FairVote Feed: International Snapshot

Egypt: The Military Struggles to Maintain its Legitimacy

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:52:45 -0800

Egypt: The Military Struggles to Maintain its Legitimacy

When embattled Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak fell after a wave of mass demonstrations in February 2011, the army, led by Marshal Tantawi, stepped in to fill the political vacuum. Seeking to appeal to popular sentiments, the army promised to hold a presidential election before the end of June 2012.

Although the army was initially credited with having provided the stability the country needed following the collapse of Mubarak’s regime, many Egyptians quickly tired of its perceived delay tactics and began to wonder if the military planned to honor its promise to hold elections. As the army’s credibility and public standing continued to erode, protestors began calling for the military to relinquish power and “return to the barracks.”

In time, these frustrated Egyptians took to the streets of Tahrir Square in a second wave of demonstrations, shouting, “Get out,” the same slogan they exclaimed at Mubarak last year. Since November 19, police have killed several dozen people, marking the first time security forces have fired bullets at the demonstrators.

Seeking to quell the crisis, the interim government headed by Prime Minister Essam Sharaf, tendered its resignation, while Tantawi, expressing “deep regret” for the deaths, has opened a talks with civilian political leaders. A diverse coalition of ideological groups – leftists, liberals – came out in support of the protestors. Unlike the anti-Mubarek protests, where the Muslim Brotherhood ultimately played a central role, Islamist groups largely did not join the recent demonstrations. This apprehension about protesting apparently is due to the Muslim Brotherhood’s anticipated electoral success. If the protests erupted into a general crisis, then the elections might be canceled.

The violence since November 19^th in Tahrir Square seemed to give credence to theories that the army would attempt to kill democracy before it had had time to mature. According to Al Tahrir Newspaper, those who gave the order to step in on Saturday morning cannot have had the good of the country in mind. If anything, police violence has failed to stem the tide, managing to transform a gathering of two hundred people into a protest of tens of thousands of people determined to defend the revolution against the army’s perceived authoritarian temptation. Indeed, some Egyptians began to compare Tantawi to Gamal Abdel Nasser, who in 1954 took advantage of similar unrest to seize power.

Completely misreading the demands of protestors, the military offered a referendum that – if approved by the people – would have established civil society control of the interim government. The catch was that the army would appoint the new leadership rather than permit accelerated democratic elections. With such a proposal, the army has underestimated clearly the will of the revolutionaries.

Old Habits Die Hard as Military Continues Human Rights Abuses:

This conflict shows that a legacy of brutality and authoritarianism over more than sixty years does not die overnight. In a report entitled Broken Promises: Egypt's Military Rulers Erode Human Rights, Amnesty International illustrates how the Supreme Council of the armed forces’ record on human rights has been deporable. In this report, Amnesty International highlighted that the Supreme Council of the armed forces had not only failed to fulfill its public pledge to improve human rights, but had actually performed even worse than Mubarak in some areas.

In August, the Council acknowledged that about 12,000 civilians in the country had appeared before military courts in grossly unfair trials. At least 13 were sentenced to death. Philip Luther, Deputy Director of North Africa and Middle East at Amnesty International, claims that, by repressing peaceful demonstrations and expanding the scope of the emergency legislation, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has continued repressive traditions.

The Army’s role when it took the reins of the government was to carry out a peaceful transition to a democratic society and to protect and respect the demonstrators, regardless of its opinions. Clearly, with Egyptians dying in Tahrir Square and locked in the military’s prisons, the army has failed on both accounts.

But at the same time, there November elections indicated that there is a third key force in Egypt – beyond the military and the street protestors, there is a large number of Egyptians who want a better economy, a government that works and, potentially, more acceptance of Islamic traditions. Even as many protestors called for a boycott of the November 23 elections, turnout ended up being more than half of eligible voters. In my next piece, I’ll discuss these elections and what they may mean for Egypt in the coming year.

“Mr. Normal” Francois Hollande to Face French President Sarkozy

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:51:18 -0800

For the first time in France’s history, a major political party – the Socialists – has held democratic primary elections. Using rules explained in my blogpost earlier this fall, the Socialists decided to place the choice of the party’s presidential nominee in the hands of the people rather than those of party barons.

Nearly three million voters participated in the groundbreaking process, with 57-yeard old left-centrist Francois Hollande emerging victorious. Hollande, who had led the head of the party until his departure from the leadership in 2008, needed two rounds in order to achieve the necessary majority over challenger Martin Aubry, the party’s current leader and a darling of the left. When matched against Aubry in a runoff, Hollande won the second round with 56% of the vote.

