Apparently, the APRA leaders of the Peruvian congress are reading my blog, because as I suggested yesterday in my posting about Peruvian constitutional reform, they've decided to take up the issue of doing away with the preferential vote. If I understand correctly, were this to pass, it would mean the country would be adopting a straight proportional representation electoral rule.
For you non political scientists out there, what this means is that voting districts are big and have more than one representative, and within each big district, congressional seats are allocated to parties based on the percentage of the vote they win. So, for example, the APRA wins 20% of the vote, it gets 20% of the seats, and if the Peruvian Nationalist Party wins 48% of the vote, they get 48% of the seats. Party leaders get to pick who takes a seat in congress, out of their long party list.
This is basically the same as what they do now, except that they have this "preferential vote" thing, in which voters get to indicate on their ballots who they would prefer to be seated from a given party. This sounds like a good idea (more democratic, etc.) but basically means that parties can't hold their representatives responsible for... well... anything, from breaking with the party line in an important vote to accepting bribes or selling government property for personal profit. This is because one of the things that party leaders can do to punish you is just not seat you in congress if they don't get enough votes.
"Sorry, Jaime. You voted against us on the budget, and you've been taking kickbacks on government contracts, and you're accepting narco-cash. So we're going to let somebody who's a little more reliable take your seat."
With the preferential vote, politicians don't need to listen to their party leaders, they just need to get a lot of votes at election time.
The end result is that systems like the one Peru uses now tend to be more corrupt than other systems. They also tend to be more wasteful, but that's a whole other bag of Pirate's Booty.
All of this still doesn't fix the ridiculous local electoral rules, but whatever. These reforms probably won't pass, anyways, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Bolivian Constitution
Just to follow up, it passed.
The Bolivians also passed a law that says that no individual can own more than about 20 square miles of land.
What's next, in the everlasting drama that is Bolivian politics?
The Bolivians also passed a law that says that no individual can own more than about 20 square miles of land.
What's next, in the everlasting drama that is Bolivian politics?
Happy Emily's Birthday/Bolivian Constitution Day!
Ultimately, we'll see how the vote goes down today--I haven't seen any public opinion polling, so I don't know with any degree of certainty what will happen. But Bolivia is voting on its new constitution today, which will probably pass, if Evo's 60+% vote in the most recent election--a recall referendum--is any sign.
Because I also know a little about Bolivian politics, a whole bunch of people have asked me what I think of Evo Morales, and the new constitution. Seems like pretty good fodder for a new blog entry, so here we go.
Evo Morales: Good or Bad?
I like Evo. First off, he's got great hair, and what's not to like about a guy who rose to power as the head of the coca-growers' union. Seriously.
There are some things about Morales that I don't like--journalists say they have a hard time in Bolivia because of the Bolivian government's attitude towards journalism, and the Bolivian Constitutional court has pretty much been dismembered through his term. That doesn't mesh with my own personal definition of good government, which carries something about respecting other government institutions.
That said, Evo has been carrying out a policy that caters to the poor, especially the rural poor. That is what you would expect from a guy that was elected by a majority (unusual in Bolivia), heavily influenced by the vote of the poor.
It's about damn time, folks. You can't have a democracy if the poor are excluded from the system, which was pretty much the way things were before his election.
In any event, there are good and bad things here--Evo is neither a saint nor a devil--but his isn't "ignorant," as his critics have often charged, and over the last couple of years, it would be hard to argue that Evo's policies themselves have been any more damaging to Bolivians than the rather extreme policies and rhetoric of the right in Bolivia, which sometimes seems to have more in common with the Black Helicopter People in the United States than, say, the Reaganites in the Republican party.
New Constitution: Good or Bad?
Good. Really good, if I understand correctly. But not for the reasons that the left and the right have argued over in recent months.
Mostly, the Bolivian constitutional debate has focused on the role of indigenous groups in the constitution, natural resources, regional autonomy, and a couple of other things which mostly seem to be codewords for "Who gets the natural gas money?" and "Who controls the system--the rich or the poor?"
Unfortunately, this is the way these issues are framed in Bolivia, which makes it difficult for there to be middle ground.
But the new constitution is important for another reason, which nobody seems to be talking about, probably because it's mostly the domain of nerdy political scientists and is a lot less glamorous than talkin about who gets the natural gas money.
Here's the important thing: Electoral rules.
If I understand correctly, the new Bolivian constitution will do two things that are really important.
First off, it will create a presidential runoff system (about damn time!). What this means is that if no party gets a majority, the two highest vote-getting candidates will run against one another in a second election. The guy/gal who wins this election becomes president.
This is much better than the old system, where any time a president failed to get a majority (every time except 2005, when Evo was elected), the president was picked by the congress, between the two highest vote-getters.
This meant that a small clique of powerful congressional representatives had more say over who became president than anyone else, and the people ended up having much less control over who they would elect.
