Electoral Systems and Choice for Bangladesh

-Dr Hisam Namhar

The IDEA Handbook lists three broad families of electoral systems with twelve variants as shown below: plurality and majoritarian (5), proportional representation (2), proportional and plurality / majoritarian mixed (2), and miscellaneous (3). In plurality system, the winner needs more votes than each competitor; in majoritarian system, the winner needs more than 50 percent of the total votes. The discussion below considers the plurality/majoritarian, PR, and plurality/majoritarian plus PR mixed systems which are widely used and their relevance to Bangladesh.

FPTP electoral system has been in practice here since introduction of election to legislature though with qualified suffrage (1940s). In the firstpast-the-post system, multiple candidates compete in a single member electoral district (constituency) and whoever gets maximum votes wins the seat, though the losers get more votes in total. The party which wins most seats in parliament forms the government; the best loser party forms the opposition. And they together constitute the country’s governance.

In FPTP, the government can more freely choose policy and it is easier to relate governance to the party, which establishes a clear trail of accountability. FPTP causes distortion by delivering larger proportion of seats than votes and waste of the votes polled by the losers which do not win any seat. The system helps participation by independent candidates. The independent members of parliament distract from policymaking, especially if support could be shifted on transactional considerations. Dominance of independent members has been rendered obsolete by end of clientele relationship between large landlord and peasant farmer and, more importantly, rise of disciplined political party. The bourgeoisie switch support responding to policy payoff or, in the absence of efficient party system, to narrow benefits or prejudices.

In PR seats are allocated proportionate to the votes received by a party, thus ensuring broad equality between the two. The electoral threshold define the minimum share of votes – or the minimum number of seats – a party must get to become part of parliament. Proportional electoral system (PR), it is argued, can remedy FPTP’s shortcomings (seats disproportionate 2 to votes) – and particularly in relation to Bangladesh, can constrain authoritarian party and leadership. However, it has been found that PR system concentrates power at the party central office, belying the merit claimed for Bangladesh.

PR in pure form comes in two modalities. In Closed List PR, the party names the candidates in rank order, the electors vote the party list as given, and the successful parties pick up their shares of deputies moving from the top downwards. In Open List PR, the choice of the voters is restricted to the Party List but with the freedom that they may indicate their preference for the candidates, determining the rank order. The electors hardly do that, given the enormity of information processing needed for judicious exercise of the vote. Think of a voter grading three hundred candidates!

Mixed PR comes in two formats. Parallel format uses PR along with plurality/majoritarian system and the results of the two formats remain independent. The Mixed Member PR (MMP) operates PR along with plurality/majoritarian system that interact: a party keeps all the seats it wins in plurality/majoritarian system; PR seats are allocated to remove the imbalance that result from plurality/majoritarian method; application of the two methods raise the number of eligible members over the number fixed by statute; parliament passes law raising the number of seats which remains valid only for that term. The statutorily fixed number of seats determines how many candidates a party can set up in an election, not how many all the parties together can win.

Israel uses PR Closed List method in the purest form: the whole country forms one constituency, there is no geographically defined constituency nor candidate specific to a constituency, exhibits high degree political fragmentation and instability of coalition government that often include six parties some of which represent rigid political views derived from narrow religious doctrine. Italy uses a mix of plurality (25% seats) and Closed List PR (75% seats), shows persistent high political fragmentation and instability of coalition government, and periodically invites unelected technocrats to take charge as Prime Minister who depends on support of the parliamentary leaders until resolution of the crisis (mostly economic) or withdrawal of support by the leaders at their will. The technocrat has 3 deeper knowledge and experience of management at supranational / global scale. In the last election, Italy returned a party with majority that has neofascist tendencies which, however, have undergone moderation since assumption of office especially with respect to policy coordination by European Commission. Further, analysts count Hungary, Russia and Turkey, which use PR Closed List system, as archetypical authoritarian.

