Violence and Political Selection: Experimental Evidence

• In Event: Poster Session: Representation and Electoral Systems & Public Opinion and U.S. Politics
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Representation and Electoral Systems

Abstract

What is the effect of violence directed at political elites on elite composition and behavior? This paper argues that violence limits the pool of candidates for office in general, and has a particularly detrimental effect on the political ambition of would-be candidates from traditionally underrepresented groups such as women, immigrants, the working class, minority ethnic or religious groups or those with nontraditional sexual orientations. Moreover, I argue that anti-elite violence reduces participation by would-be candidates who are ideological and what I call "behavioral" moderates, those who are risk-averse, and those who have strong pro-social motivations.

I test my theory using a novel behavioral information provision experiment, conducted on a nationally representative sample of office-eligible U.S. citizens as well as a sample of "marginal politicians" composed of graduates from elite U.S. colleges and law schools. The intervention randomly assigns subjects to receive verified information on the risk of violence and harassment to those who enter politics, thus allowing me to estimate the causal effect of changing beliefs regarding the risk of violence on political ambition.

Moreover, I examine whether the effect of changing beliefs varies in theoretically plausible ways across different demographic subgroups and psychological fundamentals such as risk preferences or pro-sociality. To examine this heterogeneity in detail, I elicit rich baseline covariate information from respondents. Crucial psychological variables are elicited using incentivized choice tasks to maximize construct validity. My experimental design tests key micro-foundations of my theory while respecting tight logistical and ethical constraints.

My research extends existing scholarship on political selection by emphasizing the threat of violence as a crucial driver of entry decisions. By inducing adverse selection on a variety of dimensions, rising levels of political violence intensify elite polarization and exacerbate inequalities in representation. Moreover, changes in risk preferences and the general behavioral profile of legislators may render legislative bargaining less effective, and thus limit the ability of democratic institutions to solve pressing policy issues.

I anticipate that my research will be highly relevant to scholars, policy practitioners and citizens concerned with the fate of pluralist democracy in an age of rampant dis- and misinformation. As became evident in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, a degradation of the information environment, exemplified by the rapid spread of conspiracy theories, frequently goes hand in hand with violence. In many democracies, debates over restrictions on public life due to the pandemic were highly contentious. In the aftermath of these debates, there is growing concern over how harassment, threats and outright violence affect those who serve, often at great personal sacrifice, in public office. My research clarifies what is at stake as democracies confront growing anti-elite violence by shedding light on some of the possible consequences from leaving such violence unaddressed.

Moreover, countless non-governmental organizations and political parties work tirelessly to motivate citizens from all walks of life to run for and serve in public office. I predict that my theoretical framework and empirical findings will inform efforts by such organizations to prepare citizens for public life and may even inspire productive interventions aimed at diversifying the candidate pool.

Finally, I believe that my work is most relevant to citizens in deep despair with democratic governance, wondering why too many elected officials are hopelessly extremist, corrupt, inept, and unable to negotiate compromise solutions to advance the common good. My research emphasizes the need for robust yet respectful debate, the value of a pacified political space, and clarifies why a core element of the populist zeitgeist -- its virulent anti-elitism -- limits the ability of democratic institutions to get things done.

Author

• Moritz Emanuel Bondeli, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin