The Role of Political Parties in Electoral Reform: British Experience and Ukrainian Perspectives
Mykhaylo Nakhod, Ukraine
Changing the rules of national elections is a peculiarity of weak political regimes. It is also an aspiration of under-represented opposition parties. The British Labour Party opposes electoral reform for Westminster, but accepts it for devolved territories where it does not have a stable majority. In Ukraine, election rules are changed before every poll. Stable political parties with popular support favour changes to electoral arrangements, but the regime has a very conservative approach to such questions. This article focuses on the role of political parties in setting electoral rules in stable (the UK) and transitional democracies (Ukraine).
The role of political parties in Britain is extremely important. The main political parties feed into the government’s policy agenda before every general election. They try to include in their manifestos issues which benefit not only the voter, but the party as well. One critical issue for every political party in any country is the system under which their representatives are elected. In developed democracies, such as the UK, political parties can shape the agenda; in transitional countries this is not always the case. One of the reasons why it was so difficult to achieve progress on electoral reform in Ukraine prior to the Orange Revolution in December 2004 was the weakness of its political parties.
Recent British political experience offers a very interesting comparison in analysing these issues. During its 18 years of opposition before the 1997 General Election, the Labour party promised to conduct a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission – the Jenkins Commission – was appointed to recommend a proportional representation (PR) alternative to the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Labour was not sure that it would win outright in 1997 and wanted to be in government, even in coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
We now know that the work of the independent commission ended in failure. In 2003 the Leader of the House of Commons, Peter Hain, set out a controversial vision for constitutional reform. Hain declared that the report of the Jenkins commission had erred seriously in recommending a change to multi-member constituencies. In fact, the failure to introduce proportional representation for general elections was due to disagreements within the Labour party.
Nevertheless, the Labour government introduced PR voting arrangements in Scotland, Wales, London and Northern Ireland and for elections to the European Parliament. In 2001, the Labour Government was re-elected on a promise to conduct another review of the voting system for Westminster. According to Labour’s 2005 general election manifesto the party remains committed to reviewing the experience of new electoral systems introduced for devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly.
The Conservative Party opposes the shift to proportional representation on different grounds. One common objection is that it would give ‘difficult’ minorities greater representation than they currently enjoy under FPTP, while another is that it would make it more likely that no party would enjoy a clear majority. But not all Tories think the same way. Robin Squire, MP for Hornchurch from 1979 until 1997 and a past Chairman of Conservatives for Electoral Reform, has criticized the party’s position on PR. He cites the results for the Scottish Parliament, where under the Additional Member System (AMS) form of PR the Conservatives and other small parties achieved a significant increase in support. Squire argues that ‘Conservatives who close their eyes or who think that the electoral system must remain unchanged “because it’s always been that way” are condemning themselves and the party they support to many more years in opposition in Parliament and to continuing invisibility in city councils across the country.’
The Liberal Democrats remain strongly committed to a referendum on electoral reform for Westminster, PR for local elections, and extending the vote to 16 year-olds. Their position is understandable because, although they are gaining more voters across the country, this is not reflected in a proportionate increase in the number of their seats in Westminster. By contrast, in Scotland where PR is used the party is participating in a coalition government.
Political parties in Ukraine have been weak in the 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and their influence in parliament is limited. The ideological parties – the left Communist and Socialist parties and the right Peoples Movement of Ukraine and its successor parties – have always favoured proportional representation, but as they never had a majority in parliament they were only partially successful in pushing this issue. Other MPs were independent or representatives of small parties that supported the regime of then President Kuchma. In 1997 a parliamentary consensus led to the adoption of a parallel system, whereby half the MPs were elected by a closed-list PR system in a single multi-member nationwide constituency and the other half in single-member constituencies according to FPTP. This strengthened the role of political parties in Ukraine. The elections of 1998 and 2002 were conducted under this formula.
Efforts to introduce PR for the whole parliament and to raise the number of MPs elected by PR during 1999-2001 were unsuccessful, largely because of the weakness of independent MPs and small parliamentary parties. The situation changed in 2003-2004, when Kuchma’s regime conceded changes to the electoral system in return for support from opposition ideological parties on constitutional reform. The March 2006 parliamentary and local elections took place under a completely closed list PR system.
One can draw several conclusions from the recent (March 2006) parliamentary elections, which are likely to have a significant impact on the future of electoral reform in Ukraine.
(i) People understand and accept the closed-list PR system for national elections since they are familiar with it from the 1998 and 2002 parliamentary elections. This is shown by the fact that this year only five parties (blocs) were able to reach the 3 percent threshold necessary to achieve representation in parliament. In 1998, the number of successful parties/blocs was eight and in 2002 six (the electoral threshold then was 4 percent).
(ii) Because the electorate was unaccustomed to voting for local candidates along party lines, many people strongly opposed this innovation. People are more inclined to vote for individuals rather than parties in local elections. There is consequently a strong case to introduce an open-list PR or even STV (single transferable vote) system at this level.
(iii) People did not vote tactically at these elections. According to recent polls, in most cases they vote for the same party in national and local elections.
(iv) In mayoral elections, people voted for the individual rather than following a party preference.
Reform of the electoral system is good for democracy if it is carried out by the government with strong enough support from society. In Ukraine proportional representation will help build a strong political structure with responsible political parties and accountable government. In the United Kingdom electoral reform could facilitate the development of smaller, less influential parties, and bring the system of governance closer to that in most continental countries.