Hollande, the so-called “Mr. Normal,” will now represent the party in the April 2012 general election as the Socialists seek to unseat incumbent first-term president Nicolas Sarkozy. Though conceding that defeating Sarkozy will be an extremely difficult task, Hollande has sought to position himself as the only candidate capable of restoring the French dream. “I have measured the task ahead; it is heavy and serious,” Hollande asserted. “I must live up to the hope of the French, who have tired of the political presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy.”

After a Historic Contest, a Party Seeks to Unite

Although Socialists are proud of their first primary election, the high-stakes contest inevitably made public the profound divisions within the party. The party’s most critical responsibility now is to unite behind its official candidate, lest bitter feelings and ideological squabbling endanger the party’s chances against Sarkozy. “No candidate has lost,” Hollande declared after his victory. “We must be united as we to begin the march into the general election.”

Despite a tense end to the campaign, Aubry has acknowledged her defeat and has promised to back Hollande. “I know that all those who have supported me are ready to be in the service of our official candidate,” Aubry noted. “As the head of the PS, I will put all my energy and strength into ensuring that Francois Hollande becomes our next president.” Other members of Socialist Party’s leadership – including losing first round candidates Arnaud Montebourg and Ségolène Royal – have echoed this sentiment. Indeed, in a display of unity, all Socialist leading figures posed together for a ‘family photo’ .

The focus on party unity is in marked contrast to the 2007 presidential election, when the PS largely deserted then-party nominee Royal, leaving her to conduct her campaign against Sarkozy without the support of other party leaders. In retrospect, many political commentators have concluded that such public displays of disunity severely undermined Royal’s candidacy. According to Hollande, after 24 years in opposition, the only way the Socialists can defeat the political Right is to place inter-party feuds aside in the interest of France.

Sarkozy Appears Vulnerable

With only five months remaining until the general election, President Sarkozy appears vulnerable. According to a November 2011 Ipsos-Le Point poll , only 36% of French people believe the head of state will be reelected, a number that has not changed since July, when the polls had asked exactly the same question. The November poll also found that only 8% of French people consider Sarkozy’s reelection certain (another 28% see it as likely or probable), and predicted that Hollande would win in the second round with 58% against 42% for Sarkozy .

Part of Sarkozy’s flagging approval numbers can be attributed to a pushback among, French people against the president’s alleged “extraordinary” persona, that of an egotistical man who appreciates flashy accessories and has a super model wife. With Sarkozy sporting such a pejorative reputation, it should come as little surprise that the media has sought to portray Hollande as an “ordinary man” who seems grounded, cheerful, and self-effacing – an image Hollande has both embraced and cultivated.

The Guardian, for instance, has referred to Hollande as “l'homme tranquille,” or “the quiet man,” while Hollande himself has exclaimed, “France needs a normal president.” Combined with a slowing French economy –a recent poll found that 28% of French people believe Hollande could solve the country's economic and financial crisis, versus 22% who think so of Sarkozy – this favorable contrast in personalities could be enough to propel “Mr. Normal” to the presidency.

The role of the primary in this election will certainly be of long-term interest. Although voter turnout was far less than a government –funded election, millions of French voters helped the Socialists pick a nominee. The media covered the race closely, including airing highly-rated television debates. Whatever the outcome of the 2012 elections, one enduring outcome may well be an opening up of the process by which France’s major parties select their leaders.

Tunisians Hold Arab Spring’s First Vote

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:37:47 -0700

Tunisians Hold Arab Spring’s First Vote

Tunisia, last month held elections for representatives to the Constituent Assembly, a historic milestone nine months after the overthrow of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Although the exact rate of participation is contested, it appears to have been around 80%. The election is seen as a democratic success for new Tunisia, with some 4.1 million registered voters voting to select the members of the Constituent Assembly – using a method of proportional representation that ensured nearly every participant elected someone, and no one faction earned the winner-take-all power to dominate other factions.

Tunisians have fulfilled their duty peacefully and with great pride, whether in the capital or in provincial towns. European Union observers saluted the election’s “transparency.” Clearly, the strong desire of Tunisians to be governed by democratically elected authorities guided the electoral process.

The Assembly is responsible for drafting the new Constitution of the Second Republic and appointing a transitional government. The 217 members of the Constituent Assembly have one year to mature and to discuss the draft constitution, while also monitoring the actions of the transitional government.

Additionally, the Assembly will define the contours of the Tunisian State, outlining its foundations, proclaiming the people’s rights, and creating mechanisms for the realization and protection of freedoms.

