CommonLII [Home] [Help] [Databases] [CommonLII] [Feedback] KECKRC Home Page

Constitution of Kenya Review Commission

You are here:  CommonLII >> Kenya >> KECKRC >> 2001 >> [2001] KECKRC 2

[Global Search] [KECKRC Search] [Help]

Abstract of a Paper on Electoral Systems

By Dr. Peter Wanyande, Department Of Political Science And Public Administration University Of Nairobi

15-09-2001

Introduction

This paper discusses the various electoral systems currently in use in different parts of the world. This is done against the backdrop of the ongoing constitutional reforms in Kenya aimed at improving governance in the country. It is hoped that the issues raised in the paper will contribute to the design of an appropriate electoral system for Kenya. In this regard the paper suggests the major factors that ought to be taken into account in designing an electoral system.

The paper begins with a conceptualization of an electoral system. This is followed by a discussion of different categories and types of electoral systems currently in use in different parts of the world. An attempt is then made to demonstrate the importance of an electoral system and why it is necessary to spell out a country's electoral system in the constitution. The subsequent section of the paper discusses Kenya's experience with the current electoral system. The next and final section of the paper suggests what Kenya should do to improve her electoral system as a way of improving democratic governance in the country. It provides a number of possible electoral systems that Kenya may wish to consider

The paper presents a number of arguments about electoral systems.

* First we argue that an electoral system is so central to governance that it must be spelt out in the constitution.

* Secondly we argue that each country must design an electoral system that best serves the country's national democratic aspirations and that such a system must take into account the peculiarities of the country including an identification of the core interests and that compete for representation in the legislature. Achieving this objective may entail combining different elements of different electoral systems.

* We finally argue that changing the electoral system in Kenya may require making changes to other aspects of our governance system. The country must therefore be prepared to make radical changes in the governance system and not regard the current system including the electoral system as sacrosanct.

The Concept Of Electoral Systems

It is appropriate to begin this discussion by providing a definition of an electoral system. In ordinary discourse, the term electoral system is used to refer to the entire framework that govern elections in a country including the electoral laws, procedures used in managing elections and the actual casting of a vote among others. This conception of an electoral system is however, not quite correct, even though the electoral laws, rules and procedures that go into elections have an important bearing on the successful operation of an electoral system.

The above considerations actually describe and define an electoral process and is best handled under the management of elections. A more correct way to define an electoral system is to conceptualize it as the set of rules which govern the process by which citizens, in their capacity as voters, express their opinion about candidates and political parties and by which the votes they cast are translated into seats. An electoral system thus refers to the method used to determine how votes cast at an election, will be translated into seats won by parties and or candidates.

Electoral systems thus constitute basic lines of mediation that any electoral law establishes between votes and representation. It must therefore be distinguished from a county's electoral processes which deals with how the electoral system is to be managed. The electoral process is thus a management and administrative matter.

The elements that make up the contents of an electoral system are:

* the constituency, considered to be the geographic unit of conversion of the votes into seats

* the electoral formula, or mathematical conversion procedure of votes into seats

* whether or not an electoral barrier will be set i.e., a minimum percentage of votes so that the candidates will be able to participate in the seat count.

* The form of expression of the vote. This refers to the capacity of the voter and correspondingly of the political groups that organize candidates to determine which persons in particular will hold office being disputed.

* It may also be appropriate at this point to observe that there are several categories and types of electoral systems.

* While some may be described as pure types others are hybrid systems in the sense that they are a combination of different electoral systems put together to maximize the advantages of the different types while minimizing the disadvantages of some.

* There is in fact no limit to the types of electoral systems that can be designed.

* It needs to be noted that a country can use different electoral systems to elect leaders to the different houses of parliament. If for example a country has two houses of parliament it can use one electoral system to elect members to the lower house and another electoral system to elect members to the upper house.

* Alternatively a country can use one electoral system to elect a section of its parliament and another system to elect another section of the same parliament.

* Another alternative is to use one system to elect members of parliament and a different electoral system for local government elections.

It all depends on what the country wishes to achieve with its electoral system. These issues will become clearer when we discuss the specific electoral systems and where and how they are applied.

