There are several discussions concerning the upcoming elections, with various individuals and groups voicing differing views. Even though proportional representation (PR) has been discussed for decades, smaller parties have recently begun to bolster this demand progressively. Over time, the political parties and even the governmental apparatus have probably been driving it. The call for a proportional election system has now resurfaced as part of the interim government’s ongoing reform agenda. But what does the system of proportional elections mean? What distinguishes this election system from Bangladesh’s traditional one? While some parties, such as Jamaat-e-Islami, the Communist Party of Bangladesh, and Gono Odhikar Parishad, want to begin proportional elections as soon as feasible, major parties like the BNP are opposing it. There are several types of this election system in 93 nations worldwide, according to the World Population Review.
Electoral system designers have devised several ways to achieve these proportional representations, so there are three basic kinds of PR described below: party list, mixed-member, and single-transferable vote (also called choice voting).
More than 80 percent of proportional representation systems worldwide are party-list voting systems, making them the most prevalent type. Both recently democratized nations like South Africa and many European democracies adopt this approach extensively. Each party submits a list of candidates equal to the number of seats up for election in party-list systems, which elect lawmakers from sizable, multi-member districts. Independent candidates are listed separately on the ballot and are eligible to run. On the ballot, voters select the party they support, and seats are distributed according to the percentage of votes each party receives. There are two main types of list systems: closed list and open list. In a closed list system, voters cast their vote for a party, and the party determines the order in which candidates are elected, meaning voters cannot choose individual candidates. Conversely, an open list system allows voters to express preferences for both a party and specific candidates within that party, providing greater voter influence in candidate selection.
Mixed-member proportional representation is known by several other names, including the additional member system, compensatory PR, the two-vote system, and the German system. It is an effort to combine a proportional voting system with a single-member district system. In single-member district plurality elections, half of the legislature’s members are chosen. To ensure that each party has the proper number of seats in the legislature, the other half are chosen by a party list vote and added to the district members. Proponents contend that mixed-member proportional voting combines the fairness and diversity of representation that come with PR voting with the geographic representation and strong constituency ties of single-member plurality voting, making it the best of both worlds. This system was originally invented in West Germany right after World War II, though since then it has also been adopted in several other countries, including Bolivia and Venezuela. It is still one of the least used PR systems, but in recent years, it has begun to garner a great deal of attention.
Around the world, the single transferable vote is referred to by many names. In the United States, it is called choice voting; in Australia, it is called the Hare-Clark system, and political scientists call it the single transferable vote. This system uses a vote-transfer procedure. Starting with a straightforward analogy could be the easiest way to comprehend how the transfer process operates.
Imagine a school where a class is trying to elect a committee. Any student who wishes to run stands at the front of the class, and the other students vote for their favorite candidates by standing beside them. Students standing almost alone next to their candidate will soon discover that this person has no chance of being elected and move to another candidate of their choice to help him or her get elected. Some of the students standing next to a very popular candidate may realize that this person has more than enough support to win and decide to stand next to another student that they would also like to see on the committee. In the end, after all of this shuffling around, most students would be standing next to candidates who will be elected, which is the ultimate point of this process.
Bangladesh uses the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system for elections. The winner of a seat in parliament is the candidate who receives the most votes in a constituency. The government is formed either by a coalition or by the political party that secures the most seats in parliament. The country’s current political system may be improved if the FPTP system is partially or completely replaced with the proportional representation system. This would allow for peaceful elections and more free, fair, and credible representation of voters in parliament through their elected representatives. A major criticism of the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system is its failure to represent a significant portion of the electorate. For example, in Bangladesh’s 2001 elections, the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) received 40.97% of the votes but won 190 out of 300 seats, while the Awami League, with 40.13%, secured only 62 seats.
In a proportional representation (PR) system with four parties competing for 300 seats, if Party A receives 50% of the votes, it will secure 150 seats; Party B with 30% will obtain 90 seats, while Parties C and D, each with 10%, will get 30 seats. This system allows even parties with minimal support to gain representation. In the event of a member’s death, the respective party can fill the vacancy from its original candidate list or elect a new representative, eliminating the need for by-elections and reducing costs. To ensure adequate representation of women, parties could be required to submit two candidate lists: a general list and a reserved list for women. If 10% of the seats are reserved for women, parties nominating candidates would need to include two women for every ten candidates. For example, a party proposing 300 candidates would nominate 60 women, resulting in 60 women MPs without the need for separate elections, thereby simplifying the electoral process.
If the PR system is introduced, the provision of contests by independent candidates may be repealed. In the present FPTP system, a genuine, strong candidate may field a few fake or dummy independent candidates to obtain polling agents for them and to control polling stations for them. Individual candidates in constituencies may resort to multiple malpractices to win at any cost, whether voters support them or not. In the PR system, one cannot do that for more than one seat. Originally, one could contest all 300 seats under the constitutional provision. Then, by the 1984 amendment of the Representation of the People Order (RPO), 1972, it was made five seats. By further amending the RPO in 2008, it was made into three seats. There was no rationale for it.