The Election – In Focus

Elections to the General Assembly were held using a party list form of proportional voting in 33 districts, with 27 at home and six abroad. Within each constituency, each political party submited a list of candidates. Two important rules governed the composition of party lists. First, parties must alternate between male and female candidates; second, parties were prohibited from running candidates previously associated with the ousted Ben Ali regime. In addition to the party lists, voters were able to opt for an independent candidate.

To win a seat, a party or independent candidate must meet the district-specific threshold, found by dividing the district’s total number of voters by its number of seats. For example, if a district has 160,000 voters who cast ballots and eight seats, a party must obtain 20,000 votes to elect one member. After seats have been allocated to parties crossing the threshold, any remaining seat is awarded to the party with the highest below-threshold total.

Called the Hagenbach-Bischoff method of proportional voting, this rule not only helps minor parties win representation, but also ensures that no major party wins an overwhelming victory. The proportional nature of the Tunisian election is highly significant. Rather than use a winner-take-all system similar to those found in many Western democracies, which exaggerates representation for certain parties, proportional voting allows for fuller representation of the political and demographic dynamics of the country.

How Voting Systems Affect Outcomes – The Ennahdha Example

Ennahdha, a conservative Islamist political party with a name that means renaissance in Arabic, won the most seats in the election, having obtained 41.47% of the vote as well as the largest vote share in every district. With a fair voting system in place, Ennahdha won Y% of the seats.

Nevertheless, such a strong result means it is now the main political force in the country, capable of affecting the future development of the Constitution and the government. Ennahdha, led by Rachid Ghannouchi (who spent 22 years exiled in London), is an admirer of the AKP in Turkey, a conservative party that desires a greater role for Islam in politics.

Ennahdha’s detractors feared that an overwhelming victory for the party at the polls would mean an end to Tunisia’s secular history, despite Ennahdha’s repeated statements that it would not institute Sharia law. Whatever Ennahdha’s true intentions, it is important to understand that the election’s proportional rules made it far more difficult for any party to dominate the incoming Constituent Assembly. This is because proportional representation gives voice to smaller parties and prevents a major party from winning a share of seats greater than its share of the vote.

Under the proportional voting system, the result of the election was as follows: Ennahdha 90 seats, Congress for Republic (CPR) 30 seats, Ettakatol 21 seats, and 76 seats to other parties – 109 seats are necessary for a parliamentary majority. Ennahdha’s failure to win a majority of seats means that it must now form a coalition with another party. It has expressed its intention to form an alliance with the the secular CPR party. "We are ready,” Larayd Ali, an executive committee member of Ennahdha, said, “to form an alliance with the Congress for the Republic…because our visions are not so different.”

Importantly, under a winner-take-all system, Ennahdha likely would have won a majority of seats, meaning it would not have needed to form a coalition government. In that CPR will force Ennahdha to pursue more moderate policy that is reflective of what most Tunisians want, it seems the proportional representation system is the best answer to some Tunisians’ worries of possible overeach by the Islamist party.

Votes to Seat in One District

To better understand the importance of voting systems and the way in which rules affect outcomes, consider the example of the Tunisia vote that took place in France 1, where Tunisian voters in the north of France voted.

In this district, there were 67,280 voters and five seats to the Assembly up for grabs. In the table below, we see the seat distribution per party under the different voting systems. Under a proportional rule, the threshold to win one guaranteed seat in France 1 is 13,457 (20% +1). Four parties receive seats: Ennahdha’s 22,672 votes give it one seat, and its remaining 9,216 votes, being greater than the total of any other party, give it the first remainder seat. The next remainder seat went to CPR, then to Ettakatol, and the last to PDM.

Conversely, under a winner-take-all rule, Ennahdha would have been allocated all five seats – in other words, 100% of representation for 33.7% of the vote. All other parties – CPR, Ettakatol, PDM – would receive nothing, a highly undemocratic result.

Party	Voters	Percentage	Seats with PRV	Seats with WTA
ENNAHDHA	22,672	33.7%	2	5
CPR	8445	12.6%	1	0
ETTAKATOL	7571	11.3%	1	0
PÔLE DEMOCRATIQUE MODERNISTE	5555	8.3%	1	0
Other parties with no seat	23,037	34.2%	0	0
TOTAL	67,280	100.0%

Conclusion

It is important to remember that Tunisians triggered the first spark of the Arab revolution of the 21st century. By choosing a proportional election rule over winner-take-all, Tunisians have shown the world what real democracy can and should be. The region’s next elections will occur in Egypt in late November, which will employ a hybrid of winner-take-all and proportional representation. In Lebanon, which is not concerned by protest movements , the interior minister, Charbel Mrwan, recently presented a bill for the adoption of proportional voting, while proportional representation is a key topic of concern in other Arab nations like Jordan and Yemen. The Tunisian election has been a lesson in democracy that, with luck, could inspire and serve as a blueprint for oppressed Arabs in other countries who harbor democratic ambitions.

