How do citizens in Sierra Leone perceive the legitimacy and feasibility of sanctioning their chiefs outside of elections? This study investigates perceptions of non-electoral sanctions through a pre-registered survey experiment in Sierra Leone. We find that citizens view indirect sanctions – such as appealing to higher authorities – as more legitimate and feasible than direct actions, and that the range of acceptable sanctions expands with the severity of the offense. Community elders’ involvement increases the perceived legitimacy of sanctions, highlighting their role as political intermediaries. Finally, respondents’ social status moderates their perceptions of both the legitimacy and the feasibility of sanctions. These results suggest that even in highly hierarchical settings, citizens may retain some capacity to discipline chiefs, though accountability seems primarily mediated through vertical institutions rather than direct collective action.
