| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| A Proportional Representation System Is Best for Iraq Now |
| 2004-07-06 |
| From The Washington Post, an opinion article by Andrew Reynolds, an associate professor of political science, a member of a National Endowment for Democracy team advising on constitutional issues in Iraq, and an electoral systems adviser in more than 20 countries. In recent weeks conservatives have criticized the choice of a proportional representation system for Iraq’s elections and have disparaged the U.N. electoral assistance department and its director, Carina Perelli. ... Proportional representation will avoid the anomalies that are prevalent when single-member districts or some variant thereof are used in emerging democracies. In 1998 the Lesotho Congress for Democracy won all but one seat in parliament with 60 percent of the vote; rioting and state collapse ensued. In the 2000 Mongolian elections, the ruling party took 95 percent of the seats with 58 percent of the vote. In Iraq such a system would most likely give a significant "seat bonus" to Shiite parties, to the detriment of Sunni-based groups and embryonic multiethnic movements. The St. Lucian Nobel Prize-winner Sir Arthur Lewis cautioned 40 years ago that "the surest way to kill the idea of democracy in a plural society is to adopt the Anglo-American system of First Past the Post." ... First-past-the-post systems in divided African and Asian societies have facilitated the development of ethnically chauvinistic parties. Conversely, there are inherent incentives in proportional representation to appeal beyond the boundaries of your group; proportionality leaves a space for multiethnic parties to grow, as in South Africa. Every vote counts toward gaining extra seats in the national legislature, and this would motivate broader vote appeals from Kurdish and Sunni parties in Iraq. Majority-based systems also systematically exclude women and smaller minority groups from representation. Women are underrepresented throughout the world, but the situation is significantly worse when single-member districts are used. Proportional representation allows the use of special mechanisms for gender diversity when constituting party lists. Finally, using proportional representation avoids the political powder keg of drawing district boundaries, and it makes voter registration far easier. ... The trend nowadays is for both established and emerging democracies to move to mixed systems, combining party slates and individual-candidate voting in districts, which satisfy various needs. No system can guarantee a democratic Iraq, but imposing winner-take-all elections would be like playing Russian roulette with Iraq’s political future. |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #11 Screw Democracy give me Liberty and give me Law. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-06 3:59:45 PM |
| #10 Verlaine - I agree, I think. the argument that single member districts focuses on practical politics and local issues has been made by Michael Rubin, and looks strong to me. As for ethnic mix, the real concerns would be Basra, Kirkuk, Hillah, and of course Baghdad. In the first three FPTP (first past the post) would tend to help Shiites. In Baghdad it would depend how you draw the districts. A good American district drawing pro could easily draw the lines so that Shiites won every single Baghdad seat. So some part of this depends on how concerned you are about the Sunni Arabs. Though I think a battle about gerrymandered seats in Baghdad would be a BAD thing. I think the idea that FPTP favors fundies maybe a red herring - like V ive seen indications the Islamist lose in straight up elections in many parts of the South. All in all this looks like something that can be compromised with a mixed system, but Id certainly be wary of one that leans too far to prop rep given the circumstances of Iraq, |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-06 11:41:32 AM |
| #9 I think advocates of proportional representation are under the mistaken impression that we are under some obligation to adopt their religiously-held views of their system I think that you religiously hold the idea that people can't simply *honestly disagree* with you without being fanatics. Smaller states are protected fine by the present first-past-the-post system, which has the benefit of not resulting in gridlock, and continual changes of government as coalitions collapse. I think that governments *should* change if the coalitions forming it collapse. It's like a constant vote of confidence. And once again -- the chances for gridlock depend to a great extent to the specific system. But in the American system proportionality in state-electors wouldn't lead to an unstable government as the president once in would stay in -- nor do I see why proportionality in the congressmen would affect the stability of the executive branch of the government. I believe that the American president can't fall regardless of what happens in the upper/lower house. But that's because the American system isn't fully parliamentary, it's Presidential-parliamentary. but it's hard to see why Americans should support it. People that don't like either the Democrats or the Republicans would like to have some of their actual representatives in the senate. Libertarians or Greens or neonazis or whatever. Or atleast one American I know which supported change in the system, was a Nader voter. People that identify with either the one or the other party won't have much of a problem with the current system. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-06 11:35:52 AM |
