Archives

by W. Jayamaha

Eight important and specific policy issues have been already identified for decision. It is important to remember that questions as to which electoral system are questions of political power and do not rest on lofty and allegedly objective criteria. They depend on attitudes and interests of political forces involved in the decision process. Furthermore, very often, matters of political power are hidden behind technical details pertaining to electoral systems and cannot be ascertained by a mere familiarity with policy issues

The issue of reforming our electoral system has, once again, come to the forefront. It is a critical issue because, contrary to the popular belief, an election is decided not merely by votes; the electoral system of a country has a decisive influence on the outcome of an election or the power issue of who forms a government. Mr. Dinesh Gunawardena, MP is reported to have called for a thorough overhaul of the entire system.

Hon. G. L. Peiris, on the 21st of June stated in Parliament that the matter has been placed before a meeting of party leaders and that the government recognises that it is a matter of urgent priority.

Eight important and specific policy issues have been already identified for decision. It is important to remember that questions as to which electoral system are questions of political power and do not rest on lofty and allegedly objective criteria. They depend on attitudes and interests of political forces involved in the decision process. Furthermore, very often, matters of political power are hidden behind technical details pertaining to electoral systems and cannot be ascertained by a mere familiarity with policy issues. Therefore, it is hoped that there would be the widest possible decade on the issues involved. The objective of this essay is to contribute, in some small way, to such a debate.

Basic types

There are many electoral systems in the world but they fall into two basic types - the majority system and the proportional representation system. In the majority system the candidate who secures the majority of votes cast will be elected. Under the proportional representation system, the candidates or the parties who are able to win a predetermined "required number of votes" will be elected. This makes it necessary to stipulate procedures for determining the required number of votes.

These procedures also can be classified into two basic categories namely those based on a "quota" and those based on the highest average formula. Where a quota system is followed, a quota is established and the party will be allocated as many seats as the quota occupies in their number of votes. Sri Lanka follows a modified quota formula. The typical feature of the highest average formula is to divide the votes gained by each political party by rows of divisors so that decreasing quotients emerge for each party. The allocation of seats is on the basis of highest quotients. The most notable of this type of formula is the d'Hondt formula named after Prof. Victor d'Hondt, the Belgium mathematician who developed this technique.

In certain countries there is a legal threshold of representation, i.e. a minimum number of votes that a political party has to obtain in order to participate in the allocation of seats. In Sri Lanka, the current threshold is 8 percent. In Germany it is 5 percent of the second votes cast or 3 seats won with the first votes on the constituency level. It is important to note that only a few countries have introduced thresholds of representation as they operate against minor parties and new parties.

Claiming advantages

Supporters of each electoral system claim certain advantages for the system they support and point out certain disadvantages of the system they oppose. For example, on behalf of the majority system, it is claimed that it promotes stable government by bringing out single party parliamentary majorities. One of the main themes of the PA at the last parliamentary general election campaign was the need to reform the electoral system so that a political party could obtain a clear majority in the legislature to ensure stability of government.

The PA was of the opinion that, in Sri Lanka, a situation has arisen where a small party could hold a major party to political ransom. Another advantage that is claimed on behalf of the majority system is that it enables voters to decide directly which party should form the government (exercise of sovereignty) without leaving it to coalition negotiation after the election. It is also suggested that the majority system prevents fragmentation of parties as the chances of small parties obtaining seats in parliament are rather remote. It is also argued that under the majority system, there is an identifiable member of parliament for a constituency and that the relationship between the voter and his representative is close and that this promotes direct accountability by member of parliament to his voters. The decision situation for the voter, under the majority system is simple as he can see a direct relation of this vote and the result of the election in his constituency.

UK is held out as an example where the majority system operates satisfactorily. The British people have persistently refuse to change over to a proportional system which prevails in the continental countries. The most glaring disadvantage of this system is the disproportion of votes and seats. For example, in Sri Lanka, at the 1970 parliamentary general election the SLFP obtained 36.9 percent of votes but 60.9 percent of parliamentary seats. This is a conversion of a minority of votes into a majority of seats.

Similarly at the 1977 parliamentary general election the UNP obtained 50.9 percent of the votes but 83.3 percent of the seats. Thus, we can see that in Sri Lanka the majority system has produced extreme distortions in political representation.

Vote value

Under the majority only the votes cast for the winning candidate has a value; the votes cast for the other candidates have no value or they have no political weight at all. That is why this system is described as a system where the winner takes all. Even the surplus votes polled by the winning candidate, i.e. his votes over and above the required minimum can be regarded as wasted in relation to party's national total. Consequently, in areas where there is a concentration of ethnic minorities and a political party based on ethnicity is dominant, the other parties will be discouraged from contesting.

