At
the most basic level, an electoral system translates votes cast into seats won
by political parties and candidates.[1]
Electoral
systems can aggravate or moderate tensions and conflict in society. Some
systems can work well to ensure gender-balanced[2] representation,
representation of minority groups and the formation of coalition governments.
Others will encourage the formation of strong single-party government. If an
electoral system is not considered inclusive and fair and political parties believe
they will not have a chance to win next time around, they may feel compelled to
work outside the system, using non-democratic, confrontational and even violent
tactics.[3]
A
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)[4] study points to four
variables of an electoral system that may trigger conflicts: (a) the
formula for determining how votes are translated into seats; (b) district
magnitude; (c) the votes-to-seat-ratio; and (d) boundary
delimitation.
Source: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNDP
Elections and Conflict Prevention Guide: A Guide to Analysis, Planning and
Programming (New York: UNDP, 2009)
Empirical cases:
- Malaysia
parliamentary election 2008.
Political parties and civil society groups both called for electoral reform
before general elections. Among other reforms they called for the abolition of
the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system inherited from British colonial
rule, whereby the party with a simple majority dominates parliament. It was
argued that such a system is discriminatory, particularly with respect to women
and indigenous people. Calls for electoral reforms led to a number of violent
incidents.
Interrelated factors: unequal media access and
favouritism (internal); problematic voter
registration (internal); lack of transparency of
special and external voting (internal);[5] problematic registration
of political parties and candidates (internal); problematic
accreditation of domestic and international observers (internal).[6]
- Bangladesh general election 2014. The national
political party landscape is dominated by two parties, the ruling Awami League
(AL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The prevailing electoral system is
viewed by some as having fuelled political polarization as well as tendencies
towards the use of political violence.[7]
The 29 January 2014 parliamentary elections were preceded by violence related
to a number of political controversies.[8]
In the event the opposition decided to boycott the elections.[9]
Interrelated factors: human rights violations (external); poor socio-economic
conditions (external); unequal media
access and favoritism (internal);
Provocative and violent actions by political parties (internal).
[7] Mozahidul Islam, M. (2015).
Electoral violence in Bangladesh: Does a confrontational bipolar political
system matter?. Commonwealth &
Comparative Politics, 53(4), 359-380.