| #8 I think the real agenda of these professors is to generate sufficient momentum behind this divisive system to get it adopted in America. This has the benefit of helping to destroy their ultimate enemy, which in their eyes is the US in its role as the epitome of Western oppression. Under proportional representation, the US would split into hundreds of ethnic interest groups, each of which would represent an ethnic colony on American soil, rather than comprise part of a unitary American state. I understand why America's enemies would like this system, but it's hard to see why Americans should support it. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-06 10:51:28 AM |
| #7 This looks to be the best information thread of the day already - thanks and kudos to you all (yes all). Sorry to butt in, puhleeze continue! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-06 10:51:13 AM |
| #6 Using Iraq as the case -- and we are -- I just can't get to the author's dread worst case scenarios. Given the demographic and political situation in Iraq, a constituency-based system would return a parliament mirroring the country's overall proportions. Ar-Ramadi's not going to send a Shi'ite deputy, an-Nasiriyah's not sending a Sunni, and obviously Irbil's not sending an Arab. Kirkuk and Baghdad might be two of the few areas where candidates from different "groups" would seriously vie for a seat. Since Iraq is generally (possibly large urban areas somewhat excepted) a very clan-dominated society, proportional or constituency will still yield much the same slate of actors in the end -- at least in the early years of democracy. Zhang Fei's right -- there are few generalizations in this area that prove to be reliable. Each country is different. Without deep study my impression is that a mixed, highly-federalized system would be the best bet for Iraq. Mixed in that you could have a lower house chosen by constituency, and weighted by population (like the US House) so that urban areas and predominant ethnic groups ended up with effective majorities, and an upper house comparable to the US Senate where minority and less-populated areas are over-represented -- this one chosen by proportional representation. There are many wonders of the American system, but chief among them is how the separation of powers yields (usually!) just the right mix of gridlock and action. Concocting that mix for Iraq will be a challenge met, I think, not on the first attempt. Aris, as far as I know (caveat emptor), identifiably islamist candidates have fared very poorly in local elections held to date, from Basrah to Mosul to the marshes (well, the areas formerly marshy now being reconstituted). My sense is that constituency basis creates at least a modicum of practical connection to the electorate's mundane concerns, and some accountability on that basis. And anything that helps tether Iraqi politicians to things like a fair share of the oil revenues, good roads and garbage pick-up, and public health spending seems like a plus to me. And for a second, just a second, savor the words "Iraqi politicians". This is something that was unimaginable just over a year ago. However untidy these early chapters in Iraq's new era seem -- and methinks they'll seem fairly untidy -- skeptics and nitpickers ought to sit back for just a moment and think about what a tectonic change has already been wrought in Iraq. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-07-06 10:47:34 AM |
| #5 Aris: If the electors were proportionally divided in each state (rather than all going to a single party), wouldn't smaller states be protected just the same? Smaller states are protected fine by the present first-past-the-post system, which has the benefit of not resulting in gridlock, and continual changes of government as coalitions collapse. Perhaps the countries with proportional representation should examine adopting the first-past-the-post system, given the evident success of countries with this system, including the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, et al. I think advocates of proportional representation are under the mistaken impression that we are under some obligation to adopt their religiously-held views of their system, just as Communists believed in the inevitable onslaught of "People's Republics". |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-06 10:45:41 AM |
| #4 Proportional representation is a recipe for gridlock That depends on the specific system. I'm not necessarily advocating a *completely* proportional system. I'm just advocating a system where even small parties have a chance to be a part of this, and a single big party isn't allowed to completely dominate by having a tiny majority. I've not studied the systems of those Asian countries you mentioned -- as for America I see how the electoral system helps by adding weight to the votes of smaller states, but I don't see how the "winner gains all" system helps in this. If the electors were proportionally divided in each state (rather than all going to a single party), wouldn't smaller states be protected just the same? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-06 10:34:03 AM |
| #3 Proportional representation is a recipe for gridlock and catering to extremist interests who hold the balance of power. This is why extremist groups (and folks like Aris) like them. First-past-the-post systems have to attract the votes of electoral majorities on a district by district level. This means that the interests of the broad middle, as well as of individual geographical districts, are represented. The American primary system, combined with the electoral vote system for the President and the Senatorial system ensures that the interests of specific geographical areas are never overlooked in favor of megalopolises like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. First-past-the-post has failed in some Third World countries, and succeeded in others. Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are some of the obvious successes. Much of Africa and Latin America have adopted just about every system under the planet and failed. It's got nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the people. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-06 10:22:18 AM |
