Scorecard empowers voters to hold their MPs accountable
Daily Monitor

Democracies are premised on the idea that citizens can hold their leaders accountable for their actions... However, in order for this ideal to be realised, citizens must possess a minimum amount of information about their leaders' performance.

The Africa Leadership Institute's (AFLI) Parliamentary Scorecard Project seeks to provide Ugandans with this information 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 interest from politicians and constituents. MPs have criticised AFLI saying the scorecard is inaccurate and does not reflect what happens in Parliament. MPs have also argued that voters' perceptions are very different from what the scorecard concludes and that voters will not use the information.

Are these criticisms right? Does the scorecard reflect the quality of MP performance? Are AFLI's scores consistent with how MPs view each other or with how voters perceive MPs? Will voters change their opinions based on what they learn?

Do the scorecard scores actually correspond with how MPs perceive each other? It turns out that they do. The 2007 – 2008 Parliamentary Scorecard included a Peer Assessment measure to capture certain aspects of an MP's performance that public information cannot measure. We distributed a Reputation Survey to MPs asking them to rate their fellow MPs. 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 AFLI calculated using publicly available data. We found 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 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 the Scorecard and Peer Assessment scores are independent of each other. The Peer Assessment score is not used to calculate the Scorecard scores.

Also, the Scorecard was not available to MPs when they rated each other in the Reputation Survey. This correlation between Scorecard and Peer Assessment scores shows that AFLI's assessment of MPs through the Scorecard reflects what MPs think of each other and thus captures the more unobservable aspects of an MP's performance.

Does the Scorecard relate to how voters assess their MPs? The answer is yes. At the end of 2008, Wilksens and AFLI conducted a 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, gave higher ratings to those MPs who received higher grades in the 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 the scorecard. This correlation shows that the Scorecard also captures what voters think about their MPs. The correlation between voter perceptions and Scorecard scores are “statistically significant” at the 99 per cent level.

How do voters react to the scorecard? Do they revise their assessments of MPs or do they ignore the Scorecard? To find out, the 2008 survey showed some voters copies of their MP's Scorecard. Upon seeing the scorecard, voters were asked how likely they were to support the MP in future elections. When the Scorecards produced information that differed from what voters thought already, voters were likely to revise their attitudes toward MPs.

Voters that did not previously approve of MPs reported a 25 per cent 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 per cent decline in their willingness to support a poor performing MP for reelection. These are large changes which illustrate the willingness of voters to hold MPs accountable. It seems that voters reward and sanction their MPs based on performance.

These new findings give confidence that the Scorecard is providing accurate, unbiased, information. It also shows that voters care about this information. We believe that an informed voter base will greatly improve the performance and responsiveness of Uganda's Parliament and strengthen Uganda's democracy. AFLI is working hard to ensure 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 country; MPs are invited to these workshops. 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.

Adam Harris is the Uganda Parliamentary Scorecard project coordinator, Africa Leadership Institute/Stanford University

* Further information on the Uganda Parliamentary Scorecard can be obtained from the acting ALFLI CEO, Tobias Onweng:

Download document...

* Readers can access the Parliamentary Scorecard 2006-2007 here

* Readers can access the Parliamentary Scorecard 2007-2008 here