As my series of articles on constitutional reform continues today, it would be useful to examine the issues surrounding the demand for the introduction of proportional representation to replace the first past-the-post system of election.
It is fair to say that the debate about the introduction of proportional representation gained momentum after the results of the 1981 general election produced an outcome whereby the voters who supported the Organization for National Reconstruction (ONR) accounted for a significant share of the electoral pie, but did not deliver any seats to their party.
The final vote revealed that the PNM got 218,557 votes (52.61 per cent) for 26 seats, while the ONR got 91,704 votes (22.08 per cent) for no seats, the United Labour Front (ULF) got 62,781 votes (15.11 per cent) for eight seats, the Democratic Action Congress (DAC) got 15,390 votes (3.7 per cent) for two seats, and the National Joint Action Committee (NJAC) got 13,710 votes (3.30 per cent) for no seats.
With this type of result, it was apparent that the first past-the-post electoral system had created a situation whereby the party with the second highest number of votes could not win a seat and thereby rendered the ONR voiceless despite the expressed will of the electorate.
Such a situation virtually repeated itself in 2007 when the results of the general election revealed that the PNM got 300,434 votes (45.99 per cent) for 26 seats, the UNC got 194,968 votes (29.85 per cent) for 15 seats and the COP got 148,345 votes (22.71 per cent) for no seats.
These two situations have propelled the debate about proportional representation forward. An additional propellant was also the 18-18 tie in the 2001 general election where the UNC earned 279,002 votes (49.90 per cent) for 18 seats and the PNM got 260,075 votes (46.51 per cent) for 18 seats. The determination of who the Prime Minister would be was left to the parties to negotiate and for the President to decide.
Of course, these situations are not unique to Trinidad and Tobago as other Caricom countries have had their own awkward experiences with the first past-the-post electoral system. In St Vincent and the Grenadines in 1998 the Unity Labour Party won 54.6 per cent of the votes cast for seven seats and the New Democratic Party won 45.4 per cent of the votes cast for a majority of eight seats.
In St Kitts-Nevis in 1993 the incumbent People's Action Movement (PAM) won 33.5 per cent of the votes for four seats, the opposition St Kitts Nevis Labour Party (SKNLP) won 43.7 per cent of the votes for four seats, the Concerned Citizens Movement (CCM) won 10.9 per cent of the votes for two seats, and the Nevis Reformation Party (NRP) won 8.5 per cent of the votes for one seat.
The hung Parliament produced a minority Government that continued to be controlled by the PAM that had lost seats but had new support from the NRP. The CCM refused to align itself with either of the two major parties and so that cleared the way for a minority government.
Those who argue in favour of proportional representation will obviously point to these events as justification for their cause. On the other hand, those who are wedded to the Westminster-Whitehall system of government would want to continue with the first past-the-post system of government because of the intrinsic connection between the two.
When the Wooding Constitution Commission recommended a mixed system of first past-the-post and proportional representation in 1974, this was condemned by Dr Eric Williams on the ground that proportional representation was a dagger aimed at the heart of the PNM.
Williams refused to support the measure and even went so far as to bring to Trinidad the University of Notre Dame electoral scholar Prof FA Hermens to deliver some lectures on the dangers of proportional representation.
Hermens was renowned for his intellectual opposition to proportional representation as can be seen from his 1938 article The Trojan Horse of Democracy, and his 1940 pamphlet Democracy and Proportional Representation, that was reviewed in the University of Chicago Law Review in 1941 as "a plausible attack on proportional representation."
Williams' philosophical opposition to proportional representation meant that it was not going to be included in the 1976 republican constitution. The electoral results in the post-Williams era of 1981, 2001 and 2007 opened the door to a debate between philosophical contestation and scientific argument.
The Government will have to determine whether it wishes to enter into a debate about electoral reform outside of changing anything else in the constitution or whether it wishes to weave electoral reform into constitutional reform. This debate could then produce choices that would leave the rest of the constitution intact, but change the electoral system only or seek to change the electoral system together with other aspects of the constitution.
If there is a decision in favour of adopting proportional representation, then there will have to be some determination as regards which version would be pursued. Would there be a preference for the "largest remainder" systems of the Hare, Droop or Imperiali methods or would the preference be for the "highest average" systems of the d'Hondt, St Lague or modified St Lague methods?