| Analysts evaluate the pros and cons of changing the electoral system By Amr Aref |
| Poll rigging, vote buying, corruption and thuggery — those were the traits that best describe parliamentary elections under the Mubarak regime. For decades, the country has been marred by political processes that have seldom reflected the will of the people or succeeded at meeting their most basic needs. After all, this was one of the main reasons that led to the January 25 Revolution.Since the ousting of former President Hosni Mubarak on February 11, military officials have promised that parliamentary elections in post revolutionary Egypt, currently scheduled for September, will truly reflect the will of the people. Old election traits that stained the political process will hopefully be replaced with new ones, namely free and fair elections. On May 19, the Supreme Council of Armed Forces announced amendments to the political participation law, which regulates the political process. The amendments addressed some key issues by assigning election supervision to the judiciary and allowing expatriate Egyptians the right to vote abroad, but other issues — in particular what type of electoral system to follow and whether to maintain the quota of women-only seats for Parliament — remain unresolved. General Mamdouh Shahin, assistant to the defense minister for legal affairs, told the media that those issues would be addressed in forthcoming amendments to the laws regulating the People’s Assembly and Shura Council. The debate is whether to maintain the single-member plurality system of previous elections or change it to a party-list system or implement a hybrid of the two. According to politicians and political activists, changing the electoral system will facilitate the inclusion of a large number of political parties and safeguard against the possible reemergence of a single party dominating the political arena. First past the post Under the old electoral system, the nation’s 26 governorates were divided into 222 constituencies, each with two elected members from the People’s Assembly — one seat reserved for a farmer or a worker and the other open to any candidate. In addition to these 444 seats, a 2010 amendment to the electoral law created 64 new People’s Assembly seats reserved for women, to be filled in a special election alongside the regular elections. The president fills an additional 10 seats by appointment, making a total of 518 members of the People Assembly. The Shura Council has 288 seats. To date, parliamentarians have been elected by the single-member plurality system, in which people cast votes for a specific candidate rather than for a party platform of ideas. Under this system, it’s more about personality and what a candidate promises to deliver for the individual constituency, as opposed to what the candidate’s party represents for the country as a whole. Samer Soliman, a political science professor at the American University in Cairo and a member of the newly founded Egyptian Social Democratic Party, explains that the nation’s experience with elections shows that it is very much based on the individual effort. “The single-member system puts a lot of strain on the individual candidate,” Soliman says. “He has to personally campaign and convince people to support him.” In politics, a strong relationship between the individual candidate and the members of a constituency is always a plus. In these systems, however, voters generally factor in the overall political platform of the candidate’s party as well as the character of the candidate. In a highly corrupt electoral system like the one in Egypt, personal ties were more important than the party, leading to skewed results. “The single-member system promotes a tight relationship [between the candidate and voters],” Soliman continues, “however, it gives little emphasis to political orientation or electoral programs.” A single-member plurality also tends to ignore a majority of votes when determining the seat’s winner. Past elections were determined by the ‘first past the post’ system. If a candidate received 50 percent plus one of the votes in the first round, then he or she won the seat. If there was no winner, then a second round was held between the two candidates with the highest numbers of votes. The winner was the candidate receiving at least 50 percent plus one vote in the runoff. Wael Nawara, a member of the Ghad Party, explains that the two-round voting system does not necessarily reflect the will of the majority. “If in a constituency the top two [candidates] have 15 percent and 12 percent of the votes, [respectively] and the second round ends with the 15 percent holder winning the seat, then we have effectively ignored the will of 85 percent of the voters [those who voted against the winner in the first round].” Even without taking into account the alleged vote rigging by the government, it is no wonder that some candidates have actually been elected to Parliament over and over again for the better part of 30 years. The system favors the incumbents, preventing the introduction of new blood and ideas into Egyptian politics. Party list In a party-list system, political parties nominate a list of candidates for all the seats in a constituency. The voter would then cast his vote for the entire list instead for an individual candidate. In political terminology, this is known as proportional representation. Soliman explains that the party-list system automatically diminishes the weight of the individual candidate’s character and connections that play into the voting decision. Instead, people cast their votes for the party’s vision and plan for the country. “When you vote for a list, the electoral program and policies get center stage as opposed to the single-member system where the individual is the focus,” says Soliman. The major advantage is that this system helps