Democracy, Free Elections, and Gender Equality as Perceived by Recent Immigrants

Abstract

This study examines how democracy and its political attributes (such as free elections) and social attributes (such as gender equality) are perceived by people who come from nondemocratic countries and have lived for several months in a democratic society. The data were collected in Quebec using an original questionnaire completed by 127 adult immigrants. The results indicate that recent immigrants from nondemocratic countries primarily view democracy as a society based on the rule of law with strong social control. They consider free elections significantly more important to democracy than the possibility to vote for any political party. Contrary to expectations, recent immigrants view gender equality as essential for democracy, although this importance varies according to sphere. Immigrants’ conceptions of democracy also signify the most salient characteristics of the social and physical environment of the host society as the most important democratic features. The study illustrates the multifaceted nature of the process of forming ideas about democracy among immigrants socialized in nondemocratic societies. Not only is theoretical knowledge about democracy as a political system part of these ideas, but everything observed in a democratic society can be perceived as attributes of democracy. The results indicate that immigrants’ impressions of the social and physical environment in their host society should not be overlooked when analyzing their ideas on democracy. Consequently, the study concludes that a more welcoming society can foster more positive visions of democracy among newcomers from nondemocratic countries.

Full text

Citation: Zagrebina, Anna. 2024.
Democracy, Free Elections, and
Gender Equality as Perceived by
Recent Immigrants. Social Sciences 13:
578. https://doi.org/10.3390/
socsci13110578
Academic Editors: Friedel Weinert
and John Ackroyd
Received: 12 July 2024
Revised: 12 October 2024
Accepted: 22 October 2024
Published: 25 October 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
$
€
£¥
social sciences
Article
Democracy, Free Elections, and Gender Equality as Perceived by
Recent Immigrants
Anna Zagrebina
The Montreal Center for International Studies (CÉRIUM), Montreal, QC H3T 1P1, Canada;
anna.zagrebina@gmail.com
Abstract: This study examines how democracy and its political attributes (such as free elections) and
social attributes (such as gender equality) are perceived by people who come from nondemocratic
countries and have lived for several months in a democratic society. The data were collected in Quebec
using an original questionnaire completed by 127 adult immigrants. The results indicate that recent
immigrants from nondemocratic countries primarily view democracy as a society based on the rule of
law with strong social control. They consider free elections significantly more important to democracy
than the possibility to vote for any political party. Contrary to expectations, recent immigrants view
gender equality as essential for democracy, although this importance varies according to sphere.
Immigrants’ conceptions of democracy also signify the most salient characteristics of the social
and physical environment of the host society as the most important democratic features. The
study illustrates the multifaceted nature of the process of forming ideas about democracy among
immigrants socialized in nondemocratic societies. Not only is theoretical knowledge about democracy
as a political system part of these ideas, but everything observed in a democratic society can be
perceived as attributes of democracy. The results indicate that immigrants’ impressions of the social
and physical environment in their host society should not be overlooked when analyzing their ideas
on democracy. Consequently, the study concludes that a more welcoming society can foster more
positive visions of democracy among newcomers from nondemocratic countries.
Keywords: attitudes towards gender equality; perceptions of democracy; Quebec; social control; the
rule of law
1. Introduction
In the modern world, many democratic countries welcome immigrants from less
democratized countries. It is not surprising, then, that the visions of democracy and its
essential attributes held by immigrants are of research interest. Immigrants arriving in
a democratic society are expected to support democracy and contribute to its prosperity.
Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend what they are expected to support and contribute to
prosperity from their own perspective. Even if individuals assert their support for democ-
racy, the specifics of their conceptions of democracy may result in different expectations and
evaluations (Landwehr and Steiner 2017) and the ways in which people understand democ-
racy count for democratic consolidation by changing their orientation towards democracy
(Cho 2015). Moreover, the way people define democracy affects their satisfaction with it
(Crow 2010;Miller et al. 1997;Kornberg and Clarke 1994), which in turn has a significant
impact on political behavior (Crow 2010). Consequently, effective democratic orientations
alone, without understanding what is meant by democracy, do not provide an accurate and
complete account of the contours and dynamics of democratic development (Cho 2015).
Immigrants’ visions of democracy are of particular interest as they represent the per-
spectives of individuals often socialized in nondemocratic countries In Quebec, for example,
according to the Ministry of Immigration, in 2023 at least half of the immigrants came from
countries, such as China, Iran, and North and Central African nations (Immigrants Selon
Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13110578 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 2 of 13
Le Pays de Naissance, Québec, 2019–2023 2024). They are expected, however, to support
democracy in the democratic country that welcomes them. The democratic orientations
of immigrants are important because they constitute, at least in Canada, a considerable
proportion of the population. According to Statistics Canada, the proportion of immigrants
in the population has increased recently in all regions, constituting from 5% to 45% of the
population, depending on the year and the province (Houle et al. 2017).
In the case of immigrants, it is also essential to understand how their perceptions of
democracy and its fundamental attributes are influenced and shaped by their experiences
in the host society, as the host society for many of them presents the very first life experience
of knowing democracy. The supposition that some immigrants may have their very first
experience of democracy in the host society is based on the author’s observations of recent
immigrants in linguistic integration classes. Indeed, all the participants in this study, as
described below in the methodology section, according to their own words, came to Canada
directly from their countries of origin. Consequently, the results of this study are applicable
to immigrants who acquired their first experience of living in a democratic society in their
host country. This study, therefore, examines immigrants’ visions of democracy and its
attributes, and how they are influenced by their experiences in the host society.
While examining the political ideas or attitudes of immigrants, previous studies
have focused on immigrant support for democracy as a form of government (Eskelinen
and Verkuyten 2020) or trust in the country’s Parliament and satisfaction with the na-
tional government (Maxwell 2010), or support for the democratic system (i.e., seeing it as
good or bad) and democratic rights (i.e., agreeing or disagreeing with statements about
religious freedoms and freedom of speech and associations) (Gundelach 2010). Other
studies have explored immigrant party attachment in their host countries (Bergh and
Bjørklund 2011;
Just 2019
), their interest in election campaigns and political partisanship
(Barker and McMillan 2017;White et al. 2008), and political (Nakhaie 2008;Black 1987) and
electoral participation in the host country (Chaudhary 2018;De Rooij 2012;
Bueker 2005;
Wass et al. 2015
;White 2017;Voicu and Com¸sa 2014;Finn 2020). However, the question
of what immigrants understand by democracy and one of its undeniable attributes, free
elections, is underdeveloped in the research literature, although this question is fundamen-
tal to analyzing the underlying motivations for the political behavior of immigrants. This
study aims to analyze how recent immigrants view democracy and free elections and how
their experience in the host society may affect their visions of democracy. Furthermore, this
study contributes to the analysis of the perception of democracy by people socialized in
nondemocratic countries.
