(OPINION ARTICLE)
By: James Kamara-Manneh
Public officials set the agenda for the media, and for past weeks the issue of debating on the Proportional Representation Electoral system (PR) Bill in our legislative house has been the topic of discussion. The argument as to whether it should become part of our law books or not has been received or rejected with mixed feelings by many. For instance, the main opposition party All People’s Congress (APC) has vehemently stood against such as they claimed it would affect the political system and disenfranchise the people the opportunity to choose who to represent them, whereas the ruling party Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) said it would give opportunities to constituencies and districts to be represented politically.
However, we might forgive politicians for putting the NATIONAL interest before the PUBLIC interest. But when the news media makes the same mistake, it is time to be worried. One of the roles of the media is to speak for the voiceless and speak truth to power. Even though most media houses or practitioners are politically attached, and when contributing to issues of such concerns, they don’t think nationalistically but rather partially to support their aggrandizement.
The “Fourth Estate” describes the journalists’ role in representing the interests of “the people” concerning the business and political elites who claim to be doing things in our names. If we accept the premise of the Fourth Estate, we also have to ask ourselves if the ‘national’ and the ‘public’ interest are the same things. It might be easy to think that they are, but it would be a mistake. I PAUSE!
For over six decades, Sierra Leoneans have been used to a system of voting where they will know who they voted for and who wins without someone to interpret the result. A system of First Past the Post gives opportunities to citizens to choose who should represent them while their political party endorses them.
Whereas, the PR system is an electoral system in which parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. This is different from a direct system of representation, where each seat is put up to a vote for a specific candidate, regardless of what party to which they associate.
In a proportional representation system, let’s say hypostatically SLPP wins 50% of the vote cast for 14 districts, then 7 seats would be awarded to them from the election results. PR offers alternatives to first past the post and other majoritarian voting systems based on single-member electoral areas, which tend to produce disproportionate outcomes and have a bias in favor of larger political groups. PR systems by contrast tend to offer a better chance of representation to smaller parties and groups.
There are many different forms of proportional representation. Some are focused solely on achieving the proportional representation of different political parties (such as list PR) while others permit the voter to choose between individual candidates. The degree of proportionality also varies; it is determined by factors such as the precise formula used to allocate seats, the number of seats in each constituency or the elected body as a whole, and the level of any minimum threshold for election.
However, the argument as to whether citizens should support such a Bill should be determined after listening to dissenting views through the media. This piece will provide a few arguments concerning the above.
Firstly, the PR system allows different voices to be heard on national issues, as long as party A or B receives enough of a proportional vote to equal one seat, they will be represented within the government at some level. The structures behind proportional representation allow independent candidates and minority parties an opportunity to be elected, which can end the dynasties of the major political parties in a country like ours. With more voices heard, there is a better chance that real action can be taken within the government.
On the other hand, PR will make things easier for extreme parties to gain representation. For example, political parties like the Unity Party, National Democratic Alliance (NDA) etc., which cannot get one-third of the national vote cast now have the opportunity if the Bill is passed into law to have a representation in Parliament. Under the system of proportional representation, any party with a high enough percentage of the vote will receive a seat in the government. That structure makes it easier for extremist views to find official representation. They seldom receive access to the majority coalition and rarely earn an absolute majority, but there is always the possibility that their voiced opinions will gain traction with the general population.
Next, some believe this system can reduce the idea of void votes. This may be advantageous taking into consideration the high illiteracy rate in the country. Often we hear about void votes in elections and therefore Proportional representation removes this obstacle.
Whilst others argue that this system can create political gridlock, just like in any other system of government. Meaning it can compromise the coalition of government to pursue one centrist idea. The reality of this type of governing, however, is that each party wants to have its way with things. That creates a system of government that tends to be indecisive and weak because everyone argues for their own best interests. More gridlock, instead of less, can be created, especially if more than two parties are involved in the coalition.
Research has also proven that it reduces the effects of extremism in politics. This is so since it can be more difficult to have extremism in government when proportional representation is in place as a full majority is more difficult to achieve. That means the representatives are required to build consensus through compromise, which results in moderate, centrist policies instead of sliding to the left or the right.
Others will argue that it does not provide direct representation to specific communities. As explained earlier, under the PR system, seats are not awarded based on community or district voting. That means those who serve in the government are less likely to focus on local issues as they have no local representation responsibilities. It creates a system of government where more voices can be heard, but fewer receive a listening ear. Many communities under this system can come away feeling like they don’t matter to the governing coalition.
In summary, some described the PR system to be a rogue and can cause the state to become stateless, especially when others feel they have been cheated in an election- the problem can be huge with democratic mischief, drivers of greater fragility, conflict and more, while some believe that it can promote peace, social cohesion, and better representation of preference.
Wherever our political wagon is toasting our mind let’s think about the future of Sierra Leone, and remember that posterity will judge the decisions we make today and our children will follow that part.
