AfrobarometerNamibia 2003

Christiaan Keulder

Institute for Public Policy Research

The Afrobarometer

• A cross-national survey on attitudes towards markets and democracy

• 15 African countries that have multi-party elections; and implemented market reforms

• Started in 1999

• Coordinated by IDASA, CDD, Michigan State University– East Lansing

The Namibian Surveys (1)

• Nationally representative sample (1,200)• Probability-Proportional-To-Size (PPS)• Two tier stratification: urban/rural; male/female• Gender quota• Citizens of voting age• Face-to-face interviews• Three surveys – 1999, 2002, 2003

The Namibian Surveys

• Field work: Research Facilitation Services

• Funding: Royal Netherlands Embassy

Themes (1)

• Preference for democracy

• Preference for non-democratic alternatives

• Performance of the democratic regime

• Demand and supply model

• Legitimacy

• State capacity and government performance

Themes (2)

• Political Trust

• Responsiveness

• Corruption

• Partisanship and Political Mobilisation

Preference for Democracy

57.363.8

54.4

11.7

14.3

19.8

11.5

18.620.4

18.9

3.4 5.4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1999 2002 2003

Democracy is preferable to any other kind of government In some circumstances, a non-democratic government can be preferable

For someone like me, it doesn’t matter what kind of government we have Don’t know

Preference for Non-Democratic Alternatives

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Single party rule Traditional Rule Military rule Presidential rule

% A

ppro

ve/S

tron

gly

appr

ove

1999 2002 2003

Performance of the democratic regime (1)Quality of democracy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

A full democracy A democracy minorproblems

A democracy majorproblems

Not a democracy DNU DNK

%

1999 2002 2003

Performance of the democratic regime (2)Current vs. Past

  1999 2002 2003

  % % %

Freedom to say what you think 79.7 90.3 92.3

Freedom to join any political organisation you want 85.1 87.9 92.3

Fear of being arrested when you are innocent 78.3 72.9 74.8

Freedom to choose who to vote for without feeling pressured 85.5 86.1 91.0

The ability of ordinary people to influence what government does - 59.7 73.7

Safety from crime and violence 51.2 65.5 65.0

Equal and fair treatment for all people by government 64.2 58.7 78.9

Performance of the democratic regime (3)Satisfaction with democracy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Not very satisfied Not at all satisfied Namibia is not ademocracy

Don’t know

%

1999 2002 2003

Demand and Supply (1)

1999 2002 2003

Survey date

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Me

an

Demand for democracy

Supply of democracy

Demand and Supply (2)

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Dem

an

d f

or d

em

ocra

cy

20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Supply of democracy

Caprivi03

Erongo03

Hardap03

Karas03

Kavango03

Khomas03

Kunene03

Ohangwena03

Omaheke03

Oshana03

Oshikoto03

Legitimacy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Constitution expresses Namibiansvalues

Courts have the right to make decisionsthat people have to abide by

Police have the right to make peopleobey the law

Tax department have the right to makepeople pay taxes

% A

gree

/Str

ongl

y ag

ree

2002 2003

State Capacity and Performance (1)Capacity to solve existing problems

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

All of them Most of them Some of them Very few of them None of them Don’t know

%

2002 2003

State Capacity and Performance (2)Current vs. Past

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Able to enforce the law Effective in the delivery of services Corrupt Trustworthy

%

1999 2002 2003

State Capacity and Performance (3)People’s Agenda

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Unemployment

Poverty/Destitution

Food shortage/Famine

Wages, income and salaries

Education

Health

HIV/AIDS

Crime/Security

Water supply

%

2003

2002

State Capacity and Performance (4)Performance select policy areas

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Managing the economy

Creating jobs

Keeping prices stable

Narrowing income gaps

Reducing crime

Improving basic health services

Addressing educational needs

Delivering household water

Ensuring food security

Fighting corruption in government

Resolving conflict between communities

Combating HIV/AIDS

% Fairly/Very well

2003

2002

1999

Political Trust

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

President

National Assembly

Electoral Commission

Local Authority Councils[1]

Ruling Party

Opposition Parties

Army

Police

Courts of law

Traditional leaders

%most of the time/about always

2003

2002

1999

Government Responsiveness (1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Never Some of the time Most of the time Always Don’t Know

%

Look after the interests of people Leaders listen to what people have to say

Government Responsiveness (2)Contact with Representatives

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Local Government Councilor National AssemblyRepresentative

Traditional ruler Government ministry official Political party official

%

2002

2003

Perceptions on Corruption

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Officials in the Office of the President

Elected leaders

Government officials

Police

Border officials

Judges & magistrates

Local businessmen

Foreign businessmen

Teachers and school administrators

Religious leaders

% Most/all

2003

2002

1999

Access to Documents and Services

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Obtaining an ID Getting a placement for achild in primary school

Obtaining an voterregistration card

Obtaining householdservices

Obtaining a loan orpayment from government

Getting help from thepolice

% D

iffic

ult/v

ery

diff

icul

t

2002 2003

Response to delays

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Don’t worry, just wait,the permit will come

Offer a tip or gift to theofficial

Use connections toinfluential people

Write a letter to thehead office

Do what you wantwithout the permit

Do nothing becausenothing can be done

Don’t know

%

2002 2003

Actual Bribes Paid

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Get a document or a permit Get a child into school Get a household service (likepiped water, electricity or phone)

Cross a border (like a customsor immigration post)

Avoid a problem with the police(like passing a checkpoint or

avoiding a fine or arrest)

%

2002 2003

Partisanship and Cognitive Mobilisation (1)

• High Partisanship: Those who feel close or very close to a party.

• Low Partisanship: Those who do not feel close to a party.

• Cognitive ability: Level of education + Interest in public affairs (6-point scale)

• Low cognitive ability (<3)

• High cognitive ability (>3)

Partisanship and Cognitive Ability (2)General Typologies

• Apoliticals: Low partisanship and low cognitive abilities

• Ritual Partisans: High partisanship and low cognitive abilities

• Apartisans: Low partisanship and high cognitive abilities

• Cognitive partisans: High partisanship and high cognitive abilities

Partisanship and Cognitive Ability (3)Namibian Typologies

Apoliticals 

2002 (15.9%)2003 (11.4%)

 

Ritual Partisans 

2002 (39.7%)2003 (17.2%)

Apartisans 

2002 (11.1%)2003 (24.2%)

 

Cognitive Partisans 

2002 (33.2%)2003 (46.8%)