The electoral system currently used in Pakistan is the oldest system from the twelfth century, is the Majoritarian or First-past-the-post (FPTP) system, which exists in the United Kingdom and Canada. It has, however, not found completely satisfactory and as such is under consideration for reforms in some countries.
In an FPTP system, the winner is the candidate with the most votes but not necessarily an absolute majority of the votes. FPTP system is the simplest form of plurality/majority system, using single-member districts and candidate-centered voting. The voter just ticks off the name of his/her preferred candidate in his/her constituency. The winner is simply the candidate who wins the most votes.
Some advances of the FPTP are as follows: FPTP provides a clear-cut choice for voters between two main parties. Most of the time, it produces single-party governments despite not winning an absolute majority of the popular vote. It gives rise to a clear opposition in the legislature.
It promotes a connection between constituents and their representatives, as it produces a legislature made up of representatives of geographical areas. Voters get to choose between people rather than parties. Popular independent candidates have a chance of getting elected. FPTP systems are simple to use and understand.
However, it also has some disadvantages. It excludes smaller parties from ‘fair’ representation, in the sense that a party that wins approximately, say, 10% of the votes should win approximately 10% of the legislative seats.
It excludes minorities from fair representation. As a rule, under FPTP, parties put up the most broadly acceptable candidate in a district to avoid alienating many electors.
It excludes women from the legislature. The ‘most broadly acceptable candidate’ syndrome also affects the ability of women to get elected to legislative office because they are often less likely to be selected as candidates by male-dominated party structures.
It can encourage the development of political parties based on clan, ethnicity, or region, which may base their campaigns and policy platforms on conceptions that are attractive to the majority of people in their district or region but exclude or are hostile to others.
It exaggerates the phenomenon of ‘regional fiefdoms’ where one party wins all the seats in a province or area. It leaves many wasted votes that do not go towards the election of any candidate.
It can cause vote-splitting. Where two similar parties or candidates compete under FPTP, the vote of their potential supporters often gets split between them, thus allowing a less popular party or candidate to win the seat.
It may be unresponsive to changes in public opinion. A pattern of geographically concentrated electoral support in a country means that one party can maintain exclusive executive control in the face of a substantial decline in overall popular support.
Finally, FPTP systems are dependent on the drawing of electoral boundaries. All electoral boundaries have political consequences: there is no technical process to produce a single ‘correct answer’ independently of political or other considerations.
Boundary delimitation may require substantial time and resources if the results are to be accepted as legitimate. There may also be pressure to manipulate boundaries by gerrymandering or bad apportionment.
This was particularly apparent in the Kenyan elections of 1993 when huge disparities between the sizes of electoral districts—the largest had 23 times the number of voters the smallest had—contributed to the ruling Kenyan African National Union party’s winning a large majority in the legislature with only 30% of the popular vote.
Every election for National and Provincial assemblies since 1970 has been under the FPTP system. Low turnout has marred elections in Pakistan. Only four elections under the FPTP system produced voter turnout above 50%, i.e. 1970, 1977, 2013, and 2018 whereas the voter turnout in other years has varied from 35% to 45%.
The consistent pattern of low turnover indicates that the vast majority of voters are apathetic or alienated from casting their votes, as they believe that their votes will not make a difference in the results.
Besides the need for major procedural and operational reforms in conducting elections by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), the electoral system requires a substantial overhaul.
It is highly disturbing that the winning parties have only gained 15% to 20% of the total registered voters. Another 20% to 25% of voters voted for other parties while 55% to 65% did not bother to vote.
A party winning only 15% to 20% of the total votes gets to rule the entire 100% of the population is ridiculous. The electoral system should reflect the true mandate of the people and only those with genuine majority support should rule the country.
Under the FPTP system in Pakistan, it appears to have promoted regionalism and tribalism at the expense of nationalism.
The results of 2018 general elections clearly show the regional, ethnic, and linguistic fault lines existing in Pakistan today and that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is the only national party with seats in every province. Sadly, there are no other true national parties serving as a catalyst for national unity and integration.
We need to scrap the current First-Past-The-Post system and Pakistan should move towards some form of Proportional Representation (PR) system. With an electoral system, PR has advantages and disadvantages.
The main advantages of PR are that it produces legislatures that are a truer reflection of voters than a plurality/majority system like FPTP and it encourages parties to campaign outside their home turf. However, the major downsides of PR are that it leads to coalition governments that can result in legislative gridlock and instability.
In addition, the parties’ leaderships may become too strong, as they would determine the candidates who appear on the lists.
Pakistan should adopt a mixed electoral system like Germany. In Germany, half the seats are determined on a constituency basis using FPTP while the remaining half are allocated based on PR as per parties’ lists.
The general seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies in Pakistan should be determined the same way.
Just like in Germany and Turkey, to attain seats on a PR basis, there should be a minimum threshold. For Pakistan, achieving a minimum of 5% of the total popular vote to be awarded seats in the National Assembly and likewise for provincial assemblies. This measure is to exclude fringe groups and to discourage regionalism.
Half the general seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies are determined by the existing FPTP system. The size of the constituencies would logically increase and thus the ECP would need to redefine the geographic boundaries.
The remaining 50% of the general seats in the National Assembly (NA) and provincial assemblies would be determined by the PR system. Each party would submit candidates’ lists for both NA and provincial assemblies.
The voter will have two choices to make for NA and provincial assemblies, one ballot to choose the preferred candidate of their constituency and second ballot to choose their preferred party list of candidates for PR seats.
Allocation of both women and minority-reserved seats should also be done on a PR basis. Bye-elections for any vacancies, occurring after the elections and during the tenure of the elected Government, in the members elected through the FPTP system should be held as per the present system i.e.
through inviting new nominations for the vacant seat and holding elections under the same First-past-the-post system. Any vacancy occurring in the National Assembly or provincial seats elected under the PR system should be filled through nomination by the political party, which happens to lose that member.
Another major benefit of a German type mixed electoral system is that technical and academic experts in various fields who are not “electable” or career politicians can become members of parliament through PR system.
This would provide better options for the Prime Minister/Chief Minister for choosing cabinet ministers. Furthermore, the influence of “electables” would diminish over time due to the 50/50 split between constituency-based and PR seats.
The time has come for bold thinking on electoral reforms not just tinkering around the edges. I urge the Prime Minister to establish a commission on reforming the electoral system with relevant experts and former elected parliamentarians.
ADVERTISEMENT
