Uneven Change in Public Perceptions of Electoral Integrity in Pakistan: Evidence from the World Values Survey
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62843/jssr.v6i2.786Keywords:
Electoral Integrity, Pakistan, World Values Survey, Public Perceptions, Electoral Malpractice, Election Administration, Political CompetitionAbstract
Electoral integrity has multiple dimensions, and citizens can assess various aspects of an election differently. This comparative study examines how public perception of electoral integrity in Pakistan changed between the World Values Survey (WVS) Wave 6 survey, which was conducted in 2012, and the Wave 7 survey conducted in 2018. It is based on two nationally representative repeated cross-sections, one including 1,200 respondents in 2012 and 1,995 respondents in 2018. A total of nine indicators of electoral integrity were found to be directly comparable and were harmonized in a way that higher scores indicate more favorable perceived electoral conditions. The analysis integrates weighted descriptive statistics, bootstrap confidence intervals, false-discovery-rate correction (Benjamini-Hochberg), Hedges' g, reliability analysis, and principal component analysis. The findings show differentiated rather than uniform change. Perceptions made considerable gains on the issues of fair vote counting, opposition access, fairness of election officials, and real election choice. Perceptions, on the other hand, grew more negative on the issues of television neutrality, the influence of rich actors in the elections, and threat and violence. The Procedural Integrity index rose significantly on a 0-100 scale from 53.15 to 60.08. The Malpractice Control index decreased from 42.16 to 40.38, but this overall change was not statistically significant. The results reveal that Pakistani citizens differentiated between the procedural administration and the broader political context of elections. However, it is learned that the integrity of the election should only be judged by looking at the disaggregated indicators and not a single overall judgement.
References
Ahmed, S., Yifei, W., & Meliss, T. (2024). Perils of political engagement? Examining the relationship between online political participation and perceived electoral integrity during 2020 US election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 21(4), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2023.2275255
Abdullah, F. (2025). Electoral authoritarianism with Pakistani characteristics: An analysis of mandate manufacturing from the dynamics of electioneering in hybrid regimes. Journal of Political Studies, 31(2), 61–72. https://jps.pu.edu.pk/6/article/view/1364
Birch, S. (2010). Perceptions of electoral fairness and voter turnout. Comparative Political Studies, 43(12), 1601–1622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010374021
Cantú, F., & García-Ponce, O. (2015). Partisan losers’ effects: Perceptions of electoral integrity in Mexico. Electoral Studies, 39, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.03.004
Cho, Y., & Kim, Y. C. (2016). Procedural justice and perceived electoral integrity: The case of Korea’s 2012 presidential election. Democratization, 23(7), 1180–1197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2015.1063616
Coffé, H. (2017). Citizens’ media use and the accuracy of their perceptions of electoral integrity. International Political Science Review, 38(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116640984
Flesken, A., & Hartl, J. (2018). Party support, values, and perceptions of electoral integrity. Political Psychology, 39(3), 707–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12431
Frank, R. W., & Martínez i Coma, F. (2017). How election dynamics shape perceptions of electoral integrity. Electoral Studies, 48, 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.05.007
Garnett, H. A., James, T. S., & Caal-Lam, S. (2025). Codebook: The Expert Survey of Perceptions of Electoral Integrity, Release PEI 11.0. Electoral Integrity Project. https://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/
Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., & Puranen, B. (2022). World Values Survey Wave 7 (2017–2022) cross-national data set (Version 4.0.0) [Data set]. World Values Survey Association. https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.18
Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., & Puranen, B. (Eds.). (2022). World Values Survey: All rounds—Country-pooled data file (Version 3.0.0) [Data set]. JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.17
James, T. S. (2019). Better workers, better elections? Electoral management body workforces and electoral integrity worldwide. International Political Science Review, 40(3), 370–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119829516
James, T. S., & Clark, A. (2021). Delivering electoral integrity under pressure: Local government, electoral administration, and the 2016 Brexit referendum. Local Government Studies, 47(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2020.1719075
Javed, J., & Sajid, M. (2020). Influence of print and electronic media on youth voting behaviour in Pakistan. Journal of Political Studies, 27(2), 113–128. https://jps.pu.edu.pk/6/article/view/545
Kerr, N. (2013). Popular evaluations of election quality in Africa: Evidence from Nigeria. Electoral Studies, 32(4), 819–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.02.010
Khawaja, A. S., & Jamal, H. (2016). Implementing biometric voting system in Pakistan: An analytical review. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, 53(2), 1–19. https://prdb.pk/article/implementing-biomatric-voting-system-in-pakistan-an-anaytic-7704
Martínez i Coma, F., & van Ham, C. (2015). Can experts judge elections? Testing the validity of expert judgments for measuring election integrity. European Journal of Political Research, 54(2), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12084
Moehler, D. C. (2009). Critical citizens and submissive subjects: Election losers and winners in Africa. British Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000513
Mozaffar, S., & Schedler, A. (2002). The comparative study of electoral governance: Introduction. International Political Science Review, 23(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512102023001001
Muzaffar, M., Yaseen, Z., & Safdar, S. (2020). Role of social media in political campaigns in Pakistan: A case study of 2018 elections. Journal of Political Studies, 27(2), 141–151. https://jps.pu.edu.pk/6/article/view/547
Norris, P. (2013). The new research agenda studying electoral integrity. Electoral Studies, 32(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.07.015
Saif, Z., & Hashmi, R. S. (2024). Political economy of electoral politics: Probing the dynamics of party funding in Pakistan’s general elections 2018. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review, 8(2, Special Issue), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.47205/plhr.2024(8-II-S)15
Shami, M. I. (2023). Empowering Pakistani voters: The role of social media in defeating electoral rigging. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 7(3), 1200–1210. https://doi.org/10.35484/pssr.2023(7-III)98
Ullah, A., & Hayat, S. U. (2017). The recent electoral reforms in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA): An appraisal. Journal of Political Studies, 24(2), 351–363. https://jps.pu.edu.pk/6/article/view/387
van Ham, C. (2015). Getting elections right? Measuring electoral integrity. Democratization, 22(4), 714–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.877447
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Copyright in the Journal of Social Sciences Review is retained by the author(s). Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its integrity is maintained and its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
JSSR's Editorial Board shares the vision of providing free access to information, education, and science for everyone, thus promoting its content through an OPEN ACCESS POLICY, fulfilling the DOAJ definition of open access. The JSSR adheres to an Open Access and Copyright Licensing Policy based on the belief that making research freely accessible to the public promotes greater global knowledge sharing.
The JSSR uses the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. The authors who apply and publish in JSSR consent to abide by the copyright policy set out in the Creative Commons 4.0 license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license).
- Copyright in the Journal of Social Sciences Review is retained by the author(s).
- Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its integrity is maintained and its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.
While "By 'open access' to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself."
