Main menu

Online publications

Other

(This article originally appeared in the Belfast Telegraph, September 2003.)

If the democratic process is part of the peace process, the democratic process should itself be 'peace-ful'. In reviewing the Belfast Agreement, therefore, we should reform the adversarial basis of our democratic structures. There are four main areas. 1: how do we, the people, choose our representatives, the Assembly? 2: how does the Assembly appoint its Executive? 3: how do the politicians make their decisions? And 4: how do we make ours?

Choosing an Assembly Our present electoral system, PR-STV, is pretty good in that it allows the people, if they so wish, to vote across the sectarian divide. A better system, the quota Borda system or QBS, actually encourages the voters so to act. While the Lebanese system obliges them to do so and, what's more, it obliges the politicians to stand on cross-confessional platforms. Now there's a thought!

Appointing the Executive An inclusive, cross-community, power-sharing executive should not be selected by a convoluted d'Hondt process; it should be elected in a free vote. The people first elect a cross-community Assembly, and the politicians then use a similar form of PR, either PR-STV or QBS, to elect the executive. The advantage would be that all MLAs could participate on an equal basis without using any sectarian labels.

Politicians taking decisions In a plural society, no matter what the political debate, there are (or should be) lots of options: many different economic systems, several educational policies, umpteen planning proposals, and so on. Now, given the number of parties in the Assembly, doubtless there are as many opinions. If, then, at the end of the debate, everything is still "on the table", it should be possible to identify the collective best compromise - i.e., the option with the highest average preference - by asking the MLAs to express their preferences. This multi-option methodology is simple to operate - indeed, this Institute has developed a CD-ROM to allow any vote to be counted in a few microseconds - and again, if all votes are free, the whole procedure can be done without any sectarian labels.

The People Decide
The Belfast Agreement talks of the "consent of [only] the majority". A peace agreement, however, should concern the "consent of the people". Secondly, a peace agreement should allow for a gradual, peaceful process of change, not a sudden switch from the United Kingdom to a united Ireland. Well, as with all political questions, lots of constitutional arrangements are possible. So, in order to let the people decide, first establish a commission to see which options are possible, and then hold a multi-option referendum to see which option is their highest average preference.

A True Democracy
Unfortunately, most people think the democratic process is a contest in which the majority wins and the minority loses. In the old days, the majority was unionist; to-day, perhaps, it is consociational, which is better. But what's best?

Well, democracy is meant to be for everybody, not just 50% and a bit. Decision-making procedures, therefore, should allow everyone to influence the outcome. So when we identify will of the people - their average opinion or at least their best compromise - we must use a multi-option process, for in all probability, only thus do the compromise options even exist! Then, if every individual states his/her compromise option, it will be possible to identify the collective best compromise.

Unfortunately, these Borda methods of voting were not discussed during the Talks process. Maybe now, in reviewing the Belfast Agreement, some consideration might be given to these more sophisticated, inclusive procedures. The two-option majority vote is win-or-lose. But a peace process, by definition, needs a win-win voting procedure - a Borda count.

Back to top