First things first, before I commence my arguments, I need to set a few things straight. While writing this blog, I am by no means representing SDM or any other organisation on Campus, but am writing in my own personal capacity. Secondly, this is what I am led to believe based on a period of study and a certain application of sense, and my text has therefore in no way been influenced by anyone in particular. Thirdly, I believe that all this bickering for a different electoral system - and subsequent counter-arguments in favour of the current system - are childish and unbecoming of students at tertiary level. However, that argument could be left for another time, if needed. Anyway, anyone who does not understand and grasp these points before reading is suggested to close this window/tab at this very point.
And now, onto the substance of my argument. In my honest opinion, it doesn't take much of a genius to figure out why the Proportional Representation (PR) system that PULSE proposed to introduce vis-a-vis the KSU elections will not work - only a basic knowledge of Constitutional Law is needed. Thereagain, this automatically makes me wonder if the organisation proposing the system even has law students in it and, if it does, whether the most supreme law of the land is an alien concept to them. Just like it is to Charlon Gouder, of course.
In law, the basis of the PR system is that one has a certain amount of candidates contesting an election with the aim of being elected to Parliament. Such candidates are elected according to preferences (in the form of numbers) given out by the electorate. This generally occurs via districts that are divided accordingly by the electoral commission of the day. Therefore, automatically, one already can see that the system, if it were to be applied to KSU elections, would be massively flawed. These elections are contested on an individual basis - granted, the majority of the time when the places are contested, they all end up by going to one party in particular - but the fact of the matter is that the parties present one candidate per post within KSU, whereby it is then up to the electorate to decide whether that candidate is suitable for election. This therefore means that one can have even four or five parties contesting the post of, for example, President.
Introducing the PR system would present immense logistical problems to all concerned. First and foremost, the parties would not be able to announce whether a person in particular would be given a particular role within KSU. It would be fine to determine that the person who gets the most votes becomes KSU President, and the second most votes Vice-President; but how the other roles within KSU would be filled remains a mystery. How would the election of, for example, a financial officer take place - would the person with the fifth highest amount of votes be elected, or something along those lines? And if that were the case, and the fifth person (for instance) elected were a medicine student, then how would he/she be competent enough to be in line for something like the financial officer of KSU, where a knowledge of accounts is needed - as implied by the job title. Going into an election, there would be no certainty and peace of mind vis-a-vis who would be assuming which role when elected. Or would it be the case that the first two positions would be contested via PR, while the rest of the positions would be determined by means of the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system?
As mentioned above, implementing a system whereby PR would be used as a mode of election doesn't make sense in the KSU context. When electing representatives to Parliament once every five years, one does not vote for a person on the basis that he or she will become a minister, if elected. Representatives in Parliament are elected on the basis that the electorate believes that they can do the best job possible for the country, but not on the basis of having a specific role. The KSU system presents candidates to be elected on the basis of a specific role, which is the main reason why the FPTP system has to be maintained. It ensures that if a person is best suited to his or her role within KSU, and the electorate think that that is the case, then that person will assume 'office'. From my studies, I can safely conclude that FPTP does not ensure, in any way, that bloc votes occur - such bloc votes only happen because the electorate happens to be sympathetic to a particular party or thinks that people presented by a party in particular are best suited for the post. By the same logic, when it comes to general elections, the majority of people vote either completely in favour of the PN or the PL; it is only a small percentage of votes that will be mixed.
Therefore, to conclude, I really think that there should be no debate - no matter how childish - on such a matter. If PULSE feel that the system at hand is anti-democratic because their members never get elected into KSU, then I believe that they should be looking at fielding better candidates for the KSU elections; candidates that can sway the University population to vote for them and make them a part of KSU. Until then, whining away will not do anything to improve their chances. Having said that, despite the fact that they're an independent organisation, it really does remind me strongly of a particular party and a particular individual in the local political scene. The only difference? At least PULSE actually had the decency to propose something, even though it is clearly flawed. That's much more than the above-mentioned party and individual can muster.
God Bless You all!
Matti
No comments:
Post a Comment