A liberal viewpoint on electing people's representatives

German lessons to correct flawed system

By Rajiva Wijesinha

In considering the sort of electoral system we need in the present context, we should begin with what precisely we expect from those elected to Parliament. The original function of Parliament was that of a legislature, and its members were the decisive force in the making of laws. In addition Parliaments also took on financial responsibility, in that they formulated budgets and tried to ensure financial accountability. In Britain however Parliament also moved on to having an Executive function, in that ministers had to be chosen from members of Parliament. This was the essence of the Westminster system.

And in Sri Lanka still, though we now have an Executive President, that was grafted on to the old system so that all other members of the Cabinet have to be members of Parliament. At the same time we should remember that Parliamentarians are meant to be representatives of the country.

Parliament therefore was initially chosen through electorates, with individual members expected not only to represent their constituents but also to serve them. The individual member then derived his status from his constituency. However, as time passed, just as in Britain, the individual importance of members declined and they were seen rather as representatives of their parties. In recent years it has generally been accepted that people win seats because they represent particular parties. In Sri Lanka, though independents and representatives of small parties were found in profusion in Parliament in the past, they are now very rare.

Elections are generally seen as contests between the two major parties.

It was understandable then that, after the 1977 election, J R Jayewardene decided to change the electoral system to one of proportional representation. In both 1970 and 1977, parties had won vast majorities with just about half the popular vote. This was manifestly unfair, so Jayewardene introduced a system whereby members were elected for districts on the basis of the proportion of the vote their parties received in that district. However he prescribed not pure proportionality but rather a system whereby the party winning the most votes in a district received a bonus seat. Probably believing that the UNP would generally be the largest single party, he claimed that this would help victorious parties gain majorities and thus form stable governments. Further modifications occurred in time.

Initially members gained entry to parliament according to the order in which they were placed on the party list. After the District Development Councils election of 1981 however Jayewardene realized that there was no incentive at all for those at the bottom of the list to campaign for the party since there was hardly any chance of the party getting enough seats for them to be elected. He therefore introduced a system of preferences. Voters could cast votes for three persons, and it was in the order of preferences received that candidates entered parliament once the number of seats each party had won was determined according to proportionality. Incidentally, it was along with this system of preferences that the National List was introduced. On the earlier system, competent people could be placed high on a list even if their capacity to win votes was minimal.

Thus Lakshman Kadirgamar or K. N. Choksy could have been assured of a place in parliament. With candidates having to compete for preferences however, the system had to be adapted to allow such people also to be put into Parliament. The need to seek preferences has however multiplied abuses. Candidates now have to campaign in whole districts, which means that massive resources are required. As we know, recompense has to be made after the election for what is spent. Hence the almost desperate need for executive positions that allow for perks and patronage to make up what was spent during the election. Thus Executive Office, which used to be granted to a few who were thought suitable, has now become almost a right of those in the governing party who gain entry to Parliament. The preposterous number of ministers in the present government can be traced directly to this fact. The charitable explanation is that the President feels sympathy for those who have expended so much to ensure her party's victory, and feels obliged to compensate them. The more cynical one is that she will lose their support unless she satisfies them. And, regrettably, under this strange Constitution, an Executive President has to have guts, as well as a sense of responsibility about wasting the country's resources, to take a chance and put good governance above party political interests.

Almost everyone accepts that the present system is flawed, and many have suggested instead the German system that mixes constituencies with proportional representation. This would I think provide a solution to some of the problems that have been outlined, but it is necessary to understand it clearly and implement it correctly. What we have seen in recent times is an attempt to pass off an adaptation that totally perverts the system. The German system recognizes the need for constituencies, so that voters have a meaningful relationship with Parliamentarians who represent relatively small areas and small numbers. Half the membership of Parliament therefore is made up of constituency MPs. However the requirement that Parliament accurately reflects the will of the nation as a whole is satisfied by having the other half consist of MPs selected in a manner that ensures proportionality as a whole. To achieve this, voters are permitted to vote for a party in addition to voting for an individual as their constituency MP. It should be noted that voters may choose an MP from one party but vote for a different party when exercising their party vote (this would have been ideal for Mrs Bandaranaike, who could then have voted for her son in Attanagalla but voted for the PA as her preferred party of government). The important thing about the German system is that, once the party votes have been counted and the particular proportions each party should get have been determined, that proportion is applied to the parliament as a whole. Thus, if any party won fewer constituencies than its proportion of votes warrants, it gets a higher number of places from the list. Correspondingly, a party that has won a great many seats with a comparatively small percentage of the votes will only get as many seats from the list as will give it that percentage in the whole parliament. A few examples will make this clear. Let us suppose that Parliament is to consist of 200 members. 100 of these would be selected by constituency, with the remainder from a list. The PA wins 70 of the 100 constituencies, but with a total vote of just 45%. Its final entitlement then would be 45% of the total number of seats, which would be 90 out of 200. It would therefore get just 20 more seats from its National List, making a total of 90 altogether. Meanwhile let us suppose the UNP gets 40% of the vote but wins just 20 constituencies. Its entitlement would be 40% of the total seats, which is 80. It would therefore get 60 seats from its national list.

As at present the party can nominate defeated candidates instead of only choosing from those on the National List.

