Government Structure and Electoral Systems

Dr Benjamin Reilly, Australian National University, Canberra, AUSTRALIA

This short paper sets out options for structuring a system of government and
choosing an electoral system in Afghanistan. It focuses on the comparative
experience of other transitional democracies in choosing amongst and
between the various options available in these areas. In particular, it
examines the choices made by other countries which have recently emerged
from a period of protracted conflict.
1. Government Structure: Presidential, Parliamentary, or Semi-Presidential?
There are essentially three options for constituting a representative system of
government: one based on a parliamentary system, one based on a
presidential system, and one based on some mixture of the two (usually
called semi-presidentialism).
Parliamentary systems are characterized by the legislature being the principal
arena for both lawmaking and (via majority decisions) for executive power.
Presidential systems are characterized by the separation of the executive and
legislative branches, with executive authority residing outside the legislature,
with the president and his or her cabinet. The simplest definition of the
differences between the two approaches can thus be summed up by the
degree of relative independence of the executive. Presidential systems are
characterized by executive independence, whereas parliamentary systems
are characterized the mutual dependence and intertwining of both legislative
and executive capacities.
In post-conflict societies, the key distinction between parliamentarism and
presidentialism focuses on the range of parties and opinions that can be
represented in the executive under a parliamentary system, in contrast to the
unavoidably singular nature of authority represented by the office of the
president. However, as with many institutional choices, the debate over the
merits of parliamentary versus presidential government is not so much a
question of which is best, but rather of the most appropriate choice for a given
society, considering its particular social structure, political culture and history.
Parliamentary systems
In general, the majority of the world's "established" democracies use
parliamentary systems. The advantages of parliamentary systems include:
Ability to facilitate the inclusion of all groups within the legislature and
the executive. Because cabinets in parliamentary systems are usually drawn
from members of the elected legislature, parliamentary government enables
the inclusion of all political elements represented in the legislature (including
minorities) in the executive. Cabinets comprising a coalition of several
different parties are a typical feature of many well-established parliamentary
democracies. In societies deeply divided by ethnic or other cleavages, this
principle of inclusion can be vital.
Flexibility and capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. Because
governments in most parliamentary systems can change on the floor of the
legislature without recourse to a general election, advocates of
parliamentarism point to its flexibility and capacity to adapt to changing
circumstances as a strong benefit. A discredited government can be
dismissed from office by the parliament itself, in contrast to the fixed terms
common to presidential systems.
"Checks and balances". By making the executive dependent, at least in
theory, upon the confidence of the legislature, parliamentary systems are said
to foster greater accountability on the part of the government of the day
towards the people's representatives. Proponents argue that this means that
there is not only greater public control over the policy-making process, but
also greater transparency in the way decisions are made.
The major disadvantages of parliamentary systems include:
Tendency towards ponderous or immobile decision-making. The
inclusiveness that typifies coalition governments can easily turn into executive
deadlocks caused by the inability of the various parties to agree upon key
issues. This was typified by the "immobilism" that affected Fourth Republic
France and that was partly responsible for General de Gaulle's assumption of
presidential power. Decision-making deadlock was in part responsible for the
breakdown of power sharing under Cyprus's 1960 constitution.
Lack of accountability and discipline. Critics also argue that parliamentary
systems are inherently less accountable than presidential ones, as
responsibility for decisions is taken by the collective cabinet rather than a
single figure. This is especially problematic when diverse coalitions form the
executive, as it can be difficult for electors to establish who is responsible for
a particular decision and make a retrospective judgement as to the
performance of the government.
Propensity towards weak or fragmented government. Some parliamentary
systems are typified by shifting coalitions of many different political parties,
rather than by a strong and disciplined party system. Under such
circumstances, executive government is often weak and unstable, leading to a
lack of continuity and direction in public policy.

