Wednesday, May 13, 2015

It is now time to revisit proportional representation

FIRST PAST THE POST is a perfect voting system for two (or at a squeeze three) parties. It gives us a decisive result, and a strong government[1] able to fulfil the manifesto pledges given to the public. As for a system of proportional representation it leads to unending backroom deals, watered down policies, and weak government - It is time consuming when a national emergency requires a decisive response. Three, four, or five or more parties all bargaining over, for instance, stronger boarder controls (Ukip), unlimited immigration (the Greens); and every other aspect of government policy. Tradeoffs will be made, and the right decision may not be made in terms of what the largest party, with the greater proportion of voters told the electorate they would do in their manifesto.
                
                The case for FPP is a very strong case. A case I have always supported. I hate, for instance, to imagine what a system of proportionality would have done to advance the war effort against German Nazism, which, being a dictatorship cared little for the thoughts of their people unless they conformed to their own; and whose people in any case cared little for democracy while the Nazi war machine brought them military success after success. Would Churchill have been able to command the country having to have smaller parties continually snapping at his heals to change a decision.
                
                  A national government, I believe would have proven unworkable in the Second World War if today's proportionality had played any part in the election of Winston Churchill. He would have been opposed at every unfavourable turn of events that war is always sure to bring. For the period of the Second World War, the country needed an inspirational individual who could lead the country unchallenged by lesser individuals - the Roman republic, as an instance, resorted to a temporary dictatorship in time of national strife. They gave power to a single individual when a threat to the republic presented itself; and the Senate gave unlimited power to such an individual (usually a worthy general) to assuage the threat; after which the republic returned.
                
                 I believe in a strong government, which, because of its democratic mandate, can govern freely and effectively – even if I oppose, ideologically, such a government; but because such a government would have been given its legitimacy by the people to rule, and to implement their manifesto for the five year term until it had to face the electorate once more.

BUT I HAVE NOW changed my mind. If we believe in democracy, then it should work at its purest form, even if on many occasions it presents itself as an ineffective form. It should nevertheless represent all and every opinion in terms of seats, and allow, as far as humanly possible every individual voter to make his or her vote relevant. This does not happen under the present first past the post system, as we have already seen from this current election. The disproportionality between the party's  has now become cataclysmic in democratic terms. First past the post no longer represents the true reflection of democratic opinion, and no true democrat can sustain any love for it.
                
                Westminster has, during the last parliament received ever closer scrutiny. We have had the MP's expenses scandal[2] and the public cynicism toward our politicians continues apace. Ever growing apathy from the electorate toward the three main parties has produced room for at least two other parties to join the throng – Ukip and the Greens.
                
                 Both Ukip and the Greens, who have between them garnered five million votes but have only, because of the FPP system, two MPs; while the Scottish National Party (SNP), with fewer than two million votes receives 56 members of parliament compared to only to one by Ukip with nearly treble the number of votes the SNP received in Scotland.
                
                Ukip's four million votes (and one MP) would have added over 80 seats under a proportional system to parliament; which would have truly represented the diversity of opinion and elevate democracy into a true reflection of public opinion. A proportional system presents in terms of elected representatives a truer indication of the state of the electorate's views in seats won, than does the first past the post system.
                
                 All the first past the post system is good for, is manufacturing apathy against ever voting at all among those that support neither of the main parties that have always ruled under FFP to the point where they have taken the voters for granted (remember, neither of the two main parties exceeded in voting terms their core vote in this election). In the past both Labour and Tory were set the task of surpassing the 40% level in order to guarantee a majority. The core vote in percentage terms for Labour and the Tories has always been in the low to mid 30%. It is this core vote during this election that poll after poll suggested would lead to another coalition.
                
                 Today, the FPP discourages voting because the two (or three) party system does not truly represent the people of the UK and their views on such topics as immigration and Europe (which all of the three main parties, as championing multiculturalists, are in concord with). It is these two topics that will dominate the first two years of the next parliament. The FPP has given us a Conservative majority of 12 seats. This means that Cameron has to assuage his Eurosceptic back benchers by courting them with ministerial or junior ministerial posts in order to function, and if any of them take up such position in government before the European issue is voted upon in a referendum; then such MPs are disingenuous regarding their Euroscepticism.
A SYSTEM (OF WHICH THERE ARE MANY) of proportional representation will make every vote meaningful in terms of representation. Its obvious disadvantages over FPP are listed above. But what FPP has done is to add to the disillusionment of the people for ever voting at all. The FPP cloned tripartite system of democracy that has led to the negligence of the electorate will continue, because it is in the conformity of the 'buggins-turn' attitude of the two main competing parties; that has led to public disenchantment with voting.
                Russell Brand was both right and wrong when he impressed the yoof not to vote. Under the present arrangement; I would say the same, and there is no greater believer in democracy than myself. This current FPP understanding has led to apathy and disenchantment among many people whose votes they see as worthless because they do not support the main parties; and have no means of expression for them under the FPP system.
                Both Ukip and the Greens have conjured up between them over five million voters ready to support their cause. But the FPP system does a great disservice not only to the smaller parties in terms of seats; but to democracy itself because this kind of true representation is not followed through, in terms of parliamentary seats. So, sooner or later disillusionment will follow the same path as that which deposed Louise XVI when the ancient regime finally achieved the bloody end to its bloody arrogance.
                The FPP is our own equivalent in democratic terms to modern ancient regime. The same kind of arrogance that Louis XVI displayed in the 18th century is now being taken up by the two main parties who want to cling to FPP by dismissing PR to keep them both as the only real choice for the electorate.
                Under proportional representation Ukip's 14% share of the vote last Thursday would have translated into between 80-86 seats in the House of Commons. Is this fair? No, but neither of the two main parties care little for fairness because the FPP works in their own favour and will continue to do so, leaving ever more voters unwilling to vote, because of the sclerotic state of FPP.
                It is no good the establishment berating everyone to vote if there is not the possibility of voters seeing their votes truly represented by seats in parliament. At the moment we have a duopoly of parties in the UK who think and sound alike on the two great issues of the day – immigration and Europe. This duopoly could have been challenged under a fairer voting system. But this would have been anathema, considering the influence of Ukip, to both of them. 
                Proportional representation in one form or another now has to be considered for the election of our representatives in Parliament; if not, which now seems likely because of the stranglehold the two main parties have on the way people are being allowed to vote, the disillusionment will fester, as under Louise XVI, and sooner or later the same kind of retribution will befall the EU that befell 18th century France.

                 
                 



[1] I know there have been many cases of minority governments under this system that has to, like our previous one, seek an arrangement with a third party in order to govern. But this is still better than full blown PR which may involve several parties in government decision making each with their own political agenda.
[2] Which still continues

No comments: