IS IT NOT THE TIME TO REPLACE THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM?

Replacement of the electoral system has been among the popular political issues in Turkey from time to time. The last time when a possible replacement of the electoral system was on Turkey’s agenda was September 2013, when Recep Tayyip Erdogan was still Prime Minister. Erdogan announced a democratization package, which was arguably the most radical reform package in the last decade under the Justice and Development Party (AK Party). Among the main topics of the package, the electoral system was a significant one, yet there have not been any steps taken to change the current system. However, the result of the general elections on June 7 proves the current electoral system is not an efficient one. The system prevented the AK Party to form a government without a coalition despite having received around 41% of the votes, and the 10% electoral threshold is clearly an obstacle to democratic elections, as it is no longer meaningful with Peoples’ Democracy Party (HDP) passing it with over 13% of the votes. There is no certain proposed model, but looking at the electoral experiences of Turkey, a single-member district plurality electoral system would be the best electoral system contributing to the democratization of Turkey and solving the current possible government crisis.

The proposition of the ruling AK Party in the abovementioned democratization package included three options: creating 110 five-seat constituencies and a 5% threshold in each of these, creating 550 single-seat constituencies with no threshold, or retaining the existing system unchanged. The second proposal is the best option for a healthy political system. There would be 550 constituencies and each constituency would send a single member to the parliament. The nationwide threshold would vanish and the majority party in each constituency would take the seat. Countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom use a single member district plurality system.

The existing system in Turkey is a proportional representation system with a 10% nationwide threshold. According to this system, the 550 seats of the parliament are allocated in proportion to the percentage of votes the parties receive. A party has to win more than 10% of the votes nationwide in order to enter parliament. This was the main reason why, previously, the pro-Kurdish parties tried to enter parliament with independent candidates. The HDP decided to enter the last elections as a party instead of supporting independent candidates, and succeeded to enter parliament by collecting over 13% of the votes. The fact that the arguments of the major parties evolve around the electoral threshold and HDP passed it shows the threshold is no longer meaningful. HDP has developed a discourse against the threshold and achieved to pass it. There needs to be a reform to remove the threshold completely, or decrease it to a lower level. Turkey has the highest electoral threshold in the world, and quite apparently, it is not contributing to the democratization of the country.

Another significant negative aspect of the current electoral system is it generates a problem of representation. Since there is more than one seat in a constituency and the voters’ vote for the parties, people are not able to elect their member of parliament (MP) individually. The voters vote for a party, yet they do not have the opportunity to make a choice among the candidates of the party they vote. More importantly, the representative of residents of a constituency is not clear. Assume a constituency has ten seats; the people do not have the opportunity to have direct interaction with their MPs after the election, for there is not a single MP representing a district. The people have a direct representative in the single-member district plurality system because each constituency has only one MP. This increases the checks and balances on the actions of the MPs because each of them is responsible for a certain identifiable number of people. Moreover, since there is not a threshold in this system, all parties might have the opportunity to obtain seats in the parliament.

Transition to a single-member district plurality system most probably would influence the structure of Turkish politics. The Duverger Law, attributed to French sociologist Maurice Duverger, asserts a single-member district plurality system leads to a two-party system. Since only one candidate can win in a constituency, the opposition would concentrate in the second largest party. This means the elimination of other smaller parties. Either these parties establish alliances with the major opposition party, or the people simply do not vote for them because their chance of winning would be close to zero. Of course, this does not mean small parties would not have representation. If a minor party obtains the majority of the votes in a constituency, it would be represented. This natural transition to a two-party system is not necessarily something to be feared, for it increases the quality of the opposition. The opposition becomes more serious and competent in order to win the elections. Considering the problems with the opposition in Turkish politics, this would definitely be a worthy benefit for democracy and democratization in Turkey.

The single-member district plurality electoral system without a national threshold seems a good alternative to the existing proportional representation system. It would increase the representation of Turkish people by making each MP responsible for a certain constituency, therefore an identifiable group of people. It would force the opposition to produce a qualified alternative to the governing party and therefore force the governing party to make efforts to be even better; the quality of Turkish politics would increase. Increasing the representation and qualities of political parties would definitely contribute to the democratization of Turkey. Furthermore, changing the electoral system does not necessarily mean the norms of the parliament are going to stay the same. The number of seats needed to form a majority, for instance, could be altered. It is ironic for a party to gain 41% of the votes and not be able to form a majority. Let us look at the UK; the Conservatives formed the majority with 36.9% of the votes, even though there are a number of opposition parties who made it to the parliament. Is not it time to change the system?

___

17.06.2015 tarihinde şu adreste yayımlandı: http://www.turkeyagenda.com/is-it-not-the-time-to-replace-the-electoral-system-2539.html

Published in the following link on 17.06.2015: http://www.turkeyagenda.com/is-it-not-the-time-to-replace-the-electoral-system-2539.html