(Originally published on Feb.11, 2008)
The Congress of the People (COP) won nearly 150,000 votes and 23 per cent of the popular vote in the Nov. 5 general election, yet none of its members sits in the national Parliament.
On the other hand the United National Congress Alliance (UNC-A), with just over 50,000 more votes, captured 15 seats. And the People’s National Movement (PNM) with double the COP votes won a clear majority of 26 seats.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Logically, if 300,000 votes give you 26 seats, half of that should give you 13 seats. Right? Wrong!
And what about the other 199,000 votes? The math is messed up just like the logic. So let’s get back to the question: what is wrong with this picture?
The party with the minority support wins the majority. It feels wrong, sounds wrong and looks like the tyranny of the minority. Damn, it is wrong and undemocratic too!
But in reality there is nothing wrong; the constitution and the law allow it. And people have become slaves to a system that usurps their right to be heard.
Such a feat is possible under Trinidad and Tobago’s archaic, colonial structure of governance: First Past The Post (FPTP), which is a servant to the status quo. FPTP was designed to be a cheap and easy way to elect MPs and was introduced at a time when people could believe that their MPs were fulfilling their theoretical goal of representation.
FPTP is based on the premise that free people from across the country would elect a representative among themselves to speak on behalf of their entire constituency. These free minds would then assemble in the national legislature (the House of Representatives or lower House), and from their debates, negotiations, and politics, some would come together to form ‘parties’ of like-minded people.
From these organic parties, would emerge spokespeople and the individual who controlled the loyalty of the House of Representatives (i.e., controls the party or parties which hold the majority of seats) becomes the Prime Minister, and appoints a cabinet.
But is this really how it works in Trinidad and Tobago, or anywhere in the world? In Canada, for example, the current Conservative government’s political base is in the western province of Alberta. Although 25 per cent of Albertan voters marked an X for the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party holds all 28 seats in the province; the Liberals, zero.
Sound familiar? The similarity in Canada’s and Trinidad and Tobago’s politics is only in the sense that they share the same dated loyalty to the British Westminster model of electoral politics.
So let’s get back to Port of Spain. In a country with the demographics of Trinidad &Tobago, it is easy to politicize race and though many have resisted this temptation, every political observer knows that the country’s elections are essentially a mad dash for a few marginal seats.
This might lead one to the conclusion that within those constituencies that are deemed ‘pre-determined,’ there is no dissent.
The FPTP system leaves no room for dissent; it’s based on winner take all and losers go home. Even the Prime Minister of Trinidad &Tobago barely received the majority of votes in his own constituency, although he has been the representative for San Fernando East since 1971.
The opposition parties took 45 per cent of the popular vote in San Fernando East. That means out of every 100 voters, 45 said they didn’t want Patrick Manning to represent them. By extension they said they didn’t want a PNM government.
But in our FPTP system they have no choice; they have got Manning and the PNM and they can’t do anything about it. What chances do they have of having their views, beliefs, or interests represented?
Go over most of the other 41 constituencies and the picture is almost the same. The one indisputable fact about the Nov. 5 general election is this: a majority of the voters rejected the People’s National Movement, its leader and the party’s policies.
Yet with a minority vote, Manning governs with no moral or constitutional obligation to consult the "dissenters" or anyone. He has a majority and can do as he pleases.
And what of the 55 per cent of the electorate who voted against the governing party? They can wait for five years, then on an appointed day, repeat the whole exercise. Under the FTTP system, the majority may yet again be denied representation.
Of course, FPTP is predicated on the belief that stability and predictability are more important than democracy and representation.
The 45 per cent of San Fernando East that rejected the Prime Minister and his party are now forced to believe that he will represent them, as he has promised to. The problem with this system is that the power is centralized in the MPs (more specifically, the party leaders and executives), and NOT in the constituents that they claim to represent.
If the goal of FPTP is to elect free thinkers to come to the House of Representatives and forge alliances to represent the best interests of their constituents and their nation, why do we even have parties to co-opt their minds and ambitions?
Trinidad &Tobago is not a country devoid of dissent; it is a country that lacks the ability to make a choice because of its archaic, colonial-esq system of electoral politics, which was designed to install inflated majorities.
Today, the MPs who speak for constituencies almost never get a majority mandate, and they are forced to balance their consciousness with their party loyalty and career ambition.
The theoretical ‘free thinkers’ of old have thus become under-representative of the people they claim to give voice to.
One need only look at the figures in nearly every constituency in the 2007 elections to see that most sitting MPs do not command the majority of support within their constituencies.
Under a different system of electoral politics, the composition of the house would look quite different. And that’s where we should be looking – the "dreaded" system of Proportional Representation that the nation’s first Prime Minister, Dr Eric Williams, dropped like a hot potato before anyone could even read its merits or relevance, as stated in the Wooding Commission report on constitution reform.
