Why Uganda should move away from a winner-take-all electoral system in favour of proportional representation
I
argued in last week’s column that in Uganda’s specific context of mass
poverty, electoral competition tends to eliminate public-spirited
candidates (or patriots) in favour of crooks. Therefore as our democracy
deepens, the share of crooks in parliament will consistently increase
at the expense of patriots. Indeed, many patriots will turn to crooked
methods to remain in politics. Rather than democracy producing
accountability, it is actually producing government by theft.
To
minimise this degeneration, Uganda needs electoral reforms that will
insulate individual candidates from the pressure of electoral
competition. In this regard, our electoral rules should be based on
proportional representation as happens in South Africa, Rwanda, and many
European countries. Rather than individuals directly running for seats
in parliament, we need political parties to be the contestants. These
parties can have lists of individuals they intend to send to parliament,
so voters will chose the MPs indirectly.
The
biggest source of electoral corruption in Uganda is not the supply of
bribes from above by politicians but the demand for them from below by
voters. I am inclined to view our MPs as victims and not architects of
this electoral context of mass poverty and traditional values.
For
example, I was in Fort Portal last week at a function where the kingdom
anthem was sung. It refers to the king as “agutamba” (one who helps
during times of need), “omwebiingwa” (one to whom everyone runs in times
of trouble) and “omukumanfuzi” (one who takes care of orphans).
Our
people look at the leader as a source of solutions to their problems,
not only through public policy implemented by impersonal institutions
but also personally from his hand. When you see President YoweriMuseveni
giving cash handouts to individuals and groups, he is actually
responding to the public expectations of him as their leader. Many
people dismiss this argument saying it is an undisguised attempt to
justify the president’s abuse of public funds. However, any elected
official in Uganda (and Africa) who does not bend to this cultural
reality will come to tears when votes are counted.
Our
MPs are expected to meet the personal needs of their constituents and
not doing so is seen as being wrong and not being a true leader. They
are expected to attend and contribute generously to fundraisings for
churches, clinics, schools, roads and bridges in their constituencies
and to also attend to personal problems such as meeting funeral expenses
and paying school fees and medical bills of their constituents – all on
their personal incomes. The voters see it as the responsibility of
their elected politicians to meet these costs even at public expense; so
they will vote for a politician who pillages the public treasury and
shares his or her “loot” with them.
The
best way to undermine incentives for voters demanding money from
candidates is to remove the faces of individuals and replace them with
the shadow of a political party. Voter bribery may remain but pressure
on individuals to distribute material benefits will reduce. Instead the
party will be the one to bribe. But since the party is a large whole,
the incentives of individuals in it to run around distributing sugar,
salt and soap will be reduced. With individual MPs insulated from the
wraths of voters, their demand for increased pay and increased years in
one term is likely to reduce in tandem with their indebtedness.
The
problem is that this solution will reduce the corruption of voters and
replace it with that of political party barons. Party leaders in NEC and
CEC will be the ones to decide who is Number One and who is Number 350
on the list of people to be MPs. Therefore, those desiring to be MPs
will have to bribe for favourable positions. It will also increase the
ability of the party machinery to enforce discipline on members and
thereby undermine the independence of MPs. This is because if anyone
disagrees with their party, they will be kicked off the list of those to
become MPs. Finally, under this proportional representation,
independents will be eliminated.
Proportional
representation is not a perfect solution to the problems in our
electoral process. It is just a lesser evil than the current system of
directly elected MPs. For example, today, a party can get as many votes
in as many constituencies. But for as long as it does not win outright,
those votes are meaningless. Under proportional representation, every
single vote counts. Therefore, this will put pressure on political
parties to try and win as many votes as possible even in areas where
they would usually invest no effort whatsoever and thereby undermine
incentives for building ethnic-based politics.
In
our ethnically diverse societies, proportional representation undermines
identity politics. How? For a party to maximise seats in parliament,
for example, it will have to select as its potential MPs individuals who
can combine a strong home or ethnic base with a strong national appeal
to win votes in other regions of the country.
This
is because political parties will be seeking to win large margins in
local communities and also garner more votes in other regions. This will
tend to reduce incentives for politicians seeking to build ethnic bases
and instead seek to cultivate a national profile. Therefore, in
assessing the costs and benefits of proportional representation against
winner-take-all politics, the dice is loaded in favour of the former.
If
individual candidates are insulated from the tyranny of voters, it will
encourage many enlightened and public-spirited individuals to join
politics. It may also encourage crooks to seek to bribe party barons to
put them on top of the MP lists. The party will face a choice of either
having crooks or attractive individuals on its list of potential MPs. It
is possible that in seeking to balance these two interests, political
parties will have lists that have both. Rather than the current system
where soon we shall have 80 percent of parliament dominated by crooks,
this figure may fall to 40 percent and below.
The
aim of using proportional representation to fight electoral corruption
is only part of it. It may not eliminate corruption but it will reduce
it and change the way its residues occur. Centralised graft is often
better than decentralised corruption. The real challenge is whether our
politicians can rise to the occasion and amend the constitution to
introduce proportional representation.
No comments:
Post a Comment