|
That is best
which works best |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 23 January 2008 08:27am |
|
One of the major challenges
of electoral systems is to determine how best to allot parliamentary seats to
reflect the votes cast by the electors. ALMOST every one is
anticipating an early election. But two factors must be borne in mind. First, under Article 55(3) of
the Constitution, the Dewan Rakyat has a five-year tenure. The electoral
mandate of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi does not expire
till 2009. With 198 of the 219, or
90.4%, of the seats in the Dewan Rakyat, there is no legal or political
reason for him to return to the people prematurely for a fresh mandate. Second, the decision to
dissolve the Dewan Rakyat prematurely does not rest with the Prime Minister
alone. The premier can advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, but under Article
40(2) (b) His Majesty is not bound by this advice and may, in his discretion
and wisdom, refuse the Prime Minister¡¯s counsel on this matter. Conventionally, of course,
the King almost always accepts the Prime Minister¡¯s advice. A sagacious
monarch should follow conventions on a matter as political as the timing of a
general election. But commentates must observe
the courtesy of acknowledging the Yang di-Pertuan Agong¡¯s constitutional
discretion in the matter. Democractic pre-requisites: A
genuinely democratic electoral process must posses the following salient
features: > Constitutional
provisions for the existence, composition and tenure of legislative
assemblies; > An electoral system that
translates votes into parliamentary seats; > Impartial machinery for
delineating and revising electoral constituencies; > A system of universal
adult franchise; > A fair and impartial
machinery for drawing up an electoral register; > Legal rules for the
eligibility of candidates; > Legal rules for the
nomination of contestants; > Legal and conventional
rules for the conduct of election campaigns; > Safeguards for freedom
of speech, assembly and association and for equal access to the media; > A developed system of
political parties; > A competent and
non-partisan administration to run elections and to supervise voting; > Safeguards for secrecy
of the ballot; > An independent judicial
mechanism to adjudicate election disputes; and, > Provision for filling of
vacancies. This article will highlight
one of the salient features above, namely, the first past the post electoral
system. One of the major challenges
of electoral systems is to determine how best to allot parliamentary seats to
reflect the votes cast by the electors. Two main types of electoral systems
exist ¨C the simple plurality system and the system of proportional
representation. Simple plurality system: The
simple plurality, first-past-the-post system, is current in Malaysia, Britain
and India.
First, each voter is entitled
to only one vote. Second, constituencies are approximately equal in
population size so that each vote carries approximately the same value.
Third, all constituencies are
single-member constituencies so that there are as many electoral districts as
there are seats in the elected chamber: Articles 116(2) and 117. This is in
contrast with multi-member constituencies in many countries, including
Singapore. Fourth, only one ballot is
held and the candidate obtaining the most votes is declared elected. There is
no requirement that the winner must obtain more than 50% of the votes polled.
The candidate with the largest vote a (a simple plurality) wins. The great advantage of the
single member, first-past-the post system is that it produces a clear winner;
it provides political stability; it reduces the number of political parties
represented in Parliament. The great disadvantage of
this system is that in three- or four-cornered contests, a very large number
of ¡°winners¡± do not secure an absolute majority in their constituencies.
In Malaysia one-third ¨C and
in Britain, up to one-half ¨C of the candidates do not obtain a clear majority
in their constituencies. This casts a doubt on the legitimacy of their
mandate. In addition to
non-representative outcomes in individual constituencies, the simple
plurality system permits a massive disparity at the national level between
the percentage of votes polled and the percentage of parliamentary seats won.
In Britain in the 70s, the
victorious Labour party won only 37% of the popular vote, but a working
majority in Parliament. In 1983, the ruling
Conservative Party received 42% of the votes and 61% of the seats; Labour won
27% of the votes and 32% of the seats; the Liberal/SDP alliance captured 25%
popular support but only 3.5% of the places in the House of Commons. The electoral result was
obviously unrepresentative of the level of popular support for the
Liberal/SDP alliance. In Malaysia, except for 1969
when the Alliance received 49.3% of the popular vote, the ruling coalition
has secured absolute majorities of the votes polled at ten out of eleven
elections. But there are vast disparities
between the Alliance/Barisan share of the popular vote and its share of Dewan
Rakyat seats as the table indicates. Proportional representation: In
this system, parliamentary seats are given to parties in proportion to the
percentage of popular vote obtained by them. The positive outcome is that the
legislature is truly representative. But the negative feature of
this system is that it leads to the growth of a large number of political
parties. When each interest can secure separate representation, it is natural
for every dissenting group to jump into the political arena with the hope of
securing some representation. Under this system no single
party secures an absolute majority in the legislature. Law-making becomes
difficult. Coalition governments and political instability often result.
Italy¡¯s misadventure with
proportional representation after World War II led to frequent, and sometimes
yearly, changes in government. In sum, it can be stated that
the vicissitudes of the electoral law are many. There are no ideal systems
and no quick-fix solutions to obvious defects. The law walks a tightrope
between what is ideal and what is workable; what is just and what is
feasible. More than in other fields of
law, in this area we have to come to terms with the pragmatic view that ¡°that
is best which works best¡±. Dr Shad Faruqi is Professor
of Law at UiTM |
©
The
hallmark of this system is that constituencies are single-member
constituencies and a candidate with the largest vote wins the electoral
district, even if those who endorse him do not constitute an absolute
majority of the electors. This system is built on a number of fundamentals.