Ireland, like Malta, uses the single transferable vote system to elect its legislative representatives. Like the Maltese system, the Irish version of STV is not perfect and over the years political parties in the Irish Republic have grown concerned over issues relating to its application and the electoral process. Two attempts in the past to completely overhaul the electoral system were voted against in a referendum. It appears that, like Malta, the STV is embedded in the Irish culture, nevertheless concerns about the system are regularly discussed and addressed by political parties.
A year ago, a joint committe made up of Teachta Dálas (Irish members of Parliament) and Senators was set up to, once more, discuss electoral reform. The committee met regularly and invited academics, members of interest groups and experts in various fields to assist its members with their deliberations. An array of themes were discussed, from postal voting to the counting procedures of surplus votes. I had the privilege to attend and make a presentation about the application of STV in Malta in a session held last February. The final report of the committee, which includes a number of recommendations, was published a few days ago.
Maltese political parties ought to obtain a copy of the report as a number of recommendations in it can be adopted by our country. Interestingly, of the 29 suggestions, five are aimed at increasing women’s representation. At 13.9 per cent, Ireland, like Malta (8.7 per cent), ranks very low in terms of women representation. This comes as a surprise as, generally, systems of proportional representation, of which the STV forms part, offer better legislative opportunities for women. Well, the numbers speak for themselves and both Malta and Ireland failed in this respect.
But the Irish seem to be addressing this problem. They are not suggesting the introduction of “the controversial” quotas but proposing a number of measures which may help increase women’s participation. One such recommendation is a measure under which public funding of parties would be regulated so that a proportion of the money allocated to a party would be determined by the number of women candidates it nominates for election.
This may seem a trivial suggestion but it is not. If we sort out the issue of public funding of parties, this suggestion may make sense for us. Maltese political parties find it difficult to find and persuade women to contest elections. Valid women turn down requests by parties to be included in the party list because of domestic commitments and cultural/institutional hurdles. Though parties can do little about domestic circumstances they can address other obstacles. Tying the provision of public funding with women’s participation may push parties to take more positive action to encourage more women to participate in the political process.
This is only one of many proposals that Irish politicians managed to put together in a year-long process of discussions and deliberations. The Irish committee was made up of individuals coming from all sides of the political spectrum. I am sure that over the past year there were many instances when parties in the Dáil (the Irish Parliament) disagreed over a number of issues, yet, unlike what we witnessed in Malta, no party backed out of its commitment towards the committee.
The Labour Party and its leader, Joseph Muscat, were wrong when they walked away from the Parliamentary Committee which had to discuss electoral reform. Dr Muscat may wish to use the summer recess to reflect on this ill-judged and impulsive move of his. Since becoming Labour leader, he spoke many times on the need for electoral reform. He put forward a number of suggestions, such as lowering the voting age. Well, Ireland may be on its way to lower the voting age but to get there the Irish parliamentarians never left the negotiating table.
We all make mistakes but not all of us learn from our mistakes. Let’s hope Dr Muscat and the Labour Party take on board the Irish lesson.