Archives

2nd Plenary & Workshop Report - October 6

Is adversarial politics sustainable in a small state?

The workshop focused on exploring the phrase "adversarial politics" and whether it was interchangeable with "party politics". Participants concluded that these were not synonymous and that politics could be adversarial even in systems where political parties did not compete.

Gibraltar - consensual system at work

This led to a consideration of the notion of sustainability. Did, for example, the fact that a political system continued to function mean that it had sustained itself? Or did certain phenomena, such as low voter turnout, indicate that a political system was not sustaining itself?

At times the discussion inverted the question, looking at whether small states could survive adversarial politics. Participants pointed out that adversarial politics (party-based or not) could have negative effects in small states, dividing families and communities, as well as Parliament.

It was concluded that adversarial politics could be sustained in small states but that certain factors had to be present so that politics remained democratic and supported society, rather than undermine it.

Proposing concrete solutions to ensure this proved difficult given the variety of political systems represented by the participants. Nonetheless the existence of certain factors was regarded as crucial.

These included: honest and informed political journalism, guarantees of freedom of speech and peaceful dissent, equal opportunity for participation in the political process regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc. and accountability and transparency in government. The existence of such factors would ensure open debate and constant renewal of the political process leading to a system where the adversarial nature of politics did not become destructive but sustained a healthy polity.

Defining the issue

The first point to be established was, exactly what was meant by the term adversarial politics? Is the term synonymous with party politics? Do Parliaments need political parties or is a Legislature composed of independent Members preferable?

Dep. Jacqui Huet (Jersey) suggested that all politics is adversarial in the sense that it originates as a process for resolving conflict. If everyone agreed about what needed to be done about societal issues politics would not be necessary.

However, she also argued that some institutional arrangements are more adversarial than others. She related the experience of institutional change in her Legislature. Historically Deputies sat as independents and were selected to serve on a number of legislative committees dealing with particular issue areas.

These committees then formulated policy proposals that are brought to the Legislature, a unicameral body for debate and amendment. The Legislature then votes to enact or reject proposed legislation.

Ms Huet characterised this as "inclusive" in that each Deputy was involved in policy-making; a position analogous to being a Member of the executive and the Legislature.

Still there was dissatisfaction with the system. It was considered slow, cumbersome and excessively bureaucratic.

Recent institutional changes have led to a system of government where there is now an executive and fewer and smaller committees. Some Deputies are now excluded from the policy-making process. Until now Jersey has not had party politics, which she considered wasteful of time and talent.

However, it now appears that those Deputies excluded from policy-making committees are forming themselves as an opposition that could become a party. Thus these institutional changes have created a form of adversarial politics that did not previously exist.

Hon. Juan Carlos Perez, MP (Gibraltar) argued that Dep. Huet had misconstrued the question in that she was equating adversarial politics with party politics. In his view it was differences of opinion, not the existence of parties, that led to conflict. In other words the existence of parties reflected, and did not create, differences within society.

Therefore the party system was not static, but dynamic in terms how much adversarial politics it contained. Where there was consensus on issues, conflict would be reduced. Mr. Perez estimated that 80 percent of the legislation presented to the Gibraltar Parliament passed unanimously. This was because the government was willing to make amendments to legislation based on criticism received in Parliament.

Mr. Perez also cited the recent referendum on the future of Gibraltar as a case where government and opposition politicians had closed ranks. He said he was confident that the public could distinguish legitimate opposition from opposition for its own sake and would deal with it appropriately.

At the electoral level Mr. Perez concluded that party politics was useful in that it presented a wider range of proposed changes and objectives to the electorate through election manifestos.

Ms Huet engaged the point that conflict is a necessary element of healthy politics pointing out that voter turnout in Jersey is approximately 28 percent despite efforts to increase participation. Mr. Perez said voter turnout is much higher in Gibraltar, noting that Spanish claims to Gibraltar have politizised the electorate. Ms Huet conceded that no such pressing issue faced Jersey and that may be a factor in voter complacency.

Hon. Mario Galea, MP, (Malta) also mentioned high voter turnout in Malta - approximately 96 percent in the last election - in a system vigorously contested by two political parties. In this regard he felt that the parties sustained the system in that they are extremely active in organising and mobilising the electorate.

This is done partially through party ownership of media outlets. As enviable as the voter turnout rate is, Mr. Galea conceded, one of the disadvantages of the current situation in Malta is that it is so dominated by the two largest parties that the political system is characterised as a "party-ocracy", rather than a democracy.

Regardless of how one defined adversarial politics participants agreed that democracy did not exist in the absence of conflict. This observation led to a vigorous debate about the nature of democracy.

The nature of democracy

Dep. Ann Robilliard (Guernsey), argued that freedom to dissent was the essential characteristic of democracy. Hon Bernard Allain, MP, (Saint Lucia) added that for dissent to be democratic, it had to be peaceful. This led to a short discussion of instances where governments (as in Spain) had made certain political parties illegal on the basis that they were terrorist organisations.

Included in the discussion was accessibility to the democratic system. Mr. Galea cited systemic barriers to the participation of women as candidates. While it was argued by many that establishing quotas for women candidates was not the answer, it was acknowledged that removing barriers to participation was essential.

A debate on various machineries of government ensued. The workshop participants represented political systems with and without parties, unicameral and bicameral Legislatures, and some where the executive was composed of electoral Members from the Legislature and others where the executive was appointed.

Hon. Aneese Ahmed, MP, (Maldives) pointed out that in the Maldives voter turnout tops 80 percent. This was in a country where there are no political parties and the executives is not drawn from the Legislature. The Parliament nominate the President who is then confirmed by public referendum. Some argue this is not democratic, but the system works for her small state.

Building on the same theme Hon. Teresa McCarthy Fagafagamanualli, MP, (Samoa) discussed the tradition-based system by which she was elected to Parliament. After inheriting her father's title (as chief) she was elected by universal suffrage from a group of hereditary chiefs who formed a type of closed list presented to the populace.

In her case the electoral system was predicated on the existing culture, rather than imposed upon it. The limited nature of candidacy (the closed list) raised three issues: whether tradition-based political systems were democratic in the conventional sense, whether it mattered if they were and whether it was more important that the political system reflect the values of the society that practised it.

Participants were willing to accept unique approaches that reflected unique cultural circumstances.

A tangent of this discussion was the limits individuals could face in challenging established systems. Specifically the issue was whether individuals should be allowed to form parties in those systems where none exist. Some defended the right of some Parliaments, such as the Maldives, to vote down a Bill that would allow for political parties.

This was seen as a legitimate protection for a non-partisan system. Others, such as Mr. Perez, felt it undemocratic to use the mechanisms of one political system to rule out alternate systems that were also democratic.

This was followed by a discussion on the rule of the majority and Hon. Tupou Faireka, MP, (Cook Islands) pointed out that majority rule was fundamental to democracy. This measure was necessary because not everyone could be satisfied on every issue.

(Courtesy: The Parliamentarian 2004/Issue One)

(To be continued)

www.Pathmaconstruction.com

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.ppilk.com

www.crescat.com

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

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager