ANTI-ELECTORAL REFORM HYSTERIA IS UNFOUNDED
Don’t cast your vote based out of fear this fall, Seth Klein and Vyas Saran write.
It is now clear that a core assertion the “No” side in the electoral reform referendum will endlessly repeat in the coming months is that proportional representation should be rejected because it will enable far-right or “extremist” political parties.
It is a spurious claim.
The likelihood that we will see extreme, right-wing parties gain a foothold in our province if British Columbians choose to embrace proportional representation this fall are virtually zero.
Throughout the past century, democracies around the world have wrestled with the scourge of far-right, fascist and xenophobic political parties whose prominence tends to ebb and flow with political and economic events. Their political “success,” however, has had nothing to do with the electoral system.
No electoral system has a monopoly on either preventing or fostering far-right parties, and those advancing claims to the contrary are merely cherrypicking examples to make mischief in this referendum.
Our current first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system is actually the exception — not the norm — among democratic countries.
Most democracies employ some form of proportional representation. There are really only four democracies that exclusively use FPTP: the U.S., the U.K., India, and of course, Canada. These countries have also been more apt to elect hard-right governments with false majorities that impose radical right-wing agendas.
Most recently, the U.S. elected Donald Trump under a FPTP system. In that case, Trump won with less of the popular vote than his opponent Hillary Clinton.
The U.S. Congress is also elected under FPTP, and the Republican Party (which currently commands majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives) arguably has an immigration policy platform that is as, if not more, anti-immigrant than any European government; The U.K. elected Margaret Thatcher with a false majority (she first won 100 per cent of the power with 44 per cent of the popular vote), the first hardcore neo-liberal government of the post-WWII era; India under FPTP most recently elected the Modi government with a false majority (100 per cent of the power with 31 per cent of the popular vote), whose Hindu nationalist BJP party is seen as neo-fascist by many. And then there is Canada. Our antiquated FPTP system has given false majorities to the likes of Stephen Harper, Gordon Campbell, Mike Harris, and most recently Doug Ford, all of whom received 100 per cent of the power to impose their austerity agendas.
In some cases, conservative parties elected under FPTP have quietly accommodated ultra-right elements within their big tents, granting these tendencies considerable power within our existing system (witness Trump’s inclusion of alt-right elements within his Republican government, or the Harper government’s dogwhistle appeals to anti-immigrant tendencies).
So it’s worth considering: What is better — knowing what power these far-right groups have because we can count their electoral seats and read the terms of a minority government policy program in black-and-white (as occurs under proportional representation), or having these groups lurk in the shadows of big-tent conservative parties without knowing how much political clout they wield?
This is not to suggest that FPTP inherently produces more hard-right governments. But rather, contending that FPTP will somehow save us from far-right political elements is rubbish.
What encourages the emergence of far-right parties?
The more relevant point is, historically speaking, whenever we have seen the emergence of far-right and neo-Nazi parties, it is clear they are a product not of the electoral system, but of neoliberal policies and austerity.
This was most infamously true of Germany int he 1930s when Hitler’s National Socialist (Nazi) party capitalized on the humiliations that came with punishing economic reparations and depression after the First World War. In the 1980s, the U.K. saw an upswing in neo-Nazi movements under Thatcher’s cuts. More recently, in Greece, the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party has made political gains (winning seven per cent of the vote in 2015) in the face of punishing austerity imposed by Greece’s debt holders.
There are proportional representation countries like Austria, Hungary and Poland where farright political parties have won disturbingly high seat counts.
But these countries don’t have an electoral system problem, they have a neo-Nazi problem, or they have right-wing populist parties that would likely win regardless of the electoral system.
Some European countries are wrestling with a rise in anti-immigrant, right-wing parties. But this is driven by the largest refugee crisis since the Second World War (combined with austerity policies that leave people susceptible to scapegoating), not by the electoral system. With a few exceptions, their political systems are keeping these despicable parties at bay.
For example, in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom came in second in their most-recent election, but the other parties have joined forces to keep it sidelined.
Politics and platforms matter much more than electoral systems when it comes to scuttling the far-right.
So where does this leave us in B.C. as we decide what electoral system to embrace?
First, we really have nothing to fear.
This choice will not determine if our politics are about to be taken over by far-right or other extremist elements. If B.C.’s political culture has managed to avoid neo-Nazi and other radical fringe parties — which it thankfully has — that’s not going to suddenly change if we choose a new electoral system.
Second, with the three proportional representation options that will be on the ballot this fall, the new system will require that a party receive at least five per cent of the vote provincewide to be able to win a seat. This minimum threshold provides a safeguard against fringe parties getting into the legislature.
So there is no need to vote from a place of fear this fall. Vote for what you want. And then liberate yourself to vote your conscience from then on.
This is not to suggest that FPTP inherently produces more hard-right governments. But rather, contending that FPTP will somehow save us from far-right political elements is rubbish.