Regardless of whether or not Africans are well informed, they pass judgments on public affairs. They evaluate the suitability of prevailing regimes to their own personal or national circumstances. Against benchmarks of great expectations — often born in the enthusiasm of regime transition — people offer appraisals of the performance of policies and governments. The state of the beleaguered nation is a topic of constant discussion in public places, from minibuses to marketplaces, and from workstations to watering holes. Animated debates about institutional performance engage all manner of people, whether in the opinion pages of daily newspapers or in the palaver shelters of village elders. In irreverent style, jokesters wickedly mock any less-than-satisfactory performance by states and markets.

At the core of popular concerns lies what South Africans refer to as the “delivery” of development. People want proof that democratization and market reform beget tangible benefits whose consumption improves the quality of daily life. In the public imagination, political representation involves “more than talking … leaders must act.” Individuals judge the performance of officials — as well as the governments, regimes, and institutions for which they stand, and the economies which they manage — by practical tests of personal and collective self-interest. As such, performance evaluations are instrumental and utilitarian. Even if faced with incomplete information, people nonetheless weigh perceived costs and benefits. And, because evaluations occur under conditions of regime transition, performance is often judged relatively by means of before-and-after comparisons between the present and the past.