Electing for Democracy

Preface This book, published in 1990, deals with a subject that is once more back on the agenda. I’ve made no attempt to revise or update it, but some typos have been picked up and corrected on the way and the original pagination has been replicated in preparing it for uploading to Academia. Sincere thanks to Brian Robinson, who selflessly OCRed the text for me. Richard Kuper London, 12 June 2015 Electing for Democracy Proportional Representation and the Left Richard Kuper Socialist Society 1990 Electing for Democracy Proportional Representation and the Left First published September 1990 by the Socialist Society Copyright © 1990 the Socialist Society ISBN 1 872481 05 1 Cover design by Sandra Buchanan, Graphic Arts, Southark SE1 Printed in Great Britain by Billings & Sons Limited, Worcester Contents Acknowledgments / 4 Introduction / 5 1: The Case for the Current System / 7 2: Some European Examples / 21 3: The Effects of PR on Labour and the Left / 26 4: Varieties of PR / 32 5: The Constituency / 43 6: Women and Minorities / 48 7: Recommendations / 52 Appendix - How Various PR Systems Work / 55 A Guide to Reading / 60 Acknowledgments The ideas expressed here have been developed over a number of years in and around the Socialist Society, the Socialist Movement and the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform. But pulling the threads together into a sustained argument proved harder than I had expected. It wouldn’t have happened without constant encouragement from friends and comrades. In particular I would like to thank Anthony Arblaster, Andrew Coates, Phil Edwards, Greg Elliott, Mary Georghiou, Martin Kuper, Ron Medlow and Hilary Wainwright all of whom read the manuscript in draft. A lunch with Martin Linton raised questions I am still grappling with. And, for heavy duty input, special thanks to Hilary Wainwright for her constant interest and encouragement, Mary Georghiou for her extremely thorough comments on the text and Greg Elliott for his precise editing. The usual caveats apply. While I’ve drawn heavily on the ideas of those around me and the debates on the left, responsibility for the form in which these general arguments see the light of day here must be laid squarely at my door. Richard Kuper London, May 1990 Introduction Socialists are normally quick to condemn traditional political institutions, and there is scarcely any aspect of the British political system that has escaped scathing criticism: prerogative powers, the House of Lords, the judiciary. Why, then, is the electoral system immune? The British left is deeply divided on the question of proportional representation. Feelings are running high when left-wing proponents of electoral reform can be variously accused, of encouraging ‘coalitions and deals in smoke-filled rooms’, of wishing to ‘perfect the fraud of bourgeois democracy’, and, until he chose to drown himself, of throwing a lifeline to David Owen. On the face of it, this hostility is surprising. The ‘first-past- the-post’ system is neither self-evidently democratic nor fair. (Even the name is a misnomer since there is no post to be got past!) It originated in pre-capitalist times and was refined in the late nineteenth century in a Liberal-Tory agreement on the new rules of the game before socialist representation was a live issue. Indeed, the Labour Party in its early days was a vigorous supporter of PR. My argument focuses on what many may feel is the narrow issue of forms of representation. A book remains to be written on democracy and socialism, but this is not it (though I will touch on that relationship at many points). Here I examine the unwritten rules and assumptions of the current system. I argue that any socialist support for the current electoral system is misguided, because it is undemocratic and works systematically to the left’s disadvantage. I then look at alternative electoral systems and identify the principles which must underlie any system if it is to enjoy 5 the support of socialists. What is at stake is our concept of democracy and our willingness to take it seriously, not just as a future ideal, but as a central guiding principle of day-to-day practice. Obtaining proportional representation will neither solve the problems of the left nor provide Britain with a functioning ‘democracy’. It will not, in itself, affect the vast powers concentrated, with minimal democratic constraint, in the hands of the Crown and the executive, the civil service, the armed forces and even the House of Lords - powers which serve, and are buttressed by, the economic might of capital. These need to be challenged through the mobilization of class and popular forces - by definition extra-parliamentary. But the electoral system, and the forms of representation it allows, affects how people mobilize and the long-run effects of such efforts. With a more representative and effective parliamentary system, the impact of action at work, in the community and in the social movements can be all the greater. Proportional representation is not an end in itself, but one (limited) component of the process of democratizing all aspects of social life. 6 1: The case for the current system In the absence of a written constitution, it is difficult to know how the political system is supposed to function in Britain. But it is clear that the two-party politics of a first-past-the-post electoral system are supposed to be qualitatively superior to that of any other system. Broadly speaking, the orthodox view may be summed up in three interlinked propositions. First, the system renders the electorate sovereign, providing a choice of policies and governments. Second, it ensures responsible government and accountable members of parliament. Third, it offers strong government, in contrast to the weakness of coalition government. The quality of government it produces is constantly emphasized. Such beliefs are shared by senior politicians across both Tory and Labour parties, from Margaret Thatcher and Enoch Powell to Roy Hattersley and Tony Benn. There is a deep attachment to arrangements which have arisen out of a unique historical experience. And, very often, this is allied to a feeling that Britain, Mother of Parliaments, remains morally and culturally superior to every other country in the world, even if its economic supremacy is a thing of the past. It is important, therefore, to examine these themes in some detail. How exactly does the system work? How democratic is it? How does it compare with the different west European systems? How do voters fare in other countries? Sovereignty of the electorate The first-past-the-post system, it is said, ensures a better expression of the ‘will of the people’ than any other system. It does this 7 by giving electors a clear choice. You vote for a government and for a mandate. If your party wins you know in advance who will form the new government and what policies it will implement. The theory of the mandate imposes on the winning party not only a right but also a duty to implement its programme. This is contrasted with PR-based systems where no party has a majority. A government emerges that is neither responsible to, nor directly removable by, the electorate. The first thing to be said about this myth is that your choice is only clear if one of the two programmes on offer embodies the values, beliefs and proposals that you support. In practice this is most unlikely to be the case. It is not self-evident that all issues are posed in the form of simple alternatives, nor even that where you support a party on one issue you will support it with equal enthusiasm on the cluster of issues which go to make up its programme. Party programmes are invariably a compromise between different forces within the parties (which are themselves coalitions) and usually include a number of concessions to the interests and hobby horses of particular groups. There is a process of constant negotiation which determines what parties do or, more usually, fail to do, once in office. Much of what governments do is a response to events which were generally unforeseen when they drew up their manifestoes. How many manufacturing industrialists voted Tory in 1979 in the expectation that the government would engineer a massive slump which was to put a fair proportion of them out of business? How many Labour supporters gave Labour its convincing victory in 1966 believing that a wage freeze would be introduced shortly afterwards? Or, looking ahead, how much of Labour’s social programme is likely to see the light of day given the separation of economic efficiency from social justice in the Policy Review? Once priority is accorded to solving the economic crisis before making significant resources available for social needs (rather than attempting to create an economy out of satisfying those needs), whole aspects of Labour’s mandate will necessarily become purely decorative. 8 None of this is intended to suggest that it is desirable for governments to renege so readily on election promises - or do so many things which are contrary to their pre-election postures. But it is to recognize that the relationship between what parties say and what governments do is infinitely more complex than any simple theory of the mandate might lead one to expect. In the event, pressing problems often find ‘solutions’ precisely by governments rounding on their most avid supporters. It was, after all, de Gaulle who ended the war in Algeria, having been elected to pursue it to a successful conclusion; Harold Macmillan who instigated a serious process of decolonisation; Harold Wilson who first engaged the trade unions in a prolonged period of wage restraint.

Load more