The Democratic Piece

Ontario, Canada’s upcoming referendum on mixed member proportional representation made the Economist today.

So far, the ‘no’ side has raised $500 CDN for a lit piece. And that’s it.

A “Vote for MMP” campaign has set up an office in Toronto and claims a dozen chapters in the province; its opponents have managed to raise just C$500 ($470) to print a leaflet. Both are relying on a C$6-7m educational campaign by the election agency.

For the referendum to pass, that educational campaign has to convince 60% of voters and majorities in 60% of ridings. Maybe that’s why the ‘no’ side doesn’t seem too worried.

According to the Economist, “unstable minority governments” are the main opposition talking point. They really mean coalition governments, and there’s nothing inherently unstable about one of those. I’d argue a “minority government” is something else, and the article gives a good example of one:

At the last provincial election in 2003, the Liberals won 46.5% of the vote but 70% of the seats.

This will not be news to some DP readers. On October 10, voters in Ontario, Canada will decide whether to switch to a mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting system for provincial parliamentary elections.

MMP was born in post-war Germany, where its name roughly translates to “personalized proportional representation.” The basic idea is to have two tiers: a dominant collection of single-member plurality districts and some set of list seats. List seats are allocated to parties in order to even out any disproportion of seats to votes resulting in the districts.

In other words, the district elections “personalize” the PR resulting from the list tier; having ‘one’s own MP’ counterbalances the party-strengthening tendency of list PR. Much opposition nonetheless is based on a fear that party control of who gets to be on the lists will shift the balance in favor of elites at the expense of voters. An op-ed in today’s Toronto Star holds this as a principal reason for MMP’s 2005 defeat in Prince Edward Island.

There are variants of MMP. Party lists can be polity-wide, or they can apply to smaller multi-member districts. List votes can be determined from voters’ district votes, or voters can have two votes (allowing them to support a party and split their ticket at the district level, if they so choose). The list and district tiers can have a fixed number of seats each, or the magnitude of the list tier can fluctuate (as happens in Germany).

The Ontarian proposal calls for a two-vote system with fixed shares (90 districts, 39 list seats). To win list seats, parties must cross a province-wide 3% threshold. If a party wins more district seats than entitled to by its province-wide vote share, it will keep the seats (versus fluctuating the size of the legislature, above). Specifics are available at a very user-friendly website the government has put up as part of its public information campaign.

To pass, the proposal will require a 60% super majority province-wide and simple majorities in 64 of 111 ridings (single-member districts). A 2005 proposal in British Columbia to switch to the single transferable vote required a 60% province-wide and majorities in 60% of the province’s ridings. That vote fell barely 3% short province-wide. Another referendum is expected in 2009.

Both Ontario and BC’s proposals came from Citizens Assemblies - a group of ‘average people’ recruited (and modestly compensated) to learn about electoral systems, review the options and make a recommendation.

According to the Peter Baker’s article “As Democracy Push Falters, Bush Feels Like a ‘Dissident’” in the Washington Post, Bush’s democracy promotion efforts have been hampered by the ole’ Washington bureaucracy. The first six paragraphs of Baker’s article set up the argument that Bush’s plan to “spread democracy around the world… has [been] bogged down in a bureaucratic and geopolitical morass.” Baker states that officials within the administration, including Cheney have “undermined” the president’s “grand project.” He describes the crux of the problem as translating “vision” into “thorny policy.” In conclusion, democracy promotion is tainted by its association with the Bush administration he suggests, citing a Republican presidential candidate’s response to whether he agreed with Bush’s vision: “Absolutely not, because I don’t think we can force people to accept our way of life, our way of government.”

Of course, democracy promotion has very little to do with forcing anyone to accept our way of life or our way of government. If it were, democracy promotion would be called democracy compulsion and that is not what it is or what it was meant to be. In fact, the above quotation has little to do with democracy promotion and a lot to do with regime change and the U.S.’s experiences in Iraq. But regime change is not democracy promotion, so let’s not help our friends in the Kremlin, other autocrats, and aspiring autocrats by perpetuating a myth that suggests otherwise.

Continue Reading »

Academics at the Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala on August 14 invited FairVote Executive Director Rob Richie to talk about instant runoff voting (IRV) as a potential reform of presidential elections in that country.

Also known as preferential voting and the alternative vote, IRV lets voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate has a majority of first choices, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and votes for that candidate are reallocated to his/her supporters’ second choices. In Guatemala, the system is called Elecciones por Rondas Instantáneas, or ERI.

IRV can be used to maximize effective votes, reduce spoiler dynamics and produce majority winners on a single, high-turnout election day.

IRV is typically a replacement for single-winner plurality elections where more than two candidates can result in non-majority winners. Where instant runoff has passed local-level referenda in the U.S., this has been the norm. Other jurisdictions, however, have replaced two-round systems with IRV.

Richie’s talk represents international-level interest in correcting the defects in two-round systems. Guatemala uses such a system. A principal defect in the TRS is lower turnout in the decisive runoff round (where voting is not compulsory). Two-round systems are also subject to spoiler dynamics, however. A good example is the French presidenital election of 2002. Despite a left-of-center consensus among voters, Jean-Marie Le Pen faced off with Jacques Chirac in the runoff round. Le Pen’s vote share increased by barely a point - from 16.9% in the first round to 17.8% in the second. With instant runoff voting, the runoff likely would have been between two left-leaning contenders.

See: Rob Richie habló sobre Elecciones por Rondas Instantánea

International Community Finds Fault in Kazakh Elections

The ruling Nur Otan party in Kazakhstan won 88 percent of the vote in August 18, 2007 parliamentary elections for the lower house (Majilis), and the two main opposition parties failed to reach the 7 percent threshold and will not receive any seats in the new parliament. The OSCE observation group released preliminary findings on the state of the elections. Overall the OSCE saw the election as an improvement over previous elections, citing a calm voting process. However, the OSCE noted serious faults with the transparency in the counting procedures and unequal access to state media outlets. Additionally, the OSCE noted that the elections which were called two years ahead of schedule occurred before all of the recent electoral reforms could be fully implemented. Under the new electoral code, 98 of the 107 seats in the Majilis are elected through a closed list, nationwide PR system. The other nine seats are appointed by the upper house (Assembly of People) which is an appointed body. Parties decide after the election on which candidates on their list receive seats in the Majilis. This actually does not change anything as the previous Majilis was also completely controlled by members loyal to President Nazarbayev.

Thailand Referendum Approves Constitution

Reports out of Thailand indicate that voters approved a new constitution through a referendum held on August 19, 2007. According to the Thai election commission, turn out reached 60 percent and between 68 – 70 percent approved the constitution which was designed by the military currently governing Thailand. NYTimes has a good rundown of the pre-vote environment and the basic shape of the new constitution. Not surprisingly, the new constitution provides immunity for those who executed the September 2006 coup. The military government has announced that it will hold elections in December.

Turkey Holds First Round of Presidential Vote

The Turkish parliament voted on August 20, 2007 in the first round of the presidential selection process. Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister and majority party’s presidential candidate, failed to receive enough votes in the first round to clinch the presidency. Gul received 341 votes, 26 shy of the total needed to win. A second round of voting has been scheduled for Friday, August 24, 2007 with a third session to follow on August 28, 2007. Gul is the candidate of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) which is historically rooted in an political Islam. However, the AKP has repeatedly expressed that it is socially conservative, pro-Western, and pro-Turkish accession into the EU. The two major opposition parties, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) announced that they would not support a Gul presidency. The Turkish military has refrained from commenting yet on the first round of voting, but it threatened to get involved during the last political standoff over Gul’s candidacy back in April 2007. Turkey’s military, which views itself as the guardian of secularism, has intervened multiple times in Turkish politics. As recently as 1997 when the military ousted a government in which Gul served as a minister.

Maldives Referendum Approves US-style Presidency

The current President of Maldives scored a major victory this week when a proposal he backed passed in a referendum. The referendum decided the new government structure of the Maldives which has been ruled for almost 30 years by the current President. The approved proposal would establish a strong presidential system similar to the form used in the United States. The opposition parties were favoring a British-style parliamentary system. The president is expected to call for a multi-party presidential election next year; however, major doubts remain whether the electoral process will meet international standards. The blog IntelliBriefs provides a rundown of the election environment.

The journal of Foreign Affairs has been running a series of articles from the various major presidential candidates from both parties. The articles have been presented as an opportunity for the candidates to present their view of the world and what each of them believe should be the priorities of the next president. The last issue (July/August 2007) included essays from Mitt Romney and Barak Obama. I haven’t had a chance to read them yet, but I will in the coming weeks and include my take on their stance on democracy promotion. The current issue (September/October 2007) includes essay from Rudolph Giuliani and John Edwards. I will also follow up with my thoughts on Edward’s piece later this week, but I feel pretty compelled to take up Giuliani’s essay now given that it has gotten so much attention – both positive and negative.

First off, I will limit my commentary to the portion of his essay that deal with democracy promotion. I have a lot of additional opinions about his overall world view, but I don’t think they are relevant to this forum which focuses on democratization, US foreign policy, and democracy promotion.

Continue Reading »

The Washington Post today has an interesting story about a new mobile court system being implemented in India. A large bus has been converted into a mobile, fully-functional court that can service rural villages that typically lack access to India’s legal institutions. According to the article, the court travels with a staff of 12, has a judge’s chambers and an office for staff. The courts adjudicate both civil and criminal cases. The article also states that India’s judiciary currently has a backlog of almost 16 million cases. Another article states that at the current rate of court hearings, it would take India 300 years to clear out the backlog not counting any additional new cases. That’s pretty staggering. Apparently this isn’t India’s first venture into mobile courts. The Christian Science Monitor carried a story earlier this year on sidewalk courts being used in poor neighborhoods off India’s major cities to increase access to and efficiency of the legal system.

Access to the legal system is a major problem in many developing countries, particularly in rural areas. Many times the costs and time associated with seeking legal remedies prohibit individuals from pursuing justice in a court of law. In these situations, it is difficult for the state to establish its authority and develop a rule of law. The environment of prohibitively high actual and opportunity costs to access courts forces rural and poor citizens to rely on local customs and traditional leaders to arbitrate and settle disputes. While the use of traditional resolution processes is not always bad, many times these processes reinforce local patriarchic dominance and patron-clientelism that do not provide equal treatment under the law, a necessary requirement for developing the rule of law.

