Understand Politics
Page 10
Executive strength
The failure of this system to ensure that the composition of the legislature arithmetically reflects the way in which a nation has voted often benefits the party winning most votes nationally. This is of particular importance in parliamentary systems of government such as the UK where the executive is drawn from the legislature, since it may provide the executive with a large majority, thereby enhancing its ability to govern.
An aid to party unity
The manner in which this system treats minorities may serve as an inducement for parties either to remain united or to form electoral alliances in order to secure political power. This is a particular advantage in countries with parliamentary forms of government since a party’s support within the legislature is likely to be durable.
Enhancement of the link between the citizens and legislators
The first-past-the-post system may strengthen the relationship between members of the legislative branch of government and their constituents. In the UK, the House of Commons is composed of members elected from 650 single-member constituencies, which aids the development of a close relationship between individual legislators and their constituents. This may also enhance the extent to which legislators can be held accountable for their actions. Local relationships are of great significance to the conduct of American politics.
* * *
‘Strong government’ in the UK
In countries with parliamentary forms of government, the winner-take-all aspect of the first-past-the-post system is greatly to the benefit of the executive branch of government.
In the 2005 general election in the UK, a Labour government was returned. Although this party obtained only 35.2 per cent of the votes cast by the electorate, the workings of the first-past-the-post system gave it 355 seats in the House of Commons (54.8 per cent of the total number). This majority guaranteed the government the ability to govern for its full five-year term.
* * *
WEAKNESSES
The first-past-the-post electoral system has a number of weaknesses that are assessed below.
Distortion of public opinion
It has been suggested that the purpose of elections is to ensure that public office holders and the policies they pursue are reflective of public opinion. A main problem with the first-past-the-post system is that it distorts public opinion by failing to ensure that the wishes of the electorate are arithmetically reflected in the composition of the legislative or executive branches of government. This may thus result in public policy being out of line with the views or wishes of the majority of the general public.
There are further difficulties arising from the tendency of the first-past-the-post system to distort public opinion. It may produce extreme changes in the composition of the legislatures which do not reflect the political views of the electorate. Major political parties can be virtually wiped out by such a system. An extreme example of this occurred in the 1993 Canadian general election when the ruling Conservative Party was reduced from 157 seats to 2 in the House of Commons. Violent changes in the composition of the legislature or executive result in the loss of experienced personnel and may create a system of adversarial politics. Parties have less incentive to co-operate when the electoral system may translate them overnight from a minority to a majority.
Unfair treatment of minority parties
A second problem arising from the operations of the first-past-the-post system is the manner in which it treats minority parties. In the UK, the Liberal Party/Liberal Democrats have, for much of the century, been under-represented in parliament as the electoral system has failed to translate that party’s national vote into seats within the legislature. Although this party has fared better in general elections held since 1997 than in previous contests (as its support became concentrated in certain areas rather than being evenly spread across the country), its share of the national poll in 2010 (23 per cent) entitled it to 149 seats rather than the 57 it actually won.
Expressing this figure another way, in 2010:
It took 33,350 votes to elect a Labour MP.
It took 34,989 votes to elect a Conservative MP.
It took 119,788 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat MP.
This clearly contravenes the principle of ‘one vote, one value’.
Disincentive to voter participation
A further problem with the first-past-the-post system is that it may discourage voter participation. Areas may be considered ‘safe’ political territory for one party or another and this may discourage opponents of that party from voting on the grounds that if they do so their vote is effectively ‘wasted’.
The downplaying of ideology
The first-past-the-post system may discourage parties from fragmenting and thus promote the conduct of politics within the confines of a two-party system. However, this may result in ideology becoming diluted, obscured or played down in order for the parties to serve as vehicles capable of attracting a wide range of political opinions. The absence of a distinct identity may result in voters becoming disinterested in the conduct of politics. The consequence of this is low turnouts in elections and the utilization of alternative ways (such as pressure group activity and various forms of direct action) of bringing about political change.
ATTAINMENT OF THE BENEFITS OF THE FIRST-PAST-THE-POST SYSTEM
We must finally analyse whether the theoretical advantages of the first-past-the-post system are actually realized in practice.
