Bangladesh seems to have reached an impasse regarding the upcoming general election. The ruling party wants it under the current government, while the opposition wants it under a non-partisan caretaker government. The possibility of an agreement looks remote. Instead, the country seems to be sliding towards another phase of violent political struggle.

Switching from the current majoritarian election system to the proportional election system can provide a way out of this impasse. The majoritarian system is inherently prone to violent fluctuations in election results, leading to marginalisation of opposing political parties. By contrast, the proportional system can ensure the robust presence of contending political parties in parliament and thus allay the fear of becoming marginalised.

Read more

Violence cannot be the only language of politics

To see how the majoritarian system leads to instability, consider the following hypothetical example. Suppose there are only two political parties, A and B, having a popularity of 51 and 49 percent, respectively, among the electorate. Suppose that these popularity ratings are uniform across the country and hence apply for all 300 parliamentary seats. Under these conditions, if the election is held under the majoritarian system, party A will win 300 seats while party B will win zero seats. Now suppose that, by the next election year, the popularity of party A has declined to 49 percent and that of party B has increased to 51 percent, and that these ratings are uniform across the country. Now, under the majoritarian system, party B will win 300 seats and party A will have no seat at all! Thus, we see how, under the majoritarian system, the change in popularity by just two percentage points leads to a radical fluctuation in the election results.

The proportional election system helps prevent such violent fluctuations and unjust outcomes. Under the proportional system, the election is held on a countrywide basis and parliamentary seats are allocated to the parties in accordance to the proportion of vote they get in the entire country. Under this system, both party A and B would announce their lists of 300 candidates in the order of precedence. Under the example considered above, in the first election, party A would get 51 percent of the seats, i.e. 153 seats, while party B would get 49 percent, i.e., 147 seats. In the next election, party A would get 147 seats, while party A would get 153 seats. Thus, the number of seats of both the parties would change by two percentage points, exactly the same by which their vote shares have changed. The proportional system can thereby prevent violent fluctuations in election results. It is also more just.

The proportional system eliminates the necessity of questionable pre-election alliances. Parties can test their own popularity and post-election alliances can be formed on the basis of proven political support instead of unfounded guesses.

As a result of the above property, the proportional election promotes a culture of political tolerance, because contending parties know that all of them will remain in parliament in accordance to their popularity and no one will get marginalised by the mechanics of the election system. The proportional system also allows all votes to get reflected in the parliament's composition. By contrast, under the majoritarian system, under the above example, 49 percent of the vote do not have any reflection in the composition of the parliament.

It is because of these superior qualities of the proportional system that almost all developed countries follow it. Of the original 22 countries belonging to the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 19 follow the proportional system. More instructively, of the 10 East European countries and former Soviet republics, which switched to democracy in the 1990s, all adopted the proportional system. These countries were not constrained by historical legacy and had the option to choose between the majoritarian and proportional systems. Worldwide, about 65 percent of the countries follow the proportional system.

It is mostly the United Kingdom and its former colonies that follow the majoritarian system. Even in these countries, a process of switching can be clearly seen. For example, New Zealand has now switched to the proportional system. Even within the UK, the newly created Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are elected through proportional elections. There are movements demanding the adoption of the proportional system in the US and Canada too. Research shows that, on average, the quality of governance and economic growth rate is higher in countries with proportional elections than in those with the majoritarian system.

Since Bangladesh is striving to become a developed country by 2041, and it aspires to have better governance and higher economic growth rate, it should also move towards the proportional election system. In the special case of Bangladesh, as I have shown in my previous books and articles, there are at least eleven ways in which the proportional system can be helpful. We have already noted the first two, namely stability of election results and the increase in political tolerance that this stability forces upon the political parties. Third, proportional election reduces the objective scope for election manipulation, because it does not allow dramatic changes in the election results through small changes in the voting proportions. Fourth, the proportional system forces the political parties to include nationally renowned people on their lists. As a result, the composition of the parliament can improve. Fifth, it improves the nature of election campaigns, because it now has to focus on the national issues instead of parochial local issues.

Read more

For every rally, there is a counter-rally

Sixth, the proportional system eliminates the necessity of questionable pre-election alliances. Parties can test their own popularity and post-election alliances can be formed on the basis of proven political support instead of unfounded guesses. Seventh, the proportional system raises the importance of the political parties, because people have to be active in the party in order to get into their lists. Eighth, the proportional system will create better conditions for the development of local governments. Ninth, the proportional system will create a more level playing field for smaller parties to compete and get represented in parliament, which will thereby become more inclusive. Tenth, the proportional system eliminates the necessity of by-elections which prove to be unnecessary distractions. If any seat falls vacant, the next person in the respective party's list can automatically fill that seat. Finally, by producing more just and inclusive outcomes, the proportional system can lead to a more peaceful and constructive political life.

There is a concern about a possible lack of uniform geographical representation under the proportional system. However, given the compact geography of Bangladesh, this concern may not be that important. Also, there are ways of dealing with it under this system too.

In view of the above, it will be more beneficial for the country if the political parties start a national dialogue about switching from the majoritarian to the proportional election system.

Dr S Nazrul Islam is former chief of development research at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.