Presidential systems
Presidentialism has been a popular choice amongst many new democracies
in the last decade, especially in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America.
While the influence of the United States, the world's best known presidential
system, is probably partly responsible for this trend, recent experience has
also highlighted a number of advantages of presidentialism:
A directly elected president is identifiable and accountable to voters to a
high degree. The office of the president can be held directly accountable for
decisions taken because, in contrast to parliamentary systems, the chief
executive is directly chosen by popular vote. It is thus easier for the electorate
to reward or retrospectively punish a president (by voting him or her out of
office) than is the case with parliamentary systems.
Ability of a president to act as a unifying national figure, standing above
the fray of sectarian disputes. A president enjoying broad public support
can represent the nation to itself, becoming a unifying symbol between rival
political groupings. To play this role, however, it is important that the rules
used to elect the president are tailored so as to achieve this type of broad
support (see the following section on "Electoral Systems" for details).
Higher degree of choice. The fact that presidential systems typically give
voters a dual choice - one vote for the president and one vote for the
legislature - means that voters can be presented with a broader range of
choice under presidential systems than parliamentary ones.
Stability of the office and continuity in terms of public policy. Unlike
parliamentary governments, a president and his or her administration normally
remains relatively constant throughout their term, which can give greater
stability in office and predictability in policy-making than some alternatives.
This leads, in theory at least, to more efficient and decisive governance,
making it attractive for those cases where governments change frequently
because of weak parties or shifting parliamentary coalitions, or where hard
political decisions, such as contentious economic reforms, need to be taken.
By contrast, the major disadvantage of presidentialism in post-conflict
situations is the propensity of the office to be captured by one faction, party or
social group. This can create particular difficulties in multi-ethnic societies,
where the president can easily be perceived as the representative of one
group only, with limited interest in the needs or votes of others. This is
particularly so in cases like Afghanistan, where a number of relatively
coherent groups are present. Other disadvantages include:
No real checks on the executive. This becomes even more true when there
is a concordance between the president's party and the majority party in
parliament. In this case (typified, for many years, by Mexico) the parliament
has almost no real checks on the executive and can become more of a
glorified debating chamber than a legitimate house of review. This problem
can be exacerbated by the fact that a president, unlike a parliamentary prime
minister, can become virtually inviolable during his or her term of office, with
no mechanism for dismissing unpopular incumbents.
Lack of flexibility. While impeachment of the president by the legislature is a
device built into many presidential systems, it remains the case that the
presidency is a much less flexible office than the major alternatives. Salvador
Allende's election as president of Chile in 1970, for example, gave him control
of the executive with only 36 per cent of the vote, and in opposition to the
centre and right-dominated legislature. Some analysts have argued that
Chile's 1973 military coup can be traced back to the system that placed an
unpopular president in a position of considerable long-term power.

Semi-presidential systems
A final executive type is sometimes called "semi-presidentialism". Under this
model, a parliamentary system and a prime minister with some executive
powers is combined with a president, who also has executive powers. The
ministry is drawn from and subject to the confidence of the legislature. This is
a relatively unusual model - found today in France, Portugal, Finland, Sri
Lanka and one or two other countries - but nonetheless is sometimes
advocated as a desirable executive formulation for fragile democracies.
Advantages:
Can combine advantages of presidentialism and parliamentarism. The
appeal of the semi-presidential model is its ability to combine the benefits of a
directly elected president with a prime minister who must command an
absolute majority in the legislature. A move to semi-presidentialism has been
recommended as a good "half way house" for some countries that want to
combine the benefits of both presidential and parliamentary systems.
Mutual consensus requirement. Proponents of semi-presidentialism focus
on the capacity of semi-presidentialism to increase the accountability and
"identifiability" of the executive, while also building in a system of mutual
checks and balances and the need for consensus between the two executive
wings of government. This mutual consensus requirement can be particularly
important for divided societies, as it requires a president to come to an
agreement with the legislature on important issues, and thus to be a force for
the "middle ground" rather than the extremes.
Disadvantages:
Propensity for deadlock between and within the executive arms of
government. Because a government's powers are effectively divided
between the prime minister and the president - for example, foreign affairs
powers being the preserve of the president while the prime minister and the
cabinet decide domestic policy - a structural tension exists within the
government as a whole. This can lead to deadlock and immobilism,
particularly if, as occurs relatively often, the prime minister and the president
come from opposing political parties. The benefits of compromise and
moderation can degenerate into a stand-off. This is especially the case when
the division of responsibility between the two offices is not always clear (e.g.,
foreign policy in the French system), and where the timing and sequencing of
elections between the houses differs.

Conclusion
Beyond all of these arguments, there is the empirical record to consider. Of
the many states that became independent in the three decades following the
end of World War Two, all countries which could claim to have maintained a
continuously democratic record to the late 1980s were parliamentary systems.
Of the 93 new democracies that gained their independence between 1945
and 1979, all of the 15 countries which remained democratic throughout the
1980s were parliamentary rather than presidential systems, including some of
the developing world's most successful democracies like India, Botswana, and
Papua New Guinea. Conversely, all the new presidential democracies from
this period suffered some form of breakdown. Overall, parliamentary systems
have three times the rate of survival of presidential systems.

