Party time!

A case for more representative elections

How strong is Malaysia's party system? The proof of the pudding was evident when the re-elected Sabah government collapsed within a month because of the defection of 40% of its lawmakers in 1994.

By Wong Chin Huat, The Nut Graph

AFTER the crisis in Perak and with the upcoming Penanti by-election, the question we need to ask is, whom does a legislative seat "belong" to? The elected representative or the party s/he represents? More specifically, who did the electorate vote for?

If the electorate voted for the candidate, then the seat "belongs" to him/her; and s/he can then choose whether and when to relinquish it. If, instead, the electorate voted for the party, then the seat "belongs" to the party, and the elected representative cannot take the seat with him or her when leaving the party.

This, really, is the crux of whether we should have an anti-hopping law. But whether we should have such legislation may be answered by asking ourselves if we want stronger party systems in Malaysia.

Fusion of power

Before we go further, let us recognise that modern parliamentary democracies are quite different from what is commonly perceived of it.

First of all, separation of power — which exists meaningfully only under a presidential system — is actually a myth in parliamentary democracies. What we have in a parliamentary democracy is a fusion of power between the legislative and executive branches. Both these branches are the direct and indirect product of the same legislative elections.

Secondly, because both the legislative and executive branches share the same basis of popular mandate, check and balance is made possible by allowing each branch to threaten to terminate the other.

A parliament may pass a motion of no-confidence to bring down an administration. Whether or not voted out by the parliament, an administration can dissolve parliament to go to poll. If the hands of either parliament or the administration are tied, one branch will be overpowered by the other.

The ceremonial head of state may justifiably withhold his/her consent to dissolve parliament only if the request comes from a minority government. This is common in countries where the political forces are fragmented.

Fresh elections may not be necessary in such cases to update the mandate since voters may continue to vote the same way. The solution, therefore, is to look for a new prime minister who can form a new coalition to govern.

However, the entire idea of parliamentarianism would be subverted if the ceremonial head of state (whether a constitutional monarch or ceremonial president) mutates into an executive head (an absolute monarch or an executive president) by depriving a majority government's option to dissolve parliament.

Thirdly, and most importantly, political parties are the mediator between the two branches. What we have are actually party governments, with little roles and room for individual parliamentarians to play.

READ MORE HERE: http://www.thenutgraph.com/party-time