Publicité
How fair should an unfair and ?unstable? system be?
Par
Partager cet article
How fair should an unfair and ?unstable? system be?
This set of five articles purports to assess the two proposals made by the Select Committee on ?the introduction of a measure of PR in our electoral system?. First, I spell out the anomalies of the current formula, suggest some criteria to evaluate electoral systems, set the stability issue in its right perspective and raise three questions requiring answers before choosing the appropriate mixed formula. Then, I explain the factors determining stability and fairness in mixed systems. The next two articles appraise the two alternatives of the Select Committee. Finally, some gaps and loopholes left unattended by the Committee are raised and a pathway proposed to move the process from its current impasse. The analytical framework, methodological approach, theoretical underpinnings, empirical evidence and cross country comparisons emanate from an ongoing PHD research work entitled ?Electoral systems in plural and diverse societies : a case study of Mauritius?.
Anomalies of current system </B>
The four anomalies of our current FPTP formula are:
i) the disproportionality between votes polled and seats obtained by parties, thus making a mockery of fairness. In 1987,the MMM captured 35% of seats with 48.12 % of votes while the MSM-LP-PMSD took 65% of seats with 49.86% of votes. A difference of only 1.7% in votes produced a huge gap of 30% in seats;
ii) the amplification of winner takes all where one alliance could obtain 100% of seats with around 55% of votes, thus leaving no representation at all to another party with 45% of votes. This is the famous 60-0. It occurred in 1982 and 1995 and almost happened in 1991 and 2000. In 1982 and 1995, one alliance captured 100% of the votes with around 64% of votes;
iii) the likelihood of a party winning more votes losing the election. Fortunately this has not happened in Mauritius. It occurred twice in New Zealand which had the same FPTP system as us. This provoked outrage and instability. As a result,the electoral formula was changed and New Zealand today has a mixed system.
However, we had two near misses. In 1987 the MMM could easily have garnered 50% of the votes and still ended up as loser. If its margin of victory in three constituencies were higher, it would have won more votes without changing the 21 seats it gained. Conversely, the MSM-LP-PMSD could have been victorious with less than 48.12% of votes; its huge majorities in two ridings could have been reduced without losing any seat.
This nightmare scenario could have happened at the elections for Independence in 1967. The Independence Party (IP) won 54 % of the votes and captured 43 seats out of 70 while the PMSD garnered 43.9% of the votes and obtained 27 seats. However,with very little changes in voting pattern in three constituencies only, the IP would have lost the elections notwithstanding its much higher percentage of national votes. The PMSD would have won the elections (36 seats out of 70) with 44.5% of votes while the IP would have lost with 53.4% of national vote. The whole destiny of the country would have been different. Inspite of a majority of support for independence,the will of the people would have been frustrated. If we are unhappy about unsuccessful parties not having a fair representation of seats, what will be our attitude if a party that wins more votes nationally is deprived of a majority of seats ?
iv) the severe underrepresentation of women. While electoral systems alone cannot explain the low representation of women, it is a fact that some formulae exaggerate the exclusion of women from political life. Under FPTP systems, women are very underrepresented. There was not a single woman MP elected in 1967. Today, women represent a paltry 5.7% of Parliament. We are one of the worst countries in the world in terms of gender unfairness, lagging behind all SADC states.
Criteria for good electoral system in a plural society
Mauritius needs an electoral formula that ensures government stability, guarantees fairness to parties, promotes gender and diverse representation, encourages accountable government, increases voter choice, maintains constituency links between MPs and their constituents and shuns overtly communal parties. It is not easy to have all these desired attributes in any electoral system, especially as all do not point in the same direction. There is need to balance one feature against another. There is bound to be some trade off between stability and fairness. It is such the nature and the extent of such trade off that constitute the basis of the current disagreement.
Our experience of stability</B>
I use the word ?allegedly? to qualify stability. Advisedly so. I submit that the relationship between FPTP system and stability is disproportionately overblown in Mauritius. While FPTP has been responsible for stability (defined as a large Parliamentary majority that assures longevity and policy cohesion for single party) in countries like UK, Canada and India, this has never been the case here. Quite the contrary. One government that was returned with the largest majority (60-0) was the shortest lived in our history. Also, the 60-0 of 1995 and the very large majority of 1991 collapsed after 2 years. On the other hand,the narrowest of elections in 1976 produced the longest lasting Government, the only one to go its full term.The reason is plain. Stability has never been a function of electoral system in Mauritius, but of partyinterests, strategies and leaders? ambitions.This is amply evidenced by the varying pre election alliances that are sealed often only to take advantage of the electoral system, as they collapse soon after. Policy cohesion has rarely been the hallmark of coalition governments. If anything, such governments have attempted to reconcile major policy divergences among parties that draw their support from different electoral pool.
Answering three key questions
The aim of introducing a PR mode in a FPTP system is to mitigate the disproportionality between votes and seats, thus rendering the system not totally fair but? less unfair. One could reasonably ask how fair the level of unfairness should be ? It depends on two factors. The share of PR seats in the total number of seats and the method of allocating them. In post apartheid, bitterly divided and multi racial South Africa, a party that garners 2% of votes secures 2% of seats.This is complete fairness as it produces a legislature that is a microcosm of society.We have ruled out such fairness as it would make stability difficult. We are equally unhappy about the current anomalies which can lead to a disproportionality of 45 % between votes and seats (0 seats with 45% of national vote).
We need to provide answers to three key questions before choosing the appropriate mixed system.
(a) what is the highest level of unfairness our system can tolerate, as defined by the disproportionality between votes and seats. We refuse both zero and 45%.Where should the unfairness be? Most plural and democratic societies would not accept an average gap of more than between 10% and 15%. In essence, a party with 30% of votes should have between 15% to 20% of seats;
(b) does gender fairness matter ? If it does,what critical mass of women?s representation is acceptable to address their severe exclusion from Parliament and Cabinet?;
(c) what level of intra party infighting and communal exacerbations will the country accept in the method of returning PR MPs ?
Publicité
Publicité
Les plus récents
