Democracy campaigns in the UK and elsewhere
UK democracy campaigners have a cool video. It features people from all over the UK -- of all political persuasions -- who've come together to say "I choose change" and call for reform of our broken political system so that voters have the power to hold MPs to account -- by giving them a true say in who represents them in Parliament.
"It's time to kick out the antiquated way of doing things that has allowed them to get away with so much and bring in a new style of elections where every single vote counts.
The majority of the people in this country don't have a politican who represents them. It's time for that to change.
Support our efforts to get the Government to announce a referendum on electoral reform before the next General Election."
"Alongside the next general election there should be a binding referendum on whether to change to a new more proportional electoral system. This should be drawn up by a large jury of randomly selected citizens, given the time and information to deliberate on what voting system and other changes would make parliament more accountable to citizens."
A familiar topic to some Canadians.
"Labour has plenty of experience being screwed over by the electoral system. For example in 1951 we won the popular vote by a quarter of a million votes, but because of flaws in the system the Conservatives went on to form a government with a majority of five."
"Along with Alan Johnson, John Denham is one of the few cabinet ministers who supports PR (with Gordon Brown, David Miliband and others recent damascene converts to reform of the un-proportional AV kind)."
"This country should adopt a new voting system that would give parties seats in Parliament in proportion to their share of votes: 63% agree, 22% disagree."
Ken Ritchie, head of the Electoral Reform Society: "Under PR if your MP is, say, some fox-hunting Tory, at least you have another choice, either with STV or with the AV-plus system, where you can choose someone else from an open list." (AV-plus is an MMP system, with open lists in small regions, sometimes called "MMP-lite.")
For a more diverse House of Commons the UK needs proportional representation. All the familiar Canadian arguments:
Long careers, safe seats and a reliance on generational change are unfortunate byproducts of an antique political system. The issue really isn't the 89 seats where change is possible, but the hundreds of others where the chances are close to zero.
. . . a changing of the guard won't fix a broken system when it suits incumbents so well. As with expenses, voluntary or self-regulation is just not enough.
. . . a shift to proportional representation would support parties' efforts to increase diversity. Purpose-built parliaments in Scotland and Wales have already managed to break with the culture of Westminster, with little considerations such as sittings based around school terms, creches, proactive parties and PR systems that open up politics.
Anyone caring to inspect the league table for women's representation at the Inter-Parliamentary Union can draw a clear line across the top 100, with PR systems above and majoritarian systems below. Britain, home of the Mother of all Parliaments and first-past-the-post, comes in at an inglorious 60th place. Critics will no doubt suggest that high scorers Rwanda and Afghanistan are hardly models of enlightenment that Britain should emulate. But these new democracies – effectively starting their politics from scratch – have asked themselves what they want from politics, and that means a legitimate parliament in which all voices are heard.
Well all of a sudden Britain now has its own Year Zero. Rebuilding trust, and creating the kind of parliament that the UK deserves, cannot be left to the parties alone . . . We need a more responsive electoral system that not only makes politicians more accountable to the public but also makes it easier for parties to foster a more inclusive political culture.
We're pleased that organisations like the Fawcett Society and the Centre for Women and Democracy have recognised that PR is part of the solution and joined with us in the Vote for a Change campaign.
In India, a classic 1991 statement (recently reprinted) by Aruna Asaf Ali, "the Grand Old Lady of the Independence movement," a Brahmin who had married a Muslim, and was the first elected mayor of Delhi in 1958:
It is not surprising that, amidst the turmoil of partition, the system of single-member constituencies introduced in India by the British was continued after independence without critical examination. But the very first elections held in 1951-52 should have opened the eyes of political parties to the inequity of this system. It has since come under criticism in Britain itself because there, as in successive elections in India, the system of first-past-the-post has in effect denied representation to a large section of the electorate. A candidate who secures, say, 40 per cent of the votes cast in a multi-cornered contest becomes the sole representative of the constituency, with no voice in the legislature for the 60 per cent who did not vote for him. Similarly, political parties often secure huge majorities in the legislatures on the strength of less than half of the popular vote.