The second important thing is legislative elections. Bolivia, like most Latin American party systems, has a president, but uses a (mostly) proportional system to elect their representatives. What this tends to do is create a lot of parties. But in the new constitution, the lower body of the legislature will be elected through a first past the post/single-member district plurality system, like we've got in the US. This will tend to narrow the number of parties, making it easier for people to make choices.
It may also help to produce a more stable party system, but that's another story.
There are some other things going on in Bolivian politics that may make it easier for the system to coalesce around a smaller number of parties--relatively popular former president Mesa, a center-rightist, is talking about running if the constitution passes. The right is talking about a single coalitition and a primary election. And pretty much the only major force to deal with on the left is MAS, Evo's party.
This could all be very helpful in stabilizing the system, and producing more moderate and more consistent policies that will help Bolivia develop. But we'll see.
Here's my prediction:
1. Constitution passes.
2. Mesa runs as the major candidate of the right.
3. Congress is elected under the new rules, and is inefficient, but something of a check on the election.
4. Whoever becomes president faces a divided legislature and is forced to pursue more moderate policies.
5. The Bolivian economy grows and inequality continues to decline.
But we'll see, eh?
On a more important note, happy birthday to Emily! Wish I could be there with her.
Because I also know a little about Bolivian politics, a whole bunch of people have asked me what I think of Evo Morales, and the new constitution. Seems like pretty good fodder for a new blog entry, so here we go.
Evo Morales: Good or Bad?
I like Evo. First off, he's got great hair, and what's not to like about a guy who rose to power as the head of the coca-growers' union. Seriously.
There are some things about Morales that I don't like--journalists say they have a hard time in Bolivia because of the Bolivian government's attitude towards journalism, and the Bolivian Constitutional court has pretty much been dismembered through his term. That doesn't mesh with my own personal definition of good government, which carries something about respecting other government institutions.
That said, Evo has been carrying out a policy that caters to the poor, especially the rural poor. That is what you would expect from a guy that was elected by a majority (unusual in Bolivia), heavily influenced by the vote of the poor.
It's about damn time, folks. You can't have a democracy if the poor are excluded from the system, which was pretty much the way things were before his election.
In any event, there are good and bad things here--Evo is neither a saint nor a devil--but his isn't "ignorant," as his critics have often charged, and over the last couple of years, it would be hard to argue that Evo's policies themselves have been any more damaging to Bolivians than the rather extreme policies and rhetoric of the right in Bolivia, which sometimes seems to have more in common with the Black Helicopter People in the United States than, say, the Reaganites in the Republican party.
New Constitution: Good or Bad?
Good. Really good, if I understand correctly. But not for the reasons that the left and the right have argued over in recent months.
Mostly, the Bolivian constitutional debate has focused on the role of indigenous groups in the constitution, natural resources, regional autonomy, and a couple of other things which mostly seem to be codewords for "Who gets the natural gas money?" and "Who controls the system--the rich or the poor?"
Unfortunately, this is the way these issues are framed in Bolivia, which makes it difficult for there to be middle ground.
But the new constitution is important for another reason, which nobody seems to be talking about, probably because it's mostly the domain of nerdy political scientists and is a lot less glamorous than talkin about who gets the natural gas money.
Here's the important thing: Electoral rules.
If I understand correctly, the new Bolivian constitution will do two things that are really important.
First off, it will create a presidential runoff system (about damn time!). What this means is that if no party gets a majority, the two highest vote-getting candidates will run against one another in a second election. The guy/gal who wins this election becomes president.
This is much better than the old system, where any time a president failed to get a majority (every time except 2005, when Evo was elected), the president was picked by the congress, between the two highest vote-getters.
This meant that a small clique of powerful congressional representatives had more say over who became president than anyone else, and the people ended up having much less control over who they would elect.
The second important thing is legislative elections. Bolivia, like most Latin American party systems, has a president, but uses a (mostly) proportional system to elect their representatives. What this tends to do is create a lot of parties. But in the new constitution, the lower body of the legislature will be elected through a first past the post/single-member district plurality system, like we've got in the US. This will tend to narrow the number of parties, making it easier for people to make choices.
It may also help to produce a more stable party system, but that's another story.
There are some other things going on in Bolivian politics that may make it easier for the system to coalesce around a smaller number of parties--relatively popular former president Mesa, a center-rightist, is talking about running if the constitution passes. The right is talking about a single coalitition and a primary election. And pretty much the only major force to deal with on the left is MAS, Evo's party.
This could all be very helpful in stabilizing the system, and producing more moderate and more consistent policies that will help Bolivia develop. But we'll see.
Here's my prediction:
1. Constitution passes.
2. Mesa runs as the major candidate of the right.
3. Congress is elected under the new rules, and is inefficient, but something of a check on the election.
4. Whoever becomes president faces a divided legislature and is forced to pursue more moderate policies.
5. The Bolivian economy grows and inequality continues to decline.
But we'll see, eh?
On a more important note, happy birthday to Emily! Wish I could be there with her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)