By Dr. Sammy Crabbe
This is Article 3 of a 24-part weekly newspaper series on voter trust and voting intentions in Africa. In the previous article, we clarified what voter trust is and why political parties so often misunderstand it, confusing popularity, fear, or identity-based loyalty for something far deeper and more durable (Article 2: What Is Voter Trust). We also established that voting intentions are not formed at the last minute, but accumulate gradually through repeated experiences with a party’s behaviour. This article takes the next logical step by examining the first phase of the trust cycle in detail: how voter trust is actually generated inside political parties. Understanding this phase is critical, because once trust is generated, voting intentions begin to stabilise long before election campaigns officially start.
Trust generation does not begin with speeches, slogans, or manifesto launches. It begins inside the party, often years before voters are asked to choose between competing alternatives. Parties generate trust when their internal systems consistently demonstrate competence, fairness, and respect for their own members. Competence here is not limited to policy expertise or governing ability; it also includes organisational competence, how well a party manages its structures, resolves disputes, and delivers on internal commitments. When a party struggles to organise itself, enforce its own rules, or manage basic processes, voters infer that it will struggle to govern the country as well. Trust therefore begins to form not from promises made to the public, but from observable internal performance.
Fairness is the second pillar of trust generation, and it is often the most emotionally charged. Party members and supporters closely watch how rules are applied, especially during internal elections, dispute resolution, and candidate selection. When rules are applied consistently, even losers accept outcomes more readily because the process feels legitimate. When rules appear selective or manipulated, resentment builds quietly and spreads outward. Over time, internal unfairness becomes external distrust, as members carry their experiences into their communities. Voters may not know every detail of internal party processes, but they quickly sense when outcomes feel unjust or imposed.
Inclusion plays a powerful role in turning competence and fairness into emotional connection. Parties generate trust when members feel they belong and see themselves represented in decision-making, leadership pathways, and party narratives. Inclusion is not only about demographic representation, but also about whether voices from different regions, age groups, and social backgrounds are genuinely heard. When inclusion is real, supporters internalise the party’s success as their own and defend it even during difficult periods. When inclusion is superficial, trust becomes fragile and conditional. Excluded groups may remain formally loyal while emotionally disengaging, creating hidden vulnerabilities in voting intention.
More Read
Communication is the mechanism through which competence, fairness, and inclusion are made visible. Trust is generated when parties communicate honestly, clearly, and consistently with their members and supporters, especially during moments of tension or uncertainty. Silence, spin, or sudden reversals erode confidence far more quickly than bad news delivered transparently. Parties that explain decisions, acknowledge mistakes, and keep channels open generate trust even when outcomes are unfavourable. Over time, this consistency reassures voters that the party is predictable and values their intelligence. Poor communication, by contrast, creates suspicion and accelerates disengagement.
Participation transforms trust from passive belief into active commitment. When members have meaningful opportunities to influence decisions, vote in internal contests, and hold leaders accountable, trust deepens because people feel ownership. Participation signals that loyalty is rewarded with voice rather than mere symbolism. Parties that restrict participation or centralise power too tightly may maintain short-term control, but they weaken the foundations of trust generation. Over time, supporters stop investing emotionally in a system that does not recognise their agency. Voting intention then becomes transactional rather than loyal.
These elements, competence, fairness, inclusion, communication, and participation, do not operate independently. They reinforce one another and shape how trust is generated as a system rather than a single event. A party may perform well in one area, but persistent failure in another will eventually undermine trust. For example, competent leadership combined with unfair internal processes creates resentment rather than loyalty. Similarly, inclusive rhetoric without real participation breeds cynicism. Trust generation therefore requires alignment across multiple dimensions of party life.
More Read
African political history offers many examples of parties that generated trust long before they won power. These parties built strong internal cultures, invested in grassroots organisation, and allowed members to feel that advancement was possible through effort rather than proximity to power. As a result, supporters defended these parties through setbacks and transitions. Conversely, parties that rushed to electoral success without consolidating internal trust often experienced rapid fragmentation once pressure mounted. Their voting coalitions appeared strong until trust deficits were exposed.
The most important implication of this analysis is that trust generation is slow but cumulative. Parties cannot manufacture it quickly during campaigns, and they cannot outsource it to advertising or media strategy. Trust is generated through daily organisational choices that either reinforce or undermine confidence over time. Voting intentions begin to harden long before campaign season precisely because trust has already been built, or lost, inside the party.
The next article advances the series by examining the second phase of the trust cycle. Article 4 will explore how voter trust is sustained between elections, focusing on why internal democracy, moral authority, and organisational discipline matter most when parties are governing or in opposition rather than campaigning. Understanding trust sustenance explains why some parties survive periods of poor performance while others collapse despite recent success.
About the Author
Dr. Sammy Crabbe is an experienced political leader with a distinguished record in party governance, organisational reform, and institutional strengthening within the New Patriotic Party (NPP), a major political party in Ghana. He has served at senior levels of the party, including as Greater Accra Regional Chairman and later as 2nd National Vice Chairman, where he coordinated complex party structures, improved internal accountability, and helped modernise operational processes across multiple constituencies and regions.
Drawing on his academic and professional background, Dr. Crabbe has also introduced technology-enabled approaches to improve organisation, transparency, and data-driven management within the party. He holds a PhD in Business and Management from the Institute of Digital and Sustainable Futures at the University of Bradford, an MBA in International Marketing, and a Postgraduate Certificate in Research.
What is voter trust and why political parties keep misunderstanding it
