
• “If the end justifies the mean and is not that bad, then it’s alright.” (ID 10))

In contrast, those respondents who do not agree with the statement argue that while a strong leader is of importance, abiding by the law is more important:

• “Well I am in favor of a strong leader, who is charismatic, has a certain presence and is assertive. But I think everyone needs to abide by certain rules.” (ID 02)
• “While this strong leader surely would be helpful, bending the laws at one’s whim? You can see what this leads to in Turkey. I am strictly against that.” (ID 12)

Those four respondents who “neither agree nor disagree“ believe that while a strong leader in the government is important, so is playing by the rules (“I do think it is important to have a strong leader, but at what cost? Bending the rules does bother me.”, ID 06)

Finally, the respondents were asked to name specific examples, where a strong leader bent the rules to get things done. Merkel’s refugee policy was frequently listed (ID 01, 02, 07, 08, 11). Some respondents thought of non-compliance with current laws (ID 06, 10, 12, 13, 14), while others drew comparisons to dictators (Kim Yong Un, Adolf Hitler) or “autocrats” (Erdogan, Putin) who draw up legislation to their whim (ID 03, 05, 12). It must be noted that the phrase “bend the rules to get things done” allows for a large scope of interpretation. While some respondents think of rather severe misdemeanors (i.e. breaking the law), others think of trivial offences (such as non-coordinated action with the general party opinion). In the letter case, the respondents tend to agree with the statement, whereas the respondents disagree in the former case.

Thema der Frage:

Konstrukt:

Itemtext:

Empfehlungen:

Befund zum Item:

• “In politics, money rules. But that doesn’t mean that people should be treated preferentially because they are poor. It’s the same as the women’s quota. Either I make it to the top through my performance or not. But not only due to my gender. It would be the same here: Simply because I don’t have money, I would be elevated. I don’t think that’s good.” (ID 04)
• “I don’t think that fits into a democracy. Everyone has the same right to cast his vote, no matter whether they are poor or rich. Of course the voice of the socially deprived isn’t heard as much, and their interests are not represented as much. But I don’t believe it is right to override democratic principles.” (ID 07)

Thema der Frage:

Konstrukt: