PEOPLE GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY ELECT! - Or do they?

By Rafiq Hajat,
Democracy & Electoral Systems: The Interface
The set of democratic institutions adopted by a country is integral to the long-term success of any
new regime, because they define the rules of the political game within that dispensation. Thus the
choice of election system is vital as it determines:
 Political Party culture, character and functionality i.e. democratic, personality driven,
ideological stance etc;
 Parliamentary representation terrain;
 Who occupies the Governing Seat;
The electoral system design therefore is a pivotal factor in constitutional democracies and an
invaluable tool in mitigating incipient conflict within divided societies;
What exactly does an Electoral System Do?
1. An Electoral System is a conduit for vertical accountability between the electorate and their
representatives. It is the means through which the grassroots mandate their representatives to
advocate objectives that are in the best interests of the community and the nation;
2. It sets the parameters of acceptable political discourse, thereby defining distinct avenues and
approaches which are used by Political Parties to seek a mandate from the electorate. These
are the basic rules of the game with which electoral campaigns and the process of elections
are supposed to comply with;
3. It translates votes cast in an election, into seats in a representative chamber such as
Parliament on the one hand and, in the Malawian scenario, the system also sets out the
framework for the election of the State President;
The key variables of the political landscape emanate from the electoral formula used, i.e. the usage
of a majoritarian or PR system and the mathematical formula applied to the allocation of
representative seats.
Electoral System Families
There are numerous types of electoral systems in use around the world, and there are several
variations within each system. Whilst it is not possible to delve into each system in detail in this
article, it may be useful to unpack some of the more common abbreviations for systems that are
used in other parts of the globe.
Abbreviations Unpacked
FPTP - First Past the Post ( Majoritarian)- used in Britain, U.S.A and Malawi.
AV - Alternate Vote (Majoritarian)- used primarily in Australia and Oceana
BV - Block Vote (Majoritarian)
SNTV - Single Non-transferable Vote (Semi PR)
PR - Proportional Representation- used by over 20 established democracies including
South Africa and Mozambique.
List PR - List PR- used in the Netherlands and Namibia
Rafiq Hajat is the Executive Director of The Institute for Policy Interaction
1
 MMP - Mixed Member Proportional- Germany
From the above list, it can be safely surmised that people around the world have devised many
ingenious systems to ensure that their views are competently represented with the corridors of
power, however no system is perfect. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Whilst this article
will not attempt to elaborate on each one, it is necessary to focus on three systems for comparative
purposes. These are the FTPT, The Semi PR, and pure PR systems.
First Past The Post (FTPT)
In a FPTP system, the winner is the candidate who won the most votes, but not necessarily an
absolute majority. In the Malawi 2004 Presidential elections - the Current President won by a mere
37%, whilst in Britain’s 2005 General Elections - Blair and the Labour Party only managed a
skimpy 34%, but still retained power.
FPTP – PROS
Simple to use and understand;
Clear cut choices;
Favours strong Parties;
Generally less need for coalitions - provides space for a ‘coherent’ opposition by favouring
large parties;
Advantages broadly based political parties;
Prevents radical extremist groups from exerting excessive influence;
Enhances vertical accountability between voters and their representatives;
Personal touch – voters choose people and not just parties;
Provides space for popular individuals to stand as candidates;
FPTP - CONS
Inhibits Small Parties in ‘fair’ representation;
Impedes minority representation;
Encourages political party development along ethnic or regional grounds;
Leads to large numbers of ‘wasted votes’;
Unresponsive to public opinion;
Susceptible to ‘gerrymandering’ or malapportionment of constituency boundaries;
This system allows the kind of individual flexibility that permitted the expression of electorate
discontent which resulted in a 70% turnover of M.P.’s in the 2004 General Elections with many
‘Party Heavyweights’ being displaced by ‘Independents’. Such a massive shift would not be
possible under a List PR system since it would permit individuals standing as ‘Independents’..
SEMI PR SYSTEM
Single Non Transferable Vote
A compromise between FPTP majoritarianism & PR proportionality – the Voter has one vote, but
multiple seats per voting constituency. Thus more than one candidate will be elected per district and
people are not restricted to voting only for Parties as would be the case under a pure PR system.
SNTV - PROS
Facilitates better minority party representation;
The more seats per district – the more representational the process;
Parties become highly organised in ensuring maximum votes in every district;
Fragments the Political Party system less than PR;
Easy to use;
Easy to compute results;
SNTV - CONS
Cannot guarantee overall proportionality in Parliament;
Small parties, whose voters are disbursed over many districts may not get fair
representation;
Larger parties can get substantial ‘seat bonuses’ to translate into overall absolute majority;
Less direct Voter-M.P. linkage;
Encourages Party reliance on ‘core vote’;
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEMS - List PR
This is a system whereby each Party presents a list of candidates to the electorate and voters cast
votes for the Party – not the candidate. The Parties receive seats in proportion to the national vote
and candidates are selected in order of their position on the lists. There are over 75 variations of this
system in use across the globe and it is preferred especially in ‘established’ democracies such as
Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark etc.
PR - PROS
Faithful translation of votes into seats – less ‘wasted votes’;
Legislature is more representative of voting trends;
Encourages Parties to be more socially diverse & inclusive of minorities;
Lessens dominance by single parties;
Smaller parties gain representation;
More Gender friendly;
Restricts ‘regional fiefdoms’;
More efficiency & continuity in Government;
Facilitates power sharing between parties and interest groups;
List PR - CONS
Can lead to legislative stalemates;
 Party leaders have disproportionate power in personality- driven parties – i.e aspirants will
have to obtain endorsement before they can be included in Party Lists;
Allows access to extremist parties, whereby even fringe and radical parties who get 1% of
the vote will have seats in Parliament;
Allows smaller parties more influence as power brokers since they will be able to lend their
weight to bigger parties in order to control the Legislature;
Encourages unstable Coalition Governments since it becomes very difficult for any Party to
win an absolute majority;
Difficulty in removing a entrenched party from power since it would take a radical shift in
public mood to achieve the requisite change in voting patterns;
Very weak horizontal accountability – since people vote only for Parties and not individual
candidates, thus there is no direct linkage between M.P.’s and the electorate;
Very complex in usage and computation, such that several formulae have been devised and
are in use in different parts of the world.
Conclusion
Any electoral system has, as far as possible, to reflect and cater for the specific characteristics and
aspirations of each nation. Malawi needs extensive and intensive research, analysis, study,
brainstorming, consultation and civic education, before moving from FPTP to any other system –
otherwise it may be a leap from the frying pan into the fire. This debate is healthy as it is indicative
of an encouraging sign of political dynamics which does not shirk at exploring new ground and new
lines of thought. It is however, important to retain the positive aspects of our present system whilst
seeking ways to improve it, rather than succumbing to the subtle pressures and the atavistic urge to
make a clean sweep and opt for something that is very new and untested in our context. One must
not throw out the baby with the bath water, and the fact that nowhere in the world do people really
get the Government they deserve (or elect) should be held up as a sobering influence in our way
forward towards a better electoral system. One size does not fit all and there is no perfect system
anywhere in the world. Malawi has a unique opportunity to create it’s own version of a suitable
electoral system and this wonderful chance should not be squandered recklessly.