A guide to French Socialists’ presidential primary

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:52:41 -0700

A guide to French Socialists’ presidential primary.

In this blog, we will explain the terms and conditions of these primaries, including issues around the implementation of this kind of elections in French territories. For more on the candidates and their level of support, see my blog from September.

Majority Requirement with a Two-Round Runoff: The Socialists will hold their presidential primary in a two-round runoff system, which is common in French elections. If no candidate obtains more than 50% of the vote in the first round, the two top vote-getters will advance to the second round.

Responsibility for Elections: The PS set up an independent High Authority to register voters monitor elections and declare the final results. The Socialists are paying for the primary. Many primary elections in the United States are paid for and administered by the government, but parties are private associations, not government entities. The French government will not pay for a party’s private nomination process.

Casting Votes: As with traditional elections, each voters will be verified. Then that voter will take a ballot, go to the voting booth, indicate their choice, put the ballot in an opaque envelope and then put the ballot into a transparent ballot box.

Who Gets to Vote: All French citizens registered to vote before December 31, 2010, including minors who will turn 18 during the presidential election, the minor members of the PS or the MJS (Movement of Young Socialist) and foreign citizens who are members of the PS, can vote in the primaries if they pay at least 1€ and sign a commitment of recognition to the values of the Left.

The mandatory payment of at least one euro is symbolic. Despite this, the PS actually expects the voter to leave a little more, in order to defray the cost of the primaries, which many project to be higher than foreseen.. The charter of commitment to the values of the left states "I pledge myself to the values of the Left and the Republic, to the draft of a society of freedom, equality, fraternity, secularism, justice and solidarity of progress’’

Where Can People Vote? This is one of the most asked questions by potential voters. The PS is not able to pay for as many polling places as a presidential election. Yet, there will still be nearly 10,000 polling places throughout France. The PS has created an application on line so that voters can find their appropriate polling station. Posters also will be placed along polling routes to explain how to get to the station. Submitting an absentee ballot is not possible for these primaries It is mandatory to be physically in voting for a candidate.

Voters’ privacy will be protected: Under the French Constitution, no French citizen can be discriminated against for his or her political orientation.. It is therefore against the rules to disclose a person’s political position without consent.

If the Socialists try to establish lists of the people who choose to participate, the French government likely would take action and declare holding primaries in this way unconstitutional. That is why, the Socialist Party is committed by the National Commission for Data Protection and Liberties intermediate to destroy all lists of voters.

French Socialists to hold their first US-style primary

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:57:31 -0700

This month I started work at FairVote, where I will spend the next eight months as an intern. I’m a 21-year-old student at Sciences Po, one of France’s leading universities, where I study political science. France will hold its next presidential election in April 2012, in the midst of next year’s presidential election in the United States. This timing provides an opportunity to compare the way each country chooses its president, which will be the focus of my work at FairVote. My blog today focuses on France’s Socialist Party and its potential nominees.

Both major parties in the United States have extended nomination processes, with candidates often spending a year campaigning before the first states start holding their nominations, and the nomination voting itself taking weeks, if not months – in 2008, Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses in early January 2008, but ran contested races against Hilary Clinton into June, culminating in his nomination at the Democratic convention in August.

In contrast, French’s major opposition party, the Socialists, are only now holding a nomination contest, which will take place over the course of a single week next month – but will borrow from American tradition in having primary elections with far more participants than would be possible in their previous in-person convention system.

With incumbent president Nicolas Sarkozy having a favorability rating of only 23%, the socialist nominee will likely be the favorite next year. The French Socialist Party is looking to get out of its leadership crisis with a candidate able to reconcile and consolidate the party and wins the next election.

On October 9^th and 16^th, the Socialist Party (PS) will first hold the first open primaries in French history. Privately administered by the party itself, the election will be in two rounds, unless one member obtains an absolute majority in the first round. The winner of the primary will be the Socialist nominee for President.

Approved in October 2009 by 68% of members of the PS, the principle of open primaries to all supporters and not just activists is seen as a solution to the crisis in the party after its third consecutive defeat in presidential elections. Its solution shows us how the party wants to break with its past, characterized by excessive professionalization of party’s cadres.