| #2 In a true democracy, majority rules and under the rule of law. If this was an implementation of Switzerland-style direct democracy you'd have a point. Because in every single issue "majority" would rule. But in representative parliamentary system, democracy is stronger if it allows *all* to be represented within the parliament. You can have different political parties agreeing and cooperating in different issues. You can have MPs breaking off from one party to form another. These things are *good*. It's called plurality. USA is not the best example to apply to Iraq, because of the federal structure. But even there, there can be scenarios of ludicrous non-democracy. Consider for example a case where 30% Nader votes and 30% Democrat votes would lose to a 40% of Republican votes. Every third party is doomed. More to the point consider a case in Iraq where 30% of pan-Arabist Sharia Islamists win because the other parties are divided in either ethnic or ideological lines concerning economy and so forth. You may have your social-democrats, and your classical liberals, and your secular conservatives, and your Kurdish-independence party, and so forth. And yet a single party that's the most extremist of them all may get 90% of the parliament seats by having a tiny majority (not even an absolute one) by over all the other. Would you think that's perfectly democratic? A more fair system would be if the different parties were allowed to cooperate or disagree on different issues. And *then* majority rules. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-06 10:05:51 AM |
| #1 In recent weeks conservatives have criticized the choice of a proportional representation system for Iraq’s elections and have disparaged the U.N. electoral assistance department and its director, Carina Perelli... The WaPo just can't get out of the habit of publishing facts without attribution. Almost seems like their editorial staff is on crack. ... Proportional representation will avoid the anomalies that are prevalent when single-member districts or some variant thereof are used in emerging democracies. In 1998 the Lesotho Congress for Democracy won all but one seat in parliament with 60 percent of the vote; rioting and state collapse ensued. In the 2000 Mongolian elections, the ruling party took 95 percent of the seats with 58 percent of the vote. In Iraq such a system would most likely give a significant "seat bonus" to Shiite parties, to the detriment of Sunni-based groups and embryonic multiethnic movements. "Embryonic multiethnic movements"? Is that like a bowel movment? Because it sounds like the writer had one of those while constructing this doozy of a concept. The St. Lucian Nobel Prize-winner Sir Arthur Lewis cautioned 40 years ago that "the surest way to kill the idea of democracy in a plural society is to adopt the Anglo-American system of First Past the Post." No, we are seeing the best way of killing a democracy is to let the 'experts' tell us what we should not be doing. And folks, first-past-the-post means majority rules. This fella wants to spread democracy by, well, killing democracy, and he is trying to tell us here that democracy is good, but only how HE defines it. Sorta NPRish, doncha think? ... First-past-the-post systems in divided African and Asian societies have facilitated the development of ethnically chauvinistic parties. Conversely, there are inherent incentives in proportional representation to appeal beyond the boundaries of your group; proportionality leaves a space for multiethnic parties to grow, as in South Africa. Every vote counts toward gaining extra seats in the national legislature, and this would motivate broader vote appeals from Kurdish and Sunni parties in Iraq. So, what this rocket scientist is saying that parties not necessarily ethnic should be the exemplar for democracy, not political movements. Majority-based systems also systematically exclude women and smaller minority groups from representation. And so would any model of democracy which does not embrace majority rules. Women are underrepresented throughout the world, but the situation is significantly worse when single-member districts are used. Proportional representation allows the use of special mechanisms for gender diversity when constituting party lists. Got that? Ethnic groups who combine to pursue their interests are bad unless they, uhm, combine to pursue their interests. Finally, using proportional representation avoids the political powder keg of drawing district boundaries, and it makes voter registration far easier. I bet. Lessee, under a 'proportional system, a Star of David for Jewish folks, a crescent for Muslim folks, and what? Lawrence Welk for white folks? All printed nice and in three colors on your card. You get get a special patch made up to show your ethnic pride. ... The trend nowadays is for both established and emerging democracies to move to mixed systems, combining party slates and individual-candidate voting in districts, which satisfy various needs. No system can guarantee a democratic Iraq, but imposing winner-take-all elections would be like playing Russian roulette with Iraq’s political future. No, Russian roulette would be if the Iraqis decided to follow your ideas. Back to the drawing board dude. You may be a prince amoungst poli sci guys, but your honesty needs some adjusting. Keep your Zimbabwean way of democracy. In a true democracy, majority rules and under the rule of law. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-07-06 8:10:03 AM |