Instead of encouraging political parties to work together in coalition governments as they would have had to much of the time both at the Centre and in several States if we had proportional representation, things would have been different. The present system has encouraged confrontationist politics. It has led to demands for the premature resignation of governments before the end of their term—what is described as ‘destabilisation’—by political parties which have been denied their due measure of representation in the legislature. Bandhs and other forms of agitation have frequently disrupted normal life.
Within the ruling party, at the Centre or in a State, the present electoral system invests the principal vote-getter with absolute power because he has secured a huge legislative majority. It has encouraged a domineering style of prime ministerial or chief ministerial government. Over the several decades when a single party commanded an overwhelming majority in the Lok Sabha with less than a majority of the popular vote, the office of the State Governor was reduced to that of a cat’s paw of the Central Government, and even the high office of the President was shorn of its dignity.
It is by the accident of a ‘hung’ Lok Sabha that the autocratic style of prime ministerial government has yielded place to a consensual approach at the Centre, following the 1989 and 1991 elections. Structural reform, on the basis of representation for political parties proportionate to the size of their actual following among the electors, is necessary if the politics of confrontation is to be replaced by consensual politics on a secure basis.
The Indian Left as part of the Congress used to demand proportional representation in the pre-independence years, in elections within the Congress organisation. But post-independence, when elections enabled the Communists to secure power in the States of Kerala and West Bengal with less than half of the popular vote, their enthusiasm for proportional representation has declined. It is for concerned non-party citizens now to educate opinion and press for the reform.
Wilf:
As much as I really, really like the slogan "Vote for a change" -- the layered meaning is great -- I don't see a lot of "action plan" on this site.
A plan for actual action is what's missing -- here in the colonies as well. Proposing and arguing about alternatives is well and good but not very productive. Grice and Redburn may have their hearts in the right place but I've not seen any traction-worthy ideas.
If the Brits are calling for a referendum to measure public support for change that's OK.
Referenduming for a new system... well we Canadians can tell them one or two things about how well that works.
A concerted and coordinated multi-pronged offensive of petitions (much too passive alone) and voting boycots (let's find out just how low the percentage of valid votes can go before the elections are called into serious question) and publicity should be mounted anc could be effective. That may not be enough, however.
I refer you to the book "Right Relationship" and point you to the chapters on action near the end.
At least here we may get a new system mandated -- through the Charter challenge. I can't think of a better opportunity here on this side of the pond and it might be worth suggesting to those reformers over 'ome.
I cannot think of any active (or potential) initiative more deserving of our collective full support than the Quebec challenge.
Can you?
If only Britain had a Charter, yes.
Of course we'd all love the Charter challenge to succeed. It's worth remembering that the 2001 Charter Challenge prepared by U of T's Test Case Centre was never ultimately taken forward. So we need other routes as well. But you're right, so do the British reformers.
Is it worth knowing why it was never taken forward?
Are there lessons for the Quebecers??
Loving for the Challenge to succeed is all well and good but working towards its success is a different thing... and that's what we all should be doing particularly with the vacuum of ideas for alternative action at this time.
Why wouldn't FVC put its full weight and effort behind this? Will you?
As you observe, we have a Charter.
The "Alternative Vote" is not the answer says the head of Britain's Electoral Reform Society, calling for a Citizens' Assembly to decide between STV and MMP-lite. (Have we seen this movie before? Except for the fact that the MMP-lite model called AV+ has only 17.5% regional MPs in little regions averaging 8 MPs each, with the regional MPs elected by open-list, half-way to MMP -- a model which Jenkins and his four other commissioners designed as a typical British compromise.)
If AV is indeed Brown's choice, it seems too much like Hobson's choice, and he will leave himself open to more accusations of political timidity and indecisiveness. We don't imagine the prime minister has undergone a Damascene conversion somewhere along the road to Norwich, but his personal views shouldn't limit the options on the table. There are plenty to choose from, but the front runners appear to be AV+ and the single transferable vote (STV).
The choice of system to be offered in a referendum, ultimately, should not be one for Gordon Brown, or indeed for any politicians. If this summer has proved anything, it's that our politicians are incapable of self-regulation. That's why Brown, while he still has time, must set up a citizens' assembly – a large body of randomly-chosen electors – to decide what the referendum should be about.
I think we know how this will turn out.