Iraqi governorate elections: thank the open lists

Posted on February 19th, 2009 Jack 3 comments  Print This Post

Widely lauded gains for secular forces in Iraq’s provincial elections last month were largely a function of the candidate-centric, open list proportional representation system used.¹

Following the certification of results today, Michael Allen for the NED writes:

People voted on the issues rather than according to identity, and for individual candidates rather than anonymous lists. The poll represents an important step towards consolidating the country’s fragile democracy, but the real test will come with national legislative elections later this year.

And:

Iraqis voted strongly against religious sectarian parties widely perceived to be corrupt and to have failed to deliver security and basic services. “No party in the elections ran with the slogan ‘Islam is the Solution’ since voters were much more interested in who could actually provide services at the local level,” writes the Washington Institute’s J. Scott Carpenter.

Finally:

“Iraq was once defined by sectarian tensions pitting Shiite against Sunni,” writes Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Washington-based Project on Middle East Democracy. “Now, intra-Shiite competition may take greater precedence.”

In sum, personalistic campaigns revolved around everyday governance issues, and there was competition among members of the same sectarian groups. The thread uniting each of the points above is the electoral system. Iraqis did not suddenly take governance to heart. We can assume voters were as concerned with service delivery in 2005 as they were last January. The open list proportional representation system, however, freed candidates to campaign on governance and reduced the costs for Iraqis of voting on those issues.

As this insightful paper points out, moving from closed to open list PR fundamentally changes campaign dynamics.

The 2005 national elections proceeded under closed lists, and sectarian parties dominated. There are institutional reasons for this. First, candidates in closed list systems must curry favor with party leaders for high ranks on party lists. Second, since voters choose among labels and not people, party leaders have incentives to appeal to sect and ethnicity in order to maximize vote (and therefore seat) shares. Third, because the combination of social division and party-centric electoral rules politicizes identity, voters who would have voted on governance issues instead support the party representing their group. After all, what if the other group captures the state? The outcome of the 2005 elections was consistent with these incentives: a system of disciplined parties organized around religious affiliation.

Open lists change the game entirely. A candidate’s prospect for winning depends on his personal level of popularity.² He or she has an incentive to campaign against co-ethnics or co-sectarians. Such a campaign is likely to focus on issues ‘below’ the level of the group. Therefore, it is more likely to focus on “who could actually provide services at the local level,” in Carpenter’s words.

Unless the system changes, national elections later this year again will use closed list proportional representation. It will be interesting to see whether the secular organizations emerging from provincial elections reproduce their gains nationally, or whether Iraqis get another “national identity referendum.”

1. Questions nonetheless remain about the finer details of that open list system.
2. Depending on the way personal votes contribute to the party’s total, or “pool,” a candidate’s success may even depend on being more popular than fellow co-partisans, with more personal votes raising his position on the party list.