Factors to consider in designing an Electoral system

An ideal electoral system should ensure or promote the representation of all major interests in a political system. An electoral system must, in other words, be as inclusive as possible by making it possible for as many divergent interests as possible to be represented. Identifying these interests then becomes central. This is to ensure that no one interest /group dominates the rest as this would be undemocratic (John Lock; 1966: Jean Jacques Rousseau; 1950:David Hume;1975: John StewartMilll; 962: Charles Montesquie;1949). It would also be unrepresentative.

In liberal democratic systems of government, political parties provide the channels by which different interests are organized and compete for representation in a country's legislative body. The interests may take a religious character, and thus leading to the formation of religious parties. It is also possible to have parties that champion the interests of workers and thus leading to the formation of labour parties such as the British Labour party. In situations where parties provide the channels for interest aggregation an ideal electoral system should facilitates the representation of as many political parties as possible.

Electoral systems that encourage inclusiveness by making it possible for even smaller parties to get represented will encourage the formation of many different kinds of political parties.

From the above observations, it is clear that an electoral system can determine what kind of political parties are formed. In Kenya for example under the current electoral system newer and smaller parties are discouraged because the system does not provide them with a lot of chances of surviving as viable political parties that can challenge the older and bigger ones.

The Double Ballot system used in France on the other hand encourages the formation of smaller parties which the go on to form alliances with other parties that have similar ideological orientation. The formation of alliances occurs especially during the second ballot. The point about this system is that it encourages as many interests as possible to be represented in parliament. Details of the system are discussed in a different section of this paper. An ideal electoral system should therefore make it possible for as many political parties as possible to have a chance of being represented in parliament if the system is to contribute to democratic governance. This is why it is necessary to carefully deliberate on the design an electoral system. It is only in this way that the system can take into account the peculiarities of the county for which it is designed. The peculiarities to be considered include the country's political history, the social forces at play such ethnic composition religious diversity, level of political and or civic awareness, literacy levels, religious composition and level of economic development among other factors.

In practice of course it is not possible to have all interests represented in the legislature. There are, however, some interests whose exclusion from the legislature may have disastrous consequences for democratic governance and for the stability of the country. Such interests must therefore be included. In saying this one is not in any way suggesting that other interests must be ignored. We are simply saying that ways be found for accommodating as many and varied interests as possible but that those interests considered critical for political stability must not be excluded. The challenge then is to identify an electoral system that has the capacity to be as inclusive as possible. This underscores the fact that electoral systems that work in one country need not work in another country.

The challenge for countries in which political parties are either weak or under- developed is to find the best way in which different interests can be organized for purposes of representation in parliament. Once this is done then an electoral system has to be designed that can facilitate the representation of as many of these interests as possible. This is the challenge for countries like Kenya.

* An electoral system must also be well understood by the voters if it is to facilitate effective and meaningful participation by the electorate in the electoral process. Some electoral systems are quite complicated while others are simple to understand. Complicated electoral systems may disfranchise many potential voters. The problem may be addressed to some extent by civic education. I say to some extent because some systems are so complicated that even civic education may not demystify the system. Germany's two votes for each voter, the details of which we discuss later, is an example of a very complicated electoral system. The point is however that it is desirable that voters should understand the electoral system that they are required to use in electing their representatives. Details of the various electoral systems including the major variants of each system are discussed in the section that follows.

* The other consideration that must go into a choice of an electoral system is the cost of running the system. This is important because some electoral systems are more expensive than others. The cost of using a particular system may be out of reach of a particular country. Considerations of cost must not be ignored as doing so could plunge the electoral process into chaos. This is not to suggest that cost must dictate all other considerations. The point is that some means of balancing cost with other considerations must be found. This is the other challenge that those designing an electoral system must grapple with.

* Finally it is important to remember that no electoral system is perfect in the sense that it will satisfy the interests and aspirations of all groups in a country. It is also true that whereas one electoral system may be suitable for one country or groups of countries it may not necessarily be suitable for another country. This is why it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of a country before designing an electoral system for it. These must include the political history of the country, the nature of its population in terms of literacy rates, ethnic composition cultural and religious diversity, and the nature of other social forces that require representation among other factors. An electoral system must certainly not be imposed on a country from another country simply because it worked in that particular country. While this may appear to be a straight- forward matter, it is not always so in practice. This is because there are many instances in which electoral systems have simply been imposed on countries.