Germany uses MMP, which combines PR Closed List (50%) and plurality systems with single member constituency (50%). Each elector has two votes – one for the Party List and one for the constituency candidate nominated by a party. The party retains all the constituency seats it wins and gets(additional seats proportionate to its share of votes. Bundestag passes law raising the number of seats above the statutorily fixed number for that term only. The government is highly stable, though most often coalition of two or three parties rules the country. A unique feature is that often the two major parties – CDU-CSU and SPD – form coalition government, which helps reduce conflict and enhance cooperation as well as continuity of policy. Angela Merkel had been Chancellor for four terms, two of which were in coalition with SPD. The constructive no-confidence rule gives Chancellor strong protection. No-confidence cannot be moved in Bundestag (Lower House) unless the successor is proposed alongside and wins support of the majority (more than half) of the members of the House. Since the introduction of the Basic Law (1948) confidence motion has succeeded only twice at the instance of Chancellors Wily Brandt (1972) and Helmet Kohl (1983), who wanted fresh mandates and the President approved dissolution of Bundestag agreeing to their proposals as required by the constitution. (Chancellor Scholz faces a similar motion in February 2025.) The two-party structure dominated by CDU-CSU and SPD has endured for nearly eight decades since they worked together on framing the Basic Law (post-war constitution) and compliance with the constitutional rule account for the distinctive politics and governance of Germany.

It is important that conclusion be drawn with caution from comparison of proportional and plurality/majoritarian electoral systems given their differences in multiple dimensions. IDEA Handbook reports data for 199 countries which show the following distribution: 91 countries (46%) use 4 plurality/majoritarian systems [of which 47 countries (24%) use FPTP]; 72 countries (36%) use PR type systems; 30 countries (15%) use PRplurality/majoritarian mixed system; 3 countries (3%) use miscellaneous systems. FPTP is employed in the oldest (UK, USA, France) and largest (India) democracies with 2.65bn total population (compared with 1.19bn in PR type countries).

France uses majoritarian two-round electoral system (TRS) which holds a runoff election to ensure that the winner gets more than 50% votes. In presidential election, the top two competitors in the first round contest at the second round while the other candidates are eliminated – they switch support to either of the two candidates based on contiguity of ideology and policy. For election to parliament, candidates who receive at least 12.5% votes contest at the runoff to secure over 50% of votes. France shows significant party fragmentation but avoids instability by virtue of the electoral method and the curious mix of presidential-cum-primeministerial systems. The President heads the government and appoints the Prime Minister who leads the majority in parliament. It behaves like presidential government when the President leads the majority in Parliament, and like Westminster-like prime ministerial government when the Prime Minister leads the majority in Parliament (President’s party then forms the opposition). The President has a longer term than parliament and often has to work with Prime Minister who leads majority in Parliament against the President’s party in opposition – for example, President Mitterand and Prime Minister Jack Chirac. The plebiscitary President has all the powers given by the constitution but submits to the mandate of the democratic majority. The constitutional analysts point to the structural tension that underlie the mixed French constitution.

PR electoral system is novel compared with plurality/majoritarian system. It was introduced during the inter-war period (1918-1939) in several countries in Europe continent including notably in Italy and Germany which bred Fascism/Nazism. The second wave came in 1990s when the communist regimes in East Europe were replaced by democracy. The performance of democracy and the electoral system in the countries of East Europe is mixed and in some show downward trend largely due to their political history and culture. Incipient fascism was seen in these countries 5 during the inter-war period and communist dictatorship during the cold war period. Spain and Portugal had similar fascist movements which helped rise of dictatorship under General Franco and Dr. Salazar who later suppressed the fascists. Nascent fascism seen in France, UK, and USA could not flourish. It is fair to generalize that electoral system is one of the determinants of a country’s political structure and conduct. The other crucial determinants, which detract from democratization, are coup d’ tat, repeated interruption of democratic process through improper election or unconstitutional methods, recurrence of strongman rule of dubious legitimacy and, above all, weak party organization and weak party system.