For the first time the Socialists have given themselves, through the primaries, an image of openness. This is the first time in France one party let just "supporters" to nominate its candidate for president rather than party members. For the PS is a major break with what has been its modus operandi since its inception: the control of decisions by its militant base.

The primary creates more of an opportunity for a democratic correction for French presidential elections. The candidate is selected under the same conditions as the President of the Republic, a vote in direct elections. He or she therefore proceeds in the same legitimacy that incorporates the candidate's personality, its ability for the public, a logic that we can also find in the U.S primary system.

It develops democracy in their operation: the choice of leader is no longer in the hands of just the most active party members, but every French citizens who has planed to vote for Socialist Party for the next election, has the opportunity to choose his candidate. It also responds to a need for contemporary personification of politics. This shift to a more personalized politics explains why the primary system is also being implemented in other parliamentary systems in Europe - Italy, United Kingdom, and gradually in Germany.

The Socialist primary has not yet taken place to determine which candidate for president in 2012 but the PS has a program or at least broad guidelines. This project, called "Change" has 30 proposals, seeks to address "the problems of the French" in different areas. After the primaries, the presidential candidate will be subject to this project.

The subordination of candidates for a joint project does not allow flexibility in the implementation of a real exchange of ideas. Unlike in the United States, the primaries won’t affect the party’s positions – it is a choice among personalities... The primary sets up at the top of the PS a form of competitive individualism, which is increasingly fashionable in the liberal world, and deprives the members of their appointment power..

Turning to the race itself, July 13^thwas the deadline for submitting nominations for the primaries held by the PS in order to determine the candidate to be the party's official candidate for the presidency in 2012.There are officially six candidates running for the primaries. In this review of the field, the poll numbers are from a poll that was done on 15^th September by BVA :

François Hollande: the former first secretary of the PS (1997-2008) is the favorite in the polls, with 43% support in the poll
Martine Aubry: the Mayor of Lille and the first secretary of the Party since 2008, Aubry jumped in the race after previous frontrunner Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested in the race and is polling at 28%;

Segolene Royal: the defeated candidate in the 2007 presidential election runoff against Sarkozy, Royal is the president of the Poitou-Charentes, and is polling at 12%;

Manuel Valls: the mayor of Evry and member of the first district of Essonne, is polling at 9%;

Arnaud Montebourg: MP, President of General Council of Saône-et-Loire, and PS national secretary of the renovation, Montebourg is the youngest candidate in the primaries along with Manuel Valls, polling at 7%;

Jean-Michel Baylet: the only non-socialist candidate as the president of the Radical Party senator from the left and Tarn-et-Garonne, he has decided to run for the PS primary and is polling at 1%.

As to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former president of the International Monetary Fund nicknamed DSK in France, all speculations about his possible candidacy now that criminal charges against him in the United States have been dropped, are unfounded because the nomination for the primaries is closed. In addition, over 60% of socialist militant base respondents do not want to see DSK nominee for presidential elections in 2012.

The first round of the Socialist primary will take place in less than three weeks. Beyond the candidate's choice, the real challenge of the Socialist Party is its goal of drawing at least one million voters. They expect a lot from this event to restore the credibility to the party in order to win the next presidential election.

Jordan: Boycotts and Tribalism Question Election's Credibility

Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:30:49 -0700

Jordan’s parliamentary elections took place on November 9 after a year of direct rule by King Abdullah II. These elections have endured intense scrutiny from major opposition parties, especially the Islamic Action Front (IAF). The IAF, the largest opposition party, boycotted the parliamentary elections in protest of the electoral system and its recent reforms. The IAF has criticized Jordan’s electoral system because of the overrepresentation of tribally affiliated rural districts loyal to King Abdullah. Critics also state that urban districts comprised of Islamists, and Jordanians of Palestinian descent, are underrepresented.

Additionally, Jordan uses the single non-transferable vote (SNTV) which has long been a subject of controversy. While SNTV is credited for not being a winner-take-all system, it also has its limits. Critics say that SNTV encourages tactical voting and spreads the influence of tribalism due to limited voter choice. Jordanians are limited to one vote in multi-member districts which forces voters to prioritize their loyalties. In a country where identity politics and kinship ties play a key role, voters often rely on the latter.

The new temporary electoral law used in the most recent election was issued by the Jordanian government in May as a response to the complaints of reform advocates. Among the changes, ten seats have been added to the Chamber of Deputies, twelve seats reserved for women, and electoral districts (now called “electoral zones”) were divided into single seat sub-districts. These sub-districts are intended to curb tribalism, because no boundaries have been specified for each. Instead, the sub-districts encourage tribalism; with smaller sub-districts, candidates heavily rely on tribal connections which discourage the development of national political parties. The reforms, however, do not promote more coalition-building, as would be more likely under a single transferable vote system or various forms of party list voting.

