“Majoritarian systems are better for democracy, because they produce strong and effective governments” Discuss.
“A political system is not a group of people, a huddle of buildings, or even a carefully constructed machine. It is a set of social relationships, and it’s boundary is set to the limit of those relationships” – (Calvert, 2002)
When we take this to be the definition of a political system it refers to a self-governing state and the way in which the institutions are related to one another. The power of these institutions is limited within the political boundaries of the area it governs directly, either country or state borders. It is true that almost every political system used in any of the countries around the world provides us with a unique way of connecting these institutions and distributing the power within the political system. In an era where the politics and movements of one country can have potentially global-reaching consequences emphasis of selecting an appropriate political system is strong. These differences in chosen systems come around because of the traditions, history and needs of a country’s citizens are varied across the globe.
However, most of the countries in the world have a democratic system that falls into two general characteristics (I say most countries because I recognise that some countries are ruled by dictatorships or tyrannies, the antithesis of ‘democracy’). Arend Lijphart has put the modern touchstone for categorising political systems forward in his book ‘Patterns of democracy’ (1999). In this he separates the general characteristics of all democratic systems into two main categories, the ‘Westminster’ or Majoritarian model and the Consensus model.
The Westminster model, named after the British parliament is a mode of democratic governance where a political party with the most votes in an election is rewarded with a bare majority in parliament, producing a strong majority government which is usually very fast and efficient in creating and implementing new legislature. The consensus model, on the other hand, is one that – through various methods of proportional representation – produces a parliament in which as many different views within the voting region are represented, this typically leads to a coalition government; seen by many as weak, and somewhat inefficient, through the need for compromise.
Lijphart lists ten general qualities that each model has in common regardless of which specific way a country has arranged the political institutions, with aspects of the Westminster model being the polar opposite of the matching consensus feature and vice versa. In this part of the essay I intend to show that the British system, once considered to be the epitome of majoritarian systems, has naturally adapted and changed to better represent the people within the boundaries of the system.
According to Lijphart, the third trait of a majoritarian system is that elections are contests between only two parties, in a first-past-the-post-esqué electoral system. In Britain however, as a reflection of voter apathy towards the two main parties, there has been a steady rise in the popularity and power of a third party, the Liberal Democrats who in the most recent general election polled a head-turning twenty-two percent of the vote. [1] Because the emphasis on a strong government is high in the UK the Liberal Democrats currently occupy a lower number of seats than they would have received under a proportional system. Whilst this disproportionality may be a healthy device for producing a stronger government it runs against the grain of democracy, where as many people as possible are represented. With the rise of a third party into what has previously always been a two horse race – even when presented with such a handicap in the vote-seat distribution – I hypothesise that there will be increasing, perhaps even sufficient, pressure on the government to modify or completely change the electoral system at some point within the next generation or so. The change of the seat distribution formula would ultimately create a balance between a stronger majority government and democratic representation.
Two other criterion of Lijphart’s breakdown of a majoritarian political system is a ‘Unitary, Centralised government’ and the ‘concentration of legislative power’. These notions have also been challenged in the UK through several political changes, which have recently included the infiltration of Parliaments powers from above and below. The European Union has compromised, from above, the national parliamentary sovereignty previously enjoyed by the UK government. From below, devolution has also diluted Westminster’s power in Wales and particularly Scotland, with the Scottish Parliament now making increasingly important decisions; forming a Scottish opinion – and often introducing laws – regarding topics such as organ donation, the nuclear energy debate, drugs laws, education, health. Only matters with a UK-wide or international implications are still exclusively dealt with solely in Westminster. [2]
These relatively new changes show that the Westminster model has began evolving from a strong majoritarian government, which was a very poor reflection of ‘truly’ democratic system, into a pseudo-federal structure that, superficially, has created the idea of fairer representation of many more citizens under the labels of Scottish, British or European. It also shows that a ‘strong and efficient’ government is not the perfect answer and that the British nation as a whole prefer some degree of sub-state autonomy and with encouraged weakening of the central government in order to have a greater degree of representivity.
Robert Dahl has put forward the notion that majoritarian systems are favourable because they have a positive influence on smaller parties. He argues that the concentration of power in a strong government drives smaller parties to develop a ‘desire for majority rule’ (1989) and maintains the idea that collective decisions are for the best. However when this is put into practice, I believe that it can lead to the dilution of a party’s policy, in order to generate support. The British Labour and Conservative parties are perfect examples of this because over the years their policies have changed from being moderately left and right respectively, to the stage where they can both be viewed as two centre parties with a relatively small number of different policy stances when compared to several decades ago. Whilst this may be acting as a catalyst, driving the parties towards great-success the mass appeal synonymous with catch-all politics also significantly narrows the political spectrum, giving the voters less options, thus reducing democratic accountability. I also believe that this has been a predominant factor in the decline of partisanship within the voting population.
