Evidence of Increased Levels of Democracy

 

As there have been only two elections under MMP, it is hard to make any definitive statements regarding the success of the new system.  However, despite the lack of absolutely conclusive evidence, the 1996 and 1999 General Elections and the work of the New Zealand Election Study, do point to some interesting conclusions.

 

Voter Retribution

 

 In the 1996 General Election, 6 parties gained parliamentary representation.  The National Party, the New Zealand equivalent of the Conservatives won most seats, 44 in total, but needed to form a coalition government to constitute a majority.  The party it formed the coalition with was the New Zealand First Party, led by Winston Peters.  All throughout the election campaign NZ First had campaigned against National and the decision to form a coalition with them not only surprised but also upset the NZ First support.  This supported the claim made by some opponents that the introduction of PR did not necessarily result in increased democracy as “Although PR systems may seem to offer voters more choice, critics argue that PR may in fact offer less choice because the process of government formation is often left to the bargaining of political elites.” (Karp and Banducci, 1999:365)

 

The upset was reflected in the opinion polls, which showed a drop in support for NZ First and the charismatic Peters, from a fairly substantial 13.1% to an almost entirely insignificant 1%.  These feelings were realised in the 1999 General Election when the electorate demonstrated its unhappiness very clearly.  The share of the party vote NZ First received dropped from 13% to 4.4%, which meant that they dropped below the 5% threshold for list seats.  It also saw personal punishment for Winston Peters who was returned to parliament with a very significantly reduced majority, from 8500 to just 300.  The new Government was formed by the Labour and Alliance parties, which ideologically just about matches the position in Scotland with Labour and the Liberal Democrats.  All throughout the campaign, these parties hade made clear their intention to form a coalition, should he results put them in a position to form a Parliamentary majority together.  So far this has been a fairly happy union but with the next General Election later this year, it will be interesting to see if the voters have anything to say about how effective they feel it has been.

 

Additional to the punishment of NZ First, in the 1999 election, all MPs that had defected from their parties during the course of the Parliament were not returned to the next Parliament.  This can be seen to demonstrate that voters were making their choices based largely on party preference rather than affection for particular representatives.

 

This clearly links back to the measurements of political culture with the electorate demonstrating quite clearly what they believe their responsibility to be and how happy they are with the competence of those they elected.

 

Election Results and Seat Allocation

 

The table and graph below show the parties that gained representation in the 1996 and 1999 elections and from the information contained in them, it is possible to draw a number of conclusions.

 

Figure 1.

Table 2. Parliamentary Representation 1996 and 1999

 

What is not illustrated by the above statistics is the number of electorate and list seats that each party won.  These figures are important as they demonstrate how effectively the Sainte-Lague formula distributes seats according to vote share.  It should be noted that the composition of Parliament differed between these elections, with the increase in the number of Maori seats, from 5 in 1996 to 7 in 1999, resulting in a decrease in the number of list seats, from 55 in 1996 to 53 in 1997.  In 1996 the List:Electorate seat split went as follows:

 

	1996 Electorate	1996 List	1999 Electorate	1999 List
ACT	1	7	0	9
Alliance	1	12	1	9
Green	0	0	1	6
Labour	26	11	41	8
National	30	14	22	17
NZ First	6[i]	11	1	4
United	1	0	1	0

Table 3. Split of Parliamentary Seats in 1996 and 1999

(1996 Data: NZ Elections Website)

(1999 Data: Karp and Bowler, 2000:16 and 28)

 

This table shows the extent to which both National and NZ First were held accountable following the failure of the first MMP coalition.  The figures suggest that NZ First were held more accountable then National, most probably a result of their entering into the coalition in the first place, when they had not been expected to do so.  The 1999 data for National provides support for those who argue that systems of PR are more representative, and therefore more democratic, than plurality systems.  Dissatisfaction with National was expressed in the Electorate votes but their loss was compensated by the list allocation they received, in accordance with their share of the party vote.  Labour appear to have been the beneficiaries in both these cases.  Undoubtedly, Labour benefited from the poor performance on NZ First as it won the Maori electorates in 1999, a return of the Maori vote to its traditional party.  However, it is important to note that their success in the Electorate Seats is not over-exaggerated, thanks to the compensatory list system.