India’s is taking an innovative approach to a crucial problem facing many newer democracies. While elections are essential for a democratic system, there are also the issues of governing and establishing the authority of the state over the whole territory. These issues are critical for developing and maintaining popular support for democracy. Countries that hold legitimately democratic elections but fail to meet the difficult task of establishing and expanding the capacity of the state will be short lived or extremely fragile. It is in the spaces where state institutions fail to fill activity that public frustration grows and potential alternative government types gain traction. India, the world’s largest democracy, faces many challenges, but if properly implemented this could go a long way to increasing the legitimacy and effectiveness of its democratic government.

Today the Turkish parliament set August 20th as the date for the first round of presidential elections with a second round taking place on August 24th, a third on August 28th, and a fourth on September 1st. The announcement came three months after Turkish political system was thrown into chaos when the Justice and Development (AKP) ruling party sought to elect an Islamic-rooted candidate for president and the fervently secular parties boycotted the parliament to prevent the necessary quorum for an election. Follow-on snap elections resulted in another victory for the AKP.

The prime minister Erdogan of the AKP party has said that he would seek to propose a consensus candidate time; however, foreign minister Gul has indicated he may again seek the nomination. If the AKP is unable to get the parliament to agree to a presidential candidate by mid-October, then the president may be popularly elected. In Turkey, the parliament selects the president, but a referendum is schedule for the October 21st, 2007 that would amend the constitution for the direct election of the president. If the parliament selects a president before the referendum, the newly selected president will serve a full seven-year term. If, however, the parliament fails to agree on a candidate, then the new president would be popularly elected.

The Washington Institute provides a good summary of the event here.

In a pivotal by-election last Sunday in Lebanon’s Metn district, former president Amin Gemayel unexpectedly lost a close race to a relatively unknown opposition candidate with ties to Hezbollah.  In today’s New York Times, Hassan Fattah analyzes this surprising loss, seeing it as a rebuff against American intervention in the politics of the Middle East, a trend that can be seen in recent gains by Islamist and radical parties throughout the region.  This result should not be a surprise given that US foreign policy in the Middle East has consistently exacerbated existing divisions across the region, radicalizing many Muslims with otherwise moderate geopolitical outlooks.  It seems that US policymakers are surprised, however, when their steadfast support for democracy in the region is seemingly rejected by majorities of voters again and again.  After all, how can anybody reject democracy and freedom?

The answer, according to Mr. Fattah, is that recent electoral outcomes in Iraq, Palestine, and now Lebanon, that have favored parties opposed to American intervention in the region, are the product of the US trying to have their cake and eat it too.  In each of these recent elections, America was simultaneously supporting both the democratic system and individual candidates or factions, which casts doubt on the US’s true intentions, but more importantly it implies that democracy is only as good as the ideology of those that are ultimately elected and whether that ideology is acceptable to American interests.

In addition to tainting the very idea of democracy with support for individual candidates and parties, American foreign policy in Iraq, and elsewhere, has “embolden[ed]the ruling majority to resist compromises,” thereby undermining the fundamental tendency of democratic government to allow for a give-and-take that results in policies acceptable to everyone but favored by no one.  This is perhaps the most nefarious consequence of US support for specific factions while trying to support democracy more broadly in the Middle East, because it calcifies a set power relationships based on artificial, external supports that undermine the natural moderating tendencies of a democratic system of government.

Ultimately, to be successful in Iraq, to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East and beyond, and to have any hope of really “winning” the war on terror, the US needs to realize that the potential short-term electoral payoffs that come from supporting a particular set of candidates or parties are far outweighed by the long-term effects of undermining the entire system of democratic institutions.  We need to learn to trust the system that has served us so well to do the same elsewhere.

So it appears that the Musharraf government is backing away from the rumor reported by multiple news outlets that he was considering implementing a state of emergency. The official Pakistani government line is that a state of emergency was one of many options presented to President General  Perez Musharraf, but that he did not think that it was necessary. Besides, the government spokesperson argued, Musharraf is committed to holding free and fair elections.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice apparently placed a 17-minute phone call to Musharraf after hearing the rumors about a pending state of emergency. Hopefully her actions had a positive impact on Musharraf’s calculations and helped him realize that the decision would have negative consequences for Musharraf’s future.

I agree with this analysis that these theatrics seem to be trail balloon of sorts to gauge international and domestic reactions to a potential political crackdown. The renunciations of the rumors took way to long, and they were half-hearted when given.

Musharraf still plans to seek reelection from the sitting parliament and local councils between September 15 and October 15. The pending confrontations over whether new parliamentary elections are necessary before they elect a new president and whether Musharraf can stand for his third term while still head of the army still loom over Pakistani politics. The Pakistani courts are expected to hear arguments today about whether former prime minister Nawaz Sharif can return to Pakistan to compete in the next elections, and the decision could continue to rock Musharraf’s grip on power.