Peruvian Constitutional Reform

The Peruvian congress, today, is debating a series of constitutional reforms, including (probably most importantly) the introduction of a bicameral congress (there is only one house, presently) as well as a couple of other reforms, including when the members of the national bank are elected.

You can read about it (in Spanish) here.

None of this is really what Peru needs. I'm not sure what the perceived problem with unicamerality is... Not sure it really makes that much of a difference. What they really need to do down here is adopt a closed-list proportional representation system, or a first past the post system, either to generate some sort of long-term party discipline (and thus, party stability) or limit the choices of people in each election district, to make it a little easier to pick someone who will do a good job for them.

The adoption of a nationwide FPTP system would be particularly helpful, over the long term, at the local level, if it would narrow the number of parties competing in local elections, thus making it easier for mayors to win a majority of the vote (or something near a majority), and allowing voters to get their way. Usually, under the current system, mayors win with about 20% of the vote (80% having voted against them), and their party assumes control of the municipal council as well (they automatically get 50% +1 seat in the municipal councils).

This means that there isn't much in the way of checks and balances.

If the country adopted a FPTP system, and the number of parties narrowed to something near two (in each district), mayors would need to earn something near 50% of the vote to assume office. This would mean that it would be less likely for mayors following a clientilist strategy (trying to buy 20% of the district's vote, for example) would be successful. The result would be that more mayors would follow a median voter strategy, which suggests less corruption...

Another way to achieve the same objective (and probably a more direct way) would be to adopt normal, proportional rules for the election of municipal councils, which would force mayors to work with a coalition of municipal council members in making policy.

But this constitutional reform shows the misperception that most policy-makers (and citizens) have about the importance of different levels of policy. They tend to think that national level politics are the most important (and that the structure of congress, etc. makes a great deal of difference). In fact, however, to the extent that there is a state presence in much of Peru, that presence typically comes in the form of local government, which means that a focus on local government structure has the potential to do much more to help the average citizen than any national government reform.

This is also true, I think, in the states.

Moral of the story? Know your local government politicians and candidates, and vote in local elections.