Electoral Systems

Electoral systems are the rules and procedures via which votes cast in an
election are translated into seats won in the parliament or some other office (eg
a presidency). An electoral system is designed to do three main jobs. First, it
will translate the votes cast into seats won in a legislative chamber. Second,
electoral systems act as the conduit through which the people can hold their
elected representatives accountable. Third, different electoral systems give
incentives for those competing for power to couch their appeals to the
electorate in distinct ways. In divided societies, for example, where language,
religion or other forms of ethnicity represent an important political cleavage,
particular electoral systems can be designed to encourage candidates who act
in a co-operative, accommodatory manner to rival groups; or they can punish
these candidates and instead reward those who appeal to their own group
alone.
Electoral systems are often categorized according to how proportionately they
operate in terms of translating votes cast by electors into seats won by parties.
A typical three-way structure divides such systems into plurality-majority, semi-
proportional, and proportional representation (PR) systems. Plurality-majority
systems typically give more emphasis to local representation via the use of
small, single-member electoral districts than to proportionality. Amongst such
systems are plurality (first-past-the-post), runoff, block and alternative vote
systems. By contrast, proportional representation systems which typically use
larger multi-member districts and deliver more proportional outcomes -- include
open and closed versions of party list PR, as well as mixed-member and
single transferable vote systems. Semi-proportional systems offer yet other
approaches, including the mixed models by which part of the parliament is
elected via PR and part from local districts, a common choice in many new
democracies over the past decade.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS AROUND THE WORLD
There are countless electoral system variations, but
essentially they can be split into nine main systems which
fall into three broad families. The most common way to look
at electoral systems is to group them by how closely they
translate national votes won into parliamentary seats won;
that is, how proportional they are. Most electoral system
choices involve a trade-off: maximizing proportionality and
inclusiveness of all opinions, or maximizing government
efficiency via single-party governments and accountability.
Plurality-Majority Systems
These comprise two plurality systems, First Past the Post
and the Block Vote, and two majority systems, the
Alternative Vote and the Two-Round System.
1. First Past the Post (FPTP) is the world's most commonly
used system. Contests are held in single-member districts,
and the winner is the candidate with the most votes, but not
necessarily an absolute majority of the votes. FPTP is
supported primarily on the grounds of simplicity, and its
tendency to produce representatives beholden to defined
geographic areas. Countries that use this system include the
United Kingdom, the United States, India, Canada, and most
countries that were once part of the British Empire.
2. The Block Vote (BV) is the application of FPTP in multi-
rather than single-member districts. Voters have as many
votes as there are seats to be filled, and the highest-polling
candidates fill the positions regardless of the percentage of
the vote they actually achieve. This system is used in some
parts of Asia and the Middle East. A variation is the "Party
Block", as used in Singapore and Mauritius: voters choose
between parties rather than candidates, and the highest-
polling party wins all seats in the district.
3. In the Alternative Vote (AV) system, electors rank the
candidates in order of choice, marking a "1" for their
favourite candidate, "2" for their second choice, "3" for their
third choice, and so on. The system thus enables voters to
express their preferences between candidates, rather than
simply their first choice. If no candidate has over 50 per cent
of first-preferences, lower order preference votes are
transferred until a majority winner emerges. This system is
used in Australia and some other South Pacific countries.
4. The Two-Round System (TRS) has two rounds of voting,
often a week or a fortnight apart. The first round is the same
as a normal FPTP election. If a candidate receives an
absolute majority of the vote, then he or she is elected
outright, with no need for a second ballot. If, however, no
candidate has received an absolute majority, then a second
round of voting is conducted, and the winner of this round is
declared elected. This system is widely used in France,
former French colonies, and some parts of the former Soviet
Union.
Semi-Proportional Systems
Semi-PR systems translate votes cast into seats won in a
way that falls somewhere in between the proportionality of
PR systems and the majoritarianism of plurality-majority
systems. The two Semi-PR systems are the Single Non-
Transferable Vote (SNTV), and Parallel (or mixed) systems.
5. In SNTV systems, each elector has one vote but there are
several seats in the district to be filled, and the candidates
with the highest number of votes fill these positions. This
means that in a four-member district, for example, one
would on average need only just over 20 per cent of the vote
to be elected. This system is used today only in Jordan and
Vanuatu, but is most often associated with Japan, which
used SNTV until 1993.
6. Parallel systems use both PR lists and single-member
districts running side-by-side (hence the term parallel). Part
of the parliament is elected by proportional representation,
part by some type of plurality or majority method. Parallel
systems have been widely adopted by new democracies in
the 1990s, perhaps because, on the face of it, they appear
to combine the benefits of PR lists with single-member
district representation. However, depending upon the design
of the system, Parallel systems can produce results as
disproportional as plurality-majority ones.
Proportional Representation Systems
All Proportional Representation (PR) systems aim to reduce
the disparity between a party's share of national votes and
its share of parliamentary seats. For example, if a major
party wins 40 per cent of the votes, it should also win around
40 per cent of the seats, and a minor party with 10 per cent
of the votes should similarly gain 10 per cent of the seats.
For many new democracies, particularly those that face
deep divisions, the inclusion of all significant groups in the
parliament can be an important condition for democratic
consolidation. Outcomes based on consensus-building and
power-sharing usually include a PR system.
Criticisms of PR are two-fold: that it gives rise to coalition
governments, with disadvantages such as party system
fragmentation and government instability; and that PR
produces a weak linkage between a representative and her
or his geographical electorate. And since voters are
expected to vote for parties rather than individuals or groups
of individuals, it is a difficult system to operate in societies
that have embryonic or loose party structures.
7. List PR systems are the most common type of PR. Most
forms of list PR are held in large, multi-member districts that
maximize proportionality. List PR requires each party to
present a list of candidates to the electorate. Electors vote
for a party rather than a candidate; and parties receive seats
in proportion to their overall share of the national vote.
Winning candidates are taken from the lists in order of their
respective position. This system is widely used in continental
Europe, Latin America and southern Africa.
8. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) systems, as used in
Germany, New Zealand, Bolivia, Italy, Mexico, Venezuela,
and Hungary, attempt to combine the positive attributes of
both majoritarian and PR electoral systems. A proportion of
the parliament (roughly half in the cases of Germany, New
Zealand, Bolivia, and Venezuela) is elected by plurality-
majority methods, usually from single-member districts,
while the remainder is constituted by PR lists. The PR seats
are used to compensate for any disproportionality produced
by the district seat results. Single-member districts also
ensure that voters have some geographical representation.
9. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) uses multi-member
districts, where voters rank candidates in order of preference
on the ballot paper in the same manner as Alternative Vote.
After the total number of first-preference votes are tallied, a
"quota" of votes is established, which a candidate must
achieve to be elected. Any candidate who has more first
preferences than the quota is immediately elected. If no-one
has achieved the quota, the candidate with the lowest
number of first preferences is eliminated, and their second
preferences are redistributed among remaining candidates.
And the surplus votes of elected candidates (i.e., those
votes above the quota) are redistributed according to the
second preferences on the ballot papers until all seats for
the constituency are filled. This system is well established in
Ireland and Malta.
Electoral systems for post-conflict societies
Electoral systems have important impacts upon politics in societies divided
along ethnic, religious, ideological or other lines. However, there is
disagreement as to which electoral systems are most appropriate for divided
societies. Options include:

Proportional Representation

Many experts argue that some form of proportional representation (PR) is
extremely important in post-conflict societies. This is based on the need to
ensure that all significant segments of the population are represented fairly in
the legislature, and on the empirical relationship between proportional
electoral rules and oversized or power-sharing coalition governments. PR
elections are the simplest form of election to run, as they can utilise one
national ballot paper and do not require the demarcation of constituencies.

For this reason, most major transitional and post-conflict elections in recent
years have utilized some form of PR. Transitional elections in Namibia (1989),
Nicaragua (1990), Cambodia (1993), South Africa (1994), Mozambique
(1994), Liberia (1997), Indonesia (1999), Bosnia (1996,1998, 2000), Kosovo
(2001) and East Timor (2001) were all conducted under proportional
representation rules. In particular, the simplest form of proportional
representation -- party-list PR appears to have become the de facto norm of
UN parliamentary elections.

However, national PR systems also have some disadvantages, as they
provide little geographic link between voters and their representatives, and
thus create difficulties in terms of accountability and responsiveness between
elected politicians and the electorate. Many new democracies - particularly
those in agrarian societies - have much higher demands for constituency
service at the local level than they do for representation of all shades of
ideological opinion in the legislature. It has therefore increasingly been argued
in South Africa, Cambodia and elsewhere that the proportional systems used
at the first elections should be modified to encourage a higher degree of
geographic accountability by having members of parliament represent
territorially-defined districts and service the needs of a constituency.

A popular choice in recent years has therefore been for mixed electoral
systems, in which part of the legislature is elected at a national or regional
level by proportional representation, and part is elected at a local level from
single-member districts, so that both the proportionality and accountability are
maximised. For example, the August 2001 elections for East Timors new
constituent assembly used a mixed system, with 75 of the assemblys seats
elected on a nationwide basis by proportional representation, and 13 seats
(one for each district) elected by first-past-the-post.