Types of Electoral Systems

Having discussed some to the conceptual issues relating to electoral systems it is now opportune to identify the major political systems that are commonly used indifferent parts of the world. Currently there are three broad categories of electoral systems in use the world over. These are: Majoritarian /Plurality systems Proportional Representation Systems and Semi-Proportional Representation systems.

Majoritarian / Plurality Electoral Systems

* The majoritarian / plurality electoral systems are those in which the candidate who obtains the highest number of votes cast in an election compared to his competitor (s) wins the seat and thus becomes the representative of the constituency. The winner requires to obtain the most votes and not necessarily an absolute majority. It is also known as the single member district system. This is because the system almost always uses single member district or constituency. The majoritarian system is also known as First-Past the- Post or winner- take- all system precisely because only one candidate can be declared a winner.

* The system has many variants depending on the formula used to determine the winner. When the system is used in multi member constituency it becomes Block Vote. Other variants of the majoritarian system try to ensure that the winner obtains an absolute majority. These include the Alternate System and the Two Round System. In an attempt to ensure that the winner gets over 50 percent o the votes these variants of the majoritarian system conducts second rounds of voting.

* This system has in many cases produced rather absurd results especially in constituencies where more than one candidate or party contests an election. It tends to produce a winner with a minority of the votes cast. The question that these kinds or outcomes raises is whether the winner really represents the seat since he or she is elected by a minority.

Proportional Representation Electoral Systems

The other major category of electoral system is the Proportional Representation. The Proportional Representation system is an electoral system in which parliamentary seats are allocated proportionately to the votes cast for each party that wins seats in the constituency,

* The basic principle underpinning all Proportional Representation electoral system is that a party should receive parliamentary seats in proportion to its share of the total vote. Thus if a party wins 10 percent of the votes cast in an election to a parliament of 100 seats, the party will be awarded 10 seats. If another party wins 1 percent of the votes, the party will be awarded one seat only. Usually the system works in places where the country is divided into one nationwide electoral unit.

* The PR system is premised on the idea that an election should result in, or produce a parliament that mirrors, as far as possible, the significant sets of opinions and interests in the country. The PR should consequently reduce the disparity in representation of various groups and interests in society.

* There are several variants of Proportional representation electoral system some of which are very complicated. The most commonly used is Party List Proportional Representation. In this system, voters vote for a party rather than a candidate and the parties receive parliamentary seats in proportion to their overall share of the national vote. According to this system, each party wishing to participate in elections draws up its list of candidates up to the number of seats to be filled. The names on the list are arranged in order of preference. This means that if the party wins only five seats, the first five party candidates in the list become the party representatives in parliament. The party machinery draws up the list from among its members. Each party must therefore design a criterion for choosing candidates and the order in which they will appear in the party list. The emphasis in this system is on political parties. In most counties using this system, the voters have no say identifying the party candidates to be submitted nor the order in which the candidates appear in the party list. This is done exclusively by the relevant party organ.

* In an attempt to enable voters control the electorate the Swiss have effected two modification in their Party list PR system. First is that unlike the Netherlands which has one electoral district, the Swiss have created 26 electoral districts. The electoral districts correspond to the 26 Swiss cantons. The seats are then distributed to the cantons in proportion to their respective population sizes. The largest Canton gets more seats. The second modification is that the voters and not the party rank the candidates that will have been submitted by the parties. The system also allows voters to modify the names so long as they do not exceed the number of seats to be filled. This is done to give the voters some measure of control over the candidates. The determination of results is based on the votes each party receives. The candidates are given seats in order of the ranking.

Semi Proportional Representation Electoral System

The third major category of electoral system is the Semi Proportional Representation. This is an electoral system that combines some elements of the Majoritarian system with those of the proportional representation system. The idea is to maximize on the advantages of each system while reducing the pitfalls of each. The specific methods in which the elements of each system are combined will vary form country to country thereby giving rise to different types of semi proportional representation systems.

* The most common ones are the Single Non-Transferable Vote, The Double Ballot System, the Mixed Member Proportional Representation also known as the Parallel system.

* The Double Ballot system as used in France requires a candidate to obtain an absolute majority i.e. 50 % plus one to be elected on the first ballot in a district. In addition the candidate's share of the vote has to constitute no less than one fourth of the registered voters. The first ballot lists candidates from several parties. As a result of this very few candidates obtain the required number and percentage of votes to win the first round of balloting. This makes the second ballot necessary.

