From Performance to Practice: Making Public Participation Real in African Parliaments
A conversation with political scientist Temitayo Odeyemi on moving from tokenism to measurable, transparent, and institutionalized citizen engagement.
When I came across Temitayo Odeyemi’s recent piece in The Conversation (“60% of Africans don’t believe democracy is working in their interests – how parliaments can fix the problem”), I was struck by the clarity of his diagnosis. Drawing on the latest Afrobarometer data, he argued that public participation across African democracies remains largely tokenistic: a performance rather than a practice, more often a donor requirement or a reaction to civil society pressure than a genuine part of policymaking. I wanted to understand how parliaments can move beyond this toward clear, transparent, and measurable processes that make citizen participation an integral part of legislative work.
For Odeyemi, the path forward starts with parliaments explicitly including citizen engagement in their strategic plans and developing public engagement strategies that serve as accountability tools. “These documents should spell out exactly how citizens can participate,” he says, “how their contributions are considered, and, most importantly, how they can track the process from formulation to implementation.”
Equally important, he adds, is creating a feedback loop that closes the circle of participation. “Citizens shouldn’t just give input,” he explains. “They should also be able to see how their input influenced parliamentary decisions.” This, in his view, is how engagement becomes “a clear, transparent, and measurable process” rather than a box-ticking exercise.
Ultimately, Odeyemi argues, meaningful participation depends on parliaments shedding their defensiveness and taking ownership of how they communicate with citizens. “There is an urgent need for parliaments to stop seeing external views as a threat,” he says. “They must develop their own institutional mechanisms and public engagement departments staffed by experts who can implement a clear strategy effectively.”
In our conversation, he explains why parliaments, more than any other democratic institution, are uniquely positioned to rebuild trust — and how doing so requires both a shift in Members’ mindset and concrete institutional reforms that embed public engagement into everyday parliamentary practice.
Beatriz: You argue that public participation in Africa is tokenistic – that it’s performed rather than lived. Could you expand on that concept?
Temitayo: I was specifically referring to the fact that it’s mostly conducted as a box-ticking exercise. It’s usually reactive. Something that policymakers or Members of Parliament do only after being called out by a civil society organization or a coalition of civil society organizations for being not inclusive. There’s also the dimension of funders or development partners, as they are called, making participation a requirement for continued collaboration or funding support. So it becomes something they are compelled to do, rather than a deliberate, well-institutionalized process that is part of policymaking or lawmaking, depending on the institution involved.
Instead of being seen as a natural element of democratic decision-making – where the people’s voice should be heard throughout the process, from formulation to implementation, and even in what is now referred to as post-legislative scrutiny – public involvement remains weakly institutionalized. It mostly happens in reaction to pressure or donor conditions. In some cases, MPs even view public input and engagement as a burden.
In that sense, the value-based, deeply entrenched, and institutionalized aspect that would allow the system to live up to its claim as a democracy is missing.
Beatriz: To me, of all branches, the Legislative one is the most porous one to people. When we look at the Afrobarometer data showing that citizens still expect legislative institutions to make laws and hold leaders accountable – but don’t trust those institutions – it feels like there’s a promise there that hasn’t been fully explored. Would you agree with that?
Temitayo: You talked about Parliament being the most exposed political institution…that’s a position I completely agree with, and it’s not accidental. The whole essence of liberal, representative democracy is that the seats individual MPs occupy in Parliament symbolize the wider public. By virtue of that alone, they have a responsibility to remain continuously open to the public – both at the institutional level, in terms of how Parliament allows scrutiny and connection, and at the individual level, in how MPs engage with their constituents.
Both symbolically and substantively, the expectation is that Parliament will be the most accessible institution. That’s the normative dimension of what it should be. But the complexity is that this very accessibility makes Parliament more susceptible to declining trust. The more information MPs provide, the more citizens know – and the more they question. Parliament, as the most exposed democratic institution, becomes the place where people vent their anger and dissatisfaction with governance outcomes. Unlike the Executive or the Judiciary, Parliament is where citizens can most easily direct their grievances against the political process.
That means the only way Parliament can position itself correctly is by continuously making information available. There’s always a risk: the more transparent they are, the more critical the public becomes. But that shouldn’t stop them from being open, transparent, and accessible. The elements the Inter-Parliamentary Union identifies (information, education, communication, consultation, and participation) must be continuously strengthened to address citizens’ low levels of trust.
Ultimately, it’s the democratic system as a whole that benefits. The more information is shared as part of Parliament’s governance process, the better educated citizens become about how decisions are made – and the more capable they are of holding MPs accountable. The cycle continues, but democracy gains.
This is particularly relevant in Africa, which is my area of focus. Under strict authoritarian or military regimes, the Constitution and Parliament are always the first victims of a takeover – they’re suspended. When democratization returns, Parliament must start all over again. Compared with other branches of government, Parliament is usually the least institutionalized, the weakest in terms of balance of power. So, the more it asserts itself, builds strength, and influences the governance process, the better for democracy in the region.