Consensus based models of democracy have many appearances from country to country because there is no desire to replicate a ‘perfect’ system, unlike the Westminster design and majority democracies. Many of the ‘consensus countries’ have differing arrangements of government that may mirror an array of similar sections present in many other consensus systems. From this angle, consensus models resemble the idea of a child’s pick and mix where a person chooses all of the preferred parts and mixes them in one bag. Because of this pick ‘n’ Mix nature it is only possible to cover a select few models, and plucking out the most general of features.
One of the worlds more ‘democratic’ political systems, Finland’s consensus-based model, is infamously characterised by ‘governmental instability’ (Webb, 2002). Because of the because of it’s combination of semi-presidential and parliamentary elements with a federal-style election process it has led to a fragmented parliament where a coalition government is unavoidable. Webb notes that between 1917 and 1997 the main institution with the most executive power, the Finnish cabinet, saw sixty-seven coalitions; almost making the system in Finland the embodiment of Political instability. This shows the more extreme side of the link between a high level of democracy and a lower measure of government strength.
However, consensus systems are not always a bad thing for the progression of a country. Japan, which operates using a western-style democracy – imposed by the Allies after WWII – upon eastern values has seen many positive changes in the last decade. This system vests the majority of state-orientated power into a moderately strong bi-cameral parliament known as the ‘diet’.[3] By making important decisions to politically aligning itself with Americas international values, and entwining its economy with China, Japan is once again on the route to becoming one of the strongest nations in Asia (Watts, 2005) with a relatively stable mix of democracy and government strength.
The volatility and constant reincarnation of the French political system over the last few centuries shows that many of its citizens have been discontent with previous arrangements of government, both strong and weak. The current blend between presidential and parliamentary elements, with power repeatedly fluctuating between the President and the National Assembly, appears to have hushed the restless population, where the level of democracy is high and the government is still quite powerful and efficient. The popularly elected President, giving him/her more political weight (Theen, 1996), seems to be the crucial mechanism that stands out as reinforcing an added layer of democracy. In a way, the French struggle for the perfect democracy can be seen as a microcosm for the Global quest to perfect the political system; creating a democratic set-up where the government is neither too strong nor overly brittle.
In conclusion I believe current arrangement of classifying democracies as either majoritarian or consensus may not be viable for much longer if more majoritarian-based countries follow the direction of the British model, in that they begin to progressively incorporate more elements of political systems that have traditionally belonged exclusively to consensus systems. If this was to be the case I would suggest that the former majoritarian states would use the opportunity to select parts from both versions, creating a third, hybrid, system. The same could also be put forward regarding consensus systems attempting to solidify the powers of a single institution within their political arrangement.
The idea of the ‘greater good’ is one that has been around for several hundred years. This is the belief that parliament acts as a ‘deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest’ (Burk, 1744). Whilst this may be a romanticised notion, the general outlook of national interest should still hold some importance today. Questions attached to this will always raise points of minority oppression, however, even up to today’s current state of ‘democracy’ and it’s many forms, ‘pure democracy’ can rarely be achieved in practice amongst large groups, let alone an entire nation. The more homogenised the opinion of a faction is, the closer an outcome will be to that of a purely democratic one, however due to national-level differences in ethnicity, gender, age, sex, morals and beliefs there will always have to be some compromise between these two opposing forces.
This graph best illustrates the recurring relation between the strength and efficiency of a government and how ‘democratic’ the situation is. A country like Finland would appear towards the right hand side of the red line whereas a country like the UK would appear on the left side and appears to be, over time, working its way towards some middle ground. With a shade of irony the territory in the middle of the graph where many countries are striving towards, much like in any mass-democratic system (an oxymoron within itself) there has to be a compromise between both sides.
Word Count 1,884
Bibliography:
Burk, Edmund. “Speech at the conclusion of the poll”. 3rd November 1774. From:
Blaug, Ricardo. “Democracy: A Reader”. Edinburgh Uni. Press. 1998. Page 151.
Calvert, Peter. “Comparative politics: an introduction”. Harlow: Longman 2002.
Dahl, Robert. “Democracy and its critics”. Yale University & New Haven Press, 1989. Page 161.
Lijphart, Arend. “Patterns of Democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries”. New Haven; London, Yale University press. 1999. Chapter 1.
Theen, Rolf H.W. “Comparative Politics: An Introduction to Seven Countries. 3rd Edition”. Prentice Hall, NJ. 1996. Page 104.
Watts, Jonathan. “The Sun Also Rises”. The Guardian Newspaper, 14th November 2005. G2 Supplement. Page 10.
Webb, Paul D. “Political parties in advanced industrial democracies”. Oxford University Press, 2002. Page 185
[1] Information from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm accessed on 7th December 2005.
[2] Taken From: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/powers/index.htm
Accessed on 11th December 2005.
[3] Information from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Government_and_politics. Accessed on 10th December 2005.
No comments:
Post a Comment