Do African governments trust their citizens?

We regularly ask whether citizens trust their governments. Perhaps it is time to ask whether governments trust their citizens.

Campaign promises will soon test public trust in African countries going to the ballot. Across election cycles, political leaders will promise economic opportunity, better public services and accountable institutions. Citizens will be asked to place their confidence in those seeking the authority to govern. 

Yet an equally important question deserves attention. How much confidence do governments place in the judgement of the people they serve?

Trust is central to political leadership. Governments expect citizens to respect the law, pay taxes and accept difficult economic decisions. These are legitimate expectations. But citizens are equally entitled to expect that their views will be respected, their concerns considered, and their participation taken seriously.

British author and speaker Simon Sinek’s work on leadership offers a useful perspective. Trust develops when leaders demonstrate confidence in those they lead. Applied to government, this principle carries particular significance because political authority affects every aspect of national life.

Having worked with governments and institutions across Africa for more than three decades, I understand the pressures of political leadership. Governments must balance competing priorities, manage limited resources and pursue reforms whose benefits may take years to materialise. Difficult decisions are unavoidable, and responsible leadership will not always be popular.

What matters is how those decisions are reached, explained and implemented.

Public participation should influence policy development. Citizens need to understand the evidence informing decisions, examine the alternatives considered, and establish how their contributions have shaped the eventual outcome.

Institutional practice

In the United Kingdom, government departments publish responses to public consultations, explaining the representations received and how they informed policy decisions. The process does not guarantee agreement, but it provides a public record against which government decisions can be examined.

South Africa offers an important African example. Its Vulekamali portal provides citizens, journalists and civil society organisations with access to national and provincial budget information. The country scored 82 out of 100 for transparency in the 2025 Open Budget Survey, although its public participation score was considerably lower.

That distinction matters. Access to information is essential, but meaningful accountability also requires opportunities for citizens to influence decisions.

Senegal offers another perspective on institutional credibility.

After the election of President Bassirou Diomaye Faye in 2024, an examination of public finances revealed substantial discrepancies in previously reported government debt and deficit figures. In February 2025, Senegal’s Court of Auditors published findings documenting serious fiscal misreporting under the previous administration.

The revelations exposed considerable financial difficulties and complicated negotiations with international creditors, although the International Monetary Fund welcomed the authorities’ commitment to transparency.

While Senegal is still confronting significant political and economic challenges, the publication of those findings demonstrated the importance of making difficult information available, even when the consequences are uncomfortable.

Confronting facts

The credibility of public institutions depends on their willingness to confront facts that may challenge established political narratives.

Kenya’s 2024 Finance Bill debate raised important questions about public confidence and economic decision-making.

The government faced genuine fiscal pressures and difficult choices concerning revenue mobilisation. Citizens, particularly young Kenyans, expressed serious concerns about taxation, the cost of living and public accountability. Following widespread protests, President William Ruto declined to sign the legislation.

The experience demonstrated the importance of sustained engagement when governments undertake consequential reforms. 

Economic responsibility requires difficult decisions. Public confidence depends on citizens understanding the reasoning behind those decisions and having meaningful opportunities to influence their development.

Across Africa, younger generations are bringing greater scrutiny to public institutions. They examine government budgets, question policy priorities and compare political commitments with their everyday experiences. Their expectations are reshaping political participation and placing greater demands on institutional responsiveness.

This engagement should be recognised as an important contribution to governance.

Citizens also have responsibilities. Democratic participation requires respect for evidence, recognition of competing national priorities and an understanding that public resources are finite. Governments, in turn, must provide credible information and demonstrate that public concerns receive serious consideration.

Implications

Investor confidence depends on predictable policies, reliable institutions and credible government commitments. The sustainability of economic reforms is influenced by public understanding and confidence in the institutions responsible for implementing them.

Trust has consequences for national competitiveness, investment and long-term development.

In my book, Beyond the Ballot, I argue that political leadership must be measured by what happens after elections. An electoral mandate establishes the authority to govern. The exercise of that authority requires continuing accountability to the citizens from whom it is derived.

Africa’s political systems and institutional histories are diverse. No single approach can address every governance challenge. Yet governments can strengthen public confidence through accessible information, meaningful consultation, credible institutions and a willingness to acknowledge when policies require reconsideration.

As another period of political campaigning approaches, the quality of leadership should be assessed not only through the promises made to citizens, but through the respect demonstrated for their judgement once those promises become the responsibility of the government.

A government confident in its legitimacy should welcome informed scrutiny and possess the political maturity to respond to it.

We regularly ask whether citizens trust their governments. Perhaps it is time to ask whether governments trust their citizens.