This problem of dissatisfaction resulting from the minority in a majoritarian system is addressed by the theory of proportionalism, which states that the representation in a state's governing body should reflect the diversity, as opposed to the majority, of the electorate (Janda, et al, 254). For example, suppose parties A and B each have ten candidates up for election to the legislature, in which there are ten available seats. Party A has the support of 70% of the population, and party B has the remaining 30%. In a majoritarian system, party A, having the clear majority, would win all ten seats. Conversely, in a proportional system, party A would be awarded 7 seats, and the remaining 3 would be go to the leading candidates from party B. In such a way, the proportionalist method offers a more accurate representation of the people, and is therefore, its proponents claim, a truer model of democracy. It may even be said that this system more closely resembles the direct democracy of the ancient city-states, in that no individual voice should go unheard (Mayo, 101). Consequently, the rights of the minority are afforded more of a safeguard.
For proportionalism to work effectively, however, there is another condition required, in addition to the informed public. Without a considerable degree of homogeneity of culture and willingness to compromise, the system will, in all likelihood, not be able to function with success. In a state of any considerable size, and especially given the diversity of cultural history in so many modern nations, this presents a definite stumbling block. The two-party system most congenial to majoritarianism may inadvertently polarize society over certain issues, but the extremely broad base of either party means that there will of necessity be varying alliances and points of agreement between them. However, in a culturally diverse society in which there is a proportionalistic system, the many parties representing express views (a party's platform could theoretically be a single issue) will be less willing to compromise. The result will be a standstill in government action. In the opinion of political theorist H. B. Mayo,
"Even if we grant that (proportionalism) solves difficulties of representation, it increases the difficulties of policy-making, and a political system exists to make policies, not merely to give psychological release to voters." (Mayo, 129)
In response to these criticisms, the proportionalist may well cite the historically proven fact that any democratic system relies upon compromise as a vital element of its success, and that therefore any proportionalistic system would naturally take into account the ability of the people to work together. And in the event that a people does share a common history, culture, and worldview, proportionalism offers the best method of government.
06 July 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment