![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
A constitution, relatively well-run elections and stable elected representative institutions are not sufficient for democratic consolidation. It is argued that democracies require people who are willing to support, defend and sustain them. The article emphasizes that the use of ‘satisfaction with democracy’ as the dependent variable is a more appropriate method to assess the way a democracy is working than determining support for democracy. However, the lack of a suitable indicator has prompted the use of the satisfaction indicator as a proxy for support for democracy. A multidimensional approach is adopted to explain satisfaction with democracy. The study is based on a South African national representative survey conducted in 2005. The article concludes that South Africans seem satisfied with the way democracy is working if the overall life circumstances of all citizens are good, if their own situation is improving and if they have trust in institutions. On the other hand, the study found that government performance in policy areas such as housing had no significant impact on satisfaction with democracy.
Notes
See www.afrobarometer.org for Afrobarometer 2004 survey background.
The living standard measure (LSM) used in this study is based on the South African Advertising Research Foundation (SAARF) AMPS 2005 survey. The SAARF LSM has become the most widely used marketing research tool in Southern Africa. It divides the population into 10 LSM groups, 10 (highest) to 1 (lowest). The LSM is a unique means of segmenting the South African market. It cuts across race and other outmoded techniques of categorising people, and instead groups people according to their living standards using criteria such as degree of urbanisation and ownership of cars and major appliances. A total of 29 variables are used. Each variable carries a different weight, some positive, others negative, and the respondent's position on the SAARF LSM scale is arrived at by adding together the weights of the variables that she/he possesses. A constant is also added to the total score to remove negative total scores. For more information on LSMs, please visit: www.saarf.co.za
The survey was administered to 2497 respondents across South Africa. About 62.4 per cent of the respondents were Black 16.3 per cent were Coloured, 12.3 per cent were White and 10.1 per cent were Indian/Asian. More females (62.01 per cent) than males (38.0 per cent) participated in the survey. Over half (56.6 per cent) of the respondents came from urban formal areas, 12.1 per cent from urban informal areas, 18.8 per cent from tribal areas and 12.7 per cent from rural areas.
The HSRC has pioneered research on social attitudes in South Africa and now conducts the SASAS on a regular basis. The SASAS surveys measure the South African public's attitudes, beliefs, behavior patterns and values with regards to democracy and governance, social identity, service delivery, access to information and other important social issues. All SASAS surveys are designed to yield a representative sample of adults of 16 years of age and older, regardless of their nationality or citizenship. The HSRC Master Sample, which was developed using the Census 2001 and with the Enumerator Area (EA) as the primary sampling unit, was used as the sampling frame for all three rounds of the SASAS survey.
The value of using the HSRC Master Sample was that a national representative sample can be drawn and the results of the survey can be properly weighted to the 2001 census population figures. Explicit and implicit stratification was applied to ensure that the geographic profiles of the targeted population such as province, environment milieu, age category, sex, race, education level, Living Standard Measurement (LSM) and current employment status are represented in the sample. The 2001 census database contains descriptive statistics, such as total number of people and total number of households, for all EAs in South Africa. Detailed maps were also developed for each EA showing the boundaries and households within it. Households were selected from the master sampling frame and are geographically spread across the nine provinces. Once interviewers arrived at the households, they randomly selected the respondents from these households for interview. Direction maps to enable fieldworkers to reach the selected EA were also provided.
Respondents rated the trust in state institutions on this index from 1 (strongly trust) to 5 (strongly distrust). The index was verified through statistical procedures known as Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis. The 13 questions formed a single factor that explained 40 per cent of the common variance. The index is reliable with Cronbach's Alpha=0.90, with a mean score of 45.6801 and standard deviation of 10.3701.
These questions measured trust in national government, courts, the Independent Electoral Commission, provincial government, the SABC, Parliament, the police, defense force, big business, local government, churches, traditional authorities/leaders, and political parties.
Respondents rated the overall life circumstances on this index from 1 (improved) to 5 (do not know). The index was verified through statistical procedures known as Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis. The two questions formed a single factor that explained 81 per cent of the common variance. The index is reliable with Cronbach's Alpha = 0.76, with a mean score of 8.4961 and standard deviation of 1.41395.
Respondents rated the index of voting and elections from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The index was verified through statistical procedures known as Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis. The three questions formed a single factor that explained 52 per cent of the common variance. The index is reliable with Cronbach's Alpha = 0.84, with a mean score of 7.9850 and standard deviation of 3.39240.
Respondents rated the government control of public information index from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The index was verified through statistical procedures known as Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis. The two questions formed a single factor that explained 81 per cent of the common variance. The index is reliable with Cronbach's Alpha = 0.76, with a mean score of 5.8452 and standard deviation of 2.48954.
Respondents rated the household circumstances index from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The index was verified through statistical procedures known as Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis. The two questions formed a single factor that explained 84 per cent of the common variance. The index is reliable with Cronbach's Alpha = 0.81, with a mean score of 6.2451 and standard deviation of 2.24890.
Respondents rated the national identity index from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The index was verified through statistical procedures known as Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis. The five questions formed a single factor that explained 51 per cent of the common variance. The index is reliable with Cronbach's Alpha = 0.82, with a mean score of 21.5798 and standard deviation of 3.25346.
Respondents rated the basic services index from 1 (very satisfied) to 5 (very dissatisfied). The index was verified through statistical procedures known as Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis. The five questions formed a single factor that explained 51 per cent of the common variance. The index is reliable with Cronbach's Alpha = 0.82, with a mean score of 12.6406 and standard deviation of 4.34842.