Hi Ibrahim,

If I get you right, then a comparison between an extreme majoritarian electoral system country (the UK) with an extreme proportional electoral system country (The Netherlands) could shed light the issue you raise.

According to me opposition in the UK does not have much (if any) parliamentary influence on legislative actions of the majority except shouting to the MP's of the party in power and manupulating the media circus. 

In The Netherlands, due to the proportional electoral system, more parties have to share power and make coalitions to perform legislative action. Hence, more balanced laws are voted based on a broader political consensus. Hence less controversy occurs in the media on laws voted in parliament, because these laws have to get a multiple party consensus to be able to pass the parliamentary voting process.

My preference goes to the Dutch electoral system very much. I still remember how Miss Thatcher had her way with the complete working and middle class in the UK. Conservatives ruled (and they not only ruled the waves!).

So thumbs down (Roman voting system) for the UK system and thumbs up for the Dutch electoral system. With these examples of the two extremes in electoral systems, the impact of proportionality versus majoritarian systems becomes more exposed. Both countries of my example are representative democracies though, but the "Game of Thrones" is played very differently.

I like your question very much Ibrahim. It opens eyes on how different representative democracies can be in Europe (and the EU). Of course a representative democracy is still far away from a real democracy if you ask me. This would deserve a second question, no?

Cheers,

Frank

Dear  Prof. Veroustraete,

Thank you for the answer.

Truly you looked to the issue in a very different angle, because according to its literature I looked to its bulk and its well arrangement, fore exampleو according to Prof. Robert Dahl and Duverger, the majoritarian electoral system always led to two party system, and it produces a stronger institutional parliamentary opposition which have a explicit political program and a moderate policy in oversight on the government preparing alternative views and policies and keep itself from a demagogic manner in scrutinizing the government of the day and giving people impossible promises, because it is going to the office in next election and will face to responsibility if it couldn't fulfil its promises.

And the proportional electoral system lead to a multi party system, which have so many effects on the party system in a long time and the parliamentary opposition. If we regard the same angle of the issue which I looked to. the parliamentary opposition will be more fragmented than its counterpart in dual party system. Duverger says that it is less institutional and the lines between the opposition and government will be vague more especially in Scandinavian states that have minority governments and the electorate thought the opposition's political program because of its division on more than two, three or four parties. This is one of the weaknesses of the parliamentary opposition in multi party systems. And contrary to the dual party systems they couldn't make a shadow government that has a great role in concentrating efforts on the ministries each one according to its feild and this lead to breeding a generation of cadres to take over the ministries in case of its victory in next election.

regarding to the representative democracy, I definitly agree with you, But we must know that we couldn't invent better than this so far. But we must observe that also it differs from one country to an other according to their political culture, and this means that it has problematic issues in some countries compare to the other. we should refine them, and improve itself more. But do you think that the humanity saw the real Democracy? because I don't think so.

Thank you so much for giving me an other view on the topic.

Kind regards

Ibrahim

Majoritatrian tend to produce a Duverger law, other system tend to produce a Gregory Law. Hence, coalition government is more common and the opposition more efficient.

Taagepera & Shugart is the classical reference on this.

Great Yvan,

Do you have some good references of Taagepera and Shugart?

CHeers,

Frank

Under Presidentialism or Parlamentarism the the effects are clearly different! 

According to me Lucia, a presidential regime can have both a majoritarian as well as a proportional voting system as well as a Kingdom for that matter and as long as we are talking about reprsentative democratic systems and not one party states with a president for life like in some African countries and most typically North-Korea.

In Europe, at least, presidents as well as Kings/Queens have a purely representative function and no executive power at all. They REPRESENT the state. This is dfifferent as well from some many other countries outside the old continent. In Germany (a Republic) it is the "Kanzler" (Prime Minister) who executes the laws voted in parliament as well as in the UK (a Kingdom).

Cheers,

Frank

 Ok, it is true Frank.  I think  It also depends on the president's powers, so propotional representation + higher powers of president ... less power of representative presidente...  So maby it is a combination of electoral rules anda presidential powers.

Hi Ibrahim,

to put it in simply and perhaps simplified way, I think that majoritarian systems tend to concentrate government and opposition, while PR causes an high fragmentation of parties and coalitions. It depends on the importance you want attribute to the objectives of governance or representation and it should be  useful a certain balance between the two issues. Surely, a strongly divided opposition doesen't operate efficiently in the democratic system.

Yvan, what do you mean when you are talking about 'Gregory Law' ? can you give some references, please?

Dear Ibrahim Ahmed,

The biggest factor is not so much the electoral system - Duverger and all that - but the decision-making system.  Most parliaments take or ratify decisions by (simple or weighted) majority vote: hence discussions become arguments, and hence too the whole concept of government versus opposition.

