Peter Hain has consistently argued, including most recently in Progress magazine, that the Alternative Vote (AV) is the only system that pragmatically stands a chance of replacing first-past-the-post. There are a number of reasons, though, why electoral reformers should be wary of following Hain in throwing their weight behind efforts to introduce the AV.
First, let’s be clear that introducing AV would be more a matter of tinkering than reform. Hain goes too far in saying that it would ‘put Labour on the high ground of democratic reform’. Building up AV to be more than it is risks creating disappointment when its bubble is burst. Opponents of electoral reform could then point to the limited impact of AV to bolster their arguments against any further reform. Although there is much to be said for gradualism, it can sometimes be an impediment to bringing about the real changes that are needed. We shouldn’t squander any chance for real electoral reform by picking a less than a half-way house option.
Second, as the Jenkins report pointed out, AV on its own could make parliamentary representation even less proportional. At the very least, this makes Hain’s claim that AV would be a ‘more democratic system’ questionable.
My personal revelation came on the basis of a third, and far more compelling, argument. On the Sunday night of my first visit to Labour party conference I turned up to the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform/Make Votes Count fringe meeting. I arrived an open-minded sceptic interested in listening to the arguments, but concerned that PR might damage the constituency link and bring with it the risk of unstable government. It didn’t take long for Robin Cook to convert me from sceptic to supporter of PR. With his typically straightforward logic he pointed out that democracy is built on the belief that everyone in society should have an equal say. The current system of first-past-the-post does not ensure this, and PR does. Only PR will ensure we have a truly democratic system. In short, if you believe in democracy then you should believe in proportional representation.
There will always be arguments made against proportional representation on practical and pragmatic grounds. Many of these will be unconvincing – Hain points out that the ‘disreputable’ behaviour of some list members elected under more proportional systems in Wales and Scotland serves as a warning. In London, though, both of Labour’s list assembly members, Nicky Gavron and Murad Qureshi, are known to be hard working and conscientious representatives. Other objections to PR, such as the desire to retain the constituency link, can be addressed depending on the kind of proportional electoral system used. All these objections to PR are nevertheless overpowered by the simple argument that true democracy depends on PR.
Pragmatic compromises are often an important part of democratic politics, but there should be limits to compromise when it involves the very fundamentals of democracy. As Robin Cook showed, when it comes to democracy it is this principle that matters most; every vote should count equally. We can do better than the Alternative Vote.
Omar Salem writes in a personal capacity