Both televised and radio debates increase informed and tolerant voter behaviour, boding well for peaceful elections in young democracies, say Sarah Brierly, Eric Kramon and George Ofosu

Brierly, Sarah

Kramon, Eric

Ofosu, George

LSE Research Online

The	impact	of	parliamentary	debates	on	Ghana’s2016	electionsBoth	televised	and	radio	debates	increase	informed	and	tolerant	voter	behaviour,	boding	well	for	peacefulelections	in	young	democracies,	say	Sarah	Brierly,	Eric	Kramon	and	George	Ofosu.Electoral	debates	have	a	long	history	in	democratic	politics.	The	most	famous	such	event	was	the	televisedinteraction	between	Kennedy	and	Nixon	in	1960.	Today,	debates	are	held	in	over	60	countries	across	all	regionsof	the	world,	from	Kenya	to	Cambodia,	to	Peru.	International	non-governmental	organisations	(NGOs),	withsupport	from	domestic	civic	education	bodies,	fund	these	programmes	on	the	grounds	that	they	strengthendemocracy.	Often	debates	are	televised	and	watched	by	millions	of	voters.	While	presidential	debates	cancapture	the	attention	of	a	nation,	many	countries	also	hold	local	debates	that	expose	voters	to	competingcandidates	who	are	running	for	parliamentary	seats	or	local	offices.Locals	line	up	at	a	polling	station	near	Bolgatanga	in	Northern	GhanaPhoto	Credit:	Eileen	Delhi	via	Flickr	(http://bit.ly/2gtTXkf)	CC	BY-NC-SA	2.0The	studyIn	this	blog	entry,	we	overview	results	from	a	field	experiment	that	investigates	the	impact	of	parliamentarydebates	conducted	in	Ghana	during	the	run-up	to	the	country’s	December	2016	elections.	Ghana	is	a	multi-partydemocracy	in	West	Africa.	The	elections	were	the	seventh	since	the	country	returned	to	democratic	rule	in	early1992.The	project	sought	to	evaluate	three	aspects	of	parliamentary	debates:whether	they	influence	voters’	evaluations	of	competing	candidates;if	so,	why	debates	affect	evaluations	of	candidates;and	whether	the	medium	of	delivery	(televised	versus	radio)	affects	the	impact	of	debates	on	citizens.The	case	of	GhanaAfrica at LSE: The impact of parliamentary debates on Ghana’s 2016 elections Page 1 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-09-26Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2017/09/26/the-impact-of-parliamentary-debates-on-ghanas-2016-elections/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/To	investigate	the	effects	of	debates,	we	worked	with	two	local	institutions	(the	Ghana	Center	for	DemocraticDevelopment	and	the	National	Commission	for	Civic	Education)	that	were	organising	candidate	debates	ahead	ofGhana’s	elections.	By	partnering	with	these	organisations,	we	are	able	to	evaluate	the	impact	of	a	locally	ownedprogramme.	Such	collaboration	should	enhance	the	relevance	of	the	results	to	domestic	policy-makers,	and	helpthese	actors	tweak	their	election-support	programmes	in	the	future.The	electionsGhanaians	went	to	the	polls	on	the	7	December	2016	to	elect	a	president,	along	with	all	275	members	of	theunicameral	Parliament.	Two	major	political	parties,	the	New	Patriotic	Party	(NPP)	and	the	National	DemocraticCongress	(NDC),	dominate	Ghanaian	politics.	Despite	the	prominence	of	these	two	parties	in	the	presidentialrace,	parliamentary	races	can	see	a	significant	number	of	votes	going	to	candidates	from	minor	parties.	In	thecountry’s	elections	in	2012,	roughly	700,000	votes	went	to	candidates	who	ran	as	independents	or	from	minorparties.	The	prominent	minor	parties	are	the	Convention	People’s	Party	(CPP),	the	People’s	Progressive	Party(PPP),	and	the	People’s	National	Convention	(PNC).In	some	ways,	Ghana	is	a	challenging	case	to	investigate	the	influence	of	debates	on	voters’	perceptions	ofcandidates	because	many	citizens	are	strongly	aligned	to	one	party	or	another.	However,	successful	alternationsof	power	have	been	the	result	of	changes	in	voting	patterns	in	so-called	“swing”	regions.	