2. What is political discontent and how can it be measured?

Political discontent, also known as ‘political dissatisfaction’ or ‘distrust,’ is a complex concept that is difficult to measure and lacks a universally accepted definition. We define political discontent as a sense of dissatisfaction that individuals feel towards their government (Chilvers et al. 2024).

Political discontent can be considered a characteristic of a healthy democracy, as it implies that citizens critically reflect on policies or decision-making processes and may express their disagreement in various ways. Nonetheless, political discontent has been discussed as challenging for Western democracies in recent years, for several reasons: First, if political discontent persists, it may lead to declining trust in political institutions and leaders. For example, abstaining from voting may indicate that citizens have lost faith or interest in democratic processes or feel alienated from political leaders. Such an erosion of trust can undermine the legitimacy and functioning of democratic institutions. Second, political discontent can contribute to polarization in society. If some groups support the existing order while others become dissatisfied, these divisions can create barriers to dialogue, negotiation and compromise on which democratic governance relies. Additionally, discontent can increase support for political actors and movements that promise to disrupt established institutions, norms or processes, with potentially wide-ranging repercussions for societies and economies (Norris 2011, Inglehart and Norris 2016, Jennings et al. 2016).

To better understand how discontent manifests, Hirschman (1970) developed the influential ‘Exit-Voice-Loyalty’ model. This model identifies different ways in which discontent can be expressed, including voter realignment (‘exit’), where individuals switch their support from one party to another, protest (‘voice’), or passive endurance in the hope that the situation will improve (‘loyalty’). Later users of the model have added a fourth dimension, ‘neglect,’ which implies that individuals will abstain from voting (de Ruyter et al. 2021).

While voter turnout has declined in many Western countries over the last two decades, the rise in votes cast for non-traditional and populist parties is often seen as the most distinct expression of political discontent (Solijonov 2016, Rodríguez-Pose 2020). For example, Inglehart and Norris (2016) found that the average share of populist parties in national and European parliamentary elections increased from 5.1% in the 1960s to 13.2% in the 2010s in Europe. Many recent studies have therefore analyzed discontent through votes cast for populist parties (Rodríguez-Pose 2018, Berman 2021, Rhodes-Purdy et al. 2023). It is not straightforward to define populism and populist parties. Here, we use a definition from the PopuList Project (Rooduijn et al. 2024), which we will revisit later (see Section 4). It defines populist parties based on Mudde (2004) as “parties that endorse the set of ideas that society is ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite,’ and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people”.

It is important to note that electoral behaviour alone cannot provide a full understanding of political discontent and its drivers. Discontent and distrust are complex feelings that can arise from various sources, and voting data alone cannot reveal their specific nature or causes (van Vulpen et al. 2023). For example, citizens may hold different levels of trust or discontent towards political actors at different levels of governance or different parts of the political system, and it is not straightforward how this translates into electoral choices (Vilhelmsdóttir 2020). Moreover, not all discontent may be expressed through voting, and not all votes for populist parties necessarily represent protest votes. Voters of these parties may support a specific candidate or the general values or priorities that the parties promote. Due to these limitations, scholars have also used other data sources, such as surveys or social media, to analyse and understand discontent (Denti and Faggian 2021, Kenny and Luca 2021).

When considering the Nordic Region, however, voting data remain the best available proxy to analyse and discuss political discontent. These data are reliable and complete, available at the local level, and comparable across the Nordic countries. Therefore, in our project, we have used local-level voting data from national elections as a proxy to investigate political discontent and its drivers, focusing on turnout and votes cast for populist parties.

Chilvers, M., Sánchez Gassen, N., Lundgren, A. and Tapia C. (2024): Geographies of discontent in the Nordic Region? A conceptual overview. Nordregio Working Paper 2024:1, Stockholm: Nordregio. Available at: https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1862660/FULLTEXT01.pdf.