By Dr. Sammy Crabbe
This is Article 2 of a 24-part weekly newspaper series on voter trust and voting intentions in Africa. In the opening article, we established that trust, rather than slogans or campaign noise, is what ultimately anchors voting intentions over time. We also made clear that trust would not be assumed or loosely defined, but carefully unpacked as the series unfolds. This article takes the first step in that process by answering a deceptively simple question that many political parties get wrong: what exactly is voter trust, and why do parties so often mistake something else for it? The answer matters because when parties misunderstand trust, they misread voter behaviour and respond too late to their own decline.
Voter trust is not blind loyalty, unquestioning support, or agreement with every policy decision a party makes. It is a stable belief that a political party will behave in broadly fair, predictable, and value-consistent ways over time, even when circumstances become difficult. Voters who trust a party believe that mistakes will be acknowledged rather than hidden, that rules will be applied consistently rather than selectively, and that power will not be used arbitrarily. This belief is formed gradually through repeated exposure to how a party treats its members, manages internal conflict, selects leaders, and responds to criticism. Trust, in this sense, is less about what a party promises and more about what it repeatedly does.
Voting intention is the behavioural outcome of that belief. Long before an election campaign officially begins, most voters already carry an internal sense of who they are likely to vote for, who they are uncertain about, and who they have ruled out entirely. That internal positioning is shaped far more by accumulated trust than by last-minute persuasion. When trust is high, voting intention becomes steady and resistant to shocks such as economic downturns, unpopular decisions, or aggressive opposition campaigns. When trust weakens, voting intention becomes tentative, conditional, or easily disrupted, even if the voter continues to express public support.
One of the most common errors political parties make is to confuse trust with popularity. Popularity is visible and noisy; it shows up in crowd sizes, social media engagement, and favourable headlines. Trust is quieter and far more difficult to measure. A party can be popular without being trusted, just as a celebrity can be admired without being relied upon. Popularity often spikes during campaigns, while trust is built or destroyed between elections. Parties that mistake popularity for trust often feel secure right up until the moment electoral support collapses.
More Read
Another frequent misunderstanding is the assumption that fear-based or identity-based support equals trust. In many African political systems, voters support parties because they fear instability, exclusion, or the perceived consequences of an alternative winning power. Others align along ethnic, regional, or historical lines. These factors can influence voting behaviour, but they do not constitute trust. Fear-driven voting intentions are fragile and transactional; they dissolve quickly when circumstances change or when fear is no longer convincing. Identity-based loyalty can delay disengagement, but it cannot sustain trust indefinitely if internal fairness and inclusion break down.
Emotional connection plays a critical role in turning trust into voting intention. Voters trust parties that make them feel recognised, respected, and included in a shared political story. This emotional bond does not require constant excitement or perfection; it requires consistency and sincerity. When emotional connection is strong, voters interpret decisions generously and remain patient during periods of difficulty. When emotional connection weakens, suspicion replaces patience, and voting intention becomes unstable even if policies remain sound.
Ideology gives this emotional connection structure and direction. It explains why a party exists, how it prioritises competing interests, and what principles guide its decisions when trade-offs are unavoidable. A clear and consistently applied ideology reassures voters that decisions are driven by values rather than convenience or personal gain. When ideology becomes vague, selectively applied, or opportunistic, emotional attachment weakens because voters can no longer predict how the party will behave under pressure. In such conditions, trust erodes quietly and voting intention becomes negotiable.
Understanding voter trust in this way helps explain why elections are rarely won or lost in the final weeks of campaigning. Campaigns can activate trust, but they cannot manufacture it quickly. Voting intentions are usually settled long before rallies peak or manifestos are launched, shaped by years of organisational behaviour rather than days of messaging. This is why parties are often shocked by defeats that appear sudden but are in fact the result of long-term trust erosion.
For political parties, the implication is straightforward but uncomfortable. If voting intention is rooted in trust, then trust must be managed deliberately, protected institutionally, and monitored continuously. Participation levels, internal disputes, regional engagement, and the treatment of dissent are not internal housekeeping issues; they are early indicators of future electoral behaviour. Parties that ignore these signals do so at their own risk.
The next article moves the series forward by examining the first phase of the trust cycle in detail. Article 3 will explore how voter trust is actually generated inside political parties, focusing on competence, fairness, emotional connection, and ideological clarity, and showing how early organisational choices quietly lock in voting intentions years before election day arrives.
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.
Why voters don’t trust political parties anymore – Africa’s silent crisis