We	implemented	ourstudy	in	one	such	region,	the	Central	region.	Home	to	about	2	million	citizens,	voters	in	the	Central	region	appearto	swing	between	the	two	parties.	In	2012,	NPP	parliamentary	candidates	won	seven	of	the	23	constituencies	inthe	region,	with	the	remaining	16	taken	by	NDC	candidates.	The	fate	of	the	two	parties	switched	in	the	electionwe	study,	with	the	NPP	winning	19	constituencies,	and	NDC	candidates	winning	only	four.The	experimentOur	experimental	design	involved	recruiting	a	group	of	respondents	who	would	receive	the	treatment	(exposureto	the	debate)	and	a	control	group	who	would	not	receive	the	treatment	(no	exposure	to	the	debate).	A	total	of2,000	citizens	from	the	Central	region	were	in	the	experimental	sample.	The	respondents	resided	within	threeparliamentary	constituencies.After	filming	the	debates	in	each	of	these	constituencies,	we	exposed	those	in	the	treatment	group	to	either	anaudio	or	video	recording	of	the	debate.	Citizens	watched	or	listened	to	the	debate	in	private	on	a	smart	phone.Enumerators	then	conducted	a	survey	with	the	respondents.	Those	in	the	control	group	just	received	the	survey.FindingsDebates	influence	voter	evaluations	of	candidates:	Across	all	candidates,	exposure	to	the	debate	increasescitizens’	positive	perceptions	of	those	running	by	about	five	percent	on	a	seven-point	scale.	Therefore,	byproviding	new	information	on	the	platforms	and	qualifications	of	each	candidate,	debates	have	the	potential	toalter	citizens’	evaluations	of	political	contestants.Debates	have	a	greater	influence	in	altering	voters’	evaluations	of	candidates	from	minor	parties:	We	furtherhypothesized	that	debates	would	have	a	greater	influence	in	altering	voters’	evaluations	of	candidates	from	minorparties.	This	is	because	citizens	may	have	less	information	about	this	type	of	candidate.	Disaggregating	theresults	between	evaluations	of	candidates	from	the	two	major	parties	and	candidates	from	the	minor	parties,	wecorroborate	this	hypothesis.	Overall,	there	is	an	11.5	percent	increase	in	evaluations	of	candidates	from	minorparties	on	the	same	seven-point	scale.Debates	improve	the	evaluation	of	the	opposition	party	among	strong	partisan	voters:	Interestingly,	we	also	findthat,	among	strong	partisans	of	one	of	the	two	major	parties,	the	debates	actually	improved	their	evaluation	of	theopposition	party.		For	example,	exposure	to	the	debates	led	strong	partisans	of	the	NDC	to	provide	much	morefavourable	evaluations	of	the	NPP	candidate,	and	made	such	voters	significantly	more	likely	to	say	that	theywould	vote	for	the	NPP	candidate	in	the	election.	The	same	is	true	of	strong	NPP	partisans,	who	became	morefavourable	toward	NDC	candidates.Africa at LSE: The impact of parliamentary debates on Ghana’s 2016 elections Page 2 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-09-26Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2017/09/26/the-impact-of-parliamentary-debates-on-ghanas-2016-elections/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/ImplicationsOverall,	these	findings	have	two	important	implications:1)	They	suggest	that	debates	can	improve	accountability	by	providing	valuable	information	to	voters	that	allowsthem	to	evaluate	candidates	on	their	policy	ideas,	qualifications,	and	so	on,	rather	than	their	party	label.	This	canparticularly	help	candidates	from	minority	parties.2)	They	suggest	a	role	for	debates	in	promoting	political	moderation	and	reducing	partisan	tensions.	Indeed,	evenif	strong	partisans	do	not	end	up	changing	their	vote	as	a	result	of	exposure	to	debates,	their	increasedfavourability	toward	opposition	candidates	is	likely	to	reduce	tension	and	enhance	the	perceived	legitimacy	of	theresults,	both	of	which	are	positive	benefits	for	democracy.Policy	versus	personalityWe	also	designed	the	experiment	to	investigate	why	debates	may	influence	voters’	perceptions	of	candidates.	