South Africans’ Views of Parliament and MPs: A Comparative Perspective

1. South Africans’ Views of Parliament and MPs:A Comparative Perspective Presentation to Panel for Assessment of Parliament 12 February 2008 Robert Mattes Co-Founder and Senior Adviser, Afrobarometer Director, Democracy in Africa Research Unit Centre for Social Science Research, UCT

2. Today’s Presentation • Review of relevant data from the Afrobarometer • Knowledge About Parliament and MPs • Contact With MPs • Role Expectations of Parliament and MPs • Evaluations of Parliament and MPs • Key Determinant of Public Attitudes • Explaining public views of Parliament and MPs • New data and projects

3. Afrobarometer • A comparative series of national public attitude surveys in Africa on Democracy, Markets and Civil Society • Scientific project dedicated to accurate and precise measurement of nationally representative samples of publics • Policy relevant project that inserts results into national and global policy discussion • Ultimately, advancing democracy in Africa by promoting the voice of public opinion

4. When and Where • In “reforming” African countries (generally, multi party regimes that have had a founding democratic election, or a re-democratizing election) • Round 1 (12 countries, mid-1999 to mid 2001) • in West Africa: Ghana, Mali, Nigeria • in East Africa: Uganda and Tanzania • in Southern Africa: Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe • Round 2 (16 countries, mid 2002-late 2003) • repeats original 12 (Zimbabwe in early 2004) • Adds Cape Verde, Kenya, Mozambique, and Senegal • Round 3 (18 countries, 2005) • Adds Madagascar and Benin

5. Sampling • Random • Clustered • Stratified • Area Probability • Proportionate (some exceptions: e.g Tanzania, South Africa) • Multi Stage • Nationally representative • Minimum Sample Size of 1200 gives a margin of sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points (2.8 points)

6. Interviewing • Personal, face-to-face interviews • Questionnaires translated in to local languages • Interviewers fluent in local languages • Strong emphasis on interviewer training

7. South Africans’ Knowledge of Parliament and MPs

8. Opinionation

9. Opinions On MP Performance

10. Has View on MP’s Most Important Responsibilities

11. Knowledge of Incumbent Identity

12. South Africa:Knowledge of Incumbent Identity

13. Knowledge of MP Identity

14. Knowledge • The vast majority of South Africans are • able to offer a definite view on parliamentary performance (though at significantly lower levels than other Africans) • Able to state their expectations about what they want from MPs • They are far less likely than other Africans to know who their MP is supposed to be • They have far less awareness of MPs than other elected incumbents

15. Public Contact With MPs

16. Public Contact With Officials

17. Public Contact With Members of Parliament

18. Public Contact With Members of Parliament

19. South Africa: Public Contact With Leaders Over Time

20. Contact • Public contact with MPs is as much as three times lower than many other, poorer African countries • There is no sign that it is increasing (in contrast to contact with local councilors)

21. South Africans’ Role Expectations ofMPs and Parliaments

22. Most Important Responsibilities of an MP? (Round 2)“In your opinion, what are the most important responsibilities of a Member of Parliament?”

23. Most Important Responsibilities of an MP(Round 2 - South Africa)

24. Constituency Service

25. Law Making

26. Elected Leaders Should Listen to Voters

27. Desired Level of Constituency Service

28. Responsibility for Holding Elected Leaders Accountable

29. Responsibility For Holding MPs Accountable

30. Role Expecations • South Africans see the major role of the MP as: • representing specific constituencies (areas, or types of people) • Representing people’s opinions in the political process • They want their MP to listen to their opinions and regularly visit their identified “constituency”, though far less regularly than other Africans • They are far less likely than other Africans to see themselves as responsible for holding MPs accountable

31. South Africans’ Evaluations of Parliament and MPs

32. Trust in Institutions

33. South Africa:Trust In Political Institutions Over Time

34. Trust: President Vs. Legislature

35. Perceptions of Corruption

36. South Africa:Perceptions of Government Corruption Over Time

37. Perceptions of Corruption: President Vs. Legislature

38. Job Approval of Elected Leaders

39. South Africa: Job Approval of Elected Leaders Over Time

40. Job Approval: President Vs. Legislature

41. Perceived Ability to Make Representatives Listen (Round 2)

42. Responsiveness of Elected Officials

43. South Africa:Government Responsiveness Over Time

44. Responsiveness of MPs

45. Desired Level of Constituency Service

46. Perceived Level of Constituency Service

47. Constituency Service Deficit

48. Performance • Public trust in Parliament has been increasing, but it has been increasing for all institutions. • Parliament consistently lags behind the President in terms of public trust and job approval • MPs seem to have shed a significant degree of public perceptions of their involvement in corruption • People generally see MPs as uninterested in their opinions, distant, and do not feel they could make MPs listen to them • There is a “representation gap” between what citizens want and what they say they are getting

49. What Explains These Attitudes? • Individual Characteristics • Individual Values • Individual Evaluations • National History • Colonial legacies • Post colonial legacies • Political Institutions • Type of Executive (e.g. Presidential vs. Parliamentary) • Powers and Capacity of Legislature • Electoral Systems

50. Electoral Systems • A set of rules and incentives that affect both elite and mass rational calculations of costs and benefits • A conduit of information about the political system • A device that teaches both leaders and citizens about their roles