SPL : British politics can't cope with diversity
I'm currently reading Arend Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy, which analyses government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. His basic argument is that majoritarian systems of government, as typified by the Westminster model, are ineffectual and perhaps even undemocratic; whereas consensual constitutions, seen in Switzerland and Belgium, are more able to cater for as many people as possible, rather than just a majority, be it absolute or plural.
The most interesting argument is that consensual systems are particularly desirable - nay, necessary - in countries with large social divides. For instance, the Belgium constitution entails a formal requirement that the executive include representatives of the large linguistic groups. Proportional representation is used in Northern Ireland (except for House of Commons elections) due to the plural nature of that society, with its Protestant-Catholic cleavage; this has been the case since the troubles of the 1960s and '70s. One of the most ethnically/socially divided socities in the world at the moment - Iraq - also has a consensual model: all three of the Sunni, Shia and Kurdish groups are represented in the national government; and, while the success of the model is yet to be proven, it is surely undisputed that if Iraq adopted an adversarial system (akin to Britain's), civil strife would be many times greater.
Given these international assessments, what lessons can be drawn for Britain? Since 9/11 especially, ours has been a polarised society. There was always a danger of this happening: a tacit policy of multiculturalism has allowed for segregated residential communities and thus segregated schools and other public services. International events have brought these inequalities to light. As a direct consequence of the two evils of centralisation and majoritarianism, the British constitution has manifestly failed to engender a sense of national unity among Muslim communities in particular. That is not to say that minority groups should ever dictate policy beyond their number - but it is to allow for the possiblity that minority opinion may become conventional wisdom, as has happened over Iraq. The British constitution is unable to cope with such a sea-change in public opinion, and, coupled with the increasingly diverse nature of society, one must conclude that Westminster politics as we know it is surely doomed. It is in the self-interest of all three of the party leaders - Cameron, (probably) Brown and Ming - to pioneer electoral reform. It is only a matter of time.
Discussion and Debate on Westminster, British Politics, Economics and
Current Affairs
9 Comments:
What sort of PR would you propose?
JO
Do we really want the Lib Dems holding the balance of power? Particulary when it means the conservatives will just never ever be in power (hardly democratic?)
Also, any coalition government just leads strong reforms to end up being watered down and less effective. I mean look at the grand coalition in Germany - the CDU's needed labour market reforms were tempered by the SDP making them less effective for Germany.
If a tory government would 'never ever be in power' because of proportional representation perhaps that is what the majority of people want. Why do you assume a conservative government would never form a coalition anyway?
PR would stop governments pushing through unpopular and unnecessary legislation (i.e ID cards) as much as it would water down reforms.
People criticise PR for both leading to extreme governments being elected AND watering down reforms and leading to comprimises. Surely it doesn't lead to both.
I believe PR is more democratic as it represents to a greater extent, the will of the electorate.
JO
Good question; unfortunately I don't have a conclusive answer. There are lots of PR systems to choose from, and each country seems to modify the system so as to adapt it to that particular culture.
I have an instinctive antipathy towards closed party lists (Spain, Israel), because it tends to increase the power of parties - which quite probably aren't democratic institutions in the first place.
Mixed-member proportionality is (Germany, Italy, New Zealand) is complicated - voters have two votes, one for a party list and one for a local candidate. It has the benefit, however, of being a "transitional" form of PR - it is in a sense similar to FPTP ("mixed"), and so is attractive to countries moving from one system to another - New Zealand being the notable example in 1996.
STV (Ireland, Australia's Senate) is attractive because it allows voters to rank preferences, rather than merely state their first choice. This strikes me as the most democratic of PR systems, in that it avoids party dominance. However, in order to recommend it for use in UK elections, one would have to consider British culture specifically, and whether it would/could adapt to STV. Another constitutional head-scratcher is what to do with the upper house, presuming the STV reform would affect the House of Commons specifically.
Smaller parties, notably the Lib Dems, would hold disproportionate power to their popularity and would, more than likely, always be in government. This is an inherent weakness of PR. The Lib Dems push for this reform because they know that they, above all, will benefit.
I don’t think it is correct, by citing Iraq, that the British constitution cannot cope with a sea change in public opinion. People do not vote on single issues, that is why the party who was dead set against the Iraq escapade only managed 21% of the popular vote. A true sea change occurred in 1997 and will probably happen again at the next election.
You are right when you say multiculturism has allowed segregation, but it is also this that has failed to create any sense of national unity, not centralisation and majoritarianism. Multiculturism permits minorities to live in the manner of the ‘old country’ without participating in the daily life of the country in which they now live. It should be remembered that society and liberty is a two-way street. Additionally, I think you are a bit premature in the need for electoral reform due to the increasingly diverse nature of society. Whilst we have substantial minorities, they are still very much in the minority. The cases you mention have population groupings of near equal size.
Dreadnought, while your theory about the Lib Dems holding the balance of power may well be true immediately following hte introduction of PR, I believe it is unfair to assume the political parties will remain as they are. Under PR there will no doubt be more splinter parties and newer smaller parties forming because they are more likely to have electoral success. This, along with the likelyhood people will vote less tactically and would vote for who they prefer, would lead to weak alliances of left, right and central parties who would aim to get elected, along hte lines of Germany, rather than your suggested senario of one central party remaining in government permanantly.
Indeed - especially given the British public's instinctive antipathy to those who hold power in government.
More particularly, the British constitution cannot cope with minority views - hence all this renewed talk of wooing "middle England" by Brown.
Minorities are indeed in the minority - by definition. The fact that we are still a homogenous society does not detract from the benefits of PR, although it does make electoral reform slightly less urgent. I would argue, however, that with our troubles with the Muslim communities, these minorities desperately need to be involved in mainstream politics. PR would help with this transition.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
[I'm not sure how I can follow the previous comment, but...]
I'm not too sympathetic to majority rule, but it strikes me that it may work in societies that are divided into lots of small groups - they could approximate what Dahl describes as minorities rule (shifting coalitions, etc). The more problematic case, I'd have thought, is a permanent split like 60/40. I need to re-read Lijphart before saying much more, but also I'm not convicned elite bargaining is really that democratic...
Cheers for your comment on my blog too. Of course, I've been to Stuart's lectures before, but you're right they are good.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home