Leadership institute to help voters make informed choices
Jun 16, 2010
THE view of The Africa Leadership Institute (AFLI) is that “Democracies are premised on the idea that citizens can hold their leaders accountable for their actions by voting for or against them in regular elections. However, in order for this ideal to be realised, citizens must possess a minimum
By Adam Harris
THE view of The Africa Leadership Institute (AFLI) is that “Democracies are premised on the idea that citizens can hold their leaders accountable for their actions by voting for or against them in regular elections. However, in order for this ideal to be realised, citizens must possess a minimum amount of information about their leaders’ performance.â€
The AFLI Parliamentary Scorecard Project seeks to provide Ugandans with this critical information and to empower them to monitor their elected representatives and to make informed choices at election time.
As one might expect this work by AFLI has drawn a lot of interest from politicians and constituents. AFLI has received criticism from many MPs that believe the scorecard measures are inaccurate and do not illustrate what is actually happening in Parliament. They have said that voters’ perceptions of MPs’ performances are very different from what the scorecard concludes and at the end of the day voters will not make use of the information in the scorecard.
Are these criticisms fair? Do the scores in the scorecard reflect the quality of MP performance? Are the scores consistent with how MPs view each other or with how voters perceive them? Will voters learn about the scores of their MPs? And will they change their opinion based on what they learn?
We now have some answers to these questions. Do the scorecard scores actually correspond well with how MPs perceive each other? It turns out that they do. In response to requests from MPs, the 2007 – 2008 Parliamentary Scorecard included a Peer Assessment measure. There are certain aspects of an MP’s performance that public information cannot measure, such as how well an MP collaborates with other MPs. Therefore, we distributed a Reputation Survey to all MPs asking them to rate their fellow MPs on six measures. We received completed surveys from 113 MPs assessing the performance of 90% of Parliament.
The MPs’ responses were used to create the Peer Assessment score that is found on the scorecard. We then looked to see how MPs’ ratings of each other correlate with the scores we calculated using publicly available data. We found that there is a strong correlation. Those MPs who received lower grades in our plenary, committee, and constituency measures, also received lower ratings from other MPs in the Peer Assessment measures. The relation between the peer assessments and the scorecard scores is in fact extremely strong, and statistically speaking, the chances that we would observe such a strong correlation if the scorecards did not reflect MP performance would be less than one in a trillion.
It is important to note that these two scores, the overall performance scores on the Scorecard and the Peer Assessment scores, are independent of each other. The Peer Assessment score is not used to calculate any of the overall scores for plenary, committee, or constituency. Also, the overall scores on the scorecard were not available to MPs when they rated each other in the Reputation Survey.
This correlation between overall Scorecard scores and Peer Assessment scores shows that AFLI’s assessment of MPs through the scorecard reflects what MPs think of each other and thus captures more subtle and unobservable aspects of an MP’s performance.
But it is the opinion of voters that really matters. Does the scorecard bear any relation to how voters assess their MPs? The answer here is again yes. At the end of 2008, AFLI conducted a Household Survey in each constituency in the country. This survey asked voters to rate the performance of their MP. We found that the surveyed individuals, without seeing the scorecard for their MP, gave higher ratings to those MPs who also received higher grades in our scorecard and lower ratings to those who performed poorly on AFLI’s Scorecard. This is true for both supporters and non-supporters of an MP. Once again, it is important to note that these survey respondents were not shown on the scorecard. This correlation shows us that the scorecard also captures what voters think about their MPs, because both the scorecard and voter opinions independently come to similar conclusions about performance (i.e. poor performing MPs according to the scorecard were also ranked poorly by their constituents).
The correlations for voters are weaker than the correlations for MPs which may reflect the greater information available to MPs, but even for voters they are “statistically significant†at the 99% level.
How do voters react to the scorecard? Do they revise their assessments of MPs or do they effectively ignore the information in the scorecard? To find out, the 2008 survey showed some voters copies of the scores received for their MPs. Upon seeing the scorecard, voters were asked to give their approval of MPs as well as to indicate whether they were likely to support the MP in future elections. The results were powerful.
When the scorecards produced information that differed from what voters thought already, voters were likely to revise their attitudes of MPs. Voters that did not previously approve of MPs reported a 25 percentage point increase in their willingness to vote for an MP who scored highly on the scorecard. But voters that previously were supportive of MPs reported a 25 point decline in their willingness to support an MP for re-election. These are large changes and support a real willingness of voters to hold MPs accountable for their actions. They are not simply willing to assume that MPs will do the right thing, but will reward and sanction their MPs based on performance.
These new findings give confidence that the scorecard is providing accurate, unbiased, information that Ugandans can use to assess the performance of their MPs and to guide their vote. It also gives confidence that voters care about this information and are willing to hold their MPs to account if they have the information to do so.
We believe that an informed voter base will greatly improve the performance and responsiveness of Uganda’s Parliament for the good of all Ugandans and the development and strengthening of Uganda’s democracy.
AFLI is working hard to make sure that voters have this information and wants to do so in a way that is fair to MPs. To do so, AFLI is holding workshops in 118 constituencies around the whole country (the list of areas in which AFLI is holding workshops is given in the scorecard reports); MPs are invited to these workshops (although they do not always come).
We encourage MPs to take part and help provide constituents with more information about their work and we encourage citizens to use this information when voting in the 2011 elections. With this information, voters will be empowered “to monitor their elected representatives and to make informed choices†in the 2011 elections.
The writer is the AFLI)/Stanford University
Uganda Parliamentary Scorecard Project Coordinator
THE view of The Africa Leadership Institute (AFLI) is that “Democracies are premised on the idea that citizens can hold their leaders accountable for their actions by voting for or against them in regular elections. However, in order for this ideal to be realised, citizens must possess a minimum amount of information about their leaders’ performance.â€
The AFLI Parliamentary Scorecard Project seeks to provide Ugandans with this critical information and to empower them to monitor their elected representatives and to make informed choices at election time.
As one might expect this work by AFLI has drawn a lot of interest from politicians and constituents. AFLI has received criticism from many MPs that believe the scorecard measures are inaccurate and do not illustrate what is actually happening in Parliament. They have said that voters’ perceptions of MPs’ performances are very different from what the scorecard concludes and at the end of the day voters will not make use of the information in the scorecard.
Are these criticisms fair? Do the scores in the scorecard reflect the quality of MP performance? Are the scores consistent with how MPs view each other or with how voters perceive them? Will voters learn about the scores of their MPs? And will they change their opinion based on what they learn?
We now have some answers to these questions. Do the scorecard scores actually correspond well with how MPs perceive each other? It turns out that they do. In response to requests from MPs, the 2007 – 2008 Parliamentary Scorecard included a Peer Assessment measure. There are certain aspects of an MP’s performance that public information cannot measure, such as how well an MP collaborates with other MPs. Therefore, we distributed a Reputation Survey to all MPs asking them to rate their fellow MPs on six measures. We received completed surveys from 113 MPs assessing the performance of 90% of Parliament.
The MPs’ responses were used to create the Peer Assessment score that is found on the scorecard. We then looked to see how MPs’ ratings of each other correlate with the scores we calculated using publicly available data. We found that there is a strong correlation. Those MPs who received lower grades in our plenary, committee, and constituency measures, also received lower ratings from other MPs in the Peer Assessment measures. The relation between the peer assessments and the scorecard scores is in fact extremely strong, and statistically speaking, the chances that we would observe such a strong correlation if the scorecards did not reflect MP performance would be less than one in a trillion.
It is important to note that these two scores, the overall performance scores on the Scorecard and the Peer Assessment scores, are independent of each other. The Peer Assessment score is not used to calculate any of the overall scores for plenary, committee, or constituency. Also, the overall scores on the scorecard were not available to MPs when they rated each other in the Reputation Survey.
This correlation between overall Scorecard scores and Peer Assessment scores shows that AFLI’s assessment of MPs through the scorecard reflects what MPs think of each other and thus captures more subtle and unobservable aspects of an MP’s performance.
But it is the opinion of voters that really matters. Does the scorecard bear any relation to how voters assess their MPs? The answer here is again yes. At the end of 2008, AFLI conducted a Household Survey in each constituency in the country. This survey asked voters to rate the performance of their MP. We found that the surveyed individuals, without seeing the scorecard for their MP, gave higher ratings to those MPs who also received higher grades in our scorecard and lower ratings to those who performed poorly on AFLI’s Scorecard. This is true for both supporters and non-supporters of an MP. Once again, it is important to note that these survey respondents were not shown on the scorecard. This correlation shows us that the scorecard also captures what voters think about their MPs, because both the scorecard and voter opinions independently come to similar conclusions about performance (i.e. poor performing MPs according to the scorecard were also ranked poorly by their constituents).
The correlations for voters are weaker than the correlations for MPs which may reflect the greater information available to MPs, but even for voters they are “statistically significant†at the 99% level.
How do voters react to the scorecard? Do they revise their assessments of MPs or do they effectively ignore the information in the scorecard? To find out, the 2008 survey showed some voters copies of the scores received for their MPs. Upon seeing the scorecard, voters were asked to give their approval of MPs as well as to indicate whether they were likely to support the MP in future elections. The results were powerful.
When the scorecards produced information that differed from what voters thought already, voters were likely to revise their attitudes of MPs. Voters that did not previously approve of MPs reported a 25 percentage point increase in their willingness to vote for an MP who scored highly on the scorecard. But voters that previously were supportive of MPs reported a 25 point decline in their willingness to support an MP for re-election. These are large changes and support a real willingness of voters to hold MPs accountable for their actions. They are not simply willing to assume that MPs will do the right thing, but will reward and sanction their MPs based on performance.
These new findings give confidence that the scorecard is providing accurate, unbiased, information that Ugandans can use to assess the performance of their MPs and to guide their vote. It also gives confidence that voters care about this information and are willing to hold their MPs to account if they have the information to do so.
We believe that an informed voter base will greatly improve the performance and responsiveness of Uganda’s Parliament for the good of all Ugandans and the development and strengthening of Uganda’s democracy.
AFLI is working hard to make sure that voters have this information and wants to do so in a way that is fair to MPs. To do so, AFLI is holding workshops in 118 constituencies around the whole country (the list of areas in which AFLI is holding workshops is given in the scorecard reports); MPs are invited to these workshops (although they do not always come).
We encourage MPs to take part and help provide constituents with more information about their work and we encourage citizens to use this information when voting in the 2011 elections. With this information, voters will be empowered “to monitor their elected representatives and to make informed choices†in the 2011 elections.
The writer is the AFLI)/Stanford University
Uganda Parliamentary Scorecard Project Coordinator