develop the political environment of a country as a whole since it promotes ideas and solutions instead of individual efforts. It also strengthens the political parties. “Anyone who wants to win will have a better chance of doing so if he joins a party,” explains Soliman. “[And] depending on how the law will be drafted, lists can be formed by a party or a coalition of parties based on their political orientation. They could even be a group of independents.” A party-list system could also facilitate the expansion of the constituencies themselves. Instead of having hundreds of small constituencies, voting districts could be consolidated into larger constituencies with more representatives for each district. For example, instead of 222 districts with two representatives each, you could have 50 districts with 10 representatives each. The parties would then nominate a list of 10 people as candidates for each constituency. Nawara says larger constituencies would play a big role in limiting vote buying and a single candidate’s ability to influence the direction of votes. “If you have only 50 constituencies, each could have well over a million people in it,” he says, “so vote buying becomes too expensive, if not impossible.” The most important advantage of the list system is that it facilitates the inclusion of a larger number of parties in Parliament. While a single-member plurality is a ‘winner takes all’ system, Nawara says that under the list system, there would be no ‘loser’ party; instead every party gets seats in proportion to votes its list received. “If a list receives 70 percent of the votes, they will get seven out of the 10 seats, and the remaining three seats go to the holder of the 30 percent,” he says. A pure list system is not perfect. One disadvantage is that MPs do not have the strong connections they would need to build with their constituents during an individual-based campaign. Another drawback is that the system concentrates power with party leadership as they pick who goes on the list, which opens the door to favoritism and nepotism over qualifications. People who wish to run as political independents have a harder time gaining ground in a party-list system as well. . Leveling the field Soliman notes that in previous elections, and especially during the last referendum in March, the Egyptian street was somewhat divided along sectarian lines — divides that have appeared during the nation’s modern history and are not really part of Egyptian traditions. He highlights that prior to 1952, it was possible for a Christian Wafd party candidate, for example, to win elections in a largely Muslim constituency. Today, he believes that this is highly unlikely. “In a single-member system, it will be difficult for Christians to make it to Parliament,” Soliman notes, “and we cannot have an Egyptian parliament without Christian representation.” Women have traditionally been underrepresented in past parliaments, a problem that gave rise to the much-debated quota system implemented in the 2010 elections. Under the party-list system, Soliman says, this problem could be bypassed altogether because, in theory, party lists would be formed based on people’s qualifications regardless of their religion or gender. The increased emphasis given to a party’s ideas and solutions as opposed to the individuals themselves would, ideally, dilute the issue of religious or gender divide. “You can add women to lists and then there won’t be a need to have a quota,” Soliman says. Another important advantage of the party-list system is that it relieves some of the pressure of the campaign process. There are many people with good qualifications or experts in their fields who don’t participate in political life because of the public scrutiny and demands of fundraising. “The election process in Egypt is known to be a demeaning experience, and not everyone can go through it,” Soliman says. Leveling the campaign field for newcomers is particularly important since those elected to the People’s Assembly in September will be responsible for drafting a new constitution. “We need to have constitutional professionals in the next parliament,” says Soliman, “and the party-list system is a good way to guarantee this.” Looking ahead With the previous political system in shambles, now just might be the perfect time to create a new electoral system to suit the new Egypt. Considering the country’s history of corrupt elections, introducing a party-list system might ensure a more diverse representation in the People’s Assembly even if it means sacrificing close ties between candidates and constituencies. Nawara explains that almost all of the newly formed democracies apply a party-list system since it helps in building a healthy political environment, which is something Egypt currently lacks. Analysts expect that Egypt may opt for a mixed system between single-member and party lists. Nawara explains that in the mixed system, a certain percentage of district seats are elected by using the single-member system, and the remaining seats by the party-list system. Going back to the example of 10 representatives per district, eight out of the 10 seats might be elected using a list system and the other two seats elected using the single-member system. This gives room for people to run as independents or for smaller parties to field single candidates. “I don’t think that the government will opt for a party-list system only, as there is some opposition to that,” says Soliman. According to media statements by Shahin, the final decision on the electoral system should come out sometime this month, when amendments to the laws regulating the People’s Assembly and Shura Council are announced. It is an eagerly anticipated decision; how we elect our representatives in the coming months will set the tone for the political process in the new Egypt. |
Be Social
Comments
Leave a Comment