Lessons from the 'Mother of Parliaments'

tribune242 editorial:


THE pulsating and historic general election in Britain on May 6 has resulted in stalemate - a hung parliament which was last seen in that bastion of democracy more than 35 years ago.

In 1974, the Conservative incumbent prime minister, Edward Heath, was forced to resign after failing to secure a deal with the Liberals. With a slim lead over the Conservatives (also known as Tories), Labour leader Harold Wilson formed a new government. But, without sufficient support in the House of Commons, he had to call another election in October of the same year which he won with a tiny overall majority.

In Britain, proportional representation does not apply. So the political party with the most votes over all other parties is the outright winner under the first-past-the-post system. This avoids horse-trading and deal-making and is considered to produce strong governments with a mandate to take decisive action.

In last Thursday's election the Tories won 306 seats against Labour's 258 but failed to win an overall majority. The Liberal Democrats with 57 seats hold the balance of power together with the other minorities in a legislature of 650. According to latest reports, Labour has put out feelers to the Lib Dems. But an alliance between the two would still leave them without an overall majority and would require other deals with minorities like the Scottish National Party, the Greens and others.

More likely is a Conservative minority government or some sort of coalition between the Tories and the Lib Dems as long as they can reconcile, in the short term, their differences on major issues like the economy - notably, where to apply the necessary spending cuts to tackle the nation's huge debt and deficit - immigration, education, the European Union and (most significantly) electoral and other political reform. The Lib Dems have for long championed the introduction of proportional representation. Their gain at this election of some 23 per cent of the votes but only 8 per cent of the seats has strengthened that case.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has already spoken of the moral right of the Conservatives under David Cameron, with the largest share (36 per cent) of the popular vote and 47 more seats than Labour, to lead a new government. But without securing some form of accommodation (coalition or informal power-sharing alliance) with the minority parties he will not have a mandate in the House of Commons to govern.

Until he does so, under constitutional convention the incumbent prime minister, Gordon Brown, remains in power since the business of governance has to be maintained. While political deals are made, the government must continue to function. The money markets, not least, react badly to political instability.

As this fascinating drama of political intrigue and manoeuvre unfolds over the coming days, the controversial issue of proportional representation is likely to take centre stage; particularly if Cameron is forced to make concessions about electoral reform as the price for Clegg's political support.

There are already indications that a new cross-party parliamentary commission may be set the task of studying it and making recommendations. Nonetheless, introduction of proportional representation or some version of it is clearly a long way off. It appears to work in countries as diverse as Germany and New Zealand. But, whatever form it might take in Britain, it would represent a seismic shift in well-established electoral procedures and would probably require a referendum.

With our political system based on the Westminster model, are there lessons to be drawn from the British general election for the Bahamas and its body politic? A hung parliament demands greater cooperation among the political parties. A coalition government will be under greater pressure always to put the national interest first. Could such solidarity be translated in some way to politics in the Bahamas?

In our small country, where the ideological differences between the parties are not great, opposition politicians are nevertheless intent on trying to show their constituents that they are active. So they seem to criticise government policy and actions almost for the sake of doing so.

Certainly, they need to scrutinise what the government does and keep ministers in check. But there is room for less bickering and gratuitous criticism and, instead, for more cooperation in relation to issues which may be controversial but which need to be resolved for the sake of ordinary Bahamians.

Can attitudes in the Bahamas change and government become more inclusive for the benefit of us all? Can our own politicians be less confrontational and work together more effectively for the common good?

As events in London develop, there may indeed be lessons to be learnt by us here at home.

May 10, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International