Democratic Support Scale
Support for Democracy Scale (SFD) · Also known as: SFD, Democratic Legitimacy Scale, System Support Scale
The Democratic Support Scale measures citizen commitment to democracy as a regime type, including beliefs that democracy is the best system of government, willingness to defend democratic institutions, and rejection of non-democratic alternatives. Pioneered by Norris (1999) and Dalton (2004) in comparative research, the measure distinguishes regime support (belief in democracy's superiority) from performance support (satisfaction with current government). It addresses the paradox of 'critical citizens'—in advanced democracies, people often express dissatisfaction with current government performance while maintaining deep commitment to democratic principles.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
Use Democratic Support Scale in studies of democratic consolidation and vulnerability, evaluations of political crises and regime stability, comparative research on democratic legitimacy across nations, longitudinal monitoring of commitment to democracy over time, research on anti-democratic populism and radical movements, and assessments of democratic education or citizenship programs. Appropriate for adult voting populations and politically aware youth (16+). Valuable in post-conflict societies, new democracies, and democracies experiencing institutional crises. Can identify populations vulnerable to authoritarian appeals.
Strengths & limitations
- Addresses critical distinction between regime support (democracy is good) and performance support (government is doing well); clarifies why citizens can be democratic reformers despite current dissatisfaction.
- Highly stable construct reflecting deep political values; test-retest reliability r > 0.85 over years.
- Strong external validity: predicts resistance to anti-democratic movements, openness to authoritarianism, and support for democratic reforms.
- Validated across 80+ countries including new democracies, consolidated democracies, and autocracies; enables meaningful cross-national comparison.
- Social desirability bias: in most countries, democracy support is normatively valued, leading to ceiling effects (most respondents cluster at high scores). Anonymous surveys reduce this but do not eliminate it.
- Conflation with performance evaluation: some respondents frame democratic support based on current government performance; temporal fluctuation in scores may reflect performance rather than regime commitment.
- Limited nuance on 'democracy' definition: respondents may have different conceptions (liberal democracy, direct democracy, representative democracy); wording variation affects scores.
- Insufficient for predicting behavior: high democratic support alone does not prevent voting for anti-democratic candidates if they promise performance improvements. Must combine with other measures.
Frequently asked
Why has democratic support declined in advanced democracies?
Multiple causes: (1) Income inequality—citizens in unequal societies perceive government as unresponsive; (2) Media cynicism—news emphasizes scandal and conflict; (3) Partisan polarization—declining shared faith in institutions; (4) Performance failures—gridlock on major issues; (5) Generational effects—younger cohorts less socialized into democratic values. Correlations are strong with inequality (r = -0.60+) and trust in institutions (r = 0.70+). Surprisingly, democratic support remains high (70%+) in Nordic democracies despite similar challenges, suggesting institutional design matters greatly.
Can democratic support be rebuilt after collapse?
Very difficult. Once support falls below 40%, anti-democratic movements mobilize successfully, making recovery slower. Rebuilding requires: (1) institutional performance improvement, (2) reducing inequality and tangible improvements in citizen life, (3) political reconciliation reducing polarization, (4) media shift toward constructive coverage. Successful cases (post-WWII Germany, Spain post-1978) took 10-30 years. Quick rhetorical campaigns ('democracy is great') fail without performance backing.
Do people who score low on democratic support always vote for anti-democratic parties?
Not always. Some low-support respondents are non-voters (exit the system). Others vote for reformist parties promising to fix democracy rather than replace it. However, low support strongly predicts openness to anti-democratic alternatives (r = -0.60); not sufficient alone but necessary condition. Highest-risk population combines low democratic support + high efficacy + grievance + available anti-democratic movement leadership.
How does democratic support differ between new and established democracies?
New democracies (5-20 years old) typically show high diffuse support (honeymoon effect: people optimistic about democracy's potential) but low specific support (government performance disappointing). Established democracies (50+ years) show reversed pattern: high specific support (government is stable, predictable) but lower diffuse support (people are 'critical citizens' who value democracy but don't love it). Over-time, new democracies' diffuse support can decline if performance doesn't improve.
Sources
- Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. link ↗
- Norris, P. (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. link ↗
- Gibson, J. L. (2004). Constraining the Klan: Civil society and the limits of democratic tolerance. In P. B. Baltes, N. J. Smelser, & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Oxford: Elsevier. link ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Support for Democracy Scale (SFD). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/political-psychology/democratic-support-scale
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- National Identity ScalePolitical Psychology↔ compare
- Political Trust ScalePolitical Psychology↔ compare
- Voter Cynicism ScalePolitical Psychology↔ compare