Again, if we look at smaller parties, if the JVP gets 6% but, given the first past the post system in constituencies, wins only one constituency, it will receive 11 places from its National List. This will give it 12 seats or 6% of the total available. Conversely, if the National Unity Alliance gets just 2% of the vote but, given the concentration of its strength, manages to win 3 constituencies, it will receive only 1 more place from its National List to give it a total of 4, which is 2% of the total. Occasionally a problem arises if a party wins more seats than its total proportion warrants, but the German constitution permits adjustments that dilute the value in percentage terms of those seats. In Sri Lanka such a problem could occur more frequently in the short term, given that the actual number of those who vote in some constituencies is at present very small. Some sort of adjustment however could be made that ensures representation for people in those areas while reducing the total value of the votes of such parties within Parliament to ensure proportionality.

The aim then is to ensure that Parliament re flects the will of the people proportionally, while also allowing individual responsibility for particular constituencies. In addition this system will do away with the need for massive expenditure, to compete against a horde of candidates, those in one's own party as well as those in all the others. More meaningful comparisons could be made, with the possibility of actual debate within a constituency about that constituency's needs. Correspondingly those on the National List could be expected to display a greater awareness of general policy and principles than was apparent in the recent election.

This system then is in fact totally different from the system proposed in the original draft constitutional proposals, which Prof Pieris characterized as the German system. When it was pointed out to him, during sittings of the Parliamentary Select Committee, that there were salient differences, he admitted disarmingly that there were some adjustments, but these could be reconsidered. What reconsideration led to was the preposterous 17th Amendment, that sought to top up Parliament with several MPs selected according to the percentages polled by the various parties. Since however a larger number were to be elected on a constituency basis, and these were unashamedly assumed to be likely to produce an overwhelming majority for the government, a majority that would scarcely be affected by the list MPs, it was not clear what useful purpose the list MPs served. Perhaps that was not a question to ask, given that hardly any attempt was made to conceal the fact that the measure was intended to dangle a carrot before UNP MPs whose support was sought for the new Constitution.

That measure indeed makes clear in what utter contempt policy makers at present hold both the Parliamentary system and Members of Parliament. Increasing numbers massively, simply to pass one measure about which consensus could have been achieved with just a little bit of goodwill, suggests that there is no concern at all about what membership of parliament should mean. The same sort of attitude is apparent in the creation of so many ministries that serve no purpose except to bestow office upon vast numbers of parliamentarians. The President may of course claim that these are all techniques thought up by J R Jayewardene, and she is simply taking his approach to its logical conclusion. But if that is her role model, she should also bear in mind the manner in which, after the ruthless victories of 1982, Jayewardene headed what was in effect a lame duck government for six long years.

Whoever wins, media lose

NEW YORK — A sacred rule in newspaper reporting religiously enshrined in journalism schools throughout the United States reads: Even if your mother says she loves you, double-check the story.

That perhaps is a cynical but ultimate test in accuracy in newspaper reporting.

But most newspapermen are inherent gamblers. They take chances, and occasionally, end up with egg on their faces.

Last week's media fiasco over the US presidential elections is an example of the fierce competitiveness that can force newspapers and television networks to outscoop each other only to find their judgements far too hasty.

As was evident last week, some of the major newspapers in the US stuck their necks out with banner headlines which later proved erroneous.

The headline in the New York Post read: "BUSH WINS", the Miami Herald "BUSH WINS IT" and the St Louis-Post Despatch "BUSH WINS A THRILLER".

The Washington Times changed its headlines three different times: "PRESIDENT BUSH", to "DOWN TO THE WIRE," to "NO PRESIDENT YET."

The news anchors and the headline writers first gave the win to the Republican candidate George W. Bush, then switched to Democratic candidate and Vice President Al Gore, and then finally declared that neither had won.

"We just don't have egg on our face, we have an omelet," Tom Brokaw, TV anchor for the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), was quoted as saying.

With the political fortunes of Bush and Gore fluctuating from one fleeting moment to another, Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory captured the scene accurately.

At 7:50 election night, she said, Al Gore was declared the winner. But he lasted as the potential president-elect for about 2 hours and 25 minutes.

"He probably was rearranging the furniture in the Oval Office in his head before he was rudely kicked out of office, so to speak, by new figures," she added.

The world's most powerful democracy was in trouble— embarrassed by an electoral system in which the man who got the most popular votes in a presidential election really loses the office.

"Fraud Suspected in the United States," said a headline in a Mexican newspaper.

At the United Nations, several Third World diplomats whose countries have been accused of manipulating elections, were watching from the sidelines the accusations and counter-accusations of "voting irregularities" in the state of Florida, as the story was unfolding by the hour.

"I cannot believe this is happening in a country which has always demanded free and fair elections from us," an African diplomat confessed rather sarcastically.

"Perhaps the UN should have sent election monitors and international observers to Florida" he said, the state where the presidential election remains in the balance.

Some of the politicians in the US are blaming the media for jumping the gun with erroneous election results and creating a political impasse.

But the electoral deadlock in Florida is likely to lead to a constitutional crisis in a country which is sharply divided between Bush and Gore as was evident in the election results.

The premature declaration of a Bush victory also led to a diplomatic fiasco as several countries, including China, India, Indonesia and Japan, rushed with congratulatory messages.

Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh was quoted as saying that New Delhi was "delighted and would wish to congratulate Governor George Bush, president-elect."

Even British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook extended his congratulations to Bush no sooner he heard the news of his premature victory on television networks.

One newspaper, rather appropriately, declared Bush "winner-by-network."