Perceptions of democracy among people socialized in nondemocratic societies are
usually analyzed using data collected from nondemocratic citizens who have never lived
in a democratic society (Dalton et al. 2007;Pickel et al. 2016;de Regt 2013;
Zagrebina 2020b;
Teti et al. 2019). Unlike previous studies, this research examines the perception of democracy
by people socialized in nondemocratic societies but with experience of several months of
life in a democratic society. This provides the opportunity to achieve two objectives: to
reveal which characteristics of a modern democratic society are most striking to newcomers,
and to test whether the experiences of several months living in a democratic society provide
newcomers with an adequate idea of the political functioning of a democratic society.
To analyze immigrants’ perceptions of democracy, this study uses data collected
through original formalized questionnaires. The data were collected in Quebec, one
of the ten Canadian provinces that welcomes thousands of immigrants from less de-
mocratized countries every year and is ‘now becoming a bona fide immigrant society’
(
Blad and Couton 2009
). The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, the
study examines democracy as a concept and as a host society and develops the research
hypotheses. Next, the methodology, including data, concept measurement, and methods, is
presented. Then, the main findings are presented and interpreted, followed by a conclusion.

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 3 of 13
2. Democracy as a Concept and a Host Society
Democracy is a well-known notion in different countries, whether less democratized
or more democratized, and even in oppressive regimes. When the World Values Survey
asked people in over 70 countries about the importance of democracy and its attributes,
they received responses, indicating that people in all these countries are aware of this notion
and, moreover, have their own opinions on it. However, their opinions vary according to
socio-political context, whether less democratized or more democratized (Cho 2015;Dalton
et al. 2007;Zagrebina 2020b). While in the modern world, thanks to the media, many people
in different countries are exposed to discussions about democracy, this exposure does not
guarantee a uniform understanding of it. Empirical studies show that even when the
media discuss democracy, the term can represent very different things in various countries.
Consequently, instead of spreading standardized information about liberal democracy,
the media, as the main source of information on the topic, often legitimize any regime as
democratic (Dahlberg and Mörkenstam 2024). Thus, mere exposure to ideas of democracy
does not mean that the same ideas are being spread in different countries. The data from
the World Values Survey show that people living in established democracies, who know
about democracy not only from the media but also from lived experience, see democracy
primarily as a habitat and a quality of the social environment. In contrast, for people living
in regimes without democratic experience or limited exposure to it, democracy is an abstract
concept known from the media and an ideal of a political regime that encompasses the most
cherished expectations, such as economic prosperity and the rule of law (
Zagrebina 2020b
).
One of the fundamental and indispensable attributes of modern democracy is free
elections (Huber et al. 1997;Dunn and Singh 2014;Coppedge et al. 2011;Cheibub et al. 2010;
Lijphart 2011;Lindberg et al. 2014;Munck 2014). Even people under oppressive regimes
are well aware of this (Cooley 2015;Canache 2012;Luo 2018;de Regt 2013;Teti et al. 2019;
Shin and Cho 2010;Mattes and Bratton 2007). This study aims to explore recent immigrants’
perceptions of free elections. To examine their understanding of how free elections work,
this study tests the hypothesis that free elections and its undeniable components, such
as equal opportunities between the sexes to become a political leader and the possibility
to vote for any political party, may not be considered equally essential for democracy by
recent immigrants. Free elections, unlike gender equality in politics and multiple political
parties, are a better-known and more pronounced concept, even in oppressive regimes, and
are therefore not necessarily associated with the other two. Consequently, free elections are
expected to be considered the most essential aspect of democracy (Hypothesis 1).
Previous studies have shown that, in democratic societies, people are more likely
to accept gender equality than those in nondemocratic societies (Ciftci 2010;Inglehart
et al. 2002;Inglehart and Norris 2003), that nondemocratic societies are more traditional
(Inglehart and Oyserman 2004;Triandis 2001) where the social roles of men and women
are defined more strictly, that attitudes towards gender equality are more egalitarian in
more democratized countries than in less democratized countries (Zagrebina 2020a), and
that democratic citizens are more likely to associate democracy with gender equality than
people in less democratized countries (de Regt 2013;Zagrebina 2020b). Based on these
previous results, this study assumes that recent immigrants, i.e., individuals socialized in
societies more traditional than their host society, view gender equality as a non-essential
democratic attribute (Hypothesis 2). To make the analysis more accurate, the study trans-
lates an abstract concept of gender equality, which is familiar to everyone but is unclear
in meaning for different people, into several statements about more palpable things. The
study uses statements about the opportunities and rights of men and women in differ-
ent spheres (discussed below) because, even in democratic societies, support for gender
equality varies depending on the spheres where this equality is supposed to be respected
(Zagrebina 2020a).
Economic prosperity and strong social control have been identified in previous research
as associated with democracy among people in nondemocratic countries (
Zagrebina 2020b
).
This study, therefore, assumes that recent immigrants from nondemocratic countries view

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 4 of 13
elements related to a thriving economy as very essential for democracy (Hypothesis 3). The
manifestations of social control are also presumed to be crucial for democracy from the
perspective of recent immigrants (Hypothesis 4).
Adult immigrants who have arrived in a democratic society from less democratized
countries and who have spent several months in their host society have a unique opportu-
nity. Being socialized in societies less democratized than their host society, they, unlike their
counterparts still living in home societies, acquired ideas about democracy as a habitat, not
just as an abstract concept. Consequently, they have an exceptional occasion to develop
a vision of democracy that differs both from the visions of people without experience of
life in a democratic society and of people socialized in a democratic society. This study
hypothesizes that recent immigrants’ view of democracy in a host democratic society might
combine their most striking impressions of the host society with their previously developed
ideas about democracy as a concept. Since the most powerful impressions of the host
society that newcomers can receive in the first few months are those that people usually
have during their daily activities, the study assumes that these impressions are primarily
related to infrastructure and public goods. Thus, the study assumes that public goods
accessible to all should be seen as essential democratic attributes by recent immigrants
(Hypothesis 5).
