Much hand-wringing has resulted since Hamas, a group on the Bush
administration's terrorist list, won a sizable majority of legislative seats
in the recent Palestinian elections. But the planners of the elections could learn a thing or two from the recent Iraqi elections.
The problem is that the electoral system used for the Palestinian elections gave grossly unrepresentative results in which Hamas won nearly a super-majority of seats even though they did not win even a majority of votes. If the Palestinians had employed the electoral methods used in Iraq and in many other democracies around the world, the story would have turned out very differently.
The Palestinian elections used a combination of a U.S.-style winner-take-all
electoral system and a more European-style proportional voting system. Palestinian voters had a vote for their favorite political party (the proportional vote) and votes for individual candidates (the winner-take-all vote). Unfortunately, the winner-take-all part broke down, and Hamas won way
more seats than their votes should have given them.
Look at the actual results. In the proportional vote, which is a national vote and therefore the best measure of the overall support for each political party, Hamas won about 45 percent of the popular vote and about the same percentage of seats -- 30 of 66 -- no majority there. The incumbent
party, Fatah, won 41 percent of the popular vote and 27 of 66 seats, only three behind Hamas.
So the election was actually quite close, and if those were the only election results, Hamas would not have won a majority of seats and would have needed to form a coalition with other political parties. A likely
possibility is Hamas would have formed a grand coalition with Fatah, which
would have provided a stable transition.
Instead, the winner-take-all seats, which are allocated by local districts,
completely threw the election to Hamas. Though Hamas and Fatah had nearly equal support nationwide, Hamas won 46 of 66 seats, 70 percent in the winner-take-all districts and Fatah won only 16 district seats.
Overall, Hamas won a stunning 58 percent of legislative seats even though their national support was only around 45 percent. It was a tragic breakdown of the electoral system. Instead of talking about negotiating a coalition government for the Palestinians, the talk now is about picking through the
shards, figuring how to salvage the road map to peace.
It didn't have to be this way. The designers of democracy in Palestine had
only to look to neighboring Iraq to figure out how to design a better method that would have produced more representative results and provided more stability for the peace process.
On Dec. 15, Iraq held its second election, with Iraq's 18 provinces electing
275 members of parliament using a proportional voting method. Each political
party was awarded legislative seats in direct proportion to their vote in
each province. Because of Iraq's proportional method, when the dominant
Shiite party failed to win a majority of the popular vote, they also failed to win a majority of legislative seats. Surely if they had used a winner-take-all method like that used in the Palestinian elections, the
Shiite bloc would have won a strong legislative majority even though they
lacked a popular majority.
Instead, now the Shiites in Iraq are forced to negotiate with their
legislative partners, including the Sunnis and Kurds, producing a government that preserves the fragile consensus in Iraq.
It is really a shame that for all the billions of dollars in aid poured into
Palestine, no one had the sense to make sure the elections were conducted using a method like that used in Iraq that would guarantee representative results.
Various political analysts are saying Hamas' victory is a disaster built on
short-sighted policies by the Palestinians, Israel and the United States. The truth is a bit more mundane. Hamas' overwhelming victory is the result of a poorly designed electoral system. Unfortunately, when you are trying to jump-start democracy, the devil is in the details.
Copyright 2006, The Hartford Courant
Join the Conversation
Please log in below through Disqus, Twitter or Facebook to participate in the conversation. Your email address, which is required for a Disqus account, will not be publicly displayed. If you sign in with Twitter or Facebook, you have the option of publishing your comments in those streams as well.
Your tax-deductible gift will help bring promising new voices and ideas into our nation's discourse, and help shape the future of vital public policies.
Join the Conversation
Please log in below through Disqus, Twitter or Facebook to participate in the conversation. Your email address, which is required for a Disqus account, will not be publicly displayed. If you sign in with Twitter or Facebook, you have the option of publishing your comments in those streams as well.