Comparative Politics | EssayIvy.com

Surname 1

Name

Tutor

Course

Date

Comparative Politics

Introduction

Over the past years, several scholars have researched on the best systems of

representation. It is evident from their findings that nations with ethnic cleavages face various

problems regarding the practice and maintenance of democracies and the severity of such

problems are common in new democracies. Two authors, Joel Barkan and Andrew Reynolds,

have different views on the ideal system of representation for democratic countries and this is

expressed in their respective articles “Elections in Agrarian Societies” and “The Case for

Proportionality.” The article by Andrew Reynolds that supports proportionality-based systems

for democratic countries is more convincing as it promotes and retains proportionality in the

parliament and enhances the diversity of representation and geographic accountability.

Summary of Main Arguments

i. Andrew Reynolds

In the article, “The Case for Proportionality,” Reynolds justifies the need for democratic

societies to adopt a system of proportionality while at the same time providing solutions to the

shortcomings identified by Barkan in his article. According to Reynolds, the SMD plurality

system is not ideal since it is characterized by high IDs (Index of Disproportionality) (Reynolds

118). He conducted his “rerun” of the parliamentary elections in Namibia and South Africa held

in 1994 and found that if the countries used the SMD plurality system would produce results

Surname 2

with high IDs and this means that the minorities would not have been represented accordingly as

was the case with the proportionality system used then. Additionally, Reynolds argues that the

election results for Malawi and Zimbabwe that Barkan relied on during his disapproval of

proportionality have not been mirrored in established democracies in the world, therefore, they

should not be used against proportionality since they are atypical cases (Reynolds 119). Also,

Reynolds (120) states that proportionality promotes inclusion and this can be vital for the

democratization of divided societies just as it was the case in South Africa. Moreover,

proportionality leads to an increase of economic and class mobility and a decrease in regional

divisions, factors that are key to reducing the geographical polarization of voting. According to

Reynolds (123), proportionality is the perfect system for democracies as it encourages minorities

in regions with ethnic predominance, unlike the SMD plurality system where minorities feel

“wasted.”

ii. Joel Barkan

In his article “Elections in Agrarian Societies,” Joel Barkan rallies support for SMDs

(single-member districts) that are plurality-based. Barkan reviews the benefits of PR according to

the information provided by its proponents. Specifically, he states that according to PR

proponents, the system is ideal for the election of members of legislatures, inclusive, facilitates

power-sharing arrangements, and enhances democratization prospects (Barkan 107). Barkan

(107) states that while the experiences of southern Africa offer support for PR, there are no clear-

cut advantages of the system in other countries with similar societies or the rest of the continent.

Moreover, the system is not ideal for Agrarian societies since it fails to produce “fairer” or more

inclusive electoral results than SMD that is plurality-based. According to him, PR is not ideal

regarding consociational government, rather it is meant to facilitate power sharing (Barkan 108).

Surname 3

PR has various disadvantages. First, it promotes the lack of linkage between constituents and

their representatives (Barkan 108). Secondly, it impedes consolidation through its lack of

sustainment of democracy’s vertical aspect. According to Barkan, PR is not ideal for agrarian

societies, particularly in Africa. Instead, SMD systems suit such societies since they promote

effective representation, an essential ingredient of democracy.

Reasons Andrew Reynolds’ argument is better than Joel Barkan’s

Reynolds’ argument is supported by more evidence from different countries, unlike

Barkan’s argument that relies on southern African countries. Reynolds’s used evidence from

countries across different continents in the world and these include Zimbabwe (three elections),

Zambia, Malawi, USA, Canada, UK, India, and New Zealand (Reynolds 121). On the other

hand, Barkan used data from southern African countries only to substantiate his claims.

Therefore, Reynolds’ argument seems to be more reliable as it involved a broad range of data

from different countries across the world compared to Barkan’s argument.

Secondly, Barkan seems to be more interested in majority representation that quality

representation that is an important element of democracy. From his argument, Barkan believes

that the majorities should not be underrepresented as is common in proportionality systems

(Barkan 115). On the other hand, Reynolds argues that a proportionality system allows

minorities to feel secure and accounted for unlike plural systems (Reynolds 123). It is evident

that from Reynolds’ point of view, proportionality systems have higher chances of decreasing

regional divisions that are common recipes for chaos in emerging democracies. Therefore,

Reynolds’ argument on the idea of quality representation through proportionality systems seems

more convincing as minorities will feel safe as their interests will be protected unlike in

plurality-based systems