This is Article 13 of a 24-part weekly newspaper series on voter trust and voting intentions in Africa. In the previous article, we examined why trust is often lost between elections rather than during campaigns. We saw that neglect, complacency, weak communication, and internal disconnection quietly damage political loyalty long before voters’ express dissatisfaction at the ballot box. This article advances that argument by focusing on a more difficult challenge: how parties manage power without losing moral authority. Winning office gives parties formal authority, but sustaining trust requires moral authority as well.
Formal authority comes from constitutions, elections, and legal control of government institutions. Moral authority, by contrast, comes from perceived fairness, restraint, integrity, and consistency in the use of power. A party may hold a parliamentary majority, control ministries, and command state resources while simultaneously losing moral authority in the eyes of citizens. When this happens, trust begins to erode even if the party remains institutionally strong. Voters start to distinguish between the right to govern and the right to be believed. That distinction often determines future voting intentions.
Power creates temptations that opposition politics does not. Parties in government gain access to appointments, contracts, visibility, and influence. These advantages can be used to deepen legitimacy through competent service and inclusive leadership, or they can be used narrowly in ways that weaken trust. When appointments appear based solely on factional reward rather than merit, supporters outside favoured circles become discouraged. When state resources seem politically weaponised, neutral voters become uneasy. Over time, trust weakens not only among opponents, but among previous supporters.
Selective justice is one of the fastest routes to losing moral authority. Citizens pay close attention to whether standards apply equally to allies and critics. When misconduct by opponents is condemned while similar behaviour by insiders is excused, the public reads this as hypocrisy rather than leadership. Research across democratic systems consistently shows that perceptions of corruption and unequal enforcement reduce trust in political institutions. In African politics, where historical scepticism toward state power can already be high, selective justice carries an even heavier cost. It signals that power has become self-protective rather than principled.
Arrogance is another corrosive force. Parties that remain in power for extended periods sometimes begin to confuse electoral victory with permanent legitimacy. Critics are dismissed as enemies, internal dissent is labelled betrayal, and citizen frustration is treated as ignorance rather than feedback. This attitude weakens emotional connection because voters want respect as well as results. Once people feel talked down to or taken for granted, trust declines even if some policies remain popular. Political authority without humility often becomes brittle.
More Read
The management of language matters greatly here. Governments under pressure often resort to triumphalist messaging while citizens experience hardship. If leaders insist that success is obvious while households feel strain, a credibility gap emerges. Citizens do not require leaders to solve every problem immediately, but they do expect honesty about conditions and realistic pathways forward. Where rhetoric consistently contradicts lived experience, trust declines faster than economic indicators alone would predict. Moral authority depends partly on whether language feels truthful.
Internal party culture also shapes external moral authority. A party that silences honest internal voices often loses access to corrective information. Advisers tell leaders what they want to hear, warning signs are minimised, and poor decisions go unchallenged. By contrast, parties that tolerate principled internal criticism often govern more effectively because feedback reaches decision-makers earlier. Trust is sustained when citizens believe a governing party can still self-correct. It weakens when the party appears trapped inside its own echo chamber.
Ghanaian politics offers recurring examples of this tension. Both major parties have at different times benefited from public hope on entering office, only to face criticism over perceived arrogance, selective appointments, or disconnect from everyday hardship. The lesson is not partisan but structural. Power raises expectations quickly and punishes complacency harshly. Citizens who once celebrated victory can become sceptical if they sense that access to office changed the party more than it changed national outcomes. Trust depends on how power is exercised after celebration ends.
More Read
Nigeria and other African democracies show similar dynamics at larger scale. Ruling parties may retain significant machinery and visibility while facing growing public frustration over insecurity, inflation, or elite insulation. Opposition weakness can delay accountability, but it cannot replace trust indefinitely. Where moral authority declines, support becomes thinner and more transactional. Electoral survival may continue for a time, but loyalty becomes fragile. Once a credible alternative emerges, the shift can be swift.
Managing power well therefore requires restraint. It means recognising that every appointment, disciplinary decision, public statement, and use of state influence sends signals beyond the immediate event. Citizens ask whether leaders appear fair, serious, and conscious of limits. Parties that act as custodians rather than owners of power tend to preserve trust longer. Those that act as if victory grants entitlement often accelerate erosion.
The deeper lesson is that incumbency is not the same as legitimacy. Incumbency gives access to tools; legitimacy gives durable public confidence. One can exist without the other, but not forever. Political parties that understand this distinction govern with more discipline, more humility, and greater sensitivity to perception. Those that ignore it often discover that legal authority can survive for a period after moral authority has already gone. The next article returns to the internal life of parties. Article 14 will examine internal democracy as a trust insurance policy, showing why parties that protect fair competition, voice, and renewal often survive setbacks better than parties built around control, fear, or narrow gatekeeping.
Dr. Samuel Kenneth Adolphus Bernard Crabbe is a political leader, entrepreneur, and scholar focused on restoring trust, discipline, and effectiveness within political parties and governance systems in Africa. He has served as Greater Accra Regional Chairman and 2nd National Vice Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), where he played key roles in party organisation, national strategy, and institutional oversight. Beginning his political journey as a Constituency Organizer, he has operated across every level of party structure and understands, from firsthand experience, how internal systems shape electoral outcomes.
His work in politics is grounded in a clear conviction: parties do not lose elections because of messaging alone – they lose when their internal systems weaken, discipline erodes, and trust breaks down. His writing focuses on how political organisations can rebuild credibility, strengthen internal democracy, and re-engineer their structures to earn and sustain voter trust.
Dr. Crabbe holds a PhD in Business and Management from the University of Bradford’s Institute of Digital and Sustainable Futures, where his research examined how failures in governance, transparency, and accountability undermine trust in financial systems. He is a Lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University in the United Kingdom, teaching Leadership and Change, Organisational Behaviour, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work, and Sustainability and Responsible Governance – disciplines he applies directly to political and institutional reform.
