Australia’s electoral system can be a model to democratise Guyana

Sep 07, 2013 Letters

---

 

Dear Editor,
There is significant disgruntlement with our political system established in December 1980 that allows an elected minority to run the affairs of the state. This has led to political paralysis since December 2011 after the voters rendered a split verdict.
The system also allows political leaders to forcibly impose unpopular Members of Parliament (MPs) and Ministers on the population.  Even the parties foist unacceptable, dour, uncharismatic leaders on their supporters, when others are more popular.
Our political system is in dire need of radical change to make it thoroughly democratic, so that people are offered choices of political leaders and candidates as MPs, and by extension as Ministers. In addition, we need a political system that mandates that any government must be supported by a majority of elected MPs.  If, for example, no party wins a majority of seats in elections, then the system must force the formation of a coalition arrangement in order to prevent the political paralysis that has characterized governance since the last elections.
In looking at some of the persons serving in parliament, would any Guyanese seriously consider giving them a second look if they had applied for a non-political job? The voters need choices, so that they can select the best persons among the lot to represent and serve them.
Our political system does not offer choices, as we vote for the party and the leadership imposes the MPs on their supporters.  I think we should look to reforming the system, perhaps emulating the Australia electoral system and political structure that is very democratic in nature and that offers voters preferences in terms of the candidates being offered by the parties.
Australia holds elections soon, with opinion polls suggesting that the incumbent Labour Party led by Kevin Rudd (since last June), in coalition with the Greens, will be defeated by the opposition Coalition led by Tony Abbott of the Liberal Party. Because Labour does not have a majority, it was forced to form a coalition with another party.
A similar coalition would have been formed in Guyana had we the retained the political system handed down by the British, instead of Burnham changing it to allow a minority to govern the majority.
I visited Australia sometime ago and have studied its political system during my doctoral studies in comparative politics. Australia’s electoral system allows voters to rank their candidates when they cast their votes, so that a winner is chosen by a majority (not a plurality) of their preferences.
In this way, a candidate becomes a true selection of the voters as representative (preferred by voters) of a district (or division as a district is called in Australia) and not necessarily imposed by the party leadership as in Guyana’s PR system.  Thus, although Labour is trailing in the opinion polls, it could win more seats than surveys project, based on people’s preferences.
The Australian electoral system offers voters an order of “preferences” in the selection of representatives, resulting in the most liked candidate (with a majority) being chosen to represent a district. If a candidate does not get a majority, (the second or third) preferences are added and the candidate with majority of preferences wins.
Although people generally vote for a party, the candidate could help to make a difference in certain areas, adding seats to a party, and it is a system that could be ideal for Guyana, given the unpopularity (an understatement) of some political figures of the parties.
Unlike in Guyana, Australia has a bicameral or two-chamber parliament — House of Representatives and the Senate. Guyana should also give consideration to having a similar bicameral legislature – as we had prior to 1968 – to allow for greater use of talent of non-political people.
Guyana also needs a mandatory system in which supporters of a party are given the power to select the leadership and its executives. The delegate system is undemocratic as it is subjected to political manipulation and even outright fraud. The members should be allowed to vote for their party’s leaders. In bourgeois democracies like Australia and even imperialist America, party members choose their leaders in competitive elections that are held at regular intervals, and one can join a party anytime and be given voting rights. Why shouldn’t Socialist Guyana that champions the rights of the small (poor) man allow the small man to choose his party leader and open challenges to party leadership?
Australia, for example, allows regular elections to choose party leaders, with the leader being challenged in 2011 and defeated, and the victor herself challenged in 2012 only to lose in 2013.
Australia’s political and electoral system – the Preferential System of voting — should be examined by Guyanese political leaders to democratise voting and ensure that the country is governed with the support of a majority of parliament (in coalition, if lacking a majority), with MPs and leaders chosen by voters and not imposed by the privileged few. This will help to keep away those unfit to be in parliament or serving as Ministers.
Vishnu Bisram

 

 

---

---