It's time to reform the election system for Local Authorities

Timothy MEISBURGER

ELECTIONS: With local elections approaching, and dissatisfaction with the quality of local governance widespread, now would have been an opportune time to examine structural changes that could improve accountability and governance in Local Government.

With elections planned for the end of March, reform is unlikely to occur this time around, but if the government is serious about devolving authority and responsibility to the local level, policy-makers and membership organizations, such as professional and business associations, should lay the groundwork for reform over the next few years, in time for the next Local Government elections.

Prior to 1978 Local Authority Councillors were elected from wards cantered on villages or neighbourhoods, but in 1987 the Proportional Representation system used at the national level was introduced for local councils, making the entire area of the Local Authority a single constituency.

This change was unpopular among the public from the beginning. Critics said that de-linking the representatives from a particular geographic area (ward) led to a lack of accountability, and distanced the councillors from the people; noted that having to campaign across the entire area of the Local Authority raised the cost of campaigning beyond the reach of ordinary people, and particularly deterred women candidates.

Others said that running local elections under the proportional system led to contests focused on party, rather than local, concerns.

These factors created the general impression that Local Government was not as effective as it had been under the ward system, and sparked a movement for reform.

Currently, all major parties and relevant government ministries agree that reform is needed, but there is no consensus on what shape that reform should take.

The most comprehensive assessment of options for reform was conducted in 1999 by the government's Commission of Inquiry on Local Government Reforms.

Based on testimony provided by experts from across the island, the Commission found that the previously used ward structure would provide better local governance than either the current system, or a mixed proportional/ward structure.

You would think that with such consensus change would be easy and rapid, but it was not to be. Some said the political parties stood in the way, suggesting a return to the ward system would deny senior party officials the opportunity to reward loyalists with plum positions on councils and as mayors.

Parties pointed out that proportional representation could provide more equitable representation for minorities and minor parties.

In any case, in 2000 a Cabinet Sub-Committee set up to study the reforms proposed by the Commission recommended a combined (mixed) system of both wards and proportional representation, then referred the matter to Parliamentary Select Committee for further study.

Four years later, in September 2004, the Select Committee released an Interim Report that included one sentence again recommending that the current system be replaced by a combined system of wards and proportional representation.

No further details on the actual structure of such a system were provided, but the two most likely options would be either mixed member proportional or a parallel system. If adopted, Sri Lanka will be the only country in the world that uses a mixed system at such a low level or tier of government.

Although any election system can be adapted for use at the local level, political scientists and other experts generally agree that direct elections are most appropriate at the local level.

A typical comment, from the "IFES Handbook of Election Systems", notes that: because Local Government is more about the 'nuts and bolts' issues of everyday life, geographical representation is often given primacy; single-member districts can be used to give every neighbourhood a say in local affairs."

So international best practice certainly supports the re-introduction of wards in some form, either alone or as part of a mixed system. Two different mixed systems have been mentioned as possibilities.

A parallel election system is one in which there are two different methods of electing representatives, the most common being a mix of majority/plurality and proportional representation.

In practice, one seat on the council would be set aside for each ward, and then a number of additional seats on the council would be allocated proportionally based on a party vote.

Each voter would make two marks on their ballot, one for an individual who would represent the ward on the council, and the second for a party.

The candidate with the most votes in each ward would be elected to the ward seat, while the party votes would be aggregated at the district level, and then the remaining seats would be allocated proportionally by party. This system is used in Japan at the national level.

The second system under consideration is called mixed member proportional (MMP), sometimes called the German System because it is used at the national level in Germany.

Unlike the parallel system, the MMP is a true proportional system, in that it will provide a council in which parties are represented proportionally to their vote.

In an MMP system one seat would be allocated for each ward, and additional seats would be allocated through party preference votes. Voters would again choose both a ward representative and a party preference.

The winner in each ward would be elected, then the party preferences would be counted, and the remaining seats would be distributed to make the council composition proportional to the party preference votes.

The major disadvantages of the proportional system at the Local Authority level are shared by mixed systems, but mixed systems have additional disadvantages as well.

For example, the parallel system is not really proportional, while the MMP disadvantages popular independents, giving parties proportionally more power than their actual support warrants.

The Commission on Local Government Reform worried that mixed systems would promote conflict by creating two classes of representatives, one whose primary loyalty would be to their ward constituents, while the second group owed their primary loyalty to political party leadership at a higher level.

In addition to political concerns, there are technical problems associated with mixed systems. Elections are complicated for voters and difficult and expensive to administer; while the large councils created by a mixed system (50-100 percent larger than current councils) would be inefficient in operation and more expensive to maintain, requiring more space, salaries, staff, cars, etc. and consuming resources badly needed for local development.

On a positive note though, a mixed system would provide some geographical representation, and is probably on that account would provide better governance than the present system.

The most commonly cited advantage of maintaining some proportional element in local elections is that it will help ensure more equitable representation for minorities and minor parties.

While proportional representation may provide this at the national level, it is questionable when applied at the local level.

Because the local councils are small compared to the national parliament, a party would have to win a much greater proportion of the vote to win a seat through proportional allocation. Ironically, small parties might be more likely to win a seat in a simple ward system than in proportional system.

For example, a party that won nine percent of the vote in a 10-seat constituency would not win a seat, but since their vote is likely to be concentrated geographically to some extent, the same party would be very likely to win at least one seat (and maybe more) if the same constituency were divided into 10 wards.

The small size of the ward constituency means minorities would easily win their share of seats, and since campaigning in a small constituency would be cheaper, more ordinary people, and particularly women, could stand as candidates.

It is clear that to improve Local Government reform of the election system is needed, and now, before local elections, would have been the best time to act. While the simple ward system would be cheaper and improve governance more, it may not be politically possible to get this reform through a Parliament that was, after all, elected through proportional representation.

If that is the case, the next best alternative would be the MMR system, which would at last give the grassroots a voice in Local Government. It has been seven years since the government's Commission of Inquiry on Local Government Reforms issued its report.

Its recommendations were fundamentally sound and should be acted on to improve Local Government accountability and responsiveness and people's welfare.

(The writer is the Regional Director for Elections and Political Processes of The Asia Foundation and is based in Jakarta. He contributed this article as part of a Local Government policy reform assessment for the Ministry of Provincial Councils and Local Government under the Transparent Accountable Local Governance (TALG) Program funded by the United States Agency for International Development)