In any democracy the people's will is expressed in a general election. Thus, it is of the utmost importance for a country to adopt the best electoral system possible. The more transparent and open the system, the better it is.
Over the past few weeks, parliament has debated a bill aimed at introducing provisions for the holding of elections to the European parliament.
For some time now, parliamentarians have been facing the dilemma of selecting the most suitable electoral system. The decision basically involved whether or not we should retain the present system.
The difficulties arising from such a choice primarily stem from the fact that the system used in national elections has, from time to time, given rise to severe criticism from various sectors of society.
Foremost among these are activists of minor political parties, and perhaps justifiably so. These argue that the present system greatly favours the traditional, larger political parties. In fact, it has been emphasised that our electoral system excludes any chances of smaller political parties from returning any candidates to the House of Representatives.
The argument is not necessarily always correct. There have been small political movements which have been successful in elections in the past. In the 1960s, for example, there were no fewer than five parties which had parliamentary representation.
Still, I tend to be in agreement with the critics. It is difficult, under the present system, for a small political party to succeed at the polls, as past elections have shown. This might appear unfair in certain instances as it could well be the case that a minority of citizens end up without having any representatives in parliament.
Having said this, however, it must be pointed out that it has been more than 30 years since a third political party has had a strong and credible enough showing to further strengthen this line of argument. It seems to me, however, that the occasion is now ripe to reopen the issue.
The other strong point justifying criticism against the present system stems from the fact that proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote gives rise to clientelism. This assertion is manifestly correct. Candidates in a general election inadvertently end up having to compete against candidates from their own party and this forces them into campaigning on a more personal level, something which can lead to abuse and nepotism.
After much thought and notwithstanding the defects in our electoral system, there has been general consensus among parliamentarians that the most democratic system available is the one we have been adhering to in our general elections.
At the end of the day, parliament therefore unanimously opted to vote in favour of keeping the status quo, even with regard to the holding of the European parliament elections.
Our system is perhaps more democratic than others in that the electorate is given a real choice. The citizens are not only invited to vote for the party of their choice but are entitled also to elect the candidate of their choice. Thus, politicians here are forced to remain close to the electorate as otherwise they risk being left in the cold.
Since an electoral process is so important in a democracy, an on-going debate is essential. Better still, it would be preferable to have a standing committee to suggest legislative amendments and measures to further enhance our electoral system.