If such a system (PR) is implemented, it will eliminate numerous common practices, including bribery, violence in and around voting places, ballot snatching, ballot stuffing, manipulation, and the use of force and money. There won’t be the burden of keeping up with 300 constituents anymore. Another significant benefit of the system will be the significant reduction in the difficulties associated with local nomination submissions across the nation. The capital city of Dhaka will receive nominations, which can be made online or in person. Every voter will have a representative in parliament. These days, a party can create a government with just 25% of the total votes. In the PR system, that never takes place.
Bangladesh needs to amend its constitution if it wants to hold elections under the PR system. However, since there is no longer a parliament, many will doubt the constitution if it is broken by circumventing it. The support of at least the main parties, if not all of them, is necessary for the PR system to succeed. The electoral process will be somewhat improved if an agreement is obtained and the PR system is implemented.
This approach is criticized in several ways, though. The senior leaders of the major parties will benefit and the younger leaders of the new party will fall behind if the party’s list of MPs is made public sooner. However, people may get suspicious if the list of MPs is not made public beforehand. Because there is a probability that those parties have the power to choose members of parliament who are financially dishonest or engaged in terrorist operations after winning an election.
The Election Commission’s projection indicates that there were over 121.7 million voters in Bangladesh overall in 2024. Small parties find it challenging to receive 2.4–3.6 million votes or 2/3 of the seats. A large, multi-religious, and populous nation like Bangladesh or India, according to many analysts, will not benefit from this approach. Minority groups will remain behind. Furthermore, a lot of individuals are also concerned about the potential establishment of a religion-based governmental system. For instance, the PR approach has not previously been endorsed by any public or private program of Jamaat-e-Islami’s politics. Consequently, the party’s abrupt stance has raised many questions, doubts, and interest.
Furthermore, the PR approach was brought about by the impact of socialists in Sri Lanka, Kenya, Brazil, and South Africa, as well as Maoists in Nepal. However, the first query is: Is Jamaat-e-Islami a socialist organization? Does the party intend to guarantee the representation of ethnic minorities, religious minorities, and marginalized women? Secondly, if socialist idealism is the driving force behind the approach, why haven’t Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Costa Rica, the former Vietnam, the Soviet Union, East Germany, and Eastern Europe adopted it? Thirdly, are nations that use the approach exhibiting positive and model government experiences overall? Has the approach improved state administration and governance? Have members from underrepresented populations been able to reach the parliament through the electoral process? Has the establishment of social equality, equity, justice, and fairness been made feasible by the presence of representatives from different parties?
Unfortunately, the response is a resounding “no.” Except for slight physical adjustments, this strategy did not result in any notable changes in any nation. In all nations, the method has made administration more complicated. Attempts to change the constitution have been repeatedly delayed since Nepal switched to the PR system. The Nepalese constitution is still fragile. The parliament is divided as a result of the representation of so many small, new party lawmakers. ‘Deep Political Fragmentation’ has been observed by political scientists. International reports and Nepali newspapers have been highlighting the mess that Nepal has become for almost ten and a half years!
A monograph titled “Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America” was released by Stanford University in 1995. In the two or three decades following World War II, Latin American nations were frantic to flee military takeovers and authoritarianism, as the book, which was edited by Scott Mainwaring and Timothy Scully, demonstrates. The Latinos, therefore, started to view the PR method’s proposed formula as defensive. In the mid-1960s, socialist ideas started to spread throughout Latin American nations. However, Brazil introduced a numerically proportional system, a mixture of presidential and parliamentary systems. In this book, researchers on Brazil show that due to the PR method, Brazil has fallen into the cycle of formation and collapse of coalition governments one after another, and democracy has gradually weakened.
In First World nations, it is nearly impossible to impose the kind of constitutional tyranny that we have witnessed in Bangladesh. The smallest failure can lead to the resignation of ministries, MPs, and even the government there. In the face of popular demand, a head of state like Angela Merkel might go from being extremely popular to declaring her voluntary retirement. Bangladesh is far from having such a great political culture, and it still lacks even the most basic political literacy. Thus, there is ample opportunity to consider the current utility of the PR system for Bangladesh.
Bangladesh’s public life is already disrupted by economic, political, and social pressures. That being said, “Is Bangladesh ideally situated to serve as a test site for this striking approach?”
[Photo by Syed Sazzadul Hoque, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
S.M. Sayem is a Dhaka-based foreign policy analyst who expertly combines sharp analysis with deep insights. With a trail of brilliance, his writings grace esteemed platforms like The Geopolitics, The Policy Digest, The Daily Observer, and Modern Diplomacy.
Read the full article here