Is it right, however, that parliaments split into two, with the bigger 'half' having all the power and the rest having none?  Should a very small party be in (a coalition) government while a bigger one is not?  Should the democratic process consist of (open and transparent elections, followed by) secretive inter-party talks behind closed doors?  In the UK in 2010, forming a majority coalition was fairly easy: it took 5 days.  With a multi-party system as in the Netherlands, the possible combinations are more numerous, and in the same year, the negotiations took 127 days!  

Secondly, was it wise, however, in 1989, for the new parliament in Moscow to split into two, one Nobel laureate versus another - Mikhail Gorbachev and Andrei Sakharov?  In effect, they adopted our western form of governance - majoritarianism - despite the fact that the original Russian translation of this word was большевизм, i.e., bolshevism.  (They have now coined a new word, majoritarnost.)

Or take Ukraine.  Would it not have been better for the government in Kiev to have practiced a form of power-sharing from 1991?  Alas, the EU was too late: it only advised such a polity on the very day Yanukovich fled to Russia.

In Libya, we ask for inclusive governance.  In Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Kenya etc., we do the same.  Is it not time we practiced what we preached?  After all, the two-option majority vote is a divisive "blunt instrument".  If there can be preference voting in elections - AV, PR-STV, some PR-list etc. - can there not also be preference voting in decision-making?  In particular, I refer to the Modified Borda Count.

Just a thought, 

Peter Emerson

www.deborda.org

 Dears All,

thank you for the answers.

I agree with lucia and Raffaele , because beside of the electoral system, the nature of the state's polity (presidentialism and parliamentarism) , and the formation of the state (federal or simple state ) have a great effect on the nature and the efficiency of opposition even under the same electoral system in terms of the last one. We all see the difference between the opposition in (USA and UK) according to Dahl, Duverger and blondel.

When we focus on the effect of electoral system on the the role and nature of opposition, we can see so much differences from a country to another especially under the light of each of both electoral systems, as Frank mentioned before. Shedding light more on the electoral systems and their effect on the nature, form and the efficiency of opposition in western democracies will be help full to know more about this dimension of the issue in respect of its effect on the parliamentary opposition.

thank you again for your new views on the issue.

I will  pleased by hearing more from you.

Ibrahim

Hi Peter,

In Belgium, a more or less proportional election system is in place since more than a a century now. Though women could start voting only from 1949 onwards.

After the federal elections before last one, it took more than 250 days to assemble a new coalition governement! Hence, did Belgium have to survive almost a full year withour a government as some UK media reported? No it did not my dear friends. In my country certain precautions have been taken since long to ensure continuity in governing the country. We have a system that keeps the existing government in power (with some limitations) until a new coalition has been formed. To execute all that is necessary to keep the economy  and many other sectors and administartions going a temporal government stays in power. Belgium is not for nothing one of the richest countries on the globe, even with strong Unions, one of the best performing health systems, and a social security which many countries can only dream of even in the EU!

Additionally  Belgian law forbids anyone except the state to finance political parties. The more votes a party can collect, the more it will be funded by the state. This kind of approach ensures a more majoritarion system, though many parties do exist in Belgium, A nice side-effect of our system of party funding is that bribery is out of the question! That makes the Belgian system somewhat more transparent in its decision making, at least for Belgians it seems.

Additionally a party has to obtain more than 5 % of the total votes te be allowed to be represented in parliament (The Chamber of Representatives). Our Senate does not have legislative power and cannot stop laws voted in the Chamber of Representatives. The Senate can suggest ammendments though. So Belgium has in practice a one Chamber system. This inhibits too much fragmentation in parliament and government. In the elections though fragmentation does occur. That's democracy. Many a small party in Belgium has grown into a powerplayer. When however, it makes a mess when shares power, it can disappear from the political arena as fast as it emerged on it. Also mind that in Belgium citizens are obliged by law to cast their vote. Good or bad? I think it is good to force people to take political responsibility! That avoids a system where only the Haves cast a vote while the Havenots don't care less, and hence will remain without representation in parliament. I have a fairly good idea where that leads to. The dominance of society by the Haves.

Not so bad after all the Belgian electoral system? Small is beautiful!

Cheers,

Frank

Dears Jan and Frank,

Thank you for the answers and references, they will be helpful.

The topic is multidimensional, controversial and deserves more discuss.

With Best

Ibrahim

Dears All,

Your answers opened my view on many dimensions of  the topic, I saw many things you mentioned that I didn't pay attention to, so I am still waiting more views, opinions and recommendations.

With Best.

Ibrahim