Against First Past the post; for greater democracy not less.
Declan O'Neill
In his article
“Against proportional representation” Jim Jepps presents some telling
arguments, but the conclusions he draws do not stand up. There may
possibly be nothing more boring than spending an evening discussing the
merits of different systems of PR, but what Jim has done is effectively
highlight the democratic deficit in the “closed list system” the New
Labour government imposed on this country (though not the North of
Ireland) for the Euro elections. It may be no accident of this system
that it prevents the transfer of votes between Left candidates, but more
on that later.
Where should
socialists start? If socialism is to mean anything it must involve the
highest possible form of democracy, where as a minimum those who make
decisions are accountable to, and can be removed by, those who are
affected by them. As Jim argues “ we should press for the most
democratic system available” “First past the post” (FPTP) is probably
the least democratic of the alternatives available. To summarise a few
of its more obvious weaknesses:
-
in
Britain no government in the last sixty
years can claim to have the support of the majority of voters.
-
On at least two
occasions (1951 and Feb 1974) the party that won most votes lost the
election
-
It discourages
participation, as in majority of constituencies, who you vote for makes
no difference.
-
It discriminates
against smaller parties, allowing, for example, the Labour Party, to
ague that a vote for an left alternative is a “wasted vote” and will
only allow the Tories in.
Of course, changing
the voting system on its own will not produce democracy. Whatever the
voting system, Britain will remain a profoundly undemocratic country as
long as we have a House of Lords, a monarchy, a privy council, no right
of recall of MP’s etc.. But it is not just a question of arguing for a
system where “the left has a better chance of getting elected”, though
that would be a considerable bonus – socialists should always be
consistent democrats.
To deal with Jim’s
five points.
“Firstly
elections should not just be about getting someone elected”
As he argues “ we
stand in elections to build the movement”, but how does PR prevent, and
FPTP aid this? Not all systems of PR necessitate “ a number of people
being elected for a wider area than FPTP”, Having first past the post
for the Euro elections would not have made it the slightest bit easier
to “highlight the threats to local day services or problems in your
area” – that would be a feature of European elections whatever the
system of voting.
“Secondly
elected representatives should be accountable to the electorate”
Of course, but the
argument that FPTP is better than PR is securing this does not stand
up. Under FPTP it is nonsense to argue that an MP has to “take some
notice” of complaints or “potentially face the consequences”. Only in
the most marginal of constituencies is this even remotely true.
Jim is absolutely
right in his criticism of the “closed list” system, which in practice
means all power to the party leaderships. This could be countered by
an “open list” system, allowing voters to vote for individual candidates
within lists, or even more effectively by other systems of PR.
“Thirdly no one
knows who their MEPs are, but most people know who their MPs are”
I’ll resist the
temptation to simply say “so what”, as there is an important point
underlying this, namely the degree to which elected representatives are
accountable and replaceable. Again the point is that this criticism
applies to the system of PR used in the Euro elections, and illustrates
the degree to which the European parliament is removed from the real
concerns of voters. Ironically of the arguments used against the
single transferable vote system (STV) in multi-member constituencies is
that MP become too close to their constituents and have almost a social
worker-client relationship with the voters.
“Fourthly it
leads us to think that here are easy answers- when we should be doing
deep work”
PR is not some
panacea, and Jim is absolutely right to point this out. If politics is
seen as irrelevant then tinkering with the electoral system will make no
difference to the degree to which people get involved. To go back to
his first point we get involved in electoral politics as one way of
getting our politics across, not as an end in itself. But if we are
trying to win people to a democratic socialist politics defending the
indefensible will not do this – and FPTP, on democratic grounds, is
impossible to defend.
“Fifthly it
means fascists get elected too”
If I can paraphrase
Jim’s previous point, there are no easy answers to stopping the growth
of the far right, though the BNP has done rather better under the
present voting system than the Left. The reasons for the growth of the
far right have more to do with the policies of successive governments
than the electoral system in place However, it is illogical,
incoherent and wrong to argue for less democracy in order to stop the
rise of fascism. The BNP already like to portray themselves as the
party of outsiders, standing up to the establishment on behalf of
ordinary people. Jim’s argument will give them yet more ammunition for
that argument.
Fascism can only be
defeated politically, by the Left providing a coherent alternative, a
real workers democracy. To quote Jim again “there are democratic
principles involved here” and the Left can only grow by being the
strongest defender of democracy
Voting systems
represent only one facet of democracy, and socialists can and will have
different views on which system best aids the struggle for social
change. None is necessarily the “most democratic”, however that is
defined. For example, the Liberal Democrats argue for STV because it
best suits their own particular interests. For their own reasons the
British state has, at different times, imposed this system on both parts
of Ireland. In the south of Ireland the major party, Fianna Fail, then
made manipulation of the STV system a major art form. (Not content with
this, Fianna Fail has twice tried to replace STV with FPTP, in order to
secure permanent control of the Irish Parliament, the Dail.) Yet in the
north of Ireland the existence of STV has allowed the Socialist
Environmental Alliance and the Greens to advocate transfers to each
other without damaging their own interests and independence.
In Scotland a
“mixed member system” has certainly aided the growth of the Scottish
Socialist party. Even within single member systems there are
alternatives to FPTP, such as the alternative and supplementary vote
At some point the
left in England will have to take these issues seriously. Of course we
want a system which helps the left get elected, but more importantly we
want a system that contributes to our overall aim - the building of a
socialist democracy.
August 2004