Research stating pro-rep benefits is out of date
Far-right parties have gained power, writes Caroline Elliott.
Amid competing claims about proportional representation, Douglas Todd’s column last Monday looked at scholarly research to shed light on the issue. He refers to Arend Lijphart’s Patterns of Democracy to conclude that prorep would be good for B.C.
However, a word of caution is necessary before we apply a broad assessment of 36 diverse nations to the B.C. case and assume outcomes will be the same.
Much has changed since Lijphart undertook his analysis of 2010 data. In Germany, the rightwing populist Alternative for Germany party hadn’t even been founded. Today, it is the largest opposition party in the Bundestag.
In Austria, the far-right Freedom Party was only just re-emerging after years of decline. Today, it enjoys significant influence as the junior partner in government with the Austrian People’s Party.
And in New Zealand, the anti-immigration New Zealand First Party had just failed to win even a single seat in parliament. Today, they are a major force in New Zealand politics.
While I agree with Todd that cherry-picking examples is not a good approach to research, focusing on cases most similar to our own is reasonable.
New Zealand is particularly applicable as it shares our colonial heritage, Westminster model of parliament, and long-standing democratic rule. It is especially pertinent as New Zealand moved to pro-rep in 1996, allowing a before-and-after analysis.
Peter Loewen of Toronto’s School of Public Policy analyzed the New Zealand case as it relates to Canada. He looked at the last seven elections there under first past the post, and the first seven elections after their transition to pro-rep.
Pro-rep legitimizes these views by giving them a greater number of seats and disproportionate influence over policy.
Loewen identified an increase in the number of political parties winning seats under prorep. In B.C., the pro- and anti-pro-rep camps differ on whether this would be good. The pro side says this means more perspectives will be represented. But, consistent with concerns expressed by the anti-pro-rep side, Loewen explains that “small parties can be given disproportionate influence over policies.”
Regarding voter participation, Loewen found that turnout in New Zealand elections declined since the introduction of pro-rep, and suggests “this should give pause to those who claim that PR has any large-scale effects on voter turnout.”
And counter to claims we will be happier with pro-rep, Loewen found that New Zealand’s voter satisfaction “has never approached the high observed in the last election under (FPTP).”
Loewen also looked at the tendency of political parties to exploit social divisions, going beyond New Zealand to compile a list of 15 western countries with the largest foreign-born populations (Canada ranks fourth). His analysis is particularly relevant as it involves countries similar to Canada in that they are “free, democratic, tolerant, liberal and developed.”
Among these countries, Loewen found that “those with PR systems are more likely to have parties who exploit the social division of immigration, and who are more successful in doing it.” Specifically, the average seat-share of anti-immigrant parties in pro-rep countries is 10 per cent. In majoritarian countries like ours, it is 100 times lower.
This brings me to my primary complaint with Todd’s column: In refuting claims that pro-rep will lead to more extremism in our politics, he cites Salomon Orellana, who found that “citizens in countries with (PR) systems are not more likely to hold anti-immigrant views.”
Pro-rep opponents are not claiming that prorep will cause citizens to hold anti-immigrant or other extreme views. What pro-rep opponents claim is that pro-rep legitimizes these views by giving them a greater number of seats and disproportionate influence over policy. Loewen’s work shows this to be true.
There is no shortage of research for and against pro-rep and I’m pleased to see the referendum debate make use of some of it. Based on my review of the issue, I’m voting to keep FPTP.