Proportional Non-Representation

Following the recent council and regional parliament elections there has been the normal calls for proportional representation to be introduced. Turn out would increase, we are told, the system would be fairer. Everyone would have a say. Policies would be more representative. Is proportional representation the great panacea its supporters would have us believe? I have my doubts.

Let me start by stating that our current political system is not perfect. Any criticism of proportional representation is normally taken as a defence of the status quo, a cheap debating trick used by many unwilling to face the flaws in their own position. I do believe that the perfect electoral system is a chimera. There are faults with all extant systems, and with all systems that I have seen proposed. The American two party system restricts choice, the British first past the post system allows a huge majority in parliament based on a minority of the votes. Proportional representation has its own problems, as we shall see.

The first problem I have with proportional representation is what it isn't. Despite the repeated claims of its supporters, proportional representation is not a means for everyone's views to be heard. Nor is it about making policy reflect public opinion. Nor is it a means to bring government and governed closer together. Proportional representation is a change that stays well within the bounds of our existing system - representative democracy; rule by those with the money and interest to become politicians.

There is now no reason we couldn't implement a true democracy. The technology to regularly poll forty million or so people on their views is now available, if moderately expensive to implement. Parliament could become simply the body that proposes legislation, which would then be approved by plebiscite. The argument that people would not be interested in such a system holds little water - at least coming from supporters of proportional representation. The idea that people will become more engaged with politics if they are allowed to vote into power a few more Liberal or Green candidates, but not when allowed to vote on issues directly is frankly laughable.

Proportional representation is not an attempt to make democracy more attractive, or to better represent the people. It is an attempt to shift power away from its current centres - the Labour and Conservative parties. Supporters of proportional representation hope, simply, that this change would represent a gain in power for their own party. On the face of it this might seem reasonable. At various points in the recent past, voter support for the Liberal Democrats has reached the 40% mark, for the Greens into the teens. A Liberal Democrat-Green alliance, under proportional representation, looks a real possibility. Experience in other countries suggests otherwise. Those who might vote Liberal given a choice of three or four parties, won't do so when offered a choice of twenty. One issue parties will proliferate. There is the very real risk of the BNP gaining seats in parliament. With so many odd balls and extremists around, the centrist parties may end up forming a Labour-Liberal-Green-Conservative coalition to keep the communists, isolationists, anarchists, and racists out of power.

Of course, that's an extreme example. But an analysis of the balance of power based on current voting trends is meaningless. Proportional representation as a means to power for the Liberal Democrats might look good now, but their recent popularity is as an alternative to whichever of Conservative or Labour is more disliked by a particular voter. When the same voter has the ability to meaningfully vote for whichever specialist party appeals most, the Liberal Democrat's support will vanish.

It is not, however, the threat to the Liberal Democrats hopes for power, or the possibilities of extremists gaining a toe-hold in political life that is my main objection to proportional representation. It is simply this : accountability. Proportional representation appears to lead inevitably to a fragmentation of political parties. With several parties contesting each election, it is almost certain that no party will achieve a clear victory. Which means that the result of every election will almost certainly be a coalition, with all the compromises, broken promises, and abandoned policies that means. Based on past performance, the voter might gain some insight into which coalitions might be created, and which policies are more likely to be sacrificed. Under the present system, a broken campaign promise is obvious to all, and can result in the party's loss of favour at a later election. With proportional representation, any promise can be abandoned, with political expediency the inevitable and unarguable defence. Coalitions formed after the election guarantee that no voter can be sure what policies are being voted for, and no party can be held accountable for their broken promises.

The accountability of parties is not the only casualty of proportional representation. The parties are also responsible for producing the lists of candidates. Short of voting out the entire party, there is no means for the voters to remove one particular person from the lists. Under proportional representation, Neil Hamilton would still be an MP. Proportional representation therefore becomes a tool for the centralist inclined parties to impose order on their members. Loyalty to the leadership becomes a more useful career tool than the respect of the electorate. Tony Blair's control instincts, often and rightly criticised, would gain a new and powerful outlet. The bright, imaginative, and independent who are so badly served by the current system, would be worse served still; left with little option other than the creation of new parties of their own.

Proportional representation would diminish the accountability of both individual politicians, and their parties. It would move us from dominance by a few monolithic parties - which, for all their internal factions, at least share at least a modicum of common ideology - to dominance by coalitions, cooked up entirely behind closed doors and without reference to the voters, made up of parties whose policies and promises are only valid until the next coalition shift results in a new political expediency. While this may be good news for those whose careers would be furthered in these smoky back rooms, it will not increase the political engagement of the general public, and most certainly will not better reflect the opinions of the public.

Graham Robinson. 7th May 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.