Discuss the implications of electoral reform in the UK. Illustrate your
argument with reference to alternative electoral systems. In what ways might the
introduction of proportional representation help to challenge the elective
dictatorship critique?
In 1976 Lord Hailsham
described Britain as an elective dictatorship by which he meant that a party
elected into government with a dominant majority can essentially rule Britain
as if it were a dictatorship, albeit an elected one. The subject is a recurrent
debate in British politics as the existing electoral system of
first-past-the-past rewards the ability to achieve a majority in constituencies
and is not a reflection of a party’s national representation. A system of
proportional representation would represent national political will more fairly
and in doing so reduce the possibility of one party dominating government.
However, the direction of this question places undue emphasis on the problem of
an elective dictatorship. The debate over electoral systems is far more nuanced
and alternative electoral systems also introduce inherent drawbacks into the
debate and it is these implications that form the basis of this debate. Perhaps
the most telling aspect of the debate is that only a party in power can
effectively introduce and pass legislation to bring about electoral reform.
Once in power the incentive to remove the means by which power was achieved is
greatly reduced, thus the discussion of electoral reform is most vocal from the
forums of political opposition.
The discussion over electoral
reform in Britain is a longstanding one and not restricted simply to the voting
system. Writing in 1945 John Perkins discussed the changes introduced during
the Second World War that ensured fair representation and the equal
distribution of seats.
However, the nature of the voting system has been the most consistent and
on-going issue and is the topic for discussion herein. The current electoral
system is that of first-past-the-post (Hereafter FPTP) or more specifically the
single member constituency with a simple majority.
In essence a constituency candidate only has to gain more votes than an
opponent to be elected. There is no demand for the victor to gain a majority of
the votes cast, which leads critics to suggest the system is not truly
representative. The public may end up with a Member of Parliament (Hereafter
MP) that the majority of people did not vote for, thus leading many people to
believe their vote has been wasted. On the positive side the system ensures an
MP is directly linked to a constituency and as such he or she is tied in
directly with the public that elected them. The system also has the benefit of
being relatively straightforward, swift and easy for the electorate to
understand. As most politicians represent a political party the majority of MPs
from a political party can then form a majority in parliament and dominate the
voting. As it is essentially a ‘winner-takes-all’ scenario a large majority for
any one party can appear enhanced and the party go on to dominate proceedings
in the style of an elected dictatorship. However, proponents could argue that
the system often results in decisive government able to make and enact
decisions. A political party finding itself in power as a result of this system
is less likely to reform the process by flexing its political majority. It is
no surprise that in opposition the Labour Party set up a commission to
investigate electoral reform yet the situation remains the same under the
current Labour government.
Opponents of the current
voting system promote the benefits of a proportional method of electing
parliament and highlight the deficiencies of the FPTP system. The existing
method results in second-placed parties winning very few seats, in 1992 the
Liberals won 18% of the vote but just 3% of the actual seats.
Furthermore, a party can be elected by a minority of the public, undermining
its claims to hold an elected and legitimate mandate, a situation that occurred
in 1951 and February 1974.
Thus in a system that rewards victors with all the spoils and often represents
a minority of the voting public it is no wonder that the allegation of the FPTP
method resulting in an elective dictatorship is raised.
Dwelling on the deficiencies
of the current system can promote the belief that the current system needs to
be overhauled yet the alternatives are by no means perfect either. Peter Gill
and Geoffrey Ponton have simplified the categorisation of electoral systems into
FPTP, proportional representation (Hereafter PR) and a combination of the two.
There are numerous variations of alternate electoral systems and this essay will
consider the most popular formulas currently debate. The method of PR is the
clear opponent to the existing system and as the name suggests the emphasis is
fundamentally on reflecting the proportion of votes for a particular party in
the parliament. The FPTP system has an in-built bias towards major parties and
those parties that can concentrate their vote in geographical areas. A system
of PR would see the Liberal Party gaining greater representation in the British
Parliament, reflecting the number of votes it gains and not penalising it for
its support across the country rather than in specific regions.
As Perkins has noted,
opponents of the PR system argue that the main purpose of an election is not
proportionality but the creation of a strong government with a majority that
enables it to implement policies that it was mandated to introduce.
In contrast, one can argue, that proportional systems, such as that seen in
Italy, produce weak, coalition governments, unable to govern effectively, in
essence this is the opposite to an elective dictatorship. The necessity to form
alliances to achieve a majority can lead to smaller parties gaining undue
influence that is not proportionally representative of the voting. As Andrew
Heywood notes, the politics of proportional governments often takes the form of
a series of political trade-offs to achieve agreement.
Furthermore, where a PR system introduces a list, often in conjunction with a
FPTP system, the list may be chosen by the party and thereby increase their
input on the individuals elected.
This essay has focused on UK
general elections and one should not ignore the fact that other voting systems
are used in the regional assemblies of Scotland and Wales and for European
elections. These provide relevant case studies for understanding the
implications of different voting systems within our own borders. They also
demonstrate the drawbacks of all political systems. European elections, for
example, employ a closed list system whereby the electorate vote for a specific
party and the members chosen from a pre-ordained list. The problems here ran
counter to the benefits of the FPTP method. The list is drawn up by the party
with the party deciding the order and hence the likelihood of individuals being
elected. Furthermore, the elected members are not tied directly to a region and
hence have less direct linkage with individual communities.
Lord Hailsham’s comments
certainly provide a starting point for a wider discussion of electoral reform
in Great Britain. The current system has inherent weaknesses and advantages,
one of which has undoubtedly been its ability to withstand the discussion of it
deficiencies and still provide the system by which the most important elections
in the country are decided. The alternatives, if viewed by way of selective
analysis, can appear to overcome the current deficiencies. However, the
alternative systems also have inherent weaknesses, thus while they may overcome
the potential single problem of an elective dictatorship they bring with them
other issues not raised by Lord Hailsham’s comments. The more important debate
would seem to focus upon the public and political will to change the current
system, without a sustained will by a party able to achieve the mandate to
implement reform the current system will continue to dominate, despite its
inherent flaws. It is a debate that has the potential longevity to match that
of the electoral system around which it revolves.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Articles
Perkins, John, ‘Steps Toward
Electoral Reform in Great Britain’, Political Science Quarterly, vol.
60, no. 1, March 1945, pp. 65-78.
Books
Gill, Peter and Ponton,
Geoffrey, Introduction to Politics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
Heywood, Andrew, Political
Ideas and Concepts. An Introduction, London: Macmillan, 1994.
Lee, Stephen, Aspects of
British Political History 1815-1914, London: Routledge, 1994.
Lenman, Bruce, The Eclipse
of Parliament. Appearance and Reality in British Politics since 1914, London:
Edward Arnold, 1992.
