By Dr John Hayward of The Jubilee Centre
I was based for the best part of a decade in the former Soviet republic of Tajikistan, just north of Afghanistan. During that time I saw the country emerge from a five-year civil war. A fragile peace agreement signed in 1997 eventually led to the first supposedly democratic Presidential elections in 1999, which saw the three opposition candidates boycott the poll over procedural irregularities, forcing the government to grant the Islamic Renaissance Party candidate registration just two weeks before the elections. Unsurprisingly, the incumbent, Emomali Rahmonov, won with 96% of the vote. Reportedly, 98% of the country’s 2.8 million registered voters cast their ballots.
A common complaint of the time is captured in an anecdote about a famous Central Asian figure, Mulla Nasruddin, who challenged the results of an election in which he was the defeated candidate: ‘I know it was crooked,’ said the Mulla. ‘A friend of mine voted for me fifteen times in one of the districts but I only got four votes there.’
I have also been privileged to spend time in other countries ahead of their elections, including the United States of America, most memorably both before and after Barack Obama was returned as President in 2008, and Iran, where I spent a few days ahead of the 2005 elections that unexpectedly saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad become president. Conversations I had with people in both these countries about their electoral hopes and fears were eye-opening. Needless to say, my experience of global democracy, as well as my time as director of the Jubilee Centre, has helped to shape my perspective on the whole democratic process and what we might realistically expect of it.
Later this year we all have the first chance in many years to participate in our own small ways in a decision that has the potential to shape the future of our nation. I refer of course to the marriage vows of Prince William and Kate Middleton, of obvious significance given the role of the monarchy in the British interpretation of Parliamentary democracy. Less than a week later, we will then be asked whether we think the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead of the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons.
Even if you disagree with my conclusions on this question, the one thing I would like you to take away from me is that our discussions about electoral reform and the democratic process should be focused around participation, not representation. Democracy is not just about putting a cross (or a series of numbers) in a box once every few years. Rather, it is about ordinary people being able to influence and get involved with the issues that affect them on a daily basis.
The AV Debate
Some claim that ‘millions of votes are wasted’ under the existing ‘first past the post’† voting system (FPTP) used for electing politicians to the House of Commons. If we are all made in the image of God and therefore of equal worth, then, we are told, there should be a bias toward the vulnerable, the powerless and the voiceless. However, this argument is flawed on two counts. Firstly, bias is different from protection and does not reflect equality. Secondly, and more seriously, this presumes foreknowledge of results. Millions of votes only appear ‘wasted’ once one knows that a particular candidate has secured a large majority. Yet the bible clearly warns against such presumption (e.g. James 4:13-17). Today’s ‘safe’ seat was yesterday’s marginal and today’s marginal could well be tomorrow’s ‘safe’ seat. In any case, the ‘alternative vote’† system (AV) would not prevent seats from being ‘safe’.
Others argue that we need AV because coalition government introduces checks and balances of the kind that are in evidence in the very different electoral system across the Atlantic, where compromise is needed at virtually every step if politicians are to achieve anything. Yet others respond that we only need to look at the Conservative-LibDem government to see that coalitions throw out their policy commitments and manifesto pledges, and instead develop new manifestoes over which voters are given no say.
Yet others claim that AV would deliver a fairer result as every winning candidate must have secured the support of at least half the electorate. However, an AV system didn’t stop people complaining that Ed Miliband’s election as leader of the Labour Party had been unfair, as his brother David had been the clear first choice of MPs, MEPs‡ , and Labour Party members.
Indeed, given the three-party state of our politics, AV would almost guarantee a repeat of the unedifying spectacle witnessed last May, when the decision of who forms the Government was taken away from the voters and placed in the hands of the third party – the Liberal Democrats. How, one might ask, is that ‘fair’?
Even at the constituency level, AV does not offer equality, as only the second and subsequent votes of constituents who do not support the preferred candidates are counted. Thus, AV treats the second and subsequent votes of a limited group of voters as of the same value as first preferences. In other words, an MP’s success could be determined by the preferences of, say, UKIP or BNP voters, which could see candidates adopting more extreme policies, for example on immigration, in order to appeal to the prejudices of these voters in the hope of picking up their transferred preferences.
As John Redwood graphically put it, ‘If I go to the races, I expect the horse that comes first to be the winner. I do not expect the judges to say that as the first and second were close they will ask the losers who they would like to win. Nor do we say that as it was close the first and second place have to run it again without the others to see if one is faster without the others getting in the way.’[1]
Or, as Winston Churchill more succinctly observed eighty years ago, AV allows democracy ‘to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.’[2]
AV need not even produce a more proportional result than FPTP. For example, under AV parties in Canada have been known to obtain 90 per cent of the seats on 54 per cent of the vote.[3] Neither does AV prevent a party from winning a landslide victory. In the last ten years, AV has twice given the Australian Labor Party more than 70 per cent of the seats in Queensland, despite securing less than half of all first preferences.[4]
Making the process of casting a ballot more complicated, by asking the public to rank candidates or to vote for parties and individuals, also risks a repeat of what was seen in the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary election, when more than 100,000 (or five per cent of) voters were disenfranchised. Most constituencies saw at least 1,000 ballot papers rejected, a situation all the more unfair in any area where this number exceeds the winner’s majority.
