Tessa Mackenzie did not mince her words when she raised a point last week (October 15) in the Letters to the Editor pages of The Fiji Times regarding what she thought was a disadvantage of the country’s electoral system.
Well known as the person behind the design of Fiji’s national flag, Ms Mackenzie was not alone, for many actually believe and feel the same way she did and have raised their concerns in the past.
She noted that the current electoral system forced opposition politicians to travel far and wide in order to get in touch with their constituents.
This has a huge bearing on their personal finances and party coffers, and with reduced allowances for constituency visits, opposition MPs who do not have the logistical advantage available to government MPs, will find community engagement sessions a very costly affair.
“… in the past, the parliamentarians were elected by a small group rather than by the whole country, they had the onus and the opportunity to listen to the people. Whether they did this faithfully is beside the point,” Ms Mackenzie pointed out.
“At least we, the people, felt that we had one individual up there in Parliament to whom we could voice our concerns. Is the current system really working in the best way for the people of this country?”
The truth is there is no perfect electoral system in the world, just as there is no country with the perfect model of democracy.
This means that despite the fact that Fiji’s electoral system may satisfy the idea of “one man, one vote” or may seem ideal because of its emphasis on proportionality, it still has drawbacks.
Like a democracy, the electoral system, as the formula that determines how votes cast in an election are translated to legislative seats, must take into account a country’s unique characteristics.
In Fiji that means, its population composition, its geography, its political history, the people’s literacy level, and prevailing religious beliefs and cultural sensitivities, among other things.
Failure to consider these factors may not sit well with the people and may also work against the fundamental tenets of democracy.
Studies of democracies globally have indicated to us the essential role electoral systems and laws play in influencing the long term political landscape of the country and determining whether political stability would be achievable.
In the current proportional representation system we have, there is one large single multi-member district which is different from the previous two systems – the first past the post and alternative voting systems.
Concerns over having a single constituency are centered on that fact that it is weak in the area of accountability, checks and balances.
It removes the interactive opportunities that existed before, where a voter was easily able to engage with his or her representative in Parliament because the politician, as member of the community, often lived within the community.
A voter from Yasawa or Rotuma may vote for politician who lives and works on Taveuni.
The geographical divide makes it virtually impossible for a meaningful and direct interaction between the voter and the voted, hence decreasing the ability of members of a community holding their politicians of choice accountable.
This also means that a politician has no specific boundary or community of people to represent and as a consequence, he or she may end up advocating for issues superficially understood and not carefully grasped.
With smaller constituencies, the chance of Parliamentary representatives and their voters having personal interactions is high, the chance of the voters seeing their representatives within the community is high and the chance of the representatives taking up development issues for debate and discussions to the House (which he or she fully understands because he or she lives in the community) is also high.
This regular and personal relationship between the voter and his or her politician of choice is needed in small developing countries like ours, where people in rural communities often encounter poor service delivery and lag behind in development.
Also, having one large constituency requires politicians and parties to have the necessary funds and means to reach citizens.
Most often, because of costs involved, this will work against small parties.
PR systems also have the tendency to give rise to coalition governments and a fragmented party system.
New Zealand is a good example where this happens. It is largely strong on political pluralism.
While it may encourage a few parties to work together, in extreme cases, minority parties may hold larger parties to ransom during negotiations, making coalitions fragile.
The bottom line is – proportional representation has its merits but it also has disadvantages.
The main accepted benefit of the proportional representation system over first past-the-post and alternative voting is that it decreases the inconsistency between votes cast and seats actually won.
That means there are less wasted votes or the party’s representative in the legislature reflects or is proportionate to the votes the party received.
But that advantage can be contested, because some MPs who have a few hundred votes may enter Parliament because of their popular party front man (or woman), when others with thousands of votes will not make the cut.
Apart from the electoral system, domestic laws related to elections can sometimes fail to satisfy the concept of “free and fair elections”.
For example, the requirement of having 5,000 signatures of registered voters may make registering a party administratively difficult, cumbersome and time-consuming.
Furthermore, it systematically dissuades small parties that form around minority issues and support minority voices from registering as a party.
In the end this unnecessarily discourages small communities, with small support bases but who may have strong political aspirations, from participating in elections.
Hence, small parties representing minority rights and special interest groups are unable to be part of the legislature and work alongside big parties that represent majority interest groups.
In the end, marginalised sections of society, which democratic principles dictate we should not “leave behind” in our quest for progress and prosperity, may not receive fair representation.
As a result, the concept of free and fair elections will seem far-fetched and unattainable to them.
If entering politics becomes too costly for a political candidate (because of one large constituency) then it essentially discriminates against hardworking community leaders who have solid standing in society but may not have the financial capacity.
Not every aspiring politician has savings. Not every political candidate has paid employment.
The cost of standing in elections can also discourage the effective participation of women in politics.
This is because of the fact that many women leaders and political aspirants, especially those in rural, minority and vulnerable communities are often severely disadvantaged and poor.
In the end, not being able to stand in elections breaches their human rights to have a direct say and participate in the governance of the country.
Again, thank you Tessa for your letter. I hope it leads to positive and meaningful discussions and dialogue, especially in the period ahead of us, when we approach the elections of 2022.
Maybe a few changes in laws are needed.
Until we meet on this same page same time next week, it is my prayer that you stay blessed, stay healthy and stay safe!