Inparticular,	we	sought	to	disentangle	the	influence	of	policy	content	from	the	impact	of	information	about	candidatequalifications	and	personality.To	do	so,	some	participants	in	the	treatment	group	only	received	segments	of	the	debate	that	focused	on	policy,while	others	were	only	presented	with	content	in	which	candidates	discussed	their	qualifications.	We	find	thatboth	components	of	the	debates	positively	effect	evaluations	of	candidates,	but	that	the	effect	of	the	policysegment	is	somewhat	larger	in	magnitude	than	the	qualifications	segment.		Thus,	while	debates	do	influencevoters	because	they	learn	about	the	personalities	and	experience	of	candidates,	they	also	seem	to	be	effective	inpromoting	policy-based	assessments.Radio	versus	televisionFinally,	the	project	sought	to	assess	whether	the	medium	of	delivery	influences	the	impact	of	debates.	Often	indeveloping	democracies,	parliamentary	debates	are	either	not	televised,	or	only	a	subset	of	citizens	have	atelevision.	This	made	it	important	to	track	whether	audio	recordings	of	debates	have	the	same	impact	as	televisedperformances.We	find	that	those	in	the	treatment	group	who	watched	the	debate	and	those	who	only	heard	the	debate	(with	novisuals)	offer	very	similar	responses.	The	results	that	we	discuss	above	are	similar	if	we	disaggregate	them	byrespondents	who	received	either	of	the	two	different	presentational	formats.These	results	suggest	that	citizens	can	process	political	information	presented	to	them	orally	or	visually.	Theability	of	voters	to	engage	with	audio	information	complements	findings	from	the	Afrobarometer,	a	surveyconducted	across	36	African	countries,	which	shows	that	about	70	percent	of	Africans	listen	to	news	on	the	radioevery	day	or	a	few	times	a	week.	These	findings	are	important	for	actors	who	conduct	election	debate	programsin	developing	countries,	as	they	suggest	that	radio	transmission,	which	is	relatively	cheaper	than	televisedbroadcasting,	is	an	effective	way	to	transmit	debates	to	voters.Final	thoughtsIn	sum,	the	results	of	this	field	experiment	show	that	debates	can	improve	voter	evaluations	of	candidates	fromminor	parties,	increase	strong	partisans’	tolerance	and	evaluations	of	candidates	from	their	non-preferred	party,and	promote	policy-based	voting.	Our	results	also	highlight	that	the	dissemination	of	debates	by	television	andradio	can	be	equally	effective.	Taken	together,	the	results	suggest	that	candidate	debates	can	be	an	effective	toolfor	promoting	higher	quality	and	peaceful	elections	in	younger	democracies.This	article	was	first	published	on	the	IGC	blog.Africa at LSE: The impact of parliamentary debates on Ghana’s 2016 elections Page 3 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-09-26Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2017/09/26/the-impact-of-parliamentary-debates-on-ghanas-2016-elections/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/Sarah	Brierly	is	a	doctoral	researcher	at	UCLA.Eric	Kramon	is	an	Assistant	Professor	of	Political	Science	and	International	Affairs	at	George	WashingtonUniversity.George	Ofosu	(@gofosu)	is	a	researcher	at	UCLA.	The	views	expressed	in	this	post	are	those	of	the	author	and	in	no	way	reflect	those	of	the	Africa	at	LSEblog,	the	Firoz	Lalji	Centre	for	Africa	or	the	London	School	of	Economics	and	Political	Science.Africa at LSE: The impact of parliamentary debates on Ghana’s 2016 elections Page 4 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-09-26Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2017/09/26/the-impact-of-parliamentary-debates-on-ghanas-2016-elections/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/

The impact of parliamentary debates on Ghana's 2016 elections

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online