Much has been discussed these days in Spain about a government-sponsored proposal to modify the electoral system. Maybe too much discussion for a relatively simple answer.
Surprisingly, the electoral system is a mysterious, almost esoteric element of democracy ignored by most people. Oftentimes also by politicians. Let me explain to you why holding a PhD in political science may help. So if you want to look smart please read this blog regularly. Or enrol at MIUC and learn about it.
Fictions of Democracy
Lesson number one: Democracy lives (survives?) thanks to its fictions. Probably the most scandalous of all is the fiction of equality. We religiously believe that democracy automatically brings equality and the most common way to word it goes like this: “One man one vote”.
Folks, sorry to rain on your parade, but this is bullshit. Pardon my French, but it has never existed and does not currently exist anywhere in the planet. In the future, we don’t know. What we do know is that depending on the electoral system one man’s vote can be worth several times the vote of another fellow man/woman.
The reasons for this are several and complex, but let´s for now just use common sense. When democracy started to be widely established (late XVIII century, all throughout XIX and early XX) “one man, one vote” could have endangered not only the hegemony of higher socioeconomic classes but also democracy itself.
Let me be more clear. Education levels were so low (and alcoholism so high) among the masses that the very Founding Fathers of the USA devised certain institutional mechanisms to filter the natural tendencies of the uneducated emotionally impulsive populace.
An example: the electoral college. Another example: the Senate. Even the so-called revolutionary Enlightened Liberals held their fears regarding the empowerment of the other great fiction of democracy: the people. How could we empower the people and still manage a viable democracy? The electoral system.
Well, I know it is too much teasing to cut now on the historical/philosophical debate on democracy. More to come. Stay tuned for the next Talk of the Town. Main point: electoral systems are the most manipulative element of politics. Obviously, this is not mine, but epic political scientists still alive such as Giovanni Sartori, Arend Lijphart and Douglas Rae have written extensively on the consequences of electoral laws.
Electoral Systems: Majoritarian or Proportional Representation?
To put it simply, electoral systems translate votes into seats and it is normally assumed that democracies adopt their electoral system based on the peculiarities of their societies. To cut a long debate short, there are two basic types of electoral systems and they respond to the type of society they are assigned to.
On the one hand, the so-called majoritarian systems that are indicated for relatively homogeneous societies. These, initially, do not have (or had) deep divides (what political scientists call cleavages) and hence can use majoritarian first-past-the-post electoral systems. Simply again: winner takes it all. This is the case of most Anglo-saxon societies following the Westminster model. Single district-single race-one winner. Typically, this is the paradise of two-party systems. Less democratic, more stable.
The second type of electoral systems are known as proportional representation (PR) and are indicated for societies that have some sort of deep cleavage, whether it is religious, ethnic, territorial, linguistic, etc. These democracies pick PR because it represents minorities that otherwise will be silenced causing potential trouble. PR normally produce multiparty systems. More parties, more colours, more complexity.
According to Lijphart, PR is always more democratic, but PR does not always result in stability. Negotiation is tough, requires tolerance, slows down the legislative process and is less executive (or less authoritarian). Weimar´s Germany and the Spanish Segunda República are well known cases of PR democracies that ended up in tragedy. Why? Perhaps too much democracy kills democracy just like perhaps too much love kills love. Hence fictions. The fiction of equality and the fiction of romantic love, respectively.
Spanish ‘Politricks’: Amending the Electoral System
Meanwhile in Spain… the Partido Popular (PP) has recently launched a proposal to amend a part of the Spanish electoral system for the local elections coming next Spring. As it is often the case in politricks, politicians do not speak clear and just defend the maximisation of the party interests. The PP proposes that the candidate in local elections with more votes naturally becomes the major. “This is democracy”claims Javier Arenas, one heavyweight PP spokesman.
Obviously, he conveniently ignores the fact that Spain opted for a PR system in 1978 based on the long unresolved territorial/centre-periphery cleavage. The Spanish PR system ranks among the most majoritarian (or less proportional) of all the PR systems around the globe. True that. Stability is a value in itself. And 1978 Spain needed governability.
But the resulting mutiparty system cannot be censored by a decree because it requires, entails and provokes bargaining, negotiation, consensus which are the real base of democracy. According to the PPs alleged reform, one candidate (presumably from the PP) reaching, say, 35 per cent of the vote will automatically become the major obviating the fact that there is a 65 percent that had not voted for him/her.
The Winner Takes it All
The argument that a coalition of two or more (leftwing) parties will bring endless negotiations, then uncertainty and finally legislative inaction is a valid one, but it is not democratic. In fact, it is authoritarian. Especially if the PP uses its absolute majority in Madrid to push the reform unilaterally and it does it within eight months to the election day. Rather suspicious, even if they make it look like a (democratic) accident.
Let me finish by saying that we all understand (at least I do) that the economic crisis has been politically difficult; that the PP has been forced to implement harsh cuts in public spending, things its leaders said they would not do and ended up doing; that there are new parties (especially on the left) threatening the imperfect two-party hegemony; that in the last few years many corruption scandals have been disproportionately pointing to PP employees. We can understand this. Good news run, bad news fly.
But one cannot change the rules of the game just because it does not have good cards. And it is offensive that the PP sells this as democratic. If democracy is what they want to defend they should respect it. Or enrol at MIUC and learn about it.