And when Parliament not only achieves balance with the Executive and Judiciary but also facilitates more constructive, efficient, and meaningful citizen participation, democracy as a system of government becomes stronger.
Beatriz: What institutional reforms could make participation meaningful in parliaments that are resistant to change or dominated by elites that do not necessarily want to hear people?
Temitayo: In terms of institutional reforms, it’s about decision-makers, in this case Members of Parliament, being much more deliberate about engaging the public in what the institution does. Of course, there are several institutions in any democracy, but none is as well positioned as parliament when it comes to bringing the voices of the people into the policy realm. By virtue of what parliament symbolizes and represents – what it does, and the fact that individual MPs have offices in their constituencies – there is no other democratic institution with such a presence.
Because of this, parliaments are uniquely suited to ensure that citizens have a continuous voice in decision-making: in policymaking, budgeting, lawmaking, and the objective scrutiny of the Executive. In Africa, this needs to become part of the institutional process itself – a “fourth core function” of parliament alongside the three we already talk about: lawmaking, oversight or scrutiny, and representation. Citizen engagement should be properly entrenched in how parliaments operate.
One way to achieve this is through the growing practice across African parliaments of developing strategic plans at the start of each legislative term. These plans outline what the institution intends to accomplish in a given parliamentary year. In more stable democracies, beyond including public engagement in these strategic documents, parliaments also develop clear, well-written public engagement strategies. These serve as accountability tools, since they are made public, allowing citizens to scrutinize and question the institution: “This is the document you’ve prepared; how are you implementing it?”
So, the starting point is twofold. First, parliaments should explicitly include citizen engagement in their strategic plans. Second, they should create enduring public engagement strategies that spell out exactly how citizens can participate. Then, on the practical side, it must be clear what role citizen engagement plays in each area of parliamentary work: how people can contribute, when they can intervene, and — most importantly — how they can track the process from formulation to implementation. There should also be a feedback loop that closes the circle, allowing citizens not only to give input but also to see how their input influenced parliamentary decisions.
In other words, participation should not be a box-ticking exercise; it should be a clear, transparent, and measurable process. And this must happen on two levels: the institutional level of parliament itself, where parliamentary staff often play leading roles, and the level of individual MPs, both in their constituency offices and within parliament. On both fronts, it is essential to embed strategic planning, public engagement strategies, and transparent mechanisms that make participation visible from beginning to end – from formulation to feedback, in a comprehensive and complete way.
Beatriz: You talked about some ways we can increase or improve the relationship between the public and parliament. What is the role of technological modernization there? Do you think it has anything to offer for inclusive participation?
Temitayo: Technology brings a lot of promise for parliaments as institutions, but at the same time, it also increases the pressure on them. When you look at the pace of technological innovation and how it impacts everyday life, any governmental, democratic, or political institution that fails to adapt and effectively deploy technological tools runs two major risks: being sidelined and putting pressure on itself. This happens because society at large is already taking advantage of these technologies for everyday conversations and decisions. If an institution lags behind, that’s a major disadvantage – especially for parliaments in a region like Africa.
Africa has a significant youth bulge. The majority of the population in many countries is made up of young people. And when you talk about young people, you’re talking about a demographic eager to take advantage of technological opportunities. So, for parliaments – or any democratic institution, for that matter – to maintain a constant connection with this group, they must effectively deploy technology both in their internal processes and in how they engage the public, including older generations.
For parliaments, technology is essential for administration and decision-making. Many African parliaments are still behind; some still do not use electronic voting systems, which makes it difficult to ensure transparency in parliamentary decisions. That’s just one example from their internal processes. When it comes to public engagement, the situation is also weak. Parliamentary websites and social media use remain poor across many African countries, creating the perception that these institutions are lagging far behind.
In research I’ve been involved with, we looked at subnational legislatures (the 36 state assemblies in Nigeria) to assess how they deploy digital technologies for public relations. I’ve also studied how the national parliaments in Nigeria and South Africa use digital tools for public engagement. The findings were similar: progress is slow, especially compared to other regions of the world. Parliaments, being inherently conservative institutions, are struggling to keep up with the use of these tools – both for internal decision-making and for connecting with the public.
And one challenge with technology is that by the time you begin to master one tool, another has already emerged. For many parliaments in Africa, this is especially daunting. Those that have not yet effectively used websites and social media now face the added challenge of integrating artificial intelligence into their work. If they can’t yet deploy basic digital technologies to make their activities transparent and accessible in real time, it raises serious questions about how they will situate themselves in this rapidly evolving world of AI.
For that region, there is still a lot to be done for parliaments to find their place within what I would call the emerging technological order.
Beatriz: Which African parliaments would you say offer promising practices for public engagement? Do you think that regional networks or continental institutions can help upscale these approaches within specific countries, across Africa, and maybe even to Latin America?
