Govt has divisive PR plan

[zuluwarrior]

Govt has divisive PR plan

THE publication of the Report of the Trinidad and Tobago Constitution Reform Commission has sent an unmistakeable signal that the general election, constitutionally due in 2015, will be fought on the basis of proportional representation (PR), rather than the existing first past the post system.

Although the issue of proportional representation appears to have been innocuously introduced by the Constitution Reform Commission in chapter five of its report (Reforming the Parliament), nonetheless the chapter which follows demonstrates the commission’s preference for proportional representation.  Admittedly, chapter six —Reforming the Executive—deals with the choosing of a prime minister, but its wording, specifically in paragraphs 164-166, emphasises the commission’s decided leaning towards proportional representation.

Forget the specific question, that of choosing a prime minister, and instead examine the wording of paragraph 165:
“The system of election that should be used is one that will permit a mathematically accurate reflection of the wishes of the electorate...”  In turn, in paragraph 166, the phrasing is instructive:
“If a single party earns more than 50 per cent of the votes cast, then it will earn the proportionate number of seats and extract names from its list accordingly.”

The well publicised intent of the present People’s Partnership Government has been to do away with the traditional first past the post method and replace it with proportional representation, under which political parties contesting (usually) a general election will be apportioned seats in proportion to the votes they receive.  As of now only one Caricom country, Guyana, conducts its general election on the basis of proportional representation. 

The introduction of PR there was done in 1964 by the United Kingdom government. Guyana, then British Guiana, had been a colony of the United Kingdom and the British, urged on by the US  Central Intelligence Agency, did this to forestall the re-election of the Marxist, Dr Cheddi Jagan and his People’s Progressive Party, and have Jagan replaced by Linden Forbes Burnham, then leader of the Opposition People’s National Congress (PNC).

The advent of proportional representation in Guyana carried with it a strong appeal to ethnicity in this racially mixed society, as is Trinidad and Tobago, and Burnham’s PNC stormed home to victory after forming an alliance with the right wing United Force led by businessman, Peter D’Aguiar.  The PNC would later win the elections of 1968 and 1973 before it was ousted by Jagan’s People’s Progressive Party.  Perhaps I should state at this point that Burnham jettisoned the United Force following on his party’s victory at the 1964 polls.

What was and is unfortunate is that PR is institutionalised racism in ethnically mixed Guyana and has divided the country along ethnic lines. Should PR be implemented in T&T it can have the potential to do our twin-island state the injustice of cementing ethnic voting patterns. We cannot and must not allow this to happen. I have no doubt that the members of the Constitution Reform Commission have collectively acted in good faith.  Nonetheless, the People’s Partnership Government, judging by its several pronouncements in the past on PR, plans on introducing this sad lapse by fellow Caricom nation Guyana.

History will never forgive Forbes Burnham for exploiting PR, as in the long term interests of Guyana he could have initiated action and repealed the iniquitous legislation when Guyana became independent on February 23, 1970 and the country was declared, somewhat ironically, a co-operative republic.               

George F Alleyne
St Ann’s

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/letters/Govt-has-divisive-PR-plan-243016561.html

[asylumseeker]

Eternal vigilance.

[Tiresais]

PR is a much better system than first-past-the-post in my opinion - it doesn't have the same 'suppressive' impact on minority opinions for one.

[asylumseeker]

We're not interested in structurally diluting our democracy.

[Tiresais]

We're not interested in structurally diluting our democracy.

What do you mean? I'm not sure how Proportional Representation dilutes democracy?

[asylumseeker]

We're not interested in structurally diluting our democracy.

What do you mean? I'm not sure how Proportional Representation dilutes democracy?

So you understand the issue only partially or thoroughly superficially?

[Jah Gol]

When I get home.....

[lefty]

PR in the context of our democracy..especially as it stands today is no more than a cynical attempt by the govt to retain power by harnessing a slim ethnic majority coupled strong ethnic biases that exist to retain power nothing more...nothing less.........if u cyah win on yuh own merit change d rules...........steups 

[Tiresais]

We're not interested in structurally diluting our democracy.

What do you mean? I'm not sure how Proportional Representation dilutes democracy?

So you understand the issue only partially or thoroughly superficially?

Possibly so - what are the specific issues in Trinidad that would end up hurting it? Why do you always give 'one-liners' to put me down rather than explain yourself? I get it, I don't know enough, but I'm here and I want to learn. That would go quicker if you'd get off your high-horse.

[Brownsugar]

I have the hard copy of the report. 

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I know this bunch isn't interested in constitutional reform because it would benefit the country, but want to find a way so they could remain entrenched in the corridors of power in some way or another after 2015.......

Thank goodness they didn't get a special majority so they can't change the constitution just so and need opposition support.  If is one time I am behind the PNM 100% in not supporting this sham of "constitutional reform" is this time.......

[asylumseeker]

We're not interested in structurally diluting our democracy.

What do you mean? I'm not sure how Proportional Representation dilutes democracy?

So you understand the issue only partially or thoroughly superficially?

Possibly so - what are the specific issues in Trinidad that would end up hurting it? Why do you always give 'one-liners' to put me down rather than explain yourself? I get it, I don't know enough, but I'm here and I want to learn. That would go quicker if you'd get off your high-horse.

Spare me the victim-imbued Lilliputian narrative. No one is galloping condescendingly from above, trampling you underfoot. What a magnified response.

My comment to you is in regard of the substance. In the age of high speed data availability, I don't expect to hold your hand to each self-ascertainable mini-conclusion. The root of "this" lies in your penchant for posting in an assumptive and presumptive stream of consciousness that vacillates to a Socratic journey laden with apology and a lack of accountability. I'm exhausted from counting your retractions.

With respect to the issue, I'm not commenting as theoretical adventure. I'm commenting with respect to the tangible implications for T&T. You've been to T&T. I'm stunned that you would make the theorized assertion you made (viz. suppressive impact on minority opinions) and then ask me to explain in the face of having visited the country.

I expect rigour, not victimology.

[asylumseeker]

For the benefit of all ...

Article by Michael Delblond

http://m.guardian.co.tt/columnist/2012-05-07/pr-vs-first-past-post

At the Marlborough House Conference which determined our Independence Constitution, Prime Minister Dr Eric Williams led the Government delegation and Dr Rudranath Capildeo led the parliamentary opposition delegation. According to an audio/video record, Sir Ellis Clarke reminisced that at the conference he was seated between Williams and Capildeo, as a buffer, so to speak. He further alluded to the fact that Capildeo was guilty of making a number of unprintable comments, but he thought that Williams may not have heard them due to the position of his (Williams’s) hearing aid.

However, when the negotiations apparently reached a stalemate, Williams turned directly to Capildeo and said, Sir Ellis’s exact words, “We are the only two intelligent people in the room, so I don’t see why we can’t get together and sort things out.” They both got together in a tête-à-tête and at the end of it there was “plain sailing.” I’m not aware of any record of how the discussion went or what were the concessions made on either side. But I presume that Capildeo’s fears may have been allayed somewhat. It appears that Williams conceded to Capildeo’s choice of Chief Justice, in the person of Sir Hugh Wooding, whose stature was generally admitted across the board.

On his retirement, Sir Hugh was once again prevailed upon to take Williams’s “chestnuts out of the fire” by assuming the thankless role of chairman of the Constitution Review Commission. Dr Selwyn Ryan was a member of the Wooding Commission. Some time ago, Prof Ryan may well have sounded an alert, in one of his weekly newspaper columns, when he opined that T&T in fact already has an “executive presidency” which masquerades as if it were an expression of the Westminster model with all its assumptions about ministerial and collective responsibility and accountability and (ultimate) accountability to Parliament.

Such concern is not necessarily of recent vintage, as the framers of our post-Independence Constitution seemed not to have taken into account the lacunae in our Constitution, adumbrated against the background of our peculiar social and political realities, which allowed, and perhaps facilitated, such an eventuality.

Dr Williams’s response to the Wooding report on constitutional reform was, to put it mildly, simply boorish, paranoid, with ad hominem attacks on the commissioners and the spurious suggestion that they were out to destroy his political party.

What, indeed, were the commission’s concerns? A major concern was “...the potential hegemonic nature of political parties that are perceived to be ethnically based.” 

If I may also add the apparently insensitive and accompanying tendency to display “triumphalism.” The proposals were designed to reduce the power of prime ministerial office and make the parliamentary composition reflective of and sensitive to the range of electoral support. Now, don’t ask me how it can be done but I am of the view that office does strange things to the incumbent and vice versa. So they need to be protected against each other and “we the people” also need to be protected against both.

The cornerstone of the commission’s proposals, as I understand it, was a judicious amalgam of the first-past-the-post and proportional representation electoral systems. Pure or modified forms of proportional representation could be the panacea for our political problems in respect of the perceived inability of the first-past-the-post system to produce a representative administration with the concomitant legitimacy and moral authority for governance.

On the other hand, proportional representation tends to spawn a multiplicity of ethnic, cultural, religious and other constituencies, which provide the breeding ground for all sorts of combinations and permutations of inherently fluid coalitions—thereby resulting in unstable “revolving door governments.”

Now there’s the rub. So what perspective should inform the parameters of constitutional reform? Should a proposed constitution acknowledge and reflect the societal faultiness, as they are, and set up institutions with the machinery for managing the ensuing tensions and conflicts that could otherwise tear the society apart?

Alternatively, should one focus on the larger vision, thereby creating institutions that, while acknowledging the legitimate societal divisions, do not institutionalise or legitimise divisiveness and antipathies. The hackneyed shibboleths of “national unity” and “one love” claptrap retrieved, opportunistically, from the political dustbin have, in my view, long lost their lustre as we have grown to discern that there’s a distinct difference between the inane platitude of “moving on the wings of political love” and expedient, opportunistic “love on the run.” Nuff said.

[asylumseeker]

The persistence of an ideal

Originally printed at http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/The_persistence_of_an_ideal-115313494.html
By Selwyn Ryan
February 4, 2011

Notwithstanding his anger at Dookeran and COP for breaking away from the UNC, Panday has deemed as being 'wrong' the fact that COP secured over 40,000 votes but won not a single seat. In Panday's mind and in the minds of many, this anomaly needs to be addressed. The mechanism for doing so, he believed, was proportional representation within the framework of a unicameral presidential system. One is however not clear why Panday has endorsed a presidential as opposed to the parliamentary system which we now have since proportional representation and an executive presidency are not ideologically liked. Panday needs to clarify his position.

This concern with achieving ethnic proportionality in the political system is an old one. It surfaced formally in 1921, four years after the ending of indenture, when a group calling itself the Indian National Congress, petitioned Major Wood, who was then visiting Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of the British government taking public testimony from the people on the question of the possible introduction of representative government. Major Wood was told that Her Majesty's government should enfranchise Indians as a single communal group.

Major Wood was not sympathetic to that proposal and counter argued that if such a concession were made to East Indians, it could not be withheld from persons of French, Spanish or Chinese identities. Also, doing so would perpetuate differences which it should be the objective of statesmanship to remove. Indians were also told that they should not stand apart from of the political mainstream of the country but should help guide its course. The matter remained there, but the sentiment remained.

Another formal demand for communal representation was made on the eve of Independence in 1962. The Hindu Youth Association told Her Majesty in a memorandum that the Ellis Clarke draft Constitution was 'dictatorial' and did not meet the needs of the society. It thus demanded communal parity or partition. As the HYA declared, 'this territory should be a Republic with a Negro President and an Indian Vice-President elected to office for a period of five years by the Negro and Indian communities respectively.

The "legislative authority should consist of 30 members elected and the seats should be divided (on the basis of race)—12 Negroes, 10 Indians and 8 Europeans and Chinese'. The executive authority should be vested in the President, the Vice President and a Council of Ministers comprising 5 Negroes, 3 Indians, 2 Europeans and Chinese. The Civil Service should comprise 45 per cent Negroes, 35 per cent Indians, and 20 per cent of the other minorities. This division is to be applied as far as possible in every grade."

What we had here was not a demand for proportional representation alone, but for communal power sharing, both vertical and horizontal. Fortunately, spokesmen for the DLP at the Marlborough House Conference were dismissive of the HYA whom they characterised as 'extremists' and 'cranks' who had weird ideas and who were prepared to 'destroy left right and centre' if they did not get what they wanted.

The demand for proportional representation was articulated before the Wooding Constitutional Commission by many spokesmen who argued that the first past the post winner take all system was an 'unfair' one. Wooding et al agreed, and recommended that the existing bi-cameral legislature should be replaced by a unicameral legislature elected on the basis of proportional representation, the same model being proposed by Mr Panday.

The Commission agreed that the First-Past-the 'Post system over-represented majority parties in that the latter got more seats than their percentage of the votes would justify, and also that it encouraged racial voting. The Commission's Report argued, 'the system tends to harden the pattern of racial voting.' It also discouraged small parties with a multi-ethnic base since voters did not want to waste their vote.

The Wooding Commission also felt that the mixed German PR model combined the best of the two classic Anglo-Saxon and European systems. Wooding's model divided the legislature into two groups.

Half would be chosen in the manner with which we were familiar, while the other half would be chosen from party lists submitted prior to the election. Following the election, each party would get a number of 'top up' seats based on the percentage of the votes it won in the general election, To discourage the flowering of too many small extremist parties, whether based on race, ideology or personality, a provision was inserted which excluded parties which did not win at least one seat or five per cent of the overall vote.

Dr Williams savaged the Report in an address lasting two parliamentary days. He not only attacked the substance of the Report but also shamelessly attacked the authors of the Report whom he said were spies in the pay of foreign governments.Williams directed withering political fire which he said had become a 'fetish'. According to Williams, many were now regretting that they had let the cat into the house. 'It is the albatross around their necks, and they cannot get it off'. Williams dismissed claims that proportional representation would serve to reconcile warring groups. It had not helped to achieve this goal in Northern Ireland, Belgium or Israel.

The five per cent exclusion rule in the mixed system had also not achieved the goal of securing electoral justice. It was not a 'complete solution' to the fairness problem. He also noted that voters did not always get what they voted for. The Party bureaucracy made most of the decisions. He alleged that proportional representation gives rise to excessive party fragmentation in places like Italy and Belgium, to 'coalitions of the weak', cabinet instability and in some cases like Belgium, communalism.

Williams claimed that the system did not really work well in West Germany and that it had been imposed on Germany by the victorious Russians and Americans who wanted to keep Germany subdued. Whether it deterred extremism or not depended on the underlying economic circumstances—and not on proportional representation itself. He argued that it only seemed to work in Germany for a while because of the dynamism of the post-war economy.

Williams claimed that half the countries which had adopted proportional representation wanted to get rid of it, but the small parties which are its beneficiaries and which are created by it in the first instance, naturally refused to give up the source of their strength. Williams' other criticism was that under proportional representation, 'real political decision making is obscured. Every coalition partner can shift the responsibility for compromises to the other part of the coalition'.

Williams' conclusion was that proportional representation privileges a particular theory of representation. The one-sided emphasis on 'justice' in the reflection of groups' pluralities isolates only a single aspect of representation. Governments must not only mirror constituents, but must also be able to make policy decisions. Williams argued that the Commission had failed to make a case for proportional representation and that there was a hidden agenda why it did not do so. "The implicit aim was the dissolution of the present PNM majorities".

Wooding et al had however made a point which was generally ignored at the time, viz, that the system currently in place privileged the PNM, but would not necessarily always do so as the demographics change. "A system which favours one group today may work against it in the near future.

A fair system which favours neither group must certainly be the better course".

[asylumseeker]

Persistence of an ideal —Pt 2

Originally printed at http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/Persistence_of_an_ideal__Pt_2-115302779.html
By Selwyn Ryan
February 4, 2011

Communal, proportional, or semi-proportional representation has consistently been on demand in one form or another during almost every election campaign that has been conducted in Trinidad and Tobago since the 1920s. The 1986 election was however an exception.

That dramatic event silenced demands for proportional representation in that it seemed to demonstrate that one did not need to make basic changes in the electoral system in order to achieve ethnic representativeness and justice. Every significant ethnic group seemed to be in the "one love" coalition. The "all ah we is one" sentiment did not last long, however. Before one could say Jack Robinson, the society reverted to the status quo ante.

Following the 1981 election, the demand for proportional representation resurfaced with a vengeance. The ONR had secured 91,700 votes (22.28 per cent) and won not a "damn seat". What galled many was that the PNM secured 26 seats of the 36 seats, the largest number it had ever won, while winning only 53.1 per cent of the popular vote (218,557).

Even more outrageous to the ONR crowd was the fact that the United Labour Front won a mere 62,781 votes (15.25 per cent) but secured as many as 8 seats. Clearly the electoral system had failed to produce a result that was fair and just; demands for electoral fairness increased.

Ironically, however, the electoral system overcorrected itself in 1986, and worked to the disadvantage of the PNM. The former ruling party won 32 per cent of the votes, but secured only three seats. (8.33 per cent) The newly-created NAR won 66 per cent of the popular vote and secured as many as 91.66 per cent of the seats. The PNM was made to pay the price for its obstinate refusal to consider any version of PR.

The matter was seriously debated by the Hyatali Constitutional Committee which was appointed in 1987 to consider that and other matters. The Committee was sharply divided on the issue.

I was a member of that Committee, and supported PR. The PNM remained flatly opposed, notwithstanding the thrashing it had got at the polls. The view which prevailed was that given the split in the NAR between its ULF and its ONR wings, the PNM would again emerge victorious in a three cornered battle, perhaps with less than 50 per cent of the vote.

That is in fact precisely what happened. The PNM got 232,900 or 45 per cent of the vote, and 21 seats; the UNC won 151,046 or 29 per cent of the votes and 36 per cent of the seats, while the NAR got 24.50 per cent of the votes (127,335) but no seats in Trinidad. It only secured the two Tobago seats. In sum, the ONR phenomenon, not a damn seat for them, had reasserted itself. There was much grief.

The Hyatali Committee had to decide what system could be devised for eliminating or substantially reducing the pathologies of the FTTP system without introducing other factors which might be even more undesirable. Given the fact that sentiment in favour of some form of PR was strong, and that the PNM was known to be stubborn, the committee decided that the status quo had to be modified, but only in a minimalist way. As the Committee put it, "we recognise that the rights of the majority must not be sacrificed to the whims of the minority, but it is patently unjust to deny minorities the right to have their views heard where it matters most.

In the end, the majority opted for putting PR in a bicameral senate, half of which was to be elected on a first past the post basis. Twelve of another 36 senators were to be chosen from a list on the basis of proportionality.

Twenty of the remaining 24 were to be allocated to the ruling party, while four were to be chosen by the President, choosing in his own discretion from among some of the major social and economic groups in the society. The logic of this peculiar division was that it would allow the ruling party to govern without obstruction while at the same time genuflecting to the principle of proportionality.

Three members of the committee dissented, repeating some of the criticisms which Dr Williams had raised in 1974 about the five per cent threshold. They argued that this defeated the logic of PR, which is that the percentage of the votes cast for each party and the percentage of seats secured by each party should be roughly the same. They complained that the elimination of parties that did not win at least five per cent of the total vote could increase the number of seats allocated to parties that won seats.