Vote-Pooling Electoral Systems

An alternative approach to choosing electoral rules for deeply-divided
societies like Afghanistan is not to simply replicate existing divisions in the
legislature via proportional representation, but rather to choose electoral
systems which encourage cooperation and negotiation between opposing
political forces in the context of electoral competition.

Some electoral models used in divided societies such as the alternative vote
used in Fiji, or the single transferable vote used in Northern Ireland -- permit
(or even require) voters to declare not only their first choice of candidate on a
ballot, but also their second, third and subsequent choices. Voters rank-order
their ballot amongst all candidates standing. This encourages parties and
candidates to broaden their campaigns in the hope of picking up second or
third choice votes from outside their own core support block.

Also important in plural societies such as Afghanistan is the need to
encourage campaigning politicians to court voter support across ethnic lines.
Again, systems like the alternative vote and the single transferable vote can,
under certain circumstances, be a means of achieving this aim. Parties that
succeed in negotiating preference-trading agreements for reciprocal support
with others will be rewarded, thus strengthening the political centre. The
success of pro-peace forces at Northern Irelands breakthrough 1998
election was dependent to a significant extent on such vote-transfers towards
the moderate middle and away from extremists. Fiji, Estonia, Sri Lanka and
Papua New Guinea are other examples of countries in which vote-pooling
electoral systems have been used.
Explicit Recognition of Communal Groups
A third approach to elections and conflict management is to explicitly
recognize the overwhelming importance of group identity in the political
process, and to mandate this in the electoral law. Alternatives include:
Communal electoral rolls. This usually means that each defined "community"
has its own electoral roll, and elects only members of its "own group" to
parliament. Today, only Fiji continues to use this system, and it remains as an
optional choice for Maori voters in New Zealand.
Reserved seats for minorities: Many countries reserve a few seats for such
groups: e.g. India (scheduled tribes and castes), Pakistan (non-Muslim
minorities), Taiwan (Aboriginal community), Western Samoa (non-indigenous
minorities), etc. But such members may be viewed as "token"
parliamentarians, breeding resentment among the majority population and
increase mistrust between minority groups.
Ethnically mandated party lists. Some countries require parties to present
ethnically diverse lists of candidates for election. In Lebanon, for example, the
composition of each seat is divided in advance between different religious
groups. Electors thus choose on the basis of criteria other than ethnicity.
Singapore uses a similar system to increase the representation of its minority
Malay and Indian community.
"Best loser" seats. Finally, some countries assign seats to the "best loser"
from a specified ethnic community. In Mauritius, for example, four "best loser"
seats are allocated to the highest polling candidates of under-represented
ethnic groups in order to balance ethnic representation.
Presidential Electoral Systems
The preceding options have focussed on the electoral system used to elect
the legislature. However, the means of electing a President is equally
important, especially in ensuring that he or she is a truly representative figure
who commands majority support across the country.
Here, the choice of electoral system has a major impact. For example, under
a first-post-the-post (plurality) system, the winning candidate only has to gain
more votes than his rivals, but not necessarily an absolute majority of the
vote. In elections with many candidates, this can lead to a president being
elected by only a minority of the voters. Many countries therefore dictate that
their president be chosen in two rounds of voting, with a runoff between the
two top candidates if nobody gain an absolute majority in the first round.
However, this means that two elections have to be held in a short period of
time, which is a major administrative and logistical task.
One solution to this problem is therefore to have an instant runoff by using
the alternative vote for presidential elections, in which the second and third
choices of voters are taken into account if nobody gains an absolute majority
of first choice votes. This means that a second round of voting is not
necessary, as voters have already registered their second preference choice
in the first round. Countries such as Ireland and Sri Lanka use this system for
their presidential elections to make sure the winning candidate commands an
absolute majority (ie more than 50%) support from the voters.
Alternatively, arrangements which require a geographic spread of the vote
can by used. A number of African countries such as Nigeria and Kenya use
such distribution systems for their presidential elections to ensure that the
winning candidate gains support from different parts of the country. In Kenya,
for example, a successful candidate has to receive at least 25 percent of the
vote in at least five out of the eight provinces. Again, the intention is to ensure
the elected president to becomes a unifying figure representing all regions.
By contrast, presidential elections held under a first-past-the-post system are
prone to result in minority victors and more likely to produce outcomes in
which the victor's support comes primarily from one geographic and/or ethnic
region. This electoral systems should thus be avoided for presidential
elections at least.

3 February 2003