In the UK, the executive branch of government comes from the majority party in the legislative body. However, strong governments (in the sense of the executive having a large parliamentary majority and thus being in a position to ensure the enactment of its election manifesto) have not been a consistent feature of post-war politics. Eighteen general elections have been held between 1945 and 2010: in six of these (1950, 1951, 1964, February 1974, October 1974 and 1992) governments were returned with a relatively small majority and in two cases (February 1974 and 2010) a ‘hung parliament’ (in which no single party possessed an overall majority of votes in the new House of Commons) was produced. Governments in this position cannot guarantee to stay in office and carry out their policies. On one occasion (between 1977 and 1978) the Labour and Liberal Parliamentary Parties concluded a pact which had the effect of sustaining what had become a minority Labour government.
A similar situation has existed in Canada. Only 8 of the 17 general elections held since 1957 have produced a government with an overall majority in the House of Commons. The most recent contest, in 2008, resulted in the re-election of a minority Conservative administration. These examples thus suggest that the first-past-the-post electoral system does not always deliver the benefits which advocates claim this system possesses.
Question
Do you think that the benefits of the first-past-the-post electoral system are outweighed by its disadvantages?
The strengths and weaknesses of proportional representation
* * *
Insight
Proportional representation is widely used in countries in the European Union but is criticized for consequences that include the production of multi-party systems and coalition government.
* * *
ADVANTAGES
The main advantage of proportional representation is that the system addresses many of the defects of the first-past-the-post system. It ensures that minorities are fairly treated. Legislative bodies throughout Europe contain members drawn from parties such as the Greens and thus provide an inducement for such groups to operate within the conventional political system rather than engage in extra-parliamentary political activity. Outside Northern Ireland (where members of the European Parliament have been elected by the single transferable vote since 1979), proportional representation has not been used for national elections despite the injustices that have arisen as a result of this (for example, the 15 per cent of the poll obtained by the Greens in the 1989 European elections failed to secure the ret
urn of any members to the European Parliament).
However, proportional representation was introduced throughout the UK for elections to the European Parliament in 1999 and is also used for elections to the Scottish Parliament and for the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland. Proportional representation may also induce parties to co-operate (especially in cases where the executive is drawn from the legislative body) and this may, in turn, divert politics away from extremes.
DISADVANTAGES
Let us first consider the following example. In 1986, President Mitterrand of France introduced proportional representation (in the form of the party list system) for the French legislative elections in order to fragment the support given to the conservative parties (the RPR and the UDF). One consequence of this was the election of a number of representatives from the Front National. This party obtained 10 per cent of the vote and secured 35 seats. In 1988 the second ballot was restored by the prime minister, Jacques Chirac, and the Front National was virtually eliminated as a legislative force. This episode illustrates two problems which might be associated with proportional representation and these are discussed in the section that follows.
Furtherance of vested interests
First, we should note the association of this reform with furthering vested interests – it was not viewed as a progressive reform which would improve the relationship between government and the governed, but was instead designed to aid the political fortunes of those who enacted it.
Representation given to political extremists
Second, this example suggests that proportional representation may facilitate the representation of the political extremes, which, once established within a legislative body, gain respectability and may enjoy a growth in their support. Some countries which use this system seek to guard against this problem by imposing a requirement that a party needs to secure a minimum threshold of support in order to secure the benefits of proportional representation. In Denmark this figure is 2 per cent of the national vote, in Germany 5 per cent (or, alternatively, three seats secured from the constituency contests) and in Turkey 10 per cent. In the 1998 German national election, this threshold figure enabled the Greens and communists to secure representation in the Bundestag but denied it to parties on the extreme right of the political spectrum.
In addition to these two concerns, there are further problems associated with proportional representation.
Creation of multi-party systems
The tendency for proportional representation to aid minority parties to obtain representation in legislative bodies may promote the development of a multi-party system. This is of particular significance for those countries with parliamentary forms of government whose executives are drawn from the legislative body. In these cases, multi-party systems may make it difficult for the electorate to determine the composition of the executive or the policies which it pursues. Executives may consist of a coalition of parties and such conditions are often depicted as being weak and unstable.
Complexity
Critics of proportional representation argue that the system is difficult in the sense that it may not be obvious how the eventual result has been arrived at. This is especially the case with the single transferable vote, which requires a process of redistribution (either of the surplus votes of an elected candidate or of the redundant votes of one who has been eliminated). Such votes are not randomly redistributed and electors may not fully understand the manner by which this process is carried out. A danger with this is that if the process by which the result is arrived at is not fully understood, the result itself may be deprived of popular legitimacy.