Finally, the study hypothesizes about the least and most valued attributes of democ-
racy, as assessed by recent immigrants. Based on previous results (Dalton et al. 2007;Pickel
et al. 2016;de Regt 2013;Zagrebina 2020b), it assumes that free elections should be assessed
as the most essential democratic attribute, followed by factors related to a prosperous
economy, including infrastructure and public goods, then by the rule of law and social
control. All these attributes should be considered more essential for democracy than gender
equality (Hypothesis 6).
3. Methodology
3.1. Data, Participants, and Procedure of Data Collection
The data for this research were collected in Montreal in 2019 using an original for-
malized questionnaire discussed below. The questionnaire was completed by 127 adult
immigrants (39% (50) men and 61% (77) women) aged 25 to 45, who were students of
a linguistic integration program, randomly assigned to several groups by the Ministry
of Immigration, Francisation and Integration. The participants came mainly from Arab
countries (such as Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, and Algeria), Iran, and from
Asia (China, the Philippines, India, and others). Thus, all participants came from countries
less democratized than Canada (according to the democracy indices: (Kekic 2007;Lindberg
et al. 2014)). All of them, according to their own words, came to Canada directly from their
countries of origin, which leads to the supposition that their first experience living in a
democratic society was acquired in their host country. Most of them spent 3 to 12 months
in Quebec, i.e., in an advanced democratic society (compared to their society of origin
according to the democracy indices).
The completion of the questionnaires was part of an educational process in the integra-
tion program. It was preceded by a detailed explanation of the topic, a confirmation of the
research anonymity, and a statement for educational and academic research purposes only,
followed by an exchange of opinions on research topics and more detailed explanations
of concepts analyzed in the study. All students present in their classes at the time of data
collection were invited to complete the anonymized questionnaire. They were explained
that by returning their completed questionnaires, they agreed to participate in the study.
Those who did not wish to participate could either not return their questionnaires or answer
‘don’t know’ to all the questions without declaring their disagreement to participate in
front of others. Only one questionnaire was completed with all ‘don’t know’ responses,
and according to the number of students and the number of questionnaires returned, none
of them refused to return the completed questionnaire.

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 5 of 13
3.2. Measuring the Perception of Democracy
The measure of the perception of democracy was designed to test the research hy-
potheses. The questionnaire consisted of 20 items—attributes of democracy, and for each of
them, respondents should check whether this attribute is important for democracy on a
scale of 1 (not important) to 4 (very important); the answer ‘don’t know’ was considered
0. The study considered the ‘don’t know’ answers because it assumed that such an an-
swer indicates that the item is not an important part of the respondent’s worldview. This
questionnaire was inspired by the questionnaire developed by the World Values Survey
(
Welzel and Alvarez 2014
). However, it has been significantly modified based on prelim-
inary discussions with potential respondents who did not participate in the subsequent
survey to make the topics of the questions more specific and more palpable to respon-
dents and to allow the testing of research hypotheses. Abstract items like “the economy is
prospering” and “women have the same rights as men” used by the World Values Survey
have been transformed into questions about more palpable things in everyday life, and
the question of free elections of political leaders was broadened into three. This study also
added original questions on the rule of law and social control, as well as some “noise”
questions to dilute the questionnaire and avoid focusing on political elements. The 20 items
of the questionnaire cover five topics: 1. Free elections (people choose their political leaders
in free elections; in elections, all citizens can vote for any political party; men and women
have equal opportunities to become political leaders); 2. Gender equality (men and women
are equal before the law; men and women have equal opportunities to become political
leaders; men and women can obtain the same jobs; men and women have equal rights to
study at university; men and women have the same right to open a private business; at
school, boys and girls have the same duties (homework) and the same rights; in the family,
men and women have the same obligations); 3. Economic prosperity and public goods
(there are many supermarkets and many products to buy; public libraries and public pools
are available to all; university education is free; salaries for all employees are high). The
abundance of supermarkets is a tangible aspect of everyday life, reflecting the availability
of material goods. These, along with public libraries, public pools, and other services,
represent the resources available in society; 4. Order of law and strong social control
(everyone respects the laws; men and women are equal before the law; all political leaders
must respect the laws; school education is compulsory for all; parents must take care of
their children); 5. “Noise” elements have been added to dilute the questionnaire (at the
supermarket, you can buy products from all over the world; nature is protected; pets are
always supervised by owners). The choice of public goods and “noise” elements was not
random. It was based on preliminary discussions of what is valued most in the host society
with potential respondents (other language course students) who did not participate in the
subsequent study. In the preliminary discussions, one element of the order of law topic
was also mentioned among the most valued things in the host society: everyone respects
the laws.
3.3. Methods
This study uses a quantitative survey design. Although ordinal scales were used,
these scales considered continuous variables (0 to 4) where a higher value corresponds to a
greater agreement with the importance of an item. Therefore, first, it calculated the means
(averages) for all the elements of the questionnaire and then ranked them in hierarchical
order. Then, a paired samples two-tailed t-test for means was performed to examine if the
means were statistically different.
4. Findings
The results show that all the items included in the questionnaire were considered by
the participants to be very essential for democracy, although to varying degrees (Table 1).
Even the items included just to dilute the questionnaire, such as “at the supermarket, you
can buy products from all over the world”, “nature is protected”, and “pets are always

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 6 of 13
supervised by owners”, were deemed very important for democracy. This may be explained
by the pressure of the situation, the effect observed by social psychologists (Moskowitz
2005). Participants might believe that all the items included were important for democracy,
as they would not be included otherwise. They could also indicate the perceived importance
of certain elements without necessarily relating them to democracy. However, even if all the
items were marked as very important, there is a significant difference in their importance,
enabling a comparison of how participants perceived their significance for democracy.
Table 1. Responses to the question ‘What is important for democracy?’.
