2010-05-11
FTPT or PR? Problems with transforming the British electoral system
One of the main issues for the LibDems in this chaotic UK election has been reformation of the union’s electoral system. I agree, in principle, with those who believe that the first-past-the-post system is a less democratic alternative to proportional representation. I do so because of several reasons.
Firstly, it fails to reflect the voters” will in parliament. If democracy means government by, of and for the people, it is odd that geographical differences are to have such an impact on the value of a vote. In a first-past-the-post system, in theory up to 49.9% of the people’s votes risk becoming worthless.
Secondly, MP’s are said to represent the people; but it is strange that this representation is to be based on geographical grounds. It can safely be assumed that most people identify themselves mainly by parameters such as gender or ethnicity before they see themselves as members of the constituency where their home is located. These grounds of representation are not taken into any consideration in the electoral system, which in consequence causes British born white males to be heavily overrepresented in Parliament.
Also, a common feature for democracies is that citizens who are dissatisfied with the current political landscape have the possibility to form new parties. In Sweden there are several successful examples of this, such as the Christian Democratic party in the 70′s, the Greens in the 80′s, and the Feminist and Piracy parties more recently. There are hardly, however, any incentives to either create or vote for small parties in the UK since such votes, and thereby also such citizen initiatives, would be wasted.
Lastly, the first-past-the-post system disadvantages parties with a smaller agenda whose voters are not concentrated within a particular location. If social integration is a goal in society, which it arguably is, this fits badly into the possibilities of minority groups to influence British society. It is hard to imagine parties with interests related to minority groups having any realistic chances of influencing politics, unless these minorities live in ghetto-like constituencies.
For all these disadvantages with the British electoral system, a change to – eventually – proportional representation would be likely to entail several problems as well.
In general, actors within a certain sphere are always shaped after the incentive structures that are created by the institutional framework of that sphere. The actors which have been shaped by, and subsequently benefit from this framework will have clear incentives in keeping it maintained. This is what gives rise to conservatism in general, and indeed the British political system is a textbook example of this phenomenon.
For one thing, Britons are used to strong majority governments. Except for on a few occasions, right now and before that 1974, the UK population has never had to worry about negotiations and compromising in the aftermath of an election. The agendas of the three major parties have not evolved in the light of a need for cooperation, and there is no tradition of political collaboration as there is in Germany or Sweden. Thus, the parties are today very dissimilar, and the two which are forming a coalition will struggle to cooperate.
The same thing goes for the British voters themselves. This chaos may have been depicted as a spectacle rendering argument for the wryness of the whole system; in a PR, the same chaos would occur after every election.
All systems are changeable, but it is a fact that change takes time and comes at cost. Because of this, it is rare for it not to occur incrementally, that is, ”inch by inch”.
Another problem, attached to change itself, is that there is a democratic interest in these sort of permanent transformations to happen with consent from most major actors. Granted – I have already made the point that the UK does not have a tradition of that sort of collaboration between the blocs. But at the same time, it would be an awkward state of affairs were the party with the least votes of the big three to get their will through in reform that would yield permanent consequences. A topic, perhaps of academic interest, is how to view a reform to a more democratic system, pursued in a relatively undemocratic manner.
Few persons see it plausible that the UK within this mandate period would have its electoral system reformed to full out PR. But some change seems likely. The LibDems have been working for this since the 1920′s, and for the first time since then they have the possibility to influence.
There are of course more alternatives to system reform such as AV and single transferable vote. These are compromises between the diametrically opposed alternatives I have written about here. To read more about them, visit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8644480.stm
Reform of the first-past-the-post system is necessary, but it must not be hastened. The risks are that the benefits of an, in principle, more democratic alternative would not outweigh the costs of getting there. Hopefully even the LibDems realise this.
This UK election will have consequences that potentially may redraw the political map permanently, and it is extremely exciting to take part in that development.
————————————————————————————————
04/08/09
Les États Unis pourraient collaborer avec l’Iran contre les drogues.
Focuser à des interêts communes dans un conflit, est souvant un moyen de reussir aux negotiations, bien mieux que faire attention aux choses que separent les partes. Travailler pour atteindre un objectif commun va créer un collaboration constructive, que peut dissiper un malevolence mutuel. Les objectifs communs économiques ou sociaux sont des garants plus effectives contre destructivité mutuel que des notions comme “solidarité” ou “fraternité”.
C’est, naturellement, le même dans la diplomatie, où par example les projets de paix plus réussis sont souvent construits dans accords avec des consequences beneficielles aux deux partes. L’UE est un très bon exemple de ça.
Dans DN, un journal suèdois, 03/08/09, Michael Winiarski a écrit des problèmes des drogues à l’Iran, où des sources differentes approche que le numero des toxicomanes iraniens est entre 1,2 et 4 millions. Ça problème est pris très serieusement des officiels Iraniens, qui mettent plus en plus des resources pour le lutter. On a, en décriminalissant les toxicomanes, et en inaugurent des cliniques de rehabilitation, commencé à attaquer les symptomes. Mais le vrai cause de la problème est la proximité à l’Afghanistan, le plus grand producteur de l’opium du monde.
Dans 2007, le production de l’opium a occupé 50 pour cent du PIB totale Afghanien (UNODC). Iran se trouve, avec les autres pays central-asiennes, dans la route principale des drogues entre l’Afghanistan et l’Europe. On pense que beaucoup des profits de l’opium retourne aux talibans dans la pays.
Il y a ici un interêt mutuel pour l’Europe, les États Unis, et l’Iran. Tous les deux continents ont beaucoup à gagner d’un afflux reducé des drogues à l’Iran. Aussi dans la guerre contre les talibans, un attaque contre le traffic des drogues peut renforcer les troupes alliées. Un tel collaboration serait aussi un moyen de approcher une Iran plus en plus belligerent.
Les États-Unis et l’Éurope doivent donc cooperer avec l’Iran contre le commerce des drogues Afghanien. L’Iran a déjà mis des grandes resources à fortifier ses frontières Afghaniens et Européens où une grande quantité des drogues passe chaque année. L’ouest pourrait contribuer avec des moyens économiques et la cooperation des services de l’intelligence pour réduire le trafic.
Un tel collaboration implique, naturellement, beaucoup des difficultées dans des aspects differents. D’abord, le situation domestique dans l’Iran doit calmer avant que le prospect d’un accord serait croyable. En ce qui concerne le sujet nucléaire, on n’attend pas qu’un accord sur les drogues dans la region changerait, par example, des intentions Iraniennes d’obtenir des armes nucléaires. Bien que ça pourrait diminuer les discussions entre les deux pays, et ainsi altérer les implications de la sécurité si l’Iran allait réaliser ces planes.
Une autre problème est le fait que, comme la production de l’opium joue une telle grande rôle dans l’economie Afghanien, beaucoup des agricultueurs pauvres dans ce pays risqueraient d’être gravement frappés. Personne ne se intresse de lutter des agricultueurs pauvres dans l’Afghanistan, et ça pourrait déteriorer la sécurité dans le pays, sinon des mésures compensant serait pris.
L’administration Obama ont déjà, en grande partie, offrit la main aux regimes critiques des États-Unis. Il existe néanmoins une risque que Teheran l’ont jusqu’ici interprété comme rétorique creux. Une mésure concrete comme ça peut ajuster perfaitement dans la nouvelle route soft-diplomatique de la masion blanche, et être une marche pourtante vers des relations ameliorées entre les pays.
Johannes
