Sierra Leone is one of the poorest countries in the world, public service provision is weak, and ethnicity is highly predictive of how people vote. The All People’s Congress wins seats in the North where Temnes predominate, while the Sierra Leone People’s Party wins seats in the South, the traditional homeland of Mendes.
Information is also scarce. In the rural areas where the study was conducted, 70% of the population had never been to school, 30% had no radio (TV and newspapers are extremely rare), just 3% knew how much money MPs are given to spend in their constituencies, and less than half could tell who was the incumbent. What’s more, there is no requirement for MPs to disclose how they spend the money they are given for their constituency so there is no information to fill out an MP report card.
Bringing electoral debates to rural voters
During the 2012 election, Search for Common Ground—an NGO with a local reputation for independent news coverage—organised debates between candidates for MPs in 14 constituencies. Candidates were asked about their priority for government spending, how they would spend their constituency funds, as well as their positions on topical policy issues. These debates were videotaped in the common national language, Krio, and a mobile cinema took the videos on a tour of local communities, often screening them on the external wall of a local school at night. Hundreds of people would crowd around and watch the debate screening, which was translated into local languages. In total, roughly 19,000 people watched the debates in the weeks before the election.
To evaluate the impact of the videotaped debates on voting, the mobile cinema visited 112 villages, randomly picked from a list of 224. People in all 224 villages were then surveyed on or just after election day.
The findings
1) Voter knowledge
Substantial impacts were found on voters’ knowledge about MP candidates and their policy positions thanks to the debates. People in the villages where debates had been screened were more likely to be able to name the candidates, know which one was more educated, who was the incumbent, and how much money MPs were given to spend. Knowledge of policy positions taken by candidates improved dramatically too: for example, 29% could name the first priority for spending by the SLPP candidate in debate areas, compared to 14% in the control villages.
2) Voter decision making
Voters were more likely to vote for someone who had the same policy priorities as they did. In addition, the candidate who was seen to have performed best in the debate got five percentage points more of the vote in debate villages than nondebate villages. Who performed better was determined by asking the audience at debate screenings as well as an independent panel of experts. There was striking agreement between the two groups about who was the best performer.
3) Voting patterns: Charisma or information
To understand what voters are responding to, another experiment was performed where some individuals were given only part of the information coming from the debates. In 40 large villages, individuals were randomly picked to watch the full debate on tablets. Others saw only the “getting to know you” introductory questions. This meant they could see which candidate had charisma but they learned nothing about their policies. A final group heard a “just the facts” summary of the debate. They did not hear the candidates themselves but learned about their policy positions and experience. In a survey at election time, all three groups knew more about the candidates’ qualities, such as their level of education, than the control group. Those who watched the debate on tablet or heard just the facts summary also knew more about the candidates’ policy positions. Only those who watched the debate, however, changed how they voted. Therefore, getting to know a candidate on its own and facts on their own are not enough, only the combination of the two changed voting patterns.
4) Informed voting and electoral accountability
Our results suggest that debates change the behaviour of politicians in office. Because the debates were held in 14 constituencies, randomly chosen from a list of 28, we could tell how participating in a debate changes performance. A survey team asked MPs how they spent the money given to them for their constituency, and then went to the constituency to find evidence of that spending. If the MP said they had paid school fees, the survey team asked the school principal how much of the fees had been paid. If the MP said they paid for road repairs, the community was questioned about how much was spent on the repairs and receipts requested. In treatment constituencies, evidence was found of two and a half times more money being spent than in control constituencies.
Don’t give up on democracy, improve it
When voters know little about the responsibilities and actions of elected officials it is not surprising that politicians under-deliver. But we should not give up on democracy. Instead we should find ways for voters to learn about their representatives. Debates appear to be an effective way for voters who may be illiterate and live in societies without freedom of information laws, to learn about politicians. Once voters are better informed, politicians may behave better.
source- Voxdev