* During the second ballot a plurality of the votes is sufficient to win. The original list of candidates is used in the second ballot but those who received less than a certain percentage in the first ballot are eliminated.

* The competition in this system is between parties. The system tends to encourage coalition or party alliances especially in the second ballot. Usually the weaker parties would give up and support the stronger party if the two parties are ideologically not very different.

* The system involves a lot of political calculations and therefore requires parties to be very skillful in calculating a winning formula by working together with likeminded parties.

* Two Votes For Each Voter. Each voter has two votes in his or her ballot (.Used in Germany and Norway). It is also known as the parallel system.

* In this system one half of the lower house members are elected by the winner- take-all system while the other half by proportional representation

* In this way it is hoped that the shortcoming of the majoritarian system would be taken care of.

* The experience has been that the bigger parties do very well in the first ballot. Sometimes they win all the seats. The second ballot which is party list proportional however gives the smaller parties a chance to win many seats.

* The voter is free to split his or her vote by voting for different parties and candidates in the two rounds.

* Each voter votes two times on the same day.

* The number of seats a party gets is determined in the second ballot.

* It is also important to note the complexity of the system. As one scholar put it surveys have repeatedly shown that at the height of any given campaign, less than half the voters know the precise meaning of the two ballots... shortly after the election, even this percentage drops to roughly one-fifth of the voting population (Quoted in Steiner,1991:85).

The Importance of an Electoral System

The significance of electoral systems can be conceptualized from different perspectives.

* First is that they are very important political tools that are used to determine an electoral outcome

* It can determine who or which party comes to power and with that the policies to be pursued.

* It can have an impact on many other aspect of a county's political life.

* It can also be used by different political actors to undermine each other or to promote particular interests.

In other words an electoral outcome is to a large extent a function of the electoral system being used. The choice of an electoral system is therefore important precisely because of the importance of elections to which the electoral system gives rise.

Electoral System and the Constitution

Having established the importance of elections and the electoral systems it may be necessary at this point to establish the link between electoral systems and the constitution.

* The position taken in this paper is that the constitution should spell out the electoral system to be used in the country.

* This arises from the fact that as the basis of a country's laws, and a critical instrument constitution should have a provision to guide the management of all major instruments of governance of which, as already noted, the electoral system is one.

* Elections as core to liberal democracy and can either promote of derail democracy depending on the electoral system chosen. It is therefore imperative to carefully deliberate on and design an electoral system that will serve the nations democratic aspirations best.

* Electoral systems must not be taken for granted or as a given.

* Spelling out the electoral system in the constitution should facilitate stability in the electoral process and related practices.

* It would ensure that MPs or the powers that be do not change the electoral system at will especially if the changes are designed primarily to serve their own individual or partisan interests at the expense of national interests.

* One way to make it hard for politicians and interested groups to change the system at will is to incorporate it in the constitution.

* Once this is incorporated into the constitution the details such as the dates for presidential, parliamentary and local government elections can, be spelt out in relevant Acts of parliament.

* It will ensure predictability of the electoral process. This is also important for stability. Needless to say that predictability and stability are important governance requirements as it helps reduce or eliminate arbitrariness. This is especially important for countries struggling to establish and institutionalize democratic governance.

Kenya's Electoral Experience

* At independence in 1963 Kenya adopted the Majoritarian electoral system according to which the candidate with the majority of votes win the seat. This applies to presidential parliamentary and Local Government elections. These elections take place on the same day, time and place.

* Kenya operates a single member constituency

* The legislation that provides the legal framework for the conduct of these elections are to be found in the Constitution of Kenya the National and Presidential elections Act chapter 7, the Election Offences Act chapter 66 and the Local Government Act chapter 265 of the laws of Kenya.

The question that begs an answer at this point is why did Kenya adopt a Majoritarian electoral system? Secondly how has the system served the country?

The answer to the first question is that Kenya inherited its electoral system from Britain reflecting the fact that electoral systems can sometimes reflect the special political circumstances that attend to their Grafting (Away:200:2).

* The adoption of the British electoral system by Kenya also goes to show that very little, if any, thought was put into the issue of electoral system. Perhaps this was due to the rush with which preparations for independence was carried out.

* It may also have been due to the strong faith that Kenyans had and continue to have in British systems.