Ranking Parameter Mean (Std. Deviation)
1Everyone respects the laws 3.816 (0.389)
2All political leaders must respect the laws 3.794 (0.406)
3Men and women have equal rights to study at university 3.770 (0.476)
4 Parents must take care of their children 3.744 (0.474)
5Men and women are equal before the law 3.709 (0.592)
6 University education is free 3.659 (0.683)
7 Nature is protected 3.651 (0.584)
8 School education is compulsory for all 3.648 (0.651)
9At school, boys and girls have the same duties (homework) and the same rights 3.603 (0.728)
10 Men and women have the same right to open a private business 3.552 (0.615)
11 Men and women can get the same jobs 3.551 (0.794)
12 People choose their political leaders in free elections 3.545 (0.889)
13 Public libraries and public pools are available to all 3.532 (0.656)
14 Men and women have equal opportunities to become political leaders 3.504 (0.809)
15 In the family, men and women have the same obligations 3.437 (0.775)
16 Pets are always supervised by owners 3.312 (0.856)
17 In elections, all citizens can vote for any political party 3.240 (1.169)
18 Salaries for all employees are high 3.175 (0.958)
19 There are many supermarkets and many products to buy 3.160 (0.962)
20 At the supermarket, you can buy products from all over the world 3.127 (0.980)
The study’s first hypothesis, suggesting that free elections should be considered
more essential for democracy than gender equality in politics and the possibility of voting
for any political party, has been partially confirmed. The statement that people choose
their political leaders in free elections is seen as very essential for democracy. However,
contrary to expectations, the statement that men and women have equal opportunities to
become political leaders is considered as important to democracy as free elections. Only
the assertion that in elections all citizens can vote for any political party is considered
significantly less essential than free elections (Tables 1and 2).
Table 2. Results of paired samples t-test: importance of free elections for democracy.
Question Mean (Std. Deviation) t p-Value (2-Tailed)
•People chose their leaders in free elections 3.554 (0.894) 0.232 0.817
•Men and women have equal opportunities to become
political leaders 3.537 (0.753)
•Men and women have equal opportunities to become
political leaders 3.513 (0.822) 2.540 0.012
•In elections, all citizens can vote for any political party 3.244 (1.179)
•People chose their leaders in free elections 3.559 (0.892) 3.213 0.002
•In elections, all citizens can vote for any political party 3.229 (1.180)
Note: The p-value < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference between the two compared means.
The difference in the evaluation of the importance of “free elections” and “voting for
any political party” in relation to democracy may be explained by the fact that the concept

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 7 of 13
of free elections is more prominently featured in the media and, consequently, more strongly
associated with democracy than the ability to vote for any political party. This may also be
due to the participants’ lack of voting experience in the host society, as all the participants
in this study were recent immigrants who had not yet become citizens and, therefore,
did not have the right to vote. Indeed, the idea that all citizens can vote for any political
party in elections refers more to the practical act of voting, as voters inevitably select a
party when casting their ballots. On the other hand, the statement that people choose their
leaders in free elections refers more broadly to the general principles of how democracy
functions. While the general principle of free elections is easily memorable due to its
abstract nature, the concept of voting for any political party requires more reflection on the
procedure. These procedural considerations are likely to be more interesting to individuals
who have already participated in the voting process, but this can only be confirmed through
additional research on a sample of voting citizens. The lower assessment of the claim that
citizens can vote for any political party can also be explained by immigrants’ political
experiences prior to their immigration. Existing research suggests that individuals who
live in party autocracies have many reasons to dislike political parties and distrust parties
(Just 2019).
The second hypothesis, suggesting that gender equality is not viewed as an essen-
tial attribute of democracy by recent immigrants, has not been confirmed. All forms of
gender equality included in the questionnaire were deemed very essential attributes of
democracy, although to varying degrees. The study assumes that the strong association
between democracy and gender equality among recent immigrants is likely a result of the
impressions they form while living in the host society. Their ideas about the relationship
between democracy and gender equality were perhaps influenced by their observations
of social relations and behaviors in the host society. However, recent immigrants perceive
gender equality in different areas as being essential for democracy in varying degrees.
According to the respondents, the most crucial aspects of gender equality for democracy
are equality in access to university education and equality between men and women before
the law. The significance of gender equality in all other spheres is estimated considerably
lower. The t-test revealed a statistically significant difference between the means of the
following pairs of questions:
•
Men and women have equal rights to study at university and at school, boys and girls
have the same duties and the same rights;
•
Men and women are equal before the law and men and women have the same right to
open a private business;
•
Men and women are equal before the law and men and women can get the same jobs;
•
At school, boys and girls have the same duties and the same rights, and in the family,
men and women have the same obligations (Table 3).
The last one (i.e., the least important for democracy) is the statement that men and
women have the same obligations in the family (probably the most important and sensitive
sphere for the respondents, i.e., people from more traditional societies than their host
society) (Table 1). The term “obligations” in the context of family might also be confusing
for participants, as various things could be considered covered by this term, including
biological gender differences. In general, the results indicate that the respondents are
more inclined to acknowledge the significance of gender equality in areas further removed
from their daily lives, such as university education and equality before the law, than in
areas closely connected to their everyday experiences, such as school, work, and family.
Moreover, gender equality before the law aligns with their ideas on strong social control
and the rule of law (where everyone respects the law).
The third hypothesis, proposing that elements related to a striving economy should
be viewed as essential attributes of democracy, and the fifth hypothesis, suggesting that
public goods accessible to all should be seen as essential democratic attributes by recent im-
migrants, have been confirmed. As anticipated, all elements related to economic prosperity
or public goods are considered very essential attributes of democracy. Moreover, some

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 8 of 13
public goods (such as public libraries and pools) are regarded as essential to democracy as
a well-known and indisputable political attribute, such as free elections of political leaders
(Table 1). This can be explained by the fact that recent immigrants typically begin exploring
their host society through its easily accessible public goods, and since they are aware that
their host society is democratic, they might naturally tend to associate democracy with
the host society, specifically with their most vivid impressions of the host society. Public
libraries, swimming pools, and supermarkets are prevalent in Montreal, and newcomers
can easily access them. The extensive presence and availability of these amenities might
greatly impress newcomers from countries less affluent than Canada, with less developed
infrastructure and public sectors. It is not surprising, then, that these goods are strongly
associated with democracy and are perceived by recent immigrants as very essential for
democracy. This strong association between democracy and public goods in the host
society supports the hypothesis that recent immigrants’ conceptions of democracy are influ-
enced by their daily experiences in the host society, possibly even more than by theoretical
knowledge about democracy.
Table 3. Results of paired samples t-test: importance of gender equality in different spheres.