Reactions to the parliamentary election results have been mixed. While some results were surprising to election watchers, the overall results do not represent a change in Jordan’s status quo of a parliament loyal to King Abdullah.

One of the biggest surprises was the election of a woman outside of the seating quota reserved for women in the new election law. Reem Badran, who is the daughter of a former prime minister, will be the 13th woman in Jordan’s new parliament.

Despite reforms, Jordanians generally remain skeptical and apathetic. To the skeptics, the election results in favor of King Abdullah come as no surprise, seeing that Jordan's electoral zones remain malapportioned. Instead of restructuring electoral zone borders, sub-districts were formed which merely exacerbates deeply rooted divisions in the country.

According to the International Republican Institute (IRI), an international monitoring group, the elections in Jordan were credible. The IRI points out numerous reforms the Jordanian government has implemented such as efforts to educate voters about voting rights, as well as the effective management of ballot stations. The IRI has also issued criticisms of Jordan’s electoral process, such as the issue of tribalism, but failed to mention one key factor which invalidates these elections. With opposition parties such as the IAF boycotting the elections, how can this election be credible without substantial opposition?

Brazil's Presidential Hopefuls Face Runoff, National Congress Needs Reform

Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:13:25 -0700

On October 31st, a runoff will take place in Brazil’s presidential election. The leading candidate, Dilma Rousseff of the Worker’s Party (PT), failed to gain the 50% majority needed during the first round on October 3rd with just 47%. Rousseff will face Jose Serra of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB) who won 33% of the vote. Rousseff has been favored from the start riding President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s popularity and success during his two terms in office.

During the first round of voting, Rousseff won the lead but was denied an outright victory since Green Party candidate, Marina Silva, earned 19% of the vote. Silva was eliminated in the first round and her voters will play a key role in the outcome of the election. Silva’s final tally unexpectedly exceeded her polling results by 5 percentage points while Rousseff did not meet the high numbers the polls had given her.

Without a doubt, Silva’s Green Party and its supporters will be critical for electoral success in the presidential election. Some of Silva’s supporters have decided to back Serra and both candidates are reportedly trying to earn Silva’s endorsement as well as curry her party’s favor. Although Rousseff ran a fierce campaign, she ultimately failed to convince enough voters to avoid a second round of voting. With respect to Brazil’s congressional elections, Rousseff’s party seems to be in good shape. Her party, the PT, has gained 9 seats in the Chamber of Deputies while Serra’s PSDB lost 12 deputies.

Brazil’s electoral system works well in terms of the presidential and gubernatorial election process in which a runoff takes place in the event of neither candidate reaching a majority, as is the case now. However, the National Congress uses different voting systems in the Federal Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. Those in the Federal Senate are elected by a plurality of votes (the first-past-the-post system) rather than an actual majority. The Chamber of Deputies uses an open list proportional voting system which should guarantee diverse voter choice by allowing the option of voting for a party instead of a candidate.

In the Federal Senate, election results concerning party representation vastly differ from the results in the Chamber of Deputies. In 2006, the Democrats (PFL at the time) represented the lowest percentage with 10.9% of the Chamber of Deputies. On the other hand, in the Federal Senate the Democrats represented 25.7% of their seats, the highest representation among the major parties. As a result, the Federal Senate does a poor job of representing Brazil’s political landscape.

Some argue that the rules concerning the number of seats allocated in the Chamber of Deputies are poorly designed. In the Chamber of Deputies, each state must have a minimum of 8 seats and a maximum of 70 seats proportional to each state’s population. These seating regulations harm proportional representation because less populated states are overrepresented while densely populated states are underrepresented.

In Brazil, the electoral system for the National Congress is in need of reform. Voting is compulsory in Brazil for 18-70 year olds who are literate so turnout isn’t an issue. The Federal Senate is especially troubling since its members are elected by a plurality. The Chamber of Deputies does a better job of representing Brazil’s population due to the use of proportional representation but the seating limits restrict this system’s potential to truly reflect Brazil’s voters.

Iraq’s 2010 Parliamentary Election – Part 7: Politics Blowing Up Democracy

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:17:50 -0700

Last time I wrote a post on the Iraqi election, I was explaining why de-baathification should not affect the post-election political balance. However, it seems more and more obvious that political maneuvering is clouding Iraq’s future.
52 candidates, including two of them who won seats for the Iraqiya list, have been retroactively disqualified from the ballot by the judicial commission in charge of de-baathification, and their votes discarded.

The Iraqi electoral system is based on open-lists. In a list system, seats go to parties according to their fair share of the vote, and then are awarded to candidates from the winning lists. In the Iraqi open-list system, Iraqis chose a party, and then had a possibility to choose one candidate from their favorite list, but voting for a candidate was optional. Seats are thus still distributed among the parties first, and then among candidates from those parties with the most popular votes.
This means that the repartition of seats among the candidates from one party should not affect the seat’s distribution among the other parties. This is precisely what the electoral law states: each party should be able to replace blacklisted candidates with its next top-voted candidates.
However, since the votes of the 52 candidates are discarded (both those from winners and losers), the Independent High Electoral Commission considers that the votes received by the parties are also discarded and is willing to recalculate results in all of the affected districts. This could shift around some seats, which is fundamental, since there is only a two seat difference between the top two winners. But above all, it skews the process of fair representation for political reasons.
In fact, it specifically penalizes voters who fully used the open-list system, whereas if a voter did not choose a candidate, his or her vote would not be cancelled. This is putting at risk the whole idea of democracy in Iraq and stealing votes from Iraqis, without any legal basis.

A few other quick notes about what happened recently:

We’re not likely to have final results of the parliamentary elections for a few weeks, since votes are going to be manually recounted at least in Baghdad, at Maliki’s request. Furthermore, Allawi is about to ask for a new vote, based on the premise that the political post-election de-baathification deliberately targets his party. This is indeed the reason why I have not provided you with an analysis of the results yet: I want to wait until all the results are finally certified.
The Sadrists, who won 39 seats in the 325-seat parliament, hold a referendum to decide who should be the next Iraqi Prime Minister. This initiative deserved to be noticed, even if it has no legal authority and mostly attracted Sadrist backers, because Iraqis were consulted on a national matter. With 24% of the 1.5 million of casted votes, Ibrahim al-Jaafari won the referendum, with Jaafar al-Sadr coming in second with 23%, and could appear as a compromise candidate.

The political situation in Iraq is now getting messy. No judicial decision is very clear, there are obvious legal gaps and political rivalries dominate. However, since an Iraqi court ruled that any party leader could form a new government, as long as he is able to assemble a large enough parliamentary coalition, parties should be working on building an inclusive government, rather than fighting for one or two seats nationwide!

Stay tuned for our next analysis on the Iraqi election!

French Regional elections: With "proportional" system, the devil is in the details...

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:37:15 -0700

On March 14th and 21st, French voters elected their 26 regional councils (Conseil régional in French), which are the local governments of each of France’s 26 regions. Used, since 2004, the voting system combines elements of winner-take-all elections and proportional representation, and gender quotas have resulted in a a remarkable growth in representation of women.

In France, regions do not have any legislative autonomy, but they manage significant budgets and have a certain freedom of administration as part of the decentralization process. Thus, the responsibilities of the elected regional councils cover a wide range of fields, such as high schools, apprenticeships, vocational training, regional public transport systems, economic development, employment and regional spatial planning.

The left, taking 54% of the vote at the national level, won control of 21 of the 22 regions in mainland, and of 23 of the 26 regions. The National Front, a far right party, also did well with 11.42% of the national vote in the first round. Those results, combined with the historically poor score of the Presidential majority, which is the coalition supporting Sarkozy and his government (27% in the first round, 35.4% in the second round), constituted a major electoral setback for President Sarkozy. In addition, the turnout dropped to a historic low, barely reaching 46% in the first round and 51% in the second round.

A main point of interest, beyond the results, is how the number of seats won by parties, at a regional and national level, does not mirror the electorate. For instance, nationwide, the left received 68% of the seats with 54% of the vote and the Presidential Majority won 29.7% of the seats with 35.4% of the vote. Indeed, the semi-proportional system used for the regional elections distorts the electoral dynamics. This is why you want to take a closer look at it.

Critics considered that the closed-list system of proportional representation (PR) used before 2004 enabled third parties such as the National Front to be kingmakers. Since the 2004 elections, a majority rule has been added to the regional party-list system to ensure more efficient governance. Consequently, in each region, the list that receives the most votes (either a majority in the first round, or a plurality in the second round) automatically wins 25% of the seats, as a bonus. And in the case of a runoff, because no list won a majority in the first round, only the lists that won at least 10% of the votes in the first round are allowed to compete. As to the three other quarters of the seats, they are proportionally allocated between the parties that were part of the final round, according to their fair share of the vote. As a result, the party winning the most votes is likely to secure a majority in the regional council.

