Electoral reform needs citizens and MPs in the same room
Andy Burnham announced a National Commission at Labour Party Conference (Alamy)
4 min read
Whoever designs the electoral system holds power over who holds power. That’s why the commission Andy Burnham has promised can’t be left to politicians alone, and why it can’t ignore them either.
In his first speech at the Labour Party Conference, Burnham made a surprise commitment to establish a new national commission on electoral reform. MPs and campaigners have already put forward a model of how this could work, setting out ideas for its structure, composition and timelines. But in designing the process the Prime Minister will need to think about how he can balance different elements and interests to deliver a truly collaborative approach.
To be legitimate, the national commission must have a role for citizens
The electoral system underpins our whole political system of parliamentary democracy. It determines what choices voters get, how they vote and ultimately who gets power. Decisions over how it works shouldn’t be left exclusively to those who currently hold it.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Fair Elections is absolutely right to propose a public deliberation element for the National Commission. There is strong expectation that the public should have a role in major constitutional changes; proposed changes to the national voting system in 2011 were put to a referendum. But referendums are not the only, or necessarily the best way to consult the public. Only 42 per cent of voters turned out for the 2011 vote, which offered only a binary choice between the status quo and the alternative vote, with no truly proportional systems on the ballot paper.
This time, there are a range of options on the table - Single Transferable Vote, Additional Member System, Proportional List systems, and variants of each - with different strengths and weaknesses. With no clear consensus, even amongst proponents of electoral reform, this question would lend itself to a deliberative process, in which citizens could learn about the options, consider the trade-offs, and express their view on which is the best system for the UK.
The Prime Minister will also need to build support amongst MPs
Parliament will remain a key player; implementing a change in the electoral system will require legislation to be passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Prime Minister already knows this won’t be easy. He is already facing backlash from his own party, indeed his own Cabinet, who remain sceptical of the virtues of electoral reform.
He will need to try and build a consensus cross-party too. Constitutional reform pursued on the basis of partisan support remains vulnerable to reversal. The last Conservative government undid Labour’s decision to use the alternative vote for electing mayors, changing it to first past the post. While complete consensus will be unattainable, efforts to build broad-based support are essential for lasting change.
The Commission should bring these two conversations together
The danger is a process that wins public trust and then loses Parliament. There is a real and present risk that the well thought through, carefully balanced conclusions of a citizens assembly could be torpedoed by opaque political negotiations once that process has concluded. This could be more harmful to public trust and legitimacy of the process than had they not been consulted at all.
This risk is compounded by the fact that large-scale deliberative exercises remain largely unfamiliar on big national issues, many MPs remain sceptical of their value. Those that disagreed with its conclusions would almost certainly question its process, particularly if excluded in the name of methodological purity.
One option to address this would be to bring together citizens and parliamentarians to deliberate on the options for electoral reform. The Commission could follow a similar model to the first Irish Constitutional Convention whose recommendations paved the way for marriage equality in Ireland. Its membership included 29 members of the Oiereachtas, four representatives of Northern Ireland political parties, and 66 randomly selected citizens.
This would require careful management. There would need to be agreement on the appropriate party balance, facilitators would need to ensure parliamentarians did not dominate deliberations, and safeguards would need to be in place to ensure citizens were not unduly influenced. But it could also bring benefits: parliamentarians would hear the views of their fellow citizens first-hand; it could build cross-party trust in the legitimacy of the process; and create powerful parliamentary advocates for the shared conclusions of the Commission.
Get this balance right, and electoral reform could be a settlement the public trusts and Parliament will defend. Get it wrong, and it becomes another promise left on the shelf.
Jess Sargeant is Director of Policy at Demos