* The fact that the system has been retained may be due to the fact that the system serves the interests of some powerful people who are in a position to resist changes in the electoral system and rules

Has the system served Kenya well?

* A number of concerns about Kenyan elections have been expressed especially since the introduction multi-party politics in the early 1990s.

* The concerns relate to both the electoral system as defined in this paper as well as to other features of the electoral process.

* We shall confine ourselves as much as possible to the concerns regarding the electoral system touching on other aspects only to the extent that they are closely affected by or they affect issues of electoral system.

The feeling among many critics of Kenya's majoritarian electoral system is that it encourages the winner take all practice especially in the formation of government.

* Related to this is the fact that it disadvantages the smaller and newer parties that may represent interests not represented by the bigger parties. It is thus a system that does not encourage inclusiveness. Instead it encourages ethnic polarization

* It is the failure to mirror society by facilitating the representation of as many interest as possible that that makes the system unpopular. It tends to encourage party warfare. The system also encourages warfare between candidates as each tries to do all within his or her power including the use of illegal means to defeat the opponent.

* This hostility is likely to be far less if the system was such that each candidate has an opportunity to take only a share of the vote and a chance to be elected. This would be the case for example if we had multimember constituencies. Many more interests in t each constituency would also be get a chance to be represented under such a system.

Kenya's electoral system has also been criticized on the grounds that it does not facilitate fair representation.

* This has more to do with the fact that currently there is no provision in the relevant electoral legislation for ensuring that constituencies have more or less equal number of voters. The result has been that some constituencies are much more populated than others. This leads to imbalance in representation.

* The imbalance is particularly glaring between constituencies in the Northern part of the country and those in the rest of the country. It is however also to be found in between constituencies in the same province.

* This problem is obviously an issue to do with the management of elections which includes demarcation of electoral boundaries. We mention it here because it has implications for representation which as we said at the beginning of this paper is also a concern of an electoral system.

* It is instructive to note that this is a problem that the British, from whom we borrowed our electoral system, have solved by clearly spelling out the minimum and maximum number of voters that an MP can represent. This has resulted in more or less equal ratio between MP and voters in every constituency. Kenya may wish to do the Same

* One other feature of Kenya's electoral system that has raised concern is that it tends to give less weight to the smaller parties than would be the case under a proportional representation system. This point is well illustrated by the 1997 election results. The distribution of party seats based on the majoritarian electoral system were as shown in a separate table.

Using a proportional representation system, the distribution of parliamentary strength for each of the parties are very different. This is shown on a separate table.

The way Forward

In concluding this discussion I wish to suggest ways by which Kenya could deal with its electoral system as part of attempts to improve representation in this country.

* The starting point is for the country to agree that the electoral system should be spelt out in the constitution. This is for reasons already discussed in the paper

* Secondly in determining constituency boundaries there is need to place more emphasis on numbers than on geographical area as is currently the case. This would them mean that the minimum and maximum number of people an MP is required to represent be set. This is to ensure equitable representation. This is important because the democratic principle of each vote having same weight would require that each MP represents the same number of people. It would also address the current concerns about imbalance in representation.

* Constituencies for groups such as Universities, women, the business community, and the labour movement should also considered. Currently it would appear that the system is designed to facilitate the representation of ethnic groups only. While this may have been appropriate during the immediate post independence years, it is no longer desirable. The country has become more differentiated than during the 1960s and this needs to be reflected in our electoral system.

* There may be need to consider the possibility of using elements of the current electoral system alongside those of proportional representation. The German system of two votes for each voter may be a candidate for consideration.

* Kenya may also wish to consider introducing two houses of parliament and stagger the election to the two houses in such a way that one house is always in session. This would ensure that there is no time when parliament is in session. We should avoid a situation where one organ of government is not in session as is the case now when parliament is dissolved

* Another electoral issue worth considering is the question of why Kenya has all its national elections on the same day. This is significant precisely because combining the parliamentary, presidential and local government elections on the same day may drag local government politics into national politics and thus mar the autonomy between these two levels of government. In this regard it may be note that Uganda and Nigeria have found it necessary to separate local government elections from parliamentary elections. Uganda in fact conducts the three elections separately.


AustLII: Feedback | Privacy Policy | Disclaimers
URL: http://www.commonlii.org/ke/other/KECKRC/2001/2.html