Notwithstanding the examples where the system has resulted in unanticipated and perverse outcomes, there continue to be voices who firmly believe that there is something fundamentally wrong about our electoral system which must be addressed. In their view, one could not continue to pretend that the ONR phenomenon, with its thousands of alienated detribalised citizens, would eventually go away. It is part of our demographic reality.

Mr Panday has argued that "PR would destroy racism in politics." That is unlikely to happen in the near future. It could improve or worsen race relations. While one wishes to avoid extreme outcomes that could occur if either classic FTPP, classic PR, semi-proportional representation or the Tapia influenced "Civil Society Senate" model (aka,the Macco Senate) are employed, one has to make choices from among systems all of which have imperfections. One has to decide which is the better of the two models from one's own understanding of the realities, and leave the unknown unknowns to the future.

Notwithstanding my own ambivalence, my inclination would be to retain the bicameral system and find a formula to respect the concerns of the alienated citizenry in our midst who could never again vote either PNM or UNC, and introduce an element of proportionality into the Senate as Sir Ellis Clarke sought to do in his most recent proposals.

In those proposals, 18 seats were to be selected on the basis of PR while 31 would come from local government bodies, a compromise which the PNM flatly refused. Clarke argued that electing the entire Senate on the basis of PR would make it too much of a mirror of the lower house.

Under Clarke's formula, the possibility remains that ruling parties could completely dominate the Senate, though the dynamics of politics could generate "perverse results". In the final analysis, however, as we argued last week, the best approach is that which recognises that an arrangement which favours one group today may work against it in the future.

The political system is now very fluid and dynamic and tribalism seems to be in remission. The population also seems to be united in resistance to the status quo, even if temporarily, and we could well witness a termination of the PNM's half century long hegemony, Panday (I'homme fatal) notwithstanding.

[asylumseeker]

The Return of Proportional Representation

Originally printed at http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/The-Return-of-Proportional-Representation-224747052.html
By Selwyn Ryan
September 22, 2013

Proportional Representation returned once more to the debating chambers of Parliament.

The debate was noisy, and many might have wondered what the drama was all about.

The hoary issue arose way back in 1961-1962, and had to do with the concerns of Indo-Trinidadians who felt that they were being marginalised as the country proceeded to independence.

Extremist elements demanded “parity or partition”, and voiced their concern at the Marlborough House Conference in 1962.

As the Indian National Association expressed it: “We the Indians, must demand parity with the Negroes in government, in the Civil Service, in the Police and every aspect of government. If there are thirty seats in the House, we insist on having 15. If there are 12 Ministers, we demand six. We demand that 50 per cent of the jobs in the Civil Service be given Indians, and 50 per cent of the men in the Police Force be of our community, as well as 50 per cent of the officers.”

Dr Eric Williams, speaking on behalf of the Afro-creole community, rejected communal representation outright.

The issue took various forms over the years, and still informs the ongoing debate.

Let us revisit the debate for the benefit of those who were not yet born.

There are many anomalies in our electoral system.

One of the basic criticisms is that it is akin to a horse race in which the winner gets all the power and most of the goodies. This is seen as being unfair.

What matters in our system is the number of seats and not the number of votes party “A” gets altogether.

Our system is at times pluralitarian rather than majoritanian. Another major criticism of the first-past-the-post (FPP) system is that it often exaggerates the electoral importance of the majority party and underepresents the strength of the losing parties which may get no seats at all despite getting the support of a substantial number of voters. We have seen this happen in respect of the ONR in 1981, in the PNM in 1986 and the COP in 2007.

These parties won between 20 and 40 per cent of the votes but got few or no seats.

The PNM got only three seats. Generally speaking, the main complaint was that the system lacked fairness and representativeness, and often led to the generation of “orphaned” voters whose votes did not count.

Many stay away from the polls because they lived at the “wrong” address: their votes were valueless. Many countries concede these absurdities and use one of the many versions of PR as an alternative to FPP.

FPP is in fact used in the few states which base their constitutions on the British model. There are many versions of PR and many criticisms. The main criticism is that it invariably leads to unstable coalitions and State failure or deadlock, particularly in countries which are deeply divided by ideology or ethnicity.

Since power has to be shared among the several parties in the coalition, cabinet carpentering is often necessary, time-consuming and chaotic: policy making is also often cynical and replete with compromises which generate cynicism.

Moreover, parties become mainly concerned with their own political positioning in the horse race and the survival of their leaders rather than what is best for the country as a whole. Deadlock and frequent cabinet reshuffles often ensue.

Either that, or ministries come to be “owned” by parties which claim the right to veto whatever they do not like. We have seen all of these things happen in Trinidad and Tobago in recent years, even though our system is based on FPP.

There are however many benefits to PR. Whereas a maximum leader tends to dominate policy making in FPP, in PR, power has to be negotiated and shared. There are also many points in the system where policy could be vetoed. Political and ideological consensus and process thus become paramount.

No party can be ambushed at 3 a.m. Some countries try to get the best of FPP and PR worlds by opting for semi-proportionality. The Germans, who incidentally have their federal elections today, elect half of the seats in the Bundestag (the parliament) using FPP. The other half is chosen by PR from a party list using a formula that is based on the outcome of the selfsame election. It is worth noting that the Germans found a way to eliminate the problem of too many mini-parties.

They provide that a party could only get a share of the quota votes cast if it wins at least one seat and crosses a qualifying five per cent threshold of the votes cast. Thresholds vary from country to country depending on demographic circumstances and on how political power is distributed.

At times the coalitions become so evenly balanced that deadlock emergences and a “grand” coalition becomes necessary.

What is our own experience? The PNM which was in power for most of the post independence years treated FPP as its talisman. Dr Williams considered PR a threat to the PNM’s hegemony. He thus cussed out the members of the Wooding Commission (1974), arguing that PR would destroy the PNM’s majority.

The Hyatali Commission (1987) for its part recommended maintenance of FPP at the level at the Lower House, and recommended PR at the level of the Senate. That got nowhere.

Sir Ellis Clarke who drafted a constitution at the request of Mr Manning (2006), recommended the introduction of a modest element of proportional representation at the local government level, but prime minister Manning would have none of it.

He believed that it might serve as the thin edge of the wedge, and that the electorate might well be seduced and led astray. He wanted no precedents.

Demographic realities are however changing fast. The PNM’s political hegemony is over, and the party may well have to revise its attitude towards PR and coalitional politics. It may in fact have no choice.

It is unfortunate that the country was ambushed by the People’s Partnership, and that trickery was used to justify an innovation whose time had come.

[Tiresais]

We're not interested in structurally diluting our democracy.

What do you mean? I'm not sure how Proportional Representation dilutes democracy?

So you understand the issue only partially or thoroughly superficially?

Possibly so - what are the specific issues in Trinidad that would end up hurting it? Why do you always give 'one-liners' to put me down rather than explain yourself? I get it, I don't know enough, but I'm here and I want to learn. That would go quicker if you'd get off your high-horse.

Spare me the victim-imbued Lilliputian narrative. No one is galloping condescendingly from above, trampling you underfoot. What a magnified response.

My comment to you is in regard of the substance. In the age of high speed data availability, I don't expect to hold your hand to each self-ascertainable mini-conclusion. The root of "this" lies in your penchant for posting in an assumptive and presumptive stream of consciousness that vacillates to a Socratic journey laden with apology and a lack of accountability. I'm exhausted from counting your retractions.

With respect to the issue, I'm not commenting as theoretical adventure. I'm commenting with respect to the tangible implications for T&T. You've been to T&T. I'm stunned that you would make the theorized assertion you made (viz. suppressive impact on minority opinions) and then ask me to explain in the face of having visited the country.

I expect rigour, not victimology.

You expect rigour, but give one-liners? Your post drips of hypocrisy. If you would explain and evidence your positions then I'd not have to ask all the time.

If by PR they mean seats reserved for ethnicity/religion/any other social marker, then that is an intrinsically undemocratic system, and a nightmare for social unity (I'm not even sure this can be called proportional representation - isn't this Group representation or maybe delimitation?).

If by PR they mean that the proportion of votes cast in the system are reflected in the seats awarded in Parliament, then it's far more democratic than FPP for a number of reasons. Firstly, only half of all cast votes matter in a FPP system - if 51% of my neighbours are going to vote for one party my vote will never have an impact - I experience this type of disenfranchisement myself living in a hard-core Conservative area. This also has the effect of promoting partisanship - the extremes on either side of the political spectrum will always turn out to vote, and you see they have a higher participating rate than moderates and centrists, and this makes their votes more 'powerful' (see appeals to the right in America). Furthermore, people have less reason to vote for the party that aligns with their position more completely - you often hear of people voting for someone "because X has no chance, and I don't like Y", thus your choices themselves suffer partial disenfranchisement, in that your preferred choice is meaningless.

In a PR system, your vote always counts to determine the balance of seats available to parties. Minority opinions are thus preserved better (preventing tyranny of the majority situations) - I don't like UKIP (anti Europe part in the UK) but I think it's undemocratic that they have 0 seats despite 3.1% of the popular vote, and the Liberal Democrats ended up with nearly 7 million votes and only got 57 seats (Labour got 8.6 million votes and have 258 seats)

[Flex]

Brownsugar, original article does not have a source.

Please edit.

[Deeks]

The PR could work in England and Euro. where minority racial groups are a small % of the population. But countries where there are distinct racial groups share more that 40%, there is bound to be racial voting. Voting in TT has always followed that line. Yes, there have always been cross racial voting. The hope in elections for voters to put aside the biases and vote issues and not along racial. But that is better said than done. It was done last election, I don't know if it happen in the next election.

[g]

The PR could work in England and Euro. where minority racial groups are a small % of the population. But countries where there are distinct racial groups share more that 40%, there is bound to be racial voting. Voting in TT has always followed that line. Yes, there have always been cross racial voting. The hope in elections for voters to put aside the biases and vote issues and not along racial. But that is better said than done. It was done last election, I don't know if it happen in the next election.

I share these thoughts, the primary issue we have as a society is the endemic level of dishonesty, indiscipline and lawlessness, what saves us is our equally proportional levels of tolerance and temperament. It is manifested in the highest offices in the land. Our rich natural resources as a nation keeps the balance so that nobody ever fusses for more than a couple weeks on any issue.

I find it ironic that what we promote as our greatest assets are actually our biggest challenges as an evolving society.
Our promotion as a rainbow nation has shown us that we are more divided once we get past the superficial
Our thriving energy sector has shown us that we are incapable of effectively securing an managing our energy assets in times of disaster
Our rich sporting and cultural talents are probably the least focused in terms of a national investment and heritage building

[Tiresais]

The PR could work in England and Euro. where minority racial groups are a small % of the population. But countries where there are distinct racial groups share more that 40%, there is bound to be racial voting. Voting in TT has always followed that line. Yes, there have always been cross racial voting. The hope in elections for voters to put aside the biases and vote issues and not along racial. But that is better said than done. It was done last election, I don't know if it happen in the next election.

I share these thoughts, the primary issue we have as a society is the endemic level of dishonesty, indiscipline and lawlessness, what saves us is our equally proportional levels of tolerance and temperament. It is manifested in the highest offices in the land. Our rich natural resources as a nation keeps the balance so that nobody ever fusses for more than a couple weeks on any issue.

I find it ironic that what we promote as our greatest assets are actually our biggest challenges as an evolving society.
Our promotion as a rainbow nation has shown us that we are more divided once we get past the superficial
Our thriving energy sector has shown us that we are incapable of effectively securing an managing our energy assets in times of disaster
Our rich sporting and cultural talents are probably the least focused in terms of a national investment and heritage building

Possibly you're being too pessimistic - rather than focusing on multiculturalism, maybe you should be thinking along the lines of Cosmopolitanism. The missus' dissertation was on this fact - that Trini's experiences were very different to Europe's (that had to focus on multiculturalism as nations were usually racially singular in their formation), given that the genesis of the country is firmly based on a multi-racial population. Even when you're racially voting - you're not accusing the other side of lacking some aspect of "Trinibagonian", whereas a lot of the racially motivated tension in the UK is about how they form the 'other', 'foreign', and otherwise 'not English' notion of nationality.

[g]

The PR could work in England and Euro. where minority racial groups are a small % of the population. But countries where there are distinct racial groups share more that 40%, there is bound to be racial voting. Voting in TT has always followed that line. Yes, there have always been cross racial voting. The hope in elections for voters to put aside the biases and vote issues and not along racial. But that is better said than done. It was done last election, I don't know if it happen in the next election.

I share these thoughts, the primary issue we have as a society is the endemic level of dishonesty, indiscipline and lawlessness, what saves us is our equally proportional levels of tolerance and temperament. It is manifested in the highest offices in the land. Our rich natural resources as a nation keeps the balance so that nobody ever fusses for more than a couple weeks on any issue.

I find it ironic that what we promote as our greatest assets are actually our biggest challenges as an evolving society.
Our promotion as a rainbow nation has shown us that we are more divided once we get past the superficial
Our thriving energy sector has shown us that we are incapable of effectively securing an managing our energy assets in times of disaster
Our rich sporting and cultural talents are probably the least focused in terms of a national investment and heritage building

Possibly you're being too pessimistic - rather than focusing on multiculturalism, maybe you should be thinking along the lines of Cosmopolitanism. The missus' dissertation was on this fact - that Trini's experiences were very different to Europe's (that had to focus on multiculturalism as nations were usually racially singular in their formation), given that the genesis of the country is firmly based on a multi-racial population. Even when you're racially voting - you're not accusing the other side of lacking some aspect of "Trinibagonian", whereas a lot of the racially motivated tension in the UK is about how they form the 'other', 'foreign', and otherwise 'not English' notion of nationality.

Purposely pessimistic too, there are societies even more diverse than T&T that don't display the kind of undercurrents that exist here. I would even find it plausible if our natural and economic resources were limited but we are more than able to sustain all sectors and interests in a national context.

[Tiresais]

The PR could work in England and Euro. where minority racial groups are a small % of the population. But countries where there are distinct racial groups share more that 40%, there is bound to be racial voting. Voting in TT has always followed that line. Yes, there have always been cross racial voting. The hope in elections for voters to put aside the biases and vote issues and not along racial. But that is better said than done. It was done last election, I don't know if it happen in the next election.

I share these thoughts, the primary issue we have as a society is the endemic level of dishonesty, indiscipline and lawlessness, what saves us is our equally proportional levels of tolerance and temperament. It is manifested in the highest offices in the land. Our rich natural resources as a nation keeps the balance so that nobody ever fusses for more than a couple weeks on any issue.

I find it ironic that what we promote as our greatest assets are actually our biggest challenges as an evolving society.
Our promotion as a rainbow nation has shown us that we are more divided once we get past the superficial
Our thriving energy sector has shown us that we are incapable of effectively securing an managing our energy assets in times of disaster
Our rich sporting and cultural talents are probably the least focused in terms of a national investment and heritage building

Possibly you're being too pessimistic - rather than focusing on multiculturalism, maybe you should be thinking along the lines of Cosmopolitanism. The missus' dissertation was on this fact - that Trini's experiences were very different to Europe's (that had to focus on multiculturalism as nations were usually racially singular in their formation), given that the genesis of the country is firmly based on a multi-racial population. Even when you're racially voting - you're not accusing the other side of lacking some aspect of "Trinibagonian", whereas a lot of the racially motivated tension in the UK is about how they form the 'other', 'foreign', and otherwise 'not English' notion of nationality.

Purposely pessimistic too, there are societies even more diverse than T&T that don't display the kind of undercurrents that exist here. I would even find it plausible if our natural and economic resources were limited but we are more than able to sustain all sectors and interests in a national context.

Yea there was a theory after WWII that countries that have too much or too little diversity might experience racism - the basis being that Jews were well-integrated into German society and they were one of the least-likely to experience the level of anti-Semitism experienced. I do think that the Caribbean has a unique situation when it comes to racial tensions tho.

[elan]

The PR could work in England and Euro. where minority racial groups are a small % of the population. But countries where there are distinct racial groups share more that 40%, there is bound to be racial voting. Voting in TT has always followed that line. Yes, there have always been cross racial voting. The hope in elections for voters to put aside the biases and vote issues and not along racial. But that is better said than done. It was done last election, I don't know if it happen in the next election.

I share these thoughts, the primary issue we have as a society is the endemic level of dishonesty, indiscipline and lawlessness, what saves us is our equally proportional levels of tolerance and temperament. It is manifested in the highest offices in the land. Our rich natural resources as a nation keeps the balance so that nobody ever fusses for more than a couple weeks on any issue.

I find it ironic that what we promote as our greatest assets are actually our biggest challenges as an evolving society.
Our promotion as a rainbow nation has shown us that we are more divided once we get past the superficial
Our thriving energy sector has shown us that we are incapable of effectively securing an managing our energy assets in times of disaster
Our rich sporting and cultural talents are probably the least focused in terms of a national investment and heritage building

Possibly you're being too pessimistic - rather than focusing on multiculturalism, maybe you should be thinking along the lines of Cosmopolitanism. The missus' dissertation was on this fact - that Trini's experiences were very different to Europe's (that had to focus on multiculturalism as nations were usually racially singular in their formation), given that the genesis of the country is firmly based on a multi-racial population. Even when you're racially voting - you're not accusing the other side of lacking some aspect of "Trinibagonian", whereas a lot of the racially motivated tension in the UK is about how they form the 'other', 'foreign', and otherwise 'not English' notion of nationality.

Purposely pessimistic too, there are societies even more diverse than T&T that don't display the kind of undercurrents that exist here. I would even find it plausible if our natural and economic resources were limited but we are more than able to sustain all sectors and interests in a national context.

Can you name one of those countries?

[asylumseeker]

We're not interested in structurally diluting our democracy.

What do you mean? I'm not sure how Proportional Representation dilutes democracy?

So you understand the issue only partially or thoroughly superficially?

Possibly so - what are the specific issues in Trinidad that would end up hurting it? Why do you always give 'one-liners' to put me down rather than explain yourself? I get it, I don't know enough, but I'm here and I want to learn. That would go quicker if you'd get off your high-horse.

Spare me the victim-imbued Lilliputian narrative. No one is galloping condescendingly from above, trampling you underfoot. What a magnified response.

My comment to you is in regard of the substance. In the age of high speed data availability, I don't expect to hold your hand to each self-ascertainable mini-conclusion. The root of "this" lies in your penchant for posting in an assumptive and presumptive stream of consciousness that vacillates to a Socratic journey laden with apology and a lack of accountability. I'm exhausted from counting your retractions.

With respect to the issue, I'm not commenting as theoretical adventure. I'm commenting with respect to the tangible implications for T&T. You've been to T&T. I'm stunned that you would make the theorized assertion you made (viz. suppressive impact on minority opinions) and then ask me to explain in the face of having visited the country.

I expect rigour, not victimology.

You expect rigour, but give one-liners? Your post drips of hypocrisy. If you would explain and evidence your positions then I'd not have to ask all the time.

...

Your "hypocrite" comment to a poster on another thread reminded me of this post. I see you're establishing a modus operandi, whether or not moored in support.

Let me remind you that a thread is an organic entity that evolves post by post, contribution by contribution, comment by comment. Don't mask your hobbled discernment under cover of occluding deflection.

See you on the other thread, where you've made a declaration of bigotry merely because you lacked the perspicacity to negotiate a metaphorical, jousting gap. That doesn't drip, it reeks.