The extent of electoral reforms in Bangladesh will be set by the time available until election promised at end of 2025 or middle of 2026 and reforms of civil and police services which play critical role in conduct of election. Normally the defense force personnel are deployed in support of civil administration; however, their role may be more direct at the next election if they continue to exercise magisterial power. There is not enough time to familiarize the voters and the election administration with a new electoral system. Prudence requires that, if a new system were to be introduced, a few rounds of local council elections be held before its introduction for national election: that serves as training for voters as well as election administration. The errors in revision of the voters list based on home visit can be controlled by intensive training of the home visitors and effective supervision of the registration process. The EC may consider projection based on census data of the size of voters at the next election; close match between the expected size and actual (registered) size would confirm accuracy of the updated electoral roll. Rationalization of constituency boundary at the minimum may aim to reduce variations in the number of voters across constituencies taking into account urban-rural disparities in transportation facilities and density of human settlements.

The next election faces three major challenges:

Voter turnout/participation, outcome i.e. ideology or policy orientation of parties, output i.e. effectiveness of governance constituted by government and opposition together.

First, among the political parties that are currently active only one has experience of governance in government and opposition; the voters can make some assessment of their policy preferences and capacity for 6 governance despite their voluntary self-exclusion for over one-and-half decade.

Second, the anti-discrimination movement at a rapid pace transformed into a call for toppling the previous government and met with success too soon for the student and civic leaders to clearly articulate their ideology and policy preferences, which still remain unknown or fuzzy. (The student leaders have shifted declaration of their constitutional principles from 31 December, 2024 to 15 January, 2025; the Chief Adviser will make the announcement; earlier, the Interim Government had termed it a ‘private matter’.)

Third, the student leaders and civic groups are continuing with the negative campaign though without a clear new target to hit. To contest an election a party needs to issue a positive manifesto demonstrating commitment to policy preferably backed by experience of governance.

Fourth, the parties and the civic groups are located right-of the-Centre with varying distance among themselves. The balance of politics tilted to the center-right diminishes electoral competition and voters’ choice of party and policy that may lead to low voter turnout. Raising competition among the parties and widening choice of policy may raise voter turnout.

Fifth, low voter turnout may be exacerbated by the sense of insecurity among the voters. It is important that law and order situation be improved on a credible and sustainable basis – especially neutralizing mob intervention and removing the panic created thereby is critical.

Finally, the outcome of the election in terms of governance efficacy remains imponderable given that the parties and the leaders are largely new and their ideology and policy preferences are not yet clear enough (barring one).

A few words of caution are in order with respect to drawing parallel between 2024, on the one hand, and 1954 and 1971 on the other. The election of 1954 was continuation of mobilization of 1947 energized by the language movement; Sher-e-Bangla and Shaheed Suhrawardy were the most experienced political leaders, who had been Prime Minister of Bengal, and Maulana Bhasani had the strongest appeal to the masses; and adherence to constitutional path that was frustrated by an oligarchic clique climaxing into military dictatorship. The war of independence in 1971 was the finale of the aspirations that had grown over decades and were encapsulated in the Six Points; emancipation and independence from foreign colonial rule and military domination helped by collaboration of 7 home-grown oligarchic clique; led by national leaders who had matured through political mobilization and struggle tracing back to 1947 and 1954; participation of urban and rural population from all social strata; support of socialist and democratic peoples and states excepting deflection by geopolitical interest; declaration of the basic values of the constitution while at war – not an addendum after thought. The two stand as far apart as national movements could in scale, depth, maturity, popular participation, responsibility, national and global impact.

• Beetham, D., Democracy and Human Rights, (1999), 2000.
• IIDEA, Electoral Design: The New International IDEA Handbook, (2005), 2008. Paxton, Robert O., The Anatomy of Fascism, 2005.