Enhancement of position of party leadership
Proportional representation has been accused of enhancing the power of the party leadership. This is especially the case with the party list system, which may give regional or national party leaders the ability to place candidates in order of preference and thereby improve the chances of loyal party members being elected ahead of those who are regarded as dissentients. This objection is, however, mitigated by the ability of electors to vote for individual candidates in many countries which utilize the party list method of election.
* * *
Proportional representation and minor parties
Opponents of proportional representation assert that minor parties may secure a role in a country’s political affairs that is out of all proportion to their levels of support. The relatively small Free Democratic Party in Germany enjoyed participation in government between 1969 and 1998 as it held a pivotal position between Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. It could keep either out of office by siding with the other. The outcome of New Zealand’s first national election using proportional representation in 1996 gave the New Zealand First Party (which had obtained 13 per cent of the vote and 17 seats in parliament) a place in a coalition government headed by the National Party, and following the 1997 general election in Ireland the small Progressive Democrat Party was able to enter into a coalition government with Fianna Faíl.
* * *
Impact on legislator and constituent relationships
It might be argued that proportional representation weakens the link between legislator and constituent, which in countries such as the UK and America is regarded as a crucial political feature. This problem arises as multi-member constituencies are often large. But this is not a universal feature of proportional representation. The multi-member constituencies used for elections to the Daíl in Ireland are small: 42 constituencies return 166 members. There are at least three MPs to each constituency and the total number of electors in 2003 was slightly over 3 million. The ability of electors to express support for individual candidates under some versions of the party list system may also serve to enhance the relationship between constituent and representative.
COALITION GOVERNMENT ASSESSED
Proportional representation does not necessarily result in coalition government. The single transferable vote did not prevent the dominance of Fianna Faíl over Irish government for many years, while in Sweden, the Social Democrats were able to govern alone for most of the period between 1930 and 1970 despite the existence of a multi-party system. Neither (as we will discuss in Chapter 5) should we uncritically accept the argument that proportional representation is the cause of multi-party systems. However, we first must analyse whether coalition governments are actually an undesirable political phenomenon.
Absence of popular choice
It might be argued that the formation of a coalition government and the determination of the policies which it will pursue are not conducted in a democratic manner. Although separate political parties can enter into pacts or alliances prior to an election contest, coalition governments are frequently formed after an election has taken place, allowing party leaders to conduct negotiations. These discussions may be lengthy and drawn out: in Israel, for example, Ehud Olmert’s government was sworn in on 4 May 2006, the parliamentary elections (to the Knesset) having taken place on 28 March. Coalition governments do not directly consult the electorate concerning the composition of the executive or the choice of policy it pursues.
Ineffective accountability
Effective accountability may be impaired by coalition government. When several parties are involved in government it may be difficult for the electorate to know who has been responsible for making decisions and to make them answerable for their actions.
Instability
Coalition governments are also accused of being unwieldy. A minor party may desert the government and the whole structure tumbles down. The downfall of the Berlusconi government in 1994 (due to the desertion of the Northern League) and the downfall of the Reynolds government in Ireland in the same year (following the desertion of the Irish Labour Party) are examples which can be used to justify the argument that coalition governments are unstable. Italy has had 61 governments between 1945 and 2006 compared to 17 in the UK. The belief that this situation arose from proportional represe
ntation prompted Italian voters to move away from this system. Following a referendum in 1993, new election rules were introduced under which 75 per cent of the seats in the Chamber of Deputies were subject to the first-past-the-post system of election. The remaining seats were additional members allocated by the party list system. The electoral system was again altered for the 2006 election, although the centre-left grouping led by Romano Prodi that won the election pledged to revert to the system that was introduced after 1993.
We should observe, however, that coalition governments are not inevitably weak and unstable. A coalition of the Christian Democrats, the Christian-Social Union and the Free Democrats provided Germany’s government between 1982 and 1998. This coalition was confirmed in office in the 1990 ‘all-German’ election and held onto power in the 1994 Bundestag elections. In 1998, a coalition government composed of the Social Democrats and Greens was formed under Gerhard Schröder, which was re-elected in 2002. This was replaced by a ‘grand coalition’ of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats headed by Angela Merkel following the 2005 election. Following the 2009 election, Ms Merkel has governed with a centre-right government composed of the Christian Democrats, the Christian Socialist Union and the Free Democratic Party. The existence of local authorities in the UK in which no single party possesses an overall majority (termed ‘hung councils’) has in some cases forced political parties to co-operate and may help legitimate coalition government in a country in which this has previously been resorted to in times of emergency (1915, 1919, 1931 and 1940).
* * *