Question Mean
(Std. Deviation) tp-Value
(2-Tailed)
•men and women have the same rights to study at university 3.768 (0.477) 2.474 0.015
•at school, boys and girls have the same duties and the same rights 3.600 (0.730)
•men and women are equal before the law 3.712 (0.593) 2.367 0.019
•men and women have the same right to open a private business 3.552 (0.615)
•men and women are equal before the law 3.709 (0.592) 1.984 0.049
•men and women can get the same job 3.551 (0.794)
•at school, boys and girls have the same duties and the same rights 3.613 (0.729) 1.221 0.224
•men and women have equal opportunities to become political leaders 3.500 (0.812)
•at school, boys and girls have the same duties and the same rights 3.600 (0.730) 2.076 0.040
•in the family, men and women have the same obligations 3.432 (0.776)
•men and women have the same right to open a private business 3.552 (0.615) 1.600 0.112
•in the family, men and women have the same obligations 3.432 (0.776)
•men and women can get the same job 3.548 (0.796) 1.271 0.206
•in the family, men and women have the same obligations 3.432 (0.776)
Note: The p-value < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference between the two compared means.
The fourth hypothesis, which suggested that social control is considered essential
for democracy by recent immigrants, has been confirmed. The questionnaire responses
indicate that, from the respondents’ perspective, the most crucial aspect of democracy is
the rule of law—specifically, the respect for the law (everyone respects the laws, all political
leaders must respect the laws) and equality before the law (men and women are equal
before the law). The robust association between democracy and the rule of law could
be explained by the theoretical knowledge of immigrants about democracy as generally
presented in the media. However, it is more likely explained by their aspirations for a better
social environment than those found in their home societies and their observations of the
host society associated with democracy. In fact, the idea that everyone respects the laws can
be strongly associated with a higher level of street-level safety than many immigrants from
nondemocratic countries experienced in their home societies. Therefore, these results can
also be considered indicative of the most valued expectations of immigrants regarding their
new habitat. The strong association of respect for the law with democracy by immigrants
can also be seen as a sign of their readiness to engage in the social life of the host society,

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 9 of 13
since ‘it is believed to be important that the members of a society follow the law’ (Tyler 2021),
and in contemporary societies, ‘legal systems must rely on individuals feeling obligated
to obey the law’ (Fine and van Rooij 2021). The factors this study links to social control,
such as parents taking care of their children and compulsory school education for all, are so
strongly associated with democracy, perhaps for different reasons, while reflecting the same
desire for a strong social order. Caring parents may hold significant value for immigrants,
which is why they strongly associate it with democracy—the notion that represents their
new social environment. Compulsory school education simply reflects the reality they
observe in the host society (since most of them have children), a reality that they love and
accept (according to their own words during discussions before and after the study), and
strongly associate with their host society and, therefore, with democracy.
Although some items in this questionnaire were added as “noise”, merely to dilute
questions about gender equality and elections (undisputable attributes of modern democra-
cies), these “noise” elements were rated quite high. Surprisingly, some of them were even
rated higher than free elections and gender equality. For instance, the importance given
to the protection of nature (7th place) and the supervision of pets by owners (16th place)
exceeds that of the statement ‘In elections, all citizens can vote for any political party’ (17th
place). The significance attributed to these elements for democracy further confirms the
fifth hypothesis, which suggests that the impressions received in the host society may be
strongly associated with democracy in the eyes of recent immigrants. Protected nature and
supervised pets are perhaps among those striking differences between the host society and
the societies of origin that newcomers observe during their first month in a new society. If
this difference were not the case, they might not associate these aspects with democracy.
The sixth hypothesis, which suggested that free elections should be assessed by recent
immigrants as the most essential democratic attribute, followed by factors related to a
prosperous economy, then by the rule of law and social control, and all these attributes
should be considered more essential for democracy than gender equality, has not been fully
confirmed. Free elections, although considered very essential for democracy, are not seen
as the most essential democratic attribute as expected. They only rank 12th out of 20 items
and they are perceived as significantly less essential for democracy than the respect for
the law (everyone respects the laws—in 1st place, and all political leaders must respect
the laws—in the 2nd place), social control (parents must take care of their children—in
4th place, and men and women are equal before the law—in the 5th place), and gender
equality in access to university education (in the 3rd place). Factors related to a prosperous
economy and available public goods, although considered very essential for democracy,
are not deemed the most essential democratic attributes, as expected. Public libraries and
public pools are available to all, are ranked in the 13th place, salaries for all employees are
high—in the 18th place, and there are many supermarkets and many products to buy in the
19th place. The public good considered the most important for democracy is free university
education, ranking 6th out of 20 (Table 1).
The immigrants’ perceptions of a democratic society, as revealed in this study, corre-
spond, to a certain extent to the image of democracy found in the responses of the World
Values Survey respondents in various nondemocratic countries. According to the World
Values Survey respondents, free election, economic prosperity, and social control are the
most important attributes of democracy, and they are considered more important to democ-
racy than gender equality—the democratic attribute most valued by democratic citizens
(Zagrebina 2020b). However, participants in this study consider gender equality in certain
areas, such as access to university education, equality before the law, and the same duties
for boys and girls in school, as more essential for democracy than free elections and certain
economic benefits, such as high salaries for all employees, and developed infrastructure,
like many public libraries and swimming pools, and supermarkets. In addition, gender
equality in all areas covered by the questionnaire for this study is considered more impor-
tant for democracy than the possibility of voting for any political party. These findings
invite deeper reflection on two things. First, familiar concepts like free elections, gender

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 10 of 13
equality, and a prosperous economy may be viewed differently if, instead of frequently
spoken concepts, the study uses less familiar but more palpable formulations of the same
concepts. Second, the experience of living in a democratic society can change visions of
democracy by making specific aspects of the social environment, such as gender relations,
and physical environment, such as infrastructure and nature, that immigrants become
familiar with more essential democratic attributes for them.
The results of this study reveal possible motivations that may underlie the behavior of
recent immigrants, interpreted by them as support for democracy. As mentioned above,
the way people understand democracy affects their political behavior and changes their
orientation towards democracy (Cho 2015;Crow 2010). The questionnaire used in this study
describes, among public goods and rights, the actions that respondents should evaluate as
important or not for democracy. These actions were rated by the respondents as follows,
from most important to least important: obeying the laws (Everyone respects the laws),
taking care of children (Parents must take care of their children), getting children to school,
i.e., obeying the laws (School education is compulsory for all), protecting nature (Nature is
protected), choosing political leaders participating in elections (People choose their political
leaders in free elections), watching pets (Pets are always supervised by owners) and finally,
voting for a political party (In elections, all citizens can vote for any political party) (Table 1).
These results demonstrate that it is likely that, from the perspective of recent immigrants,
their support for democracy could be reduced to the actions they deem most appropriate
to support democracy: obeying the laws and caring for children. For greater reliability,
however, this assumption should be tested in subsequent studies.
