Robert BuddanJamaica's last parliamentary election was among the closest of all of our parliamentary elections. It tells us something important about how our type of electoral system works. It is a pure two-party system. Once again, the two parties won all the seats in Parliament and more than 95 per cent of the votes cast, something they have been doing since 1955. It is a party system with a rare regularity. Between 1944 and 1989, the two partie every two terms and after a four-term spell by the PNP, they have resumed the pattern o It is a system of single-party governments. On each of the 15 occasions when the election has been held, a single party government has resulted. Thus, our two-party system produces single-part governments.
This is the classical way that party systems under 'first-past-the-post' (FPTP) or plurality electoral systems are expected to work. It is part of the defining feature of the Westminster model of politics and government. Yet, it has been controversial on two counts. One, for producing single-party governments in societies that might do better if the electoral system forced outcomes that necessitated coalition governments. Two, for over-exaggerating the seat margins of parties relative to their popular vote, which creates a disproportion between votes and seats won. The remedy, some have argued, is another kind of electoral system, proportional representation, which creates a truer correspondence between seats and votes and the balance of power between parties in government.
The plurality system, however, works on a different premise. While proportionality is good, effective and durable, government is better. Precisely because seat margins are exaggerated, one party will have enough of a majority to governby itself rather than to depend on another party or other parties with which to form a coalition, which can complicate governing if the partners cannot sustain agreement in the coalition, as has happened in many European democracies.
the ideal formula
The ideal formula is one that gets the best of both worlds. Therefore, there has been growing popularity of mixed electoral systems in which some seats are elected by proportional representation and some by FPTP. Countries like New Zealand and Japan have adopted this, and the United Kingdom is considering it.
But the pure FPTP system can occasionally produce the best of both worlds as well. We have seen this in our last two elections. The vote and seat margins of the PNP in 2002 and the JLP in 2007 were relatively proportional with a slight exaggeration of seats. In 2002, the PNP won 52 per cent of the votes and 56 per cent of the seats. In 2007, the JLP has won 50 per cent of the votes and 55 per cent of the seats. It is these seat margins that give a party just enough disproportionality to govern (alone). However, FPTP can and has produced large disproportions and does not force parties into coalitions.
In fact, the JLP benefits more from the FPTP system and its benefit makes the two-part possible. The JLP, therefore, has never advocated a system of proportional representation. In 1949, it won 42.7 per cent of the votes to the PNP's 43.5 per cent (with Independents winning the rest), but won 17 seats (53 per cent) to the PNP's 13. In 1962, the JLP won 50.04 per cent of the votes and 26 seats (57 per cent) while the PNP won 48.59 per cent of the votes with 19 seats. In 1967, the JLP won 50.65 per cent of the votes and 33 seats (62 per cent) with the PNP winning 49.08 per cent of the votes and 20 seats. Now in 2007, the JLP has won 50.13 per cent of the votes and 33 seats (55 per cent) to the PNP's 49.7 per cent of the votes and 27 seats (preliminary).
Under a system of proportional representation, the JLP and PNP would have so closely shared votes and, therefore, seats on these occasions that coalitions would have been virtually necessary. Since the PNP wins clearer majority of votes and seats, it would have been able to govern alone when it has won elections. Under PR, therefore, either the PNP would have governed alone or the two parties would have governed together. There would be infrequent JLP governments.
It is not the votes so much that define Jamaican politics, but how the votes are distributed, and this is done by the electoral formula. Election controversies are not just over free and fair elections (the job of electoral administration), but over the formula for converting votes into seats because there are different ways of doing so.
PROPORTIONALITY AND BALANCE
Proportionality provides a better balance between voters and parties in the legislature. But even without PR systems, parties can still arrange to share responsibilities over policy in a way that reflects their proportional national support. There is nothing in the Westminster system that prevents this. It is one of the great ironies of our politics that Trevor Munroe, who advocates a mixed electoral system that would combine better proportionality with effective government, and more unified politics and government, based on some formula for a government of partnership, should have failed to win a seat to Parliament.
What is worse, Professor Munroe was a victim of a kind of politics that would taint any electoral system. He lost by 550 votes. In one garrison community, he won 24 votes to his opponent's 937, a mere two per cent. In two other (middle class) polling divisions interestingly, the voter turnout was suspiciously 100 per cent, and 140 per cent, which both went against him. Electoral observers did not pick up these anomalies but the Electoral Commission should know about them. This is a case where the forces of old politics defeated the forces of new politics at a time when realism calls for a governing partnership more than ever. There should still be a place for people like Professor Munroe in building the kind of partnership that the society needs.
Regardless of the electoral system, the Electoral Commission should give speedy attention to certain issues. It wants speedy attention to increase the number of constituencies to 65. It should also demand speedy attention to other matters over which there is greater controversy. It should analyse its data to identify those polling divisions in which there was over-voting and investigate why this was so. It should investigate those cases where it is reported formally and informally that ballot boxes went missing even if they were eventually recovered and tallied. It should look at those polling divisions where there was an unusually lopsided vote for one or the other side as a possible signal of garrison-type influence. It should also be aware that political intimidation takes place weeks and months before an election (along with acts of vengeance after elections), which can affect voter turnout on an election day.
We have a formula for elections, which faces criticism in many of the countries in which it is used; and a formula for governance, based on single-part governments, also criticised. But the most important formula of all should be a formula for nation building, and that requires that we find a better way for our parties and our people to have a share in governing.
Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, University of the West Indies, Mona. Email: Robert.Buddan@uwi mona.edu.jm.
Proportionality provides a better balance between voters and parties in the legislature. But even without PR systems parties can still arrange to share responsibilities over policy in a way that reflects their proportional national support.
