Until when shall we continue to accept the vicious fact that our winner-takes-all election system has the potential to leave up to 49.9% of the voters in our so called sovereign and democratic State feeling unrepresented, whatever their social, political and ethnic background? Yes, our First Past The Post (FPTP) system is as clear and as brutal as that!

Today, we have more than sufficient evidence that FPTP generates results which are revoltingly disproportionate to the share of votes obtained by the different parties taking part in elections. Hence, it is time to correct the undue discrepancy created by FPTP and slightly compensated by the Best Loser System (BLS), another repulsive component of our electoral process, by introducing Proportional Representation (PR) in the current electoral structure.

Why do we have to get rid of the current system? First, it is unrepresentative as it does not necessarily represent the choice of a majority of voters but only the highest polling candidates. Besides, small parties have no chance to win a mandate unless there are some constituencies with a population having political views differing much from those in the rest of the country. Therefore, FPTP inevitably leads to parties building alliances until only two major players remain on the political scene. So, we end up compelled to choose between the candidates of two big parties basically. While this tends to create a stable parliamentary majority for the government, it is not likely to represent a pluralistic modern society like ours adequately.

Last but not least, past local experiences indicate that FPTP encourages tactical voting, as voters tend to vote not for the candidate they most prefer, but against the candidate they most dislike. Now, how do we correct this imperfect and undemocratic system? The answer lies with PR. Lets look around us and we shall notice that PR has become the main rival to FPTP among advanced western and newly democratized States where it has become the predominant voting system. More precisely, these countries have adopted PR “party list” voting system. The PR party list is simple and practical whereby each party puts up a list of candidates equal to the number of seats in the relevant constituency.

In order to be eligible for list seats, a party must earn at least a certain percentage (threshold) of the total party vote. The seats are allocated to each party in proportion to the number of votes the party receives at a poll.

More interestingly, with the introduction of PR independent candidates may also run, and they are listed separately on the ballot as if they were their own party. Voters will indicate their preference for a particular party and the parties then receive seats in proportion to their share of the vote. The Commission of Constitutional experts, presided by Justice Albie Sachs of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, in its report in year 2002, had analysed thoroughly the application of PR in our FPTP system and opted for what is called “PR Model C” among fi ve models. The proposal provides, in addition to the 62 members elected under the FPTP, for 30 members chosen on the basis of lists provided by parties receiving more than 10% (threshold) of the national vote.

The Commission, indeed, highlighted that the «objective of the lists will be to introduce a measure of compensation in the outcome of elections so as to make the final number of seats held by the different parties reflect more accurately the support that the parties have received in the country at large.» And added that the proposed system would introduce a degree of flexibility which can be valuable to parties seeking to ensure that their leadership core will be returned to Parliament and it will also make it easier for parties to bring in predictable elements of community, religious and gender representation. PR will open the door to the involvement in public life of individuals with a major contribution to make but who are, with the present system, kept out of it for various reasons such as the forceful nature of political campaigns.

However, more importantly, PR party list will provide us with the long awaited opportunity to lessen or simply do away with the need to retain the BLS, which no longer serves any rational political purpose.

It is obvious that in the interest of democracy we need a system which more clearly represents the wishes of the voters as expressed in elections. Moving to PR would give minority parties and independent candidates a better chance of ending the supremacy of the two or three leading parties by introducing different voices to our national political life.

Yes, I concur that majority may rule, but all people should be represented. This is representative democracy!