This study highlighted trends that could be looked for in other samples to understand
the meaning of democracy among immigrants from nondemocratic countries and to gain
a better understanding of their political participation. However, as the study used a
convenience sample collected in Quebec, it is not clear to what extent the results could be
generalized to the entire population of immigrants in Canada or elsewhere.
5. Conclusions
The objective of this study was to examine whether recent immigrants, i.e., individuals
socialized in nondemocratic societies and with several months of experience living in an
advanced democratic society, associate democracy with free elections, gender equality,
a prospering economy, and social control, as well as with different aspects of the phys-
ical and social environment they observed in their host society. The results show that
recent immigrants see free elections of political leaders as significantly more important to
democracy than the possibility of voting for any political party. This difference might be
explained, among other things, by their political experiences acquired prior to immigration.
Contrary to expectations, respondents consider that gender equality in all areas covered
by the questionnaire is very important for democracy. This strong association between
democracy and gender equality may be due to impressions received when observing social
relations and behavior in the host society. Thus, gender equality might be associated first
with the host society, and mainly through association with the host society, it is linked to
democracy, as the host society serves as the primary, if not the only one, living example of
a democratic society for immigrants from less democratized societies. Recent immigrants
see democracy above all as a society based on the rule of law (everyone respects the laws,
including political leaders, men and women are equal before the law) and with strong
social control (parents must take care of their children, school education is compulsory
for all). This may reflect both their ideas about an appropriate social order developed in
their home societies (one with strong social control) and their aspirations for a better social
environment than in their home societies, as well as observations of the host society (one
with the rule of law).
The immigrants’ concepts of democracy imply that the most striking characteristics of
the social and physical environment of the host society (such things as protected nature
and public libraries and swimming pools, as well as supermarkets with many products)

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 11 of 13
are seen as very essential democratic attributes, along with democratic political attributes.
This means that when forming their ideas about democracy, immigrants may combine
their most vivid impressions received from the host society with theoretical knowledge
about democracy. Among behaviors the most supportive of democracy, recent immigrants
consider obeying the laws and taking care of children. Electoral participation, regardless of
how it is considered, is viewed as very important for democracy, but not as important as
respect for laws and caring for children.
These results show that concepts as familiar as democracy and free elections can be
interpreted by recent immigrants in specific ways based on their experiences in their host
society and possibly their previous theoretical knowledge on these topics. Lived experi-
ences may affect immigrants’ view of democracy more than theoretical information gained
from sources other than life experience. This seems plausible because direct experience con-
tributes to the formation of attitudes (Petty et al. 1995). This study reveals that the process of
forming ideas about democracy among immigrants from nondemocratic countries is much
more complex than just acquiring theoretical knowledge about the democratic political
system. Since humans appreciate the social and physical environment of their society and
view these as essential attributes of that society, they may tend to associate the most vivid
manifestations of these environments with the socio-political regime. Therefore, the study
concludes that a more welcoming and inclusive society, known as democratic, could foster
a more positive image of democracy among immigrants from less democratized societies.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study follows the basic research ethics standards and no
ethical approval was demanded for this research when the study was conducted.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.
References
Barker, Fiona, and Kate McMillan. 2017. Introduction: Researching Immigrant and Emigrant Voting. Political Science 69: 93–100.
[CrossRef]
Bergh, Johannes, and Tor Bjørklund. 2011. The Revival of Group Voting: Explaining the Voting Preferences of Immigrants in Norway.
Political Studies 59: 308–27. [CrossRef]
Black, Jerome H. 1987. The Practice of Politics in Two Settings: Political Transferability among Recent Immigrants to Canada. Canadian
Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 20: 731–53. [CrossRef]
Blad, Cory, and Philippe Couton. 2009. The Rise of an Intercultural Nation: Immigration, Diversity and Nationhood in Quebec. Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35: 645–67. [CrossRef]
Bueker, Catherine Simpson. 2005. Political Incorporation among Immigrants from Ten Areas of Origin: The Persistence of Source
Country Effects. International Migration Review 39: 103–40. [CrossRef]
Canache, Damarys. 2012. Citizens’ Conceptualizations of Democracy: Structural Complexity, Substantive Content, and Political
Significance. Comparative Political Studies 45: 1132–58. [CrossRef]
Ciftci, Sabri. 2010. Modernization, Islam, or Social Capital: What Explains Attitudes toward Democracy in the Muslim World?
Comparative Political Studies 43: 1442–70. [CrossRef]
Cooley, Alexander. 2015. Countering Democratic Norms. Journal of Democracy 26: 49–63. [CrossRef]
Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Steven Fish, Allen Hicken, Matthew Kroenig, Staffan I Lindberg,
Kelly McMann, and Pamela Paxton. 2011. Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach. Perspectives on Politics
9: 247–67. [CrossRef]
Crow, David. 2010. The Party’s over: Citizen Conceptions of Democracy and Political Dissatisfaction in Mexico. Comparative Politics 43:
41–61. [CrossRef]
Chaudhary, Ali R. 2018. Voting Here and There: Political Integration and Transnational Political Engagement among Immigrants in
Europe. Global Networks 18: 437–60. [CrossRef]
Cheibub, JoséAntonio, Jennifer Gandhi, and James Raymond Vreeland. 2010. Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited. Public Choice 143:
67–101. [CrossRef]
Cho, Youngho. 2015. How Well Are Global Citizenries Informed about Democracy? Ascertaining the Breadth and Distribution of Their
Democratic Enlightenment and Its Sources. Political Studies 63: 240–58. [CrossRef]

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 12 of 13
Dahlberg, Stefan, and Ulf Mörkenstam. 2024. Exploring Popular Conceptions of Democracy through Media Discourse: Analysing
Dimensions of Democracy from Online Media Data in 93 Countries Using a Distributional Semantic Model. Democratization, 1–32.
Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13510347.2024.2342485 (accessed on 10 September 2024).
[CrossRef]
Dalton, Russell J, To-Ch
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 13
References
(Barker and McMillan 2017) Barker, Fiona, and Kate McMillan. 2017. Introduction: Researching Immigrant and Emigrant Voting.
Political Science 69: 93–100.
(Bergh and Bjørklund 2011) Bergh, Johannes, and Tor Bjørklund. 2011. The Revival of Group Voting: Explaining the Voting Preferen-
ces of Immigrants in Norway. Political Studies 59: 308–27.
(Black 1987) Black, Jerome H. 1987. The Practice of Politics in Two Seings: Political Transferability among Recent Immigrants to
Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 20: 731–53.
