GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Multi-Hazards
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Professional development packs
    • Reports & literature reviews
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • Projects
  • About us
    • Our team
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»Document Library»Citizens’ Perceptions of Government Responsiveness in Africa: Do Electoral Systems and Ethnic Diversity Matter?

Citizens’ Perceptions of Government Responsiveness in Africa: Do Electoral Systems and Ethnic Diversity Matter?

Library
Wonbin Cho
2010

Summary

This paper finds that the type of electoral system used does affect people’s perceptions of government responsiveness, but that this relationship depends on the country’s degree of ethnic diversity. At lower levels of ethnic diversity, majoritarian electoral systems are better at boosting positive perceptions of government responsiveness. At higher levels of ethnic diversity, proportional representation (PR) systems are more likely to have this effect. These findings have implications for constitutional design and democratic consolidation.

Electoral institutions in different social contexts produce different political outcomes. There is extensive literature on the role of ethnic divisions and electoral laws in determining economic growth, political stability and party systems. But little is known about how electoral institutions and ethnic diversity shape citizens’ perceptions of the political process. This study focuses on people’s perceptions of the extent to which government institutions and political elites are responsive to their attempts to exert political influence.

Evidence from 15 sub-Saharan African countries demonstrates an interaction between ethnic diversity and electoral systems in the formation of citizens’ perceptions about government responsiveness. In particular:

  • Majoritarian electoral systems offer less opportunity for ethnically marginalised groups to elect representatives from their own ethnic group. Under high levels of ethnic diversity, people living in majoritarian electoral systems – such as in Zambia – are likely to become alienated from the political decision-making process.
  • PR systems – such as in Namibia – seem to help mitigate the negative effects of high levels of ethno-political group diversity. The inclusive and compromising mechanism found in PR systems helps people from ethnic minority groups to feel that the government is responsive to their requests.
  • In ethnically homogenous societies, on the other hand, majoritarian electoral systems work better than PR systems to boost positive perceptions of government responsiveness. Majoritarian systems offer a clear-cut choice between strong candidates who represent well-defined geographical areas.
  • A majoritarian electoral system is more likely to produce a strong link between constituents and their representatives in emerging democracies with ethnically homogenous societies. PR systems are more likely to produce a significant number of small parties, even in ethnically homogenous societies.

Political institutions in different social structures have different effects on citizens’ political attitudes In order to understand the effects of political institutions on popular attitudes, and to better inform democratisation in transitional nations, it is therefore important to consider the social context:

  • When citizens evaluate the responsiveness of their government, people in a relatively homogenous society are more likely to emphasise accountability. For them, it is important whether voters have a chance to directly reward or punish their representatives.
  • At higher levels of ethnic diversity, people are more likely to focus on achieving representation. For them, it is critical whether a political system allows every ethnic group to have a fair opportunity to elect their own representatives.
  • Further research is required to determine whether these findings affect the occurrence of ethnicity-based violent conflict.

Source

Cho, W., 2010, 'Citizens' Perceptions of Government Responsiveness in Africa: Do Electoral Systems and Ethnic Diversity Matter?', Comparative Political Studies, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1650-1674

Related Content

Affirmative action around the world Insights from a new dataset (update)
Working Papers
2023
Donor Support to Electoral Cycles
Helpdesk Report
2021
Who are the Elite Groups in Iraq and How do they Exercise Power
Helpdesk Report
2018
Donor support for post-conflict elections
Helpdesk Report
2017

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2026; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2026; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2026

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".