 

Attitudes to Voting

 

A very significant figure with regards to democracy can be found in statistics gathered by the New Zealand Election Study.  This study discovered that between 1993 and 1996 attitudes about voting changed quite significantly.  One the questions asked was ‘Do you think your vote really counts in elections?’  In 1993 74.7% of the people questioned agreed strongly that it did, by the time of the next survey this figure had increased to 85.3%.  The other indicator of a substantial increase in democracy was the number who said they strongly agreed that they were very interested in politics.  This increased from 14.6% in 1993 to 21.1% in 1996. (Karp and Banducci, 1999:368)

 

These figures are important with regards to measuring democracy as they demonstrate one of the key aspects identified in the measurements of political culture, political efficacy.  Political efficacy highlights the importance of participation in the political system and the extent to which government is responsive to the wishes of the electorate.  The changes in these attitudes suggests that New Zealand voters feel that their vote is not only important in determining the composition of Government and Parliament, but also that the way they vote is taken into account by those they vote for.

 

Voter Turnout

 

Voter turnout is a strange proposition in that it is probably the easiest indicator to measure and the hardest to judge.  Although remaining high in international comparison, voter turnout has been in decline in New Zealand from the 1950s, with the exception of the period 1975-1984 and the single exception of the first MMP election in 1996.  As a percentage of the age eligible population, turnout in 1996 increased from 78% to 81%.  In terms of the enrolled electorate this increase was from 85% to 88% (Karp and Banducci, 1999:368) In 1999 the voter turnout actually decreased to pre- proportional representation levels, around 75% as a percentage of the age eligible population (NZES, 2000), which goes against the received wisdom about the effect of PR on turnout, which would tend to suggest that under PR systems voter turnout should increase by approximately 7%.

 

There is no hard and fast evidence to explain the drop in 1999 so any analysis is very much guesswork.  Possibly the problems of the first MMP coalition discouraged voters who had thought that the new system would lead to new attitudes.  The New Zealand Election Study’s report to the Electoral Commission suggested that there had been reports from all around the country of queues at polling stations, which could have discouraged some from voting. 

 

Party Identification

 

The level of party identification also has an impact on voting.  The primary role of party identification under proportional systems is that encourages supporters of smaller political parties to vote.  Under a plurality system, the votes for such parties have no significant effect, meaning that voters can easily become disillusioned and essentially feel as though they are disenfranchised.  Under a system such as MMP, the votes of these voters have much greater influence.  The Party list aspect means that they can vote for their party of preference and know that this vote is more likely to lead to representation than would previously have been the case.  This also means that they are free to use their Electorate vote for their candidate of preference, who may be of a different political affiliation, while still being able to support their party of allegiance.  The result of this is that supporters of smaller parties are more likely to feel included in the democratic process and are therefore more likely to participate in it.

 

Understanding of MMP

 

The transition to a new and more complicated electoral system could have been very difficult, as not that many people are conversant in the technicalities of political systems.  Lack of understanding of the new system could produce results that were not reflective of the true wishes of the electorate and there was concern “that PR might cause more confusion, with the result that voters would either cast misinformed votes or abstain.” (Karp and Banducci, 1999:367)

 

To combat this, the 1993 Electoral Reform Act provided for the formation of an Electoral Commission ‘to promote public awareness of electoral matters’.  Research indicated that the best medium through which to inform those with low levels of interest in politics and low levels of understanding of the political system was television.  The success of this campaign can be judged by the relatively high levels of split voting that occurred and by the fact that turnout increased at the first MMP election.