Temitayo: The good thing about Africa as a region is that it’s not all bad news. There are some very good examples emerging. South Africa, for instance, has become a worthy example. It’s not perfect, but in the context of what is happening across African parliaments, it has shown real leadership. South Africa has a well-structured public participation model, and its parliamentary engagement practices are well institutionalized. What is even more remarkable is that these practices are replicated at the subnational level. They do a good job of sharing practices across different levels of government, which is positive for citizens’ experience.
In my Ph.D. research on parliamentary public engagement in Nigeria, looking at both national and subnational legislatures, I found that citizens do not really distinguish between parliaments at different levels. Their perception of the institution is the same, whether national or subnational. This means that any good practice must be reflected across both levels. South Africa’s public participation framework, which guides both the national and subnational parliaments, is an excellent example that other federal or decentralized systems in Africa could learn from. In fact, there are lessons there not just for Africa but also for other regions, including Latin America.
Several other African parliaments are also making progress in public engagement. Recent constitutional changes in some countries have made public participation in the legislative process mandatory. South Africa stands out in this regard, but so does Kenya, since the 2010 Constitution, as well as Zimbabwe and Zambia. In these countries, the constitution explicitly requires parliament to engage citizens. If a law is passed without adequate public participation, citizens or stakeholders can challenge it in court, and the court can invalidate that legislation. This places additional pressure on parliaments to engage meaningfully.
Even in countries where the constitution does not mandate public participation, such as Ghana, there are still examples of innovation in local-level engagement. Botswana is also developing interesting practices, and in Nigeria, while progress is limited, there are a few notable examples. So, even though these cases remain few and far between, they demonstrate how parliaments can position themselves as platforms for citizen involvement in decision-making.
Regarding the regional level, the situation is more complex. The Pan-African Parliament is not like the European Parliament. The African Union operates more as an international organization than as a supranational body, so its ability to influence national parliaments is limited. However, there is still room for progress. Parliaments that are more advanced should not only continue strengthening their engagement practices but also share their experiences with those lagging behind. At the same time, less developed parliaments can adapt these models to their own contexts.
Researchers are also helping to push this conversation forward by shining more light on public engagement within African parliaments. This growing attention has prompted innovation, as many parliaments are starting to recognize their weaknesses. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has been especially vocal about this. Its most recent Global Parliamentary Report (2022), produced jointly with UNDP, focused specifically on parliament and public engagement. I was part of the research team for that report, and I know from feedback that it has already influenced practices in several African parliaments.
There is now a ready-made framework available that parliaments can draw from to strengthen their engagement work. This creates a positive trend for the coming years. Other organizations, such as the European Union through the INTER PARES project, are also collaborating with African parliaments to share good practices. All this cross-regional exchange of ideas and support can help strengthen parliamentary engagement, especially in contexts where such practices remain weak.
Beatriz: If you were to talk to someone inside parliament who was willing to modernize and bring the institution closer to the people, what would you say?
Temitayo: One reform I would emphasize, over and over again, is the need for parliaments to move beyond being such conservative institutions, especially in the African context, where they tend to see every external opinion as a threat. When you are too entrenched in your own space, you see anything coming from outside as a challenge to your authority. Many of the challenges around parliament and public engagement stem from that mindset among individual Members of Parliament.
There is an urgent need to recognize that the demands of 21st-century governance go far beyond sitting in the chamber and assuming you have all the knowledge and expertise to make decisions on behalf of citizens. MPs need to reach out and ensure that what they decide in their chambers truly reflects the collective aspirations and preferences of the people. If individual Members of Parliament adopt that mindset, it would change a lot. They would be more open to using technological innovations in their work.
Part of the resistance to technology comes from fear – the openness it brings makes them uncomfortable. But if that mindset changes, they would be much more willing to embrace technological modernization and see how it can actually strengthen the quality of their work, especially in reflecting citizens’ wishes and sustaining ongoing relationships with the public. Being more open – that’s the first point.
The second point, again particularly relevant in Africa, is that parliaments tend to believe that other actors should be responsible for informing the public about their work. In my Ph.D. research, one of the findings was that many MPs think it is the responsibility of the media and civil society organizations to tell citizens what parliament does and why it matters for democracy. I find that paradoxical. If parliament relies on external actors to communicate its value, there is already a disconnect. Engagement should mean maintaining a direct, ongoing relationship with citizens – not outsourcing that responsibility.
To fix this, parliaments need to develop their own institutional mechanisms and processes to build and sustain relationships with the public. This connects back to what I mentioned earlier about having a clear public engagement strategy linked to the overall parliamentary strategy. While the broader strategy is often defined annually, the public engagement strategy should extend beyond a single year. It should set out what the institution aims to achieve in engagement activities, how it plans to do so, what structures will be in place to implement these actions, how impact will be measured, and how feedback loops will be closed.
To summarize: first, parliaments need to stop seeing external views as a threat. Second, they need to take more responsibility for communicating directly with the public instead of relying on the media or civil society. They should establish institutional processes and dedicated public engagement departments staffed by experts who can implement a clear engagement strategy effectively.
Beatriz: Thank you very much. That was very insightful.
 | A guest post by
|