(Blad and Couton 2009) Blad, Cory, and Philippe Couton. 2009. The Rise of an Intercultural Nation: Immigration, Diversity and
Nationhood in Quebec. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35: 645–67.
(Bueker 2005) Bueker, Catherine Simpson. 2005. Political Incorporation among Immigrants from Ten Areas of Origin: The Persistence
of Source Country Effects. International Migration Review 39: 103–40.
(Canache 2012) Canache, Damarys. 2012. Citizens’ Conceptualizations of Democracy: Structural Complexity, Substantive Content,
and Political Significance. Comparative Political Studies 45: 1132–58.
(Ciftci 2010) Ciftci, Sabri. 2010. Modernization, Islam, or Social Capital: What Explains Aitudes toward Democracy in the Muslim
World? Comparative Political Studies 43: 1442–70.
(Cooley 2015) Cooley, Alexander. 2015. Countering Democratic Norms. Journal of Democracy 26: 49–63.
(Coppedge et al. 2011) Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Steven Fish, Allen Hicken, Mahew
Kroenig, Staffan I Lindberg, Kelly McMann, and Pamela Paxton. 2011. Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New
Approach. Perspectives on Politics 9: 247–67.
(Crow 2010) Crow, David. 2010. The Party’s over: Citizen Conceptions of Democracy and Political Dissatisfaction in Mexico. Compa-
rative Politics 43: 41–61.
(Chaudhary 2018) Chaudhary, Ali R. 2018. Voting Here and There: Political Integration and Transnational Political Engagement
among Immigrants in Europe. Global Networks 18: 437–60.
(Cheibub et al. 2010) Cheibub, José Antonio, Jennifer Gandhi, and James Raymond Vreeland. 2010. Democracy and Dictatorship
Revisited. Public Choice 143: 67–101.
(Cho 2015) Cho, You ngho. 2015. How Well Are Global Citizenries Informed about Democracy? Ascertaining the Breadth and Distri-
bution of Their Democratic Enlightenment and Its Sources. Political Studies 63: 240–58.
(Dahlberg and Mörkenstam 2024) Dahlberg, Stefan, and Ulf Mörkenstam. 2024. Exploring Popular Conceptions of Democracy through
Media Discourse: Analysing Dimensions of Democracy from Online Media Data in 93 Countries Using a Distributional Semantic
Model. Democratization 1–32. Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13510347.2024.2342485 (accessed on
10 September 2024).
(Dalton et al. 2007) Dalton, Russell J, To-Chʻŏl Sin, and Willy Jou. 2007. Understanding Democracy: Data from Unlikely Places. Journal
of Democracy 18: 142–56.
(de Regt 2013) de Regt, Sabrina. 2013. Arabs Want Democracy, but What Kind? Advances in Applied Sociology 3: 37–46.
(De Rooij 2012) De Rooij, Eline A. 2012. Paerns of Immigrant Political Participation: Explaining Differences in Types of Political
Participation between Immigrants and the Majority Population in Western Europe. European Sociological Review 28: 455–81.
(Dunn and Singh 2014) Dunn, Kris, and Shane P Singh. 2014. Pluralistic Conditioning: Social Tolerance and Effective Democracy.
Democratization 21: 1–28.
(Eskelinen and Verkuyten 2020) Eskelinen, Viivi, and Maykel Verkuyte n. 2020. Support for Democracy and Liberal Sexual Mores
among Muslims in Western Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46: 2346–66.
(Fine and van Rooij 2021) Fine, Adam D, and Benjamin van Rooij. 2021. Legal Socialization: Understanding the Obligation to Obey
the Law. Journal of Social Issues 77: 367–91.
(Finn 2020) Finn, Victoria. 2020. Migrant Voting: Here, There, in Both Countries, or Nowhere. Citizenship Studies 24: 730–50.
(Gundelach 2010) Gundelach, Peter. 2010. Democracy and Denomination: Democratic Values among Muslim Minorities and the Ma-
jority Population in Denmark. Ethnic and Racial Studies 33: 426–50.
(Houle et al. 2017) Houle, René, Hélène Maheux, and Mireille Vézina. 2017. Immigration Paerns in Canada. Presented at the Centre
for Ethnocultural, Language and Immigration Statistics. Available online: www.statcan.gc.ca (accessed on 10 November 2017).
(Huber et al. 1997) Huber, Evelyne, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and John D. Stephens. 1997. The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy:
Formal, Participatory, and Social Dimensions. Comparative Politics 29: 323–42.
(Immigrants Selon Le Pays de Naissance, Québec, 2019–2023 2024) Immigrants Selon Le Pays de Naissance, Québec, 2019–2023. 2024.
Institut de la Statistique du Québec. Available online: hps://statistique.quebec.ca/en/produit/tableau/immigrants-by-country-
of-birth-quebec (accessed on 10 September 2024).
(Inglehart and Oyserman 2004) Inglehart, Ronald, and Daphna Oyserman. 2004. Individualism, Autonomy, Self-Expression. The
Human Development Syndrome. International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology 93: 74–96.
(Inglehart and Norris 2003) Inglehart, Ronald, and Pippa Norris. 2003. The True Clash of Civilizations. Foreign Policy 63–70.
(Inglehart et al. 2002) Inglehart, Ronald, Pippa Norris, and Christian Welzel . 2002. Gender Equality and Democracy. Comparative
Sociology 1: 321–45.
(Just 2019) Just, Aida. 2019. Political Regimes and Immigrant Party Preferences. Comparative Political Studies 52: 651–86.
(Kekic 2007) Kekic, Laza. 2007. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy. The Economist 21: 1–11.
˘
ol Sin, and Willy Jou. 2007. Understanding Democracy: Data from Unlikely Places. Journal of Democracy 18:
142–56. [CrossRef]
de Regt, Sabrina. 2013. Arabs Want Democracy, but What Kind? Advances in Applied Sociology 3: 37–46. [CrossRef]
De Rooij, Eline A. 2012. Patterns of Immigrant Political Participation: Explaining Differences in Types of Political Participation between
Immigrants and the Majority Population in Western Europe. European Sociological Review 28: 455–81. [CrossRef]
Dunn, Kris, and Shane P Singh. 2014. Pluralistic Conditioning: Social Tolerance and Effective Democracy. Democratization 21: 1–28.
