The core idea of democracy is to ensure people are properly represented. In a republic, every vote should carry equal weight, and the will of all voters should be reflected in government formation. But in practice, not all electoral systems can ensure this equally.
Countries like Bangladesh, India, or the United Kingdom follow the "first-past-the-post" system. In this model, the country is divided into parliamentary constituencies. Voters choose from several candidates in each seat, and whoever gets the most votes wins. While this may seem straightforward, political analysts have pointed out serious flaws.
For instance, a party might get 40 percent of the total votes but still lose in most constituencies by narrow margins. As a result, 40 percent of the country's voters end up with little to no representation. Their votes don't translate into seats. On the other hand, another party might win only 37 percent of the votes but secure a majority of the seats by winning more constituencies narrowly. This party can then form a government with significant power, even without majority support from voters. Such outcomes raise concerns about the fairness of the system and its long-term impact on democracy.
To fix this, many countries have adopted proportional representation, or PR.
Several Bangladeshi parties have long demanded PR, but no government has adopted it. After the July uprising, the interim government formed several reform commissions. Multiple parties demanded PR during the consultation. The BNP primarily opposed it, preferring the current system. But parties like Jamaat-e-Islami strongly supported PR.
In a PR system, candidates do not win seats just by getting the most votes in a single constituency. Instead, the goal is to make sure each vote contributes to the final makeup of parliament. The most common form is the party-list system. Here, political parties submit a list of candidates before the election. Voters cast their ballot for a party, not an individual. The percentage of votes a party receives decides how many of its candidates from the list enter parliament.
But how would the voters know who their representative is?
That depends on the list type. Parties can submit either a closed list or an open list. In a closed list, the party decides in advance the ranking of candidates. The top candidates on the list enter parliament based on how many seats the party wins. In an open list, voters can also indicate their preferred candidate within a party. A recent example is Finland, where voters chose both the party and a candidate from within it. The candidates with the most votes move up the list and are selected for parliament.
To explain PR further, suppose Bangladesh has 300 parliamentary seats. Party A submits a list of 300 candidates to the election commission. If it gets 15 percent of the national vote, it will send the first 45 candidates from its list to parliament. Some may ask: without geographical seats, who will represent the people? In PR, MPs represent their party's policy or ideology, not a specific area.
To solve this, many countries use regional PR. Here, the country is divided into zones, such as Dhaka or Chattogram divisions. Each region has a party list. If Party A gets 30 percent of the vote in the Dhaka division, which has 20 seats, it will get 6 seats. These will be filled by the top 6 candidates from Party A's Dhaka list. In an open list, voters decide which candidates should rank highest.
This regional list system helps balance proportionality with regional representation. It ensures each area sends a fair number of MPs while keeping the vote-to-seat ratio accurate. In this system, MPs are elected not by personal popularity, but by party support. This allows smaller parties to win seats and limits the monopoly of large parties.
In Bangladesh, MPs are often expected to oversee local development. So what happens when MPs no longer represent specific constituencies?
The solution rests in strengthening local governments. Municipalities or union councils should handle development projects such as road repairs, drainage, and schools, regardless of the election system in operation. MPs should concentrate on national-level issues such as legislation, policymaking, and budgeting. People can express their concerns to the local government, which can then escalate them to parliament.
Now, why does Jamaat favour PR? Looking at the 1996, 2001, and 2008 elections—widely seen as fair under caretaker governments—offers answers.
In 1996, the Awami League got 37.44 percent of the vote and won 146 seats. Under PR, it would have won only 112. Jamaat received 8.61 percent of the vote but won just 3 seats; with PR, it would have earned around 26.
In 2001, BNP got 40.97 percent of the votes and won 193 seats, which would drop to 123 under PR. Jamaat received 4.28 percent and won 17 seats due to its alliance, though PR would have given it 13.
Again, in 2008, Awami League won 48 percent of the vote and 230 seats, which would have dropped to 144 under PR. Jamaat got 4.7 percent and just 2 seats, though PR would have awarded it at least 14.
This shows why Jamaat prefers PR: their vote share doesn't translate into seats under FPTP. In contrast, large parties benefit from the current system and want to keep it.
Comments