Afrobarometer Round 4: The Quality of Democracy and Governance in 20 African Countries, 2008-2009

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bratton ◽  
E. Gyimah-Boadi ◽  
Robert Mattes
2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-37
Author(s):  
Michael Chasukwa

Matters of satisfaction with and support for democracy have been at the centre of discussion regarding the survival and quality of democracy in Africa since the early 1990s. While the dominant discourse claims that support for democracy keeps on increasing with time, African countries have somewhat deviated from this path. Thus, African countries have had decreasing levels of satisfaction with democracy and support for democracy since the third democratisation wave of the early 1990s. This article takes interest in the trends of satisfaction with democracy and support for democracy with the objective of explaining factors contributing to the undermining of the survival and quality of democracy. A mixed methods research design, using Afrobarometer survey data for four rounds and secondary data, is deployed to address issues pertaining to critical and satisfied democrats as raised in the article. The article finds that satisfaction with democracy and education are significant predictors of support for democracy in Malawi. It also establishes that critical democrats fight to make democracy work, albeit for their economic survival. The article argues that the survival and quality of democracy in Malawi is compromised by elite critical citizens who show commitment to democracy as a matter of principle when they are instrumentalists.


Liquidity ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-152
Author(s):  
Mukhaer Pakkanna

Political democracy should be equivalent to the economic development of the quality of democracy, economic democracy if not upright, even the owner of the ruling power and money, which is parallel to force global corporatocracy. Consequently, the economic oligarchy preservation reinforces control of production and distribution from upstream to downstream and power monopoly of the market. The implication, increasingly sharp economic disparities, exclusive owner of the money and power become fertile, and the end could jeopardize the harmony of the national economy. The loss of national economic identity that makes people feel lost the “pilot of the state”. What happens then is the autopilot state. Viewing unclear direction of the economy, the national economy should clarify the true figure.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yukihiko Hamada ◽  
Khushbu Agrawal

Money is a necessary component of any democracy: it enables political participation, campaigning and representation. However, if it is not effectively regulated, it can undermine the integrity of political processes and institutions, and jeopardize the quality of democracy. Therefore, regulations related to the funding of political parties and election campaigns, commonly known as political finance, are a critical way to promote integrity, transparency and accountability in any democracy. Political finance regulations must adapt and adjust to political, economic and societal changes. This report contributes to the discussion of the future of political finance by exploring the following trends, opportunities and challenges related to money in politics that need to be taken into consideration when improving political finance systems: • mainstreaming political finance regulations into an overall anti-corruption framework; • supporting the implementation of existing political finance regulations and monitoring their performance; • harnessing digital technologies to ensure transparency and accountability in political finance; and • designing targeted political finance measures to encourage the inclusion of underrepresented groups in politics.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Davide Vittori

Abstract Scholars have long debated whether populism harms or improves the quality of democracy. This article contributes to this debate by focusing on the impact of populist parties in government. In particular, it inquires: (1) whether populists in government are more likely than non-populists to negatively affect the quality of democracies; (2) whether the role of populists in government matters; and (3) which type of populism is expected to negatively affect the quality of liberal-democratic regimes. The results find strong evidence that the role of populists in government affects several qualities of democracy. While robust, the findings related to (2) are less clear-cut than those pertaining to (1). Finally, regardless of their role in government, different types of populism have different impacts on the qualities of democracy. The results show that exclusionary populist parties in government tend to have more of a negative impact than other forms of populism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document