[CrossRef]
Eskelinen, Viivi, and Maykel Verkuyten. 2020. Support for Democracy and Liberal Sexual Mores among Muslims in Western Europe.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46: 2346–66. [CrossRef]
Fine, Adam D, and Benjamin van Rooij. 2021. Legal Socialization: Understanding the Obligation to Obey the Law. Journal of Social
Issues 77: 367–91. [CrossRef]
Finn, Victoria. 2020. Migrant Voting: Here, There, in Both Countries, or Nowhere. Citizenship Studies 24: 730–50. [CrossRef]
Gundelach, Peter. 2010. Democracy and Denomination: Democratic Values among Muslim Minorities and the Majority Population in
Denmark. Ethnic and Racial Studies 33: 426–50. [CrossRef]
Houle, René, Hélène Maheux, and Mireille Vézina. 2017. Immigration Patterns in Canada. Presented at the Centre for Ethnocultural,
Language and Immigration Statistics. Available online: www.statcan.gc.ca (accessed on 10 November 2017).
Huber, Evelyne, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and John D. Stephens. 1997. The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participa-
tory, and Social Dimensions. Comparative Politics 29: 323–42. [CrossRef]
Immigrants Selon Le Pays de Naissance, Québec, 2019–2023. 2024. Institut de la Statistique du Québec. Available online: https:
//statistique.quebec.ca/en/produit/tableau/immigrants-by-country-of-birth-quebec (accessed on 10 September 2024).
Inglehart, Ronald, and Daphna Oyserman. 2004. Individualism, Autonomy, Self-Expression. The Human Development Syndrome.
International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology 93: 74–96.
Inglehart, Ronald, and Pippa Norris. 2003. The True Clash of Civilizations. Foreign Policy 63–70. [CrossRef]
Inglehart, Ronald, Pippa Norris, and Christian Welzel. 2002. Gender Equality and Democracy. Comparative Sociology 1: 321–45.
Just, Aida. 2019. Political Regimes and Immigrant Party Preferences. Comparative Political Studies 52: 651–86. [CrossRef]
Kekic, Laza. 2007. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy. The Economist 21: 1–11.
Kornberg, Allan, and Harold D. Clarke. 1994. Beliefs about Democracy and Satisfaction with Democratic Government: The Canadian
Case. Political Research Quarterly 47: 537–63. [CrossRef]
Landwehr, Claudia, and Nils D Steiner. 2017. Where Democrats Disagree: Citizens’ Normative Conceptions of Democracy. Political
Studies 65: 786–804. [CrossRef]
Lijphart, Arend. 2011. Democratic Quality in Stable Democracies. Society 48: 17–18. [CrossRef]
Lindberg, Staffan I., Michael Coppedge, John Gerring, and Jan Teorell. 2014. V-Dem: A New Way to Measure Democracy. Journal of
Democracy 25: 159–69. [CrossRef]
Luo, Ting. 2018. Explaining Incumbent Re-Election in Authoritarian Elections: Evidence from a Chinese County. Democratization 25:
1291–309. [CrossRef]
Mattes, Robert, and Michael Bratton. 2007. Learning about Democracy in Africa: Awareness, Performance, and Experience. American
Journal of Political Science 51: 192–217. [CrossRef]
Maxwell, Rahsaan. 2010. Evaluating Migrant Integration: Political Attitudes across Generations in Europe. International Migration
Review 44: 25–52. [CrossRef]
Miller, Arthur H., Vicki L. Hesli, and William M. Reisinger. 1997. Conceptions of Democracy among Mass and Elite in Post-Soviet
Societies. British Journal of Political Science 27: 157–90. [CrossRef]
Moskowitz, Gordon B. 2005. Social Cognition: Understanding Self and Others. New York: Guilford Press.
Munck, Gerardo L. 2014. What Is Democracy? A Reconceptualization of the Quality of Democracy. Democratization 23: 1–26. [CrossRef]
Nakhaie, M. Reza. 2008. Social Capital and Political Participation of Canadians. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de
Science Politique 41: 835–60. [CrossRef]
Petty, Richard E., Curtis P. Haugtvedt, and Stephen M. Smith. 1995. Elaboration as a Determinant of Attitude Strenght: Creating
Attitudes That Are Persistent, Resistant, and Predictive of Behavior. In Attitude Strenght. Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah:
LEA, pp. 93–131.
Pickel, Susanne, Wiebke Breustedt, and Theresia Smolka. 2016. Measuring the Quality of Democracy: Why Include the Citizens’
Perspective? International Political Science Review 37: 645–55. [CrossRef]
Shin, Doh Chull, and Youngho Cho. 2010. How East Asians Understand Democracy: From a Comparative Perspective. Asien 116:
21–40.
Teti, Andrea, Pamela Abbott, and Francesco Cavatorta. 2019. Beyond Elections: Perceptions of Democracy in Four Arab Countries.
Democratization 26: 645–65. [CrossRef]
Triandis, Harry C. 2001. Individualism-collectivism and Personality. Journal of Personality 69: 907–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Soc. Sci. 2024,13, 578 13 of 13
Tyler, Tom R. 2021. Legal Socialization: Back to the Future. Journal of Social Issues 77: 663–76. [CrossRef]
Voicu, Bogdan, and Mircea Com¸sa. 2014. Immigrants’ Participation in Voting: Exposure, Resilience, and Transferability. Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies 40: 1572–92. [CrossRef]
Wass, Hanna, AndréBlais, Alexandre Morin-Chassé, and Marjukka Weide. 2015. Engaging Immigrants? Examining the Correlates
of Electoral Participation among Voters with Migration Backgrounds. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 25: 407–24.
[CrossRef]
Welzel, Christian, and Alejandro Moreno Alvarez. 2014. Enlightening People. In The Civic Culture Transformed. New York: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 59–88.
White, Stephen E. 2017. Canadian Immigrants at the Polls: The Effects of Socialisation in the Country of Origin and Resocialisation in
Canada on Electoral Participation. Political Science 69: 101–21. [CrossRef]
White, Stephen, Neil Nevitte, AndréBlais, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Patrick Fournier. 2008. The Political Resocialization of Immigrants:
Resistance or Lifelong Learning? Political Research Quarterly 61: 268–81. [CrossRef]
Zagrebina, Anna. 2020a. Attitudes towards Gender Equality. Does Being a Democracy Matter? Comparative Sociology 19: 1–30.
[CrossRef]
Zagrebina, Anna. 2020b. Concepts of Democracy in Democratic and Nondemocratic Countries. International Political Science Review 41:
174–91. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.