This is Article 6 of a 24-part weekly newspaper series on voter trust and voting intentions in Africa. In the previous article, we examined how trust is eroded while parties often believe they are stable or even winning. We saw that small internal compromises, on fairness, participation, and discipline, quietly weaken emotional connection long before electoral decline becomes visible. This article now focuses on a specific institutional design question that lies at the heart of many African political parties: how internal voting systems shape trust generation, sustenance, and erosion. The way a party structures participation is not a technical detail; it is the architecture of trust.
Delegate systems are widely used in Ghana and across Africa. In theory, delegates are chosen to represent the broader membership in leadership elections and major decisions. This structure is meant to balance participation with manageability, especially in large parties. However, when the number of delegates is small relative to total membership, incentives shift. Influence becomes concentrated, competition intensifies around a narrow electorate, and ordinary members begin to feel structurally distant from real power. Over time, this distance affects emotional connection and therefore voting intention.
In Ghana, both the New Patriotic Party and the National Democratic Congress have operated delegate-based systems in their internal elections. These systems have produced competitive contests and strong personalities, but they have also generated recurring complaints about monetisation, inducements, and gatekeeping. When candidates focus on persuading a few thousand delegates rather than energising hundreds of thousands of grassroots members, participation narrows. Grassroots members may remain active during campaigns, yet feel peripheral in leadership decisions. That perception quietly affects how they interpret fairness and inclusion within the party.
Nigeria provides a similar example at a larger scale. Major parties such as the All Progressives Congress and the Peoples Democratic Party have relied on delegate-heavy conventions to select presidential candidates. These conventions are dramatic and visible, but they also concentrate decision-making in structured blocs of influence. When outcomes appear predetermined by elite negotiation rather than broad participation, ordinary supporters disengage emotionally. Public rallies may still draw massive crowds, yet internal trust may already be thinning. Voting intention becomes dependent on personalities rather than institutional loyalty.
The core issue is not whether delegate systems are inherently flawed, but whether they are aligned with trust preservation. When delegates genuinely represent active and accountable constituencies, the system can function effectively. However, when delegates become insulated from the members they are meant to represent, internal democracy becomes symbolic rather than substantive. Members begin to interpret internal elections as contests among elites rather than collective exercises. Over time, that interpretation weakens belief in fairness and reduces emotional ownership.
Participation design directly influences how supporters interpret competence. A party that cannot design a fair and inclusive internal system struggles to convince voters that it can design fair national systems. Internal elections are therefore rehearsal spaces for national credibility. If members feel excluded internally, they carry that experience into broader political discussions. Communities observe how parties treat their own members and infer how they might treat citizens. Trust generation, therefore, begins inside the organisational structure.
One Member One Vote (OMOV) emerges in this context not as a slogan, but as a structural intervention. Expanding participation in internal elections signals that voice is distributed rather than concentrated. It reduces the market value of narrow influence and shifts incentives toward broad persuasion. When members feel that their vote matters directly, emotional connection deepens because participation is real rather than mediated. Voting intention becomes more resilient because loyalty is rooted in ownership rather than access to intermediaries.
However, OMOV is not a magic solution if poorly implemented. Expanding the electorate without investing in transparency, membership verification, and dispute resolution can produce chaos rather than trust. Participation must be matched by credible systems that protect fairness and integrity. If large-scale participation is manipulated or perceived as chaotic, trust may erode faster than under a delegate system. Institutional reform must therefore be accompanied by institutional discipline.
The deeper lesson is that internal voting systems are signals. They communicate how a party understands power, voice, and legitimacy. Narrow systems signal control and manageability, but risk emotional distance. Broad systems signal inclusion and ownership, but require strong governance capacity. Each design choice shapes how members interpret the party’s values. Over time, these interpretations solidify into trust or distrust, and ultimately into voting intention.
African political parties stand at a crossroads in this regard. Younger voters increasingly expect direct participation and transparency, influenced by digital culture and social media norms. Systems that feel closed or transactional struggle to resonate with this generation. Parties that modernise participation while maintaining order may strengthen long-term trust. Those that cling to narrow structures risk gradual disengagement masked by temporary electoral success.
The relationship between participation design and voter trust explains why internal reform debates often feel existential. They are not merely about procedures; they are about the distribution of voice and the meaning of membership. When members believe that advancement depends on persuasion rather than patronage, trust grows. When advancement appears dependent on proximity to gatekeepers, cynicism spreads. Cynicism is the early stage of trust erosion.
The next article moves from participation structures to another dimension of trust generation. Article 7 will examine competence in greater depth, asking why parties with strong policy ideas still lose trust when organisational delivery fails. It will explore how administrative discipline, performance credibility, and internal coordination quietly shape voting intention long before campaign season begins.
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. 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 University of Bradford’s Institute of Digital and Sustainable Futures, an MBA in International Marketing, and a Postgraduate Certificate in Research.
What is voter trust and why political parties keep misunderstanding it
