The future of Welsh democracy is under threat. There is no doubt that the Welsh Senedd should be bigger if it is to do its job of scrutinising and challenging government decisions.
There is equally no doubt that the public at large is sceptical of the need for more politicians. People lack confidence that having more of them will really mean the Welsh government makes better decisions or better addresses their concerns.
Given that public mood, the move to enlarge the Senedd needs to be pursued with common sense and sensitivity. The electoral system, for example should be one that maximises the electorate’s freedom of choice and then reflects their preferences as closely as possible. The current proposals do exactly the opposite. They restrict the public’s range of choice. They say, in effect, you can’t vote for a person you can vote only for a party list. Moreover you can’t have a say who you favour on the list you just take what you’re given.
Read Next: Plans to increase the number of Senedd members move a step close
Want to vote for an independent? Want to split your vote across parties? Forget it. Who do you think you are? As a mere voter just put your cross against a bunch of party loyalists. You get to choose the party so what are you complaining about? See you in four years’ time.
You can see the attraction for party apparatchiks. The closed list system reinforces the power of existing parties and encourages discipline within parties as aspirants toe the line to ensure they get on the list. But it severely reduces the power of voters even relative to the current additional member system.
That is dangerous. Take an institution that has its enemies, increase its size in the face of public unease and then find the electoral system that is most likely to strengthen the feeling that the voter doesn’t matter and enlargement is all about jobs for the boys and girls. If you were trying to undermine public support for the institution it’s hard to think of a more efficient way of doing it.
So apart from an arrogant, purblind entrenching of vested interest why on earth is Labour proposing it and why did Plaid Cymru agree?
The only argument that has been advanced is that the system ensures gender equality. The party lists are “zipped” alternating male and female candidates so each successful list will automatically result in equal gender representation in the Senedd. But if parties put forward equal numbers of men and women as candidates, the evidence is that you get broadly equal numbers elected anyway. Is it wise to restrict voter choice in order to force a precise equivalence? Isn’t that putting statistical precision in opposition to democratic choice?
Let’s unpick this further. Suppose the voters, left to themselves voted in a disproportionate number of women? Too many women - would we be alarmed? Of course not, but that is an option we deny to both women and electors with closed, zipped lists. You have to be proportionate and no more. In only a few countries, like Cuba and Bolivia, is there is a majority of women in Parliament but why do we want to foreclose on such an evolution here?
The desire to ensure a proportionate number of women members is a legitimate reaction to an historical situation where women have been under-represented. Progress has been achieved in Wales and in Nordic countries by political parties ensuring a balance in the candidates they put forward.
This has resulted in women being over 40 per cent of legislators and half the Cabinet in Wales and Norway, for example. ( Norway has never elected women to 50% of parliamentary seats as Wales has, though unlike Norway Wales has yet to elect a woman First Minister).
It is surely a positive feature of modern politics that there is a drive to ensure the adequate representation of groups previously subjected to negative stereotypes and under-representation. There is a number of such groups: ethnic minorities and homosexuals are two other conspicuous cases. There is an onus on political parties not to discriminate against such groups and to see that they are properly represented among candidates. But trying to mandate that their representation is a precise reflection of their proportion in society at large quickly leads to absurdity.
People are complicated. They are not defined by a single characteristic, even sexual orientation ethnicity or gender. The other characteristics of candidates may impel voters to elect more or fewer than a precisely proportionate number of women, gays or ethnic minorities.
We want people to be competent and honest too. As long as the gender or ethnic discrepancy (in either direction) is reasonable, insisting on numerical accuracy is, frankly, obsessive. If, as in the present case, it is achieved by the reduction of democratic choice it is dangerous.
Fair representation is important when groups have distinct interests compared with the rest of society. We don’t bother about the equal representation of green-eyed people because we have no reason to think they have group interests that diverge from those of society at large.
Groups that suffer adverse discrimination, on the other hand, clearly do; they need the discrimination to be lifted, while the rest of society is not so affected. No-one represents a distinct group interest better than members of the group itself. That is a good and sufficient reason for being concerned that women and ethnic minorities are properly represented.
There are other groups too with distinct interests. The physically handicapped whether by deafness, blindness or other afflictions, have needs easily ignored by the rest of society. Should we not be anxious to see representation from those groups so long as they are able to serve?
We could go further. Some 13% of people are left-handed. They have to write from left-to right, the natural direction for most of us but inconvenient for them.
In many ways the world is set up for right-handers. Should we ensure that exactly 8 Senedd Members are left-handed? At that point most people would think that the drive for equal representation was taking them down a rabbit hole.
When obvious discrimination exists it must be opposed and equal opportunities created. But striving for statistically accurate representation of all groups with distinct interests must not be pushed to the point where it conflicts with the principle of democratic choice.
Of course we need diversity and leadership is sometimes necessary to move society away from obsolete or unfair attitudes. Yet leadership requires two-way communication and common sense.
Telling people they can’t vote for whom they like because they might not elect enough women is not a sensible democratic attitude when half the electorate are women.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I am not sure that the place of the Senedd in the affections of Welsh people is yet strong enough to survive that kind of prescriptive authoritarianism. The level of turnout in elections does not suggest it is. That is why Welsh democracy is in danger.
The greedy monopoly of party politicians and the fervour of radical special interests must be restrained. The Welsh people must put both back in their box to reclaim and preserve their own democratic institutions. That means closed lists must go. The “democratic centralists” in the Labour party have to learn to love the single transferable vote. It evidently goes against their instincts, but they must trust the people they claim to serve!
Read More: Welsh Government is not using the borrowing powers it has