At the end of the day, reform of the process by which individuals and the parties they represent are elected cannot bring about the change that is needed. Governments will still get majorities or even landslides with less than 50 per cent of the vote, and we will still have tactical voting and so-called ‘safe’ seats. We could spend days and years discussing how to structure government differently and how to determine who should represent us in government, but it will still come down to people with different ideas and values needing to cooperate and negotiate in the interests of the common good.
Real Electoral Reform
The key ingredient that we need if we are to see genuine electoral reform is not alternative representation, but wider participation. An alternative system of representation that saw the House of Lords filled with elected politicians, for instance, each with an eye on re-election and, for all intents and purposes, no different from the House of Commons, would probably be a pale shadow of the Upper House that we currently have, largely filled with people who bring a depth of experience from many fields, few of whom might win a popular vote in today’s celebrity culture, but who nevertheless perform a far greater service for the public than any talent that might be presented to the country by the likes of the X Factor.
It does no good to complain, as some do, that ‘The overwhelming majority of us live in safe seats where we are increasingly neglected by the political parties both during and between elections.’ The answer is to get involved – both during and between elections! If a voter complains that they have not been contacted by the political parties because they live in a ‘safe’ seat, the solution is for them to become locally active in the party of their choice! The bible warns us against becoming too dependent upon any one person or public body and invites everyone to play their part in the communities in which they live and work.
From the perspective of political theology, government is ultimately about creating the conditions under which society might thrive through the direct responsibility and action of individuals, families and local organisations, but not forcing change itself. Relevant principles from Catholic Social Teaching and the ‘sphere-sovereignty’ of Dutch theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper, that we don’t have time to explore here in detail, include subsidiarity (the ideal of devolving power to the lowest appropriate level) and solidarity (the requirement for state intervention to look after the disadvantaged) with the intention of maintaining human dignity and, ultimately, promoting the common good. The Jubilee Centre will soon be publishing a report arguing that the bible envisages a genuine ‘big society’ – but one that is better, not just bigger, by virtue of the greater participation of all its members.
The bible repeatedly teaches us that the centralisation of power in any individual or institution increases the temptation for corruption and exploitation. The Old Testament in particular therefore envisages power being balanced across various sources of authority: the individual, family, community, religious bodies (Levites), region (tribe), and nation. Between them they formed a network of concurrent authorities each instituted by God and protected, limited and empowered by the national constitution. Moreover, they each fostered a particular means for individuals to engage in the policies of the state. Some of these six biblical jurisdictions are directly paralleled by the same institutions today (such as the individual and the region); others may have broad reflections in modern-day analogues such as businesses and the third sector (community), the Church and other faith groups (Levites).
As the Jubilee Centre concluded in our general election guide to the issues, Votewise Now, the biblical mandate is for all of us to engage as ‘salt’ and ‘light’ at all times and in all places. ‘We are called into … a life of service for our fellow human beings, and creation. We vote, not simply for what is best for us, but for what is best for others.’ But our service does not stop at how we cast our ballots. The bible challenges us to get involved; to join a political party and help choose who the candidates are; to attend public meetings and stand for public positions ourselves, for instance as school governors or local councillors.
Ultimately, whatever electoral system we have, we will still be disillusioned and disappointed with the results, for no leader or team of leaders, however gifted, is able to solve all society’s problems. Let me conclude with another Central Asian anecdote. Rival political candidates were due to speak at a hustings and Mulla Nasruddin was chosen to introduce them. He began by telling the crowd, ‘I want to present to you someone who, above anyone else I know, has the welfare of each and every one of you at heart. More than anyone else, they are singly devoted to our great and glorious nation.’ Then he turned to the candidates and asked, ‘Which of you wants to talk first?’ In reality, only when Christ finally establishes his kingdom will calls for reform cease.
† Under FPTP, also known as ‘plurality rule’, people cast a single vote for the candidate they want as the representative for their constituency and whichever candidate gets the most votes is elected. Under AV, known as ‘instant run-off’ in the USA, people rank the candidates; if no candidate has more than half of first preference votes then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed among the other candidates according to voters’ next preferences; this process continues until one of the candidates has secured a majority of the votes cast.
‡ MPs: Members of Parliament; MEPs: Members of the European Parliament
[1] John Redwood’s Diary: Why should Lib Dems vote twice?
[2] HC Deb 2 June 1931 c106 cited by I. White & J. Woodhouse (2010) AV and electoral reform, House of Commons Library SN/PC/05317
[3] ‘in 1948 the Social Credit party in Alberta hit the jackpot when it scooped 97% of the seats by winning 53% of first preference votes (in the 47 constituencies that used AV)’ cited by AV2011.co.uk
[4] See results for Queensland’s 2001 and 2004 elections
Facebook
YouTube
Twitter
Headline Widget
News feeds
Mailing list