However, despite three quarters of the seats being allocated proportionally, the system does not provide voters with fair representation. The bonus given to the list with the most votes, and the threshold to be part of the runoff, significantly skew the process in each region, favoring major parties and providing voters with a representation that does not match reality: the left won 14% more seats nationwide than they should have according to their share of the vote and the Center party hardly got any representation at all (0.58% of the seats nationwide), despite winning 4% of the vote in the first round.

Another main point of interest of those elections, more encouraging, is women’s representation. The electoral law, since 2004, requires each regional party list to alternate genders to achieve equal representation of men and women in the elected regional councils. As a result, nationwide, 48% of the members elected in 2010 are now women, when women were only 27.5% of the members in 1998.

The electoral law also requires the regional governments elected by the regional councils to be equally composed from men and women. As a result, women now constitute 48% of the regional governments nationwide and 11 regional governments are made up of at least 50% women. Only two regions (Martinique and Guyane, which are not in mainland) fail to meet their obligations, with only 41.67% and 44.44% of women in their regional government.

Women’s representation still can be improved though, as to the region’s presidency: only two regions have elected a woman as their president, one of them being Ségolène Royal, who ran for president in 2007.

Usually elected for six years, the members of the regional councils elected last month have a four-year mandate, as part of a reform of the local government. Efforts to merge different levels of local governments have led to devising a new electoral system: 80% of the members of the local governments would be elected through a first-past-the-post system and the last 20% through PR. This proposed electoral system is definitely a step in the wrong direction: equal representation of women and men won’t be guaranteed anymore, and smaller parties will hardly get represented at the local level. Instead, it would make more sense to keep more list seats, and, for the district seats, to consider instant-runoff-voting, where voters have a real chance to express their preference.

Iraq’s 2010 Parliamentary Election – Part 6: De-Baathification Should Not Affect the Post-Election Political Balance

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:30:04 -0700

This post was supposed to focus on the March 7th election results. However, the ongoing post-election maneuvering deserves some extra attention. Iraq’s Accountability and Justice Commission has sought to disqualify 52 candidates, six of whom actually won seats, because of their alleged ties to the Baath party. The legitimacy of the de-baathification process itself is not being called into question here, but rather its implications for the election’s outcome.

The de-baathification process started under the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003. In January 2010, the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) followed the Accountability and Justice Commission’s recommendation by disqualifying 511 candidates because of their alleged ties to the Baath Party. Many of those candidates were part of former Primer Minister Allawi’s Iraqiya coalition.

A few days before the election, the “de-baathification committee” sought to blacklist 52 additional candidates, but the IHEC allowed them to run. The Accountability and Justice Commission now challenges their eligibility and expects their votes to be stricken. Consequently, a court will have to decide whether the six winning candidates (four from the Iraqiya, one Kurdish and one from the State of Law) can be part of the new legislature and whether the votes received by the 52 candidates should be thrown out.

However, regardless of the court’s decision concerning the banning of candidates, it should not change the seats’ distribution, let-alone the election’s outcome! And here is why:

The elections have been held on the basis of an open list system.

This means that Iraqi voters expressed their preference for a list and then had the opportunity to also mark their favorite candidate within that list. Seats were awarded based on each list’s share of the votes in a constituency.

As a result, challenging the victory of some candidates within a list should not have any implication for the seats’ repartition between parties. According to the electoral law, each party should be able to replace blacklisted candidates with its next top-voted candidates.

A court’s decision to disregard the votes received by the blacklisted candidates is likely to lack any legal basis and would be highly political.

First of all, the electoral commission allowed those 52 candidates to run, which means the votes they received as alliances’ candidates are valid and should still be counted for the seats’ repartition between parties.

Furthermore, the current Accountability and Justice Commission’s power is uncertain, since it is attached to the Council of Representatives, which is no longer in session. Besides, its heads ran as parliamentary candidates: Ahmad Chalabi won a seat in the new parliament, and Ali Faisal al-Lami was unsuccessful. This pretty looks like an obvious conflict of interest.

It is also clear that the disqualification effort could prove critical to the election’s outcome, since Allawi’s Iraqiya won only two seats more than al-Maliki’s State of Law, and four of the six challenged candidates are from the Iraqiya alliance.

An Iraqi court ruled that any party leader who is able to assemble a large enough parliamentary coalition can be chosen to form the new government. It does not have to be the alliance that won the most seats in the March 7th election. As a result, both al-Maliki and Allawi can work on building an inclusive coalition government. This is why de-baathification should not affect the post-election political balance.

Check-out my response in the National to an article about the March 7th elections.

Stay tuned for a detailed analysis of the March 7th election results in our next post!