Accountability or Representation? How Electoral Systems Promote Public Trust in African Legislatures

Abstract

Elections serve as instruments of democracy, but they do so differently in various parts of the world. This article focuses on the democratizing role of elections in 16 sub‐Saharan African countries represented in Afrobarometer survey data. It traces confidence in legislative institutions to whether a citizen perceives competitive elections to produce accountability and/or representation. The analysis shows that elections function differently depending on the nature of legislative institutions. Majoritarian electoral systems promote a sense of citizen control over policymakers (i.e., accountability) whereas proportional representation (PR) systems increase the perception of inclusion across a society's factions (i.e., representation). Because sub‐Saharan African citizens typically prioritize representation rather than accountability when evaluating their legislative institutions, controlling for other influences, PR systems are much better at boosting public trust in the region. These findings have important implications for democratic development in Africa.

Electoral Systems and the Substantive Representation of Marginalized Groups: Evidence from Women’s Issue Bills in South Korea

“…Although these groups may not be pivotal, developing legislation targeting them can expand the political base of parties and increase electoral success. While attempts to develop "new" constituencies are made by parties in both SMD and PR systems, such behavior is less costly in PR systems because it is difficult for voters to assign blame for disfavored policies, lowering legislators' individual accountability (Cho 2012). Furthermore, legislators' personal attributes and behavior are of little electoral importance because voters do not seek candidate-specific information during elections, disincentivizing legislators to engage in the production of policies that appeal to the median voter (Jones et al 2002).…”

Rebuilding Trust in Broken Systems? Populist Party Success and Citizens’ Trust in Democratic Institutions

“…Previous literature has already discussed the importance of representation for political trust. While the effects of descriptive representation are ambiguous (Cowley, 2014;Gay, 2002;Hinojosa, Fridkin, & Kittilson, 2017), actual as well as perceived representation of interests can play a crucial role in generating trust in democratic institutions (Cho, 2012;Dunn, 2015;van der Meer & Dekker, 2011). As the literature demonstrates, it is representation in parliament, not the sheer existence of (populist) parties that drives this effect.…”

Determinants of public trust in government: empirical evidence from urban China

“…(2009) confirm that citizen satisfaction with general democracy is positively associated with public trust in government in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Several studies also suggest that citizen satisfaction with democracy has a strong effect on trust in government (Ariely, 2013; Cho, 2012; Christensen and Lægreid, 2005; Grönlund and Setälä, 2007; Norris, 1999; Ulbig, 2008). For example, based on a mass survey conducted among 2,297 respondents in Norway in 2001, Christensen and Lægreid (2003) found that general attitudes towards how democracy works in Norway have the strongest overall effect on variations in citizens’ trust in government.…”