The system can be complex and convoluted, but it can also be simple and representative, depending on how you look at it and what model you adopt.
Canada, for example, may not be a good place for a system of PR because of its massive size and regionalised polities.
On the other hand, Trinidad &Tobago fits the bill rather well. It is a small country with a small population. It is full of dissenting voices struggling to be heard and systemically being undermined by an electoral system and centralization of power that is designed to prevent today’s minority from ever becoming tomorrow’s majority.
All the sitting government needs to do is ensure there is more than one opposition party contesting the election and they can nearly guarantee a victory. Trinidad’s political history speaks to this. Under Dr Eric Williams the PNM remained the party of stability while opposition parties, with a few exceptions, were mostly stillborn.
The respected Trinidad and Tobago political scientist Dr Selwyn Ryan describes it well:
"Caribbean islands are littered with the carcasses of political parties which have materialized and then faded into oblivion without leaving much by way of a footprint on the landscape, however much they might have influenced the political narratives that other parties have appropriated."
The politics of opposition in Trinidad &Tobago has been greatly constrained by the FPTP system that refuses to acknowledge dissent and respects only the will of the "winner," even when the vast majority of the people in one constituency reject that person.
That’s why the nation should adopt as its New Year’s resolution a determined effort to change the political status quo by demanding constitutional reform based on some form of Proportional Representation so that the voice of the people would be heard in the hallowed chamber of the national Parliament, and hopefully effect change for the benefit of everyone, not just those who are beneficiaries of party favours from the governing establishment.
During the Nov. 5 election campaign Basdeo Panday outlined what could best the described as a teaser on the subject. His idea is for an Executive President elected by universal adult franchise using the FPTP system, providing the winner captures more than 50 per cent of the popular vote.
That leader would preside over a People’s Congress elected by proportional representation. Such a system would allow the greatest national representation in the legislature from where members would be chosen to sit in cabinet, on committees and other bodies to conduct the nation’s business on behalf of all the people.
Such reforms are always difficult, because it essentially requires the governing parties to advocate a system that will almost always weaken their results in the polls.
If we take the 2007 election result as an example of what PR might have achieved we would find the PNM still holding the largest block of seats, but with fewer seats.
Under a simple system of PR where percentage of votes equals number of seats, the UNC-A would have 12 seats, the COP 9, and the PNM 18. Since no other party won at least 2 per cent of the popular vote, the system described above would have only 39 seats and the system would have to adopt a measure to determine how to allocate the two other seats based on the surplus votes.
Suddenly the Manning majority would have disappeared and the system would have given a voice to the 148,000 COP voters who have none in the Parliament as currently constituted. (Surely it is a better system if it doesn’t shut out the opinion of 148,000 citizens.)
The political structure would have been radically different. Manning would have to govern through consensus. Or the opposition could have formed a coalition and unseated the government.
But the radical difference would be quite interesting. Under a PR List system, each party contesting elections would provide a list of candidates, organized in descending importance. The percentage of the popular vote they receive would determine how far down the list they go; that is to say, if they receive 30 per cent and 30 per cent = 12 seats, then the top 12 people on their list become MPs.
The electorate would have an opportunity to peruse the list, which would be made public before the vote.
This is but one of many ways a state might organize its electoral system in accordance with Proportional Representation.
Another system - the single transferable vote model – allows the constituency system to remain. The ballot paper would allow the voter choices, based on preference for parties. For example, a person might vote Democratic Action Congress (DAC) as number 1; COP as 2; UNC-A as 3; and PNM as 4.
The purpose of this system is to ensure that whoever wins the riding will have the majority of support of the voters.
So when it becomes clear that DAC will not win, the ballot above would be moved from DAC to COP. If it became clear that it would be a race between the UNC and the PNM, then the ballot would move from the COP to the UNC-A.
Instead of casting one ballot that is thrown away, voters under this system could vote for the party of their choice without having to gamble on the fact that their vote is wasted. Such a vote gives the individual control, turning the system upside down.
The common criticism of PR is that it is divisive and makes government slow to effect change. This view of PR is quite unfair, as small countries tend to excel under systems of PR; many – particularly in Western Europe and Scandinavia – enjoy some of the highest living standards in the world.
Making space for dissent is not divisive. Blocking people from the House of Representatives who have mandates by the electorate is divisive. Indeed, it seems tyrannical.
The people spoke in 2007 as they have done in every election since the 1920s. Why is the government so unwilling to lend an ear to the people they claim to represent?
Let 2008 be the year for change. Make it your new year’s resolution. You might be pleasantly surprised at the power you hold!
AJAY PARASRAM, M.A. Political Science
No comments:
Post a Comment