Those who support the proportional representation system claim that it enables the social and political groupings in a country to be precisely reflected in the parliament and that it, very often, prevents the so-called "manufactured majorities". It is, therefore, claimed that the proportional representation system promotes decision by negotiation and compromise among the various social and political forces in a society. In contrast to the majority system, under the proportional system, every vote cast has a value and can contribute to the winning of a seat by a party and therefore does not operate against small parties. Small parties which can poll a reasonable number of votes, say 3 per cent, can get a fair number of seats in parliament as did the J.V.P at the parliamentary general election of 2000.

Critics of the PR system feel that it may lead to fragmentation of parliament making it more difficult for a majority capable of action to emerge. This type of situation could lead to loss of confidence in democracy and pave way for dictatorships.

Theoretical assumptions

Even a brief survey of the claimed advantages of the two basic electoral systems would reveal that it is not possible to confidently assert that one system is better than the other. It is important to note that there is no best electoral system. Scholars who have conducted empirical research in the field e.g. Dieter Nohlen warn us that the claimed advantages and disadvantages are rather theoretical assumptions and that the real advantages and disadvantages of the two systems depend on the specific socio-political conditions prevailing in a country because electoral systems do not operate in a vacuum.

Such aspects as ethnic structure, religious and interest group structure, patterns of social stratification, the structure of government, the number of relative strength of political parties and the historical evolution of the society have a decisive influence on the ability to benefit from the claimed advantage of the two electoral systems.

Even in UK, the country held a model for the majority system, the electoral system developed over centuries in interaction with social structures and political processes leading to the emergence of two major political parties obtaining parliamentary majority with periodical alteration in power. Furthermore, in the UK, the relatively homogenous nature of the society without cross cutting cleavages such as ethnic, religious and linguistic conflicts and a fundamental consensus among the population regarding the majority rule, enable the majority system to operate satisfactorily. We must not overlook the fact that this model operates satisfactorily only in a few countries. Even in Canada, a two party system has not emerged an majority party government is exception rather than the rule.

Serious doubts

Serious doubts have been expressed as to whether the majority system is appropriate for ethnically fragmented societies with marked regional disparities of development. In such countries, the majority system where the winner takes all, has led to politically explosive situations as has happened in Sri Lanka and Nigeria. In Nigeria, the electoral' system is shown to have contributed to the civil war from 1967-1970.

As pointed out earlier the major objective of the majority system is the formation of a stable government capable of governing for a specified period of time. The major objective of proportional representation is the most fair representation of the socio-political forces of a society in the country's legislature. The question that has been placed before policy makers is whether these are two irreconcilable objectives and whether it is not possible to devise an electoral system which will guarantee both. In this connection, in the debate regarding electoral reforms in Sri Lanka, the German system which is described as a mixed system, is held as a model. Does the German system really guarantee both advantages.

German voters

Each voter in Germany has two votes in the election to the federal parliament (Bundestag). The first vote is to be cast for election of a Member of Parliament representing a single member constituency and the second vote is to be cast for a Land list (party). Half the members of the federal parliament is elected for constituencies on the majority principle. The second vote decides how many members of parliament each party sends to the Bundestag.

The number of votes cast for Land lists of each party sends to the Bundestag. The number of votes cast for Land lists of each party are totalled at the Federal level. These Federal level totals of political parties are transferred into seats using the d'Hondt highest average formula. Once this is established, the number of seats which each party is entitled at the Land level is determined, again using the d'Hondt formula. The number of seats won by each party at the constituencies is deducted from the number of seats allocated to each party at the Land level and the remaining seats will be filled from the Land list concerned in the order laid down therein. Parties are allowed to retain all the seats won at the constituencies even if they exceed the number of seats allowed on the Land lists. In such an event, the total number of seats in parliament will be temporally increased.

Reason for success

Admirers of this system point to election of members of Parliament for constituencies on the majority principle and the principle of proportional representation in filling the balance seats. According to them, this combination is the reason for its success. However, Dieter Nohlen points out that the political stability in the country comes not so much from the electoral system but from various other institutional arrangements such as the constitutionally strong position of the Cabinet, especially the powerful position of the Chancellor, the comparatively high level of social homogeneity which evolved especially after the second world war, the two party system and the 5% threshold etc.

Contrary to the popular belief, the German system, in the final analysis, is a proportional representation system and if the objective is to obtain a clear-cut majority in parliament for a political party, it may not serve this purpose.

Considerable confusion

Although Minister G.L. Peiris stated that "there is clearly a large consensus in the country today with regard to the principle elements of a new electoral system which we need", the campaign of the last parliamentary general election revealed a considerable confusion in the minds of political leaders regarding the political objectives of the proposed electoral reforms.

The aspect on which there was a high degree of consensus was the undesirability of preferential vote or the "Manape" which leads to violence and even intra-party conflicts. But it is important to note that the preferential vote is not an essential feature of the proportional system and can be easily dispensed with while retaining the other features of the system. There was also some degree of agreement on the need for an identifiable Member of Parliament for a constituency.

The writer is a Deputy Commissioner of Elections and Secretary to a ministry.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager