As is the case with respect to international standards, the legal design,
reform, and implementation of an electoral system, cannot disregard the
cultural, economic, legal, social, and political reality or context. The
application and interpretation of constitutional, legal, and regulatory regimes
must agree with the context. This is true whether the system is supranational or regional (European Union or
Central American Parliament), national (of each country), state, autonomous,
departmental, municipal, cantonal, or of a county.
There is not one unique or perfect electoral model, but different electoral
systems used to accomplish the objectives established by the citizenship and
political actors as determined at a
particular place and time. A system will be adequate when it is consistent with
the degree of democratic development of the community in which it is applied or
when it is capable of facilitating the community’s transition to democracy or
democratic consolidation itself.
System design can provoke certain
results, such as an easier construction of majorities or can serve to reflect
in a more reliable or proportional way the existence of different political
groups. However, the truth is that other factors which are not necessarily
derived from technical electoral elements are the ones that can result in the existence of “artificial” or
circumstantial majorities. Such influencing factors can include the legislative
body size, the correlation of forces among the diverse political parties and the
consequent construction of coalitions or alliances, the geographical
distribution of the electorate, electoral pacts or agreements, etcetera.
An inclusive and representative democratic model which is politically viable and with high
standards of legitimacy, must consider, and even accommodate the different
expectations and political ideologies of each of the political actors (citizens, political
parties, citizens organizations, pressure groups, etcetera) regardless of the
coincidence, convergence, proximity, or even diametrical divergence of their positions
in certain topics of the political agenda. Electoral systems are a product of
political agreements. They are the way in which the aggregation of political
groups’ interests is shown. Those interests shall not be ignored by juridical figures
except when they are opposite to the
existence of free and fair electoral processes.
The choice of a concrete electoral model (direct or indirect elections),
its development (majority system, proportional representation, or either mixed
or segmented) and its characteristics or combination of elements (simple,
absolute or qualified majority; pure or impure proportional representation; or
with a governability clause) must be decisions based on consent or majority.
However, not even the majority’s agreement nor wide consent shall exclude
minorities’ possibility of representation or voice in the government’s functioning
whether in parliaments, congresses or legislative chambers, executive or administrative organs (town or
city councils).
In order to prevent electoral
systems from becoming theoretical, inefficient or inoperative formulas,
political
agreement, the social context, and the circumstantial aspects are
important and
will be further discussed. However, those aspects cannot annihilate or
proscribe the principles which inform free and fair electoral processes:
the
human right of a passive and active vote; the celebration of periodical
and
authentic elections; universal, secret, and equal suffrage; respect for
human rights; neutrality of the electoral administration
regarding other State apparatus and political actors; and jurisdictional
control of the electoral acts’ application.
