With the news being dominated by politics
over the last few weeks, the time has come again that we must delve into the
subject at hand. In a democracy, politics is intimately tied with voting, so it
seems logical to start there, and examine Namibia’s dual-system of voting –
after all, it is from there that our republic derives its legitimacy.
In our national assembly, Namibia uses a
proportional representation system of voting. The basic idea of proportional
representation is to reduce the disparity between a party’s share of the vote,
and the number of seats it has in parliament. In some nations, this means a
country is divided up into several electoral constituency, which each elect
several members to parliament. In Namibia, however, the entire country is
designated as a single constituency.
Proportional representation have several
advantages above other forms, such as the first-past-the-post system used in
the United Kingdom and the United States. Firstly, it is the most accurate way
to translate the national vote percentage into seats available at the assembly.
It also encourages parties to campaign nationwide, instead of only in regions
where the party is weak, as all votes go towards seats in parliament. This
indirectly stop regional parties from overpowering minority parties in a
region, like the Scottish National Party does in Scotland in the UK.
The access proportional representation
provides to minority parties is especially important, as even with just a few
votes, they can gain access to representation. This promotes inclusion, which
provides stability to society, builds more socially representative decision
making bodies and provides role models (elected representatives) to otherwise
marginalized groups. With better representation in the public sphere, this
results in a more transparent power-sharing system between different interest
groups, as parliament is usually a public forum, and reduces corruption
inherent in power-sharing behind the scenes.
Namibia, however, is not purely
proportional representation – we use Party-List proportional representation
system. This by necessity is even better for minorities, as people vote for
parties, and with public party lists, the parties have to ensure everyone is
represented. This means for a party to appeal to all, the party list has to
include a wide variety of members, including those of minorities.
In particular, this is advantageous to get
women represented, as lingering sexism in the underlying population is
countered when a party doesn’t have to put a male representative forward to
court sexist voters to ensure a win. This has allowed Swapo to institute the
Zebra policy during the last election, meaning that for the first time, women
in Namibia could have the same 50% representation in the National Assembly.
This means the gender balance in parliament resembled that of the general
population for the first time in the country’s history.
Proportional representation also means
there are very few wasted votes, as most votes go toward a seat in the National
Assembly. During our last election, this means only 10 427 votes were
wasted, or 1.3% of the total votes cast did not result in a party having a seat
in parliament. But as always, it’s not all sunshine and roses with this system.
In particular, proportional representation
also gives a platform for ‘extremist’ parties, as they can now have the floor
in parliament disrupt proceedings. We’ve seen the effect this can have in our
neighbour South Africa, and even in the embarrassment of the UK when their
United Kingdom Independence Party got seats in the European parliament.
It is also difficult for voters to enforce
accountability by throwing a particular person out of office. With the list
based system, this usually means that the party itself can continue to place an
unpopular person in a position of power, even if this is not what the voters
desire. For them to effect change, they have to throw an entire party under the
bus – sacrificing all those who they actually like.
It also results in a weak link between
elected representatives and the voters – after all, there’s no specific
representative that is voted for by their specific region – and even if someone
is assigned, it will be by the party, not the voters themselves. As a result,
voters find it much more difficult to approach government. It also means that
it is difficult for independent candidates to make themselves available for
election, as voters vote for a party, not a particular person. Some type of
party structure is always required.
Finally, a disadvantage of the list-based
system is that is causes the entrenchment of power within the party. Since
position is determined by a person’s rank on a party list, they have to remain
in favour with party leaders if they want to retain their position. As a result,
party members with different policies than that favoured by leadership will
often be marginalized, while those most skilled in brown-nosing tend to rise to
the top. Perhaps even more concerning, is the fact that in a list system, when
number 5 on the list, for example, unexpectedly dies, or for any other reason,
it is number 75 on the list that moves up – and rarely is number 75 an adequate
replacement for number 5.
The rest of the disadvantages of
proportional representation has been neatly avoided by Namibia – coalition
governments, disproportionate power to minor parties due to their kingmaker
status, etc. – simply because be use proportional representation to elect the
legislature, but a plurality first-past-the-post system for government – the presidency.
Our semi-presidential system thus allows us to avoid the pitfalls we’ve seen
South Africa fall into. Yet, this system is not itself without its problems –
that, however, is a discussion for another time.
No comments:
Post a Comment