Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

As a pre-condition for supporting the Conservatives in forming a coalition government, the Liberal-Democrats sought an assurance on electoral reform.

AT the May 2010 general election in the UK no political party won a clear majority in the 650-strong lower house of Parliament. The conservatives won 47% of the parliamentary seats, Labour 38%, Liberal-Democrats 9% and 42 other political parties a combined 4%.

As a consequence of a “hung Parliament”, in which no party or grouping commanded the confidence of the majority of MPs, a coalition government between the ideologically disparate Conservatives and the Liberal-Democrats was forged to provide a working arrangement for steering the UK out of its economic morass.

Analysts are speculating that this election may mark the end of two-party dominance and the ushering in of an era of coalition governments. We should not rush to such a conclusion. Coalition governments are common in Europe but except for Winston Churchill’s National War Cabinet during World War II, government by a single party is the norm in the UK.

This is partly because the “first past the post” (FPTP) electoral system in the UK tends to favour two-party dominance and to discriminate against smaller groupings. Unless this system is reformed – and the Liberal-Democrats have always argued that it should – disproportionately high representation of major parties or coalitions in the national legislature is likely to continue.

First past the post: This system is known by many names: simple plurality, relative majority, single member district plurality and winner-takes-all. It is built on a number of fundamentals.

First, each voter is entitled to only one vote and selects only one candidate.

Second, all constituencies are geographically small and are represented by a single member. This is in contrast with large, multi-member constituencies in many countries that follow the system of proportional representation.

Third, there are as many electoral districts as there are seats in the elected chamber.

Fourth, only one ballot is held. All votes are counted and the candidate obtaining the largest vote is declared elected. The winner represents the entire electoral district even if in some areas he was resoundingly rejected.

Advantages: The FPTP system favours large political parties and coalitions and reduces the number of political groups in Parliament. It generally produces a clear winner with a clear majority in Parliament. This permits single-party governments, promotes political stability and ensures easy passage of legislation.

Unlike in systems with multi-member constituencies, where the constituents are represented by many members, the FPTP system ensures a close link between the sole MP and his electors.

Disadvantages: In three or four-cornered contests, a large number of winners do not secure an absolute majority in their constituencies. There is no requirement that the “winner” must obtain more than 50% of the votes polled. Thus, if a constituency has three contestants A, B and C and A obtains 40% of the vote; B garners 35% and C collects 25%, A will be declared the successful elected representative even though he secured a minority of the votes and was rejected by 60% of the electors!

In Malaysia, nearly one-third – and in the UK up to one-half – of the candidates in multi-cornered contests do not obtain a clear majority of the votes polled.

In addition to non-representative outcomes in individual constituencies, the simple plurality system permits a massive disparity between the overall percentage of votes and the overall percentage of parliamentary seats. Larger parties are over-represented in Parliament; smaller parties get no or very little representation.

Conversely, smaller parties get cheated on parliamentary representation. In 1983 the Liberal-SDP Alliance captured 25% popular support but only 3.5% of the seats. In the 2010 electoral exercise, the supposedly resurgent Liberal-Democrats received 23% of the popular vote but only 8.8% of the seats.

This means that the first past the post system produces Parliaments that are elected but not representative. Large parties or coalitions gain disproportionate number of seats and small parties obtain very little representation in parliament.

The system results in ascendancy of governments whose share of the popular vote, at least in the UK, is usually below 50% and whose democratic legitimacy is in doubt. In fact, no UK government since 1935 has crossed the 50% threshold of popular vote at national elections.

Proportional representation: Due to the undemocratic nature of FPTP elections, many countries like Northern Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, almost all of the former East bloc nations, Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, EU and in the UK itself regions like Scotland and Wales experiment with the proportional representation (PR) system.

There are several varieties of proportional representation. Their main characteristic is that parliamentary seats are given to parties in proportion to the number of popular votes obtained by them.

Unfortunately, despite its justice and idealistic appeal, PR suffers from some practical problems. PR leads to the growth of a large number of political parties. Under this system no single party secures an absolute majority in the legislature. Coalition governments and political instability often result. Law-making becomes difficult.

Will the new coalition government in the UK risk an experimentation with proportional representation? For decades, the Liberals have pleaded for reform. The Conservatives and Labour have resisted it vehemently because they are the main beneficiaries of the present undemocratic but pragmatic arrangements.

The Conservatives have a real dilemma. If they dilly-dally on electoral reform, the Liberal Democrats may walk out. The government will collapse. A premature election will have to be called.

If the Conservatives go ahead and alter the electoral system to make it more representative, they will usher an era of change of which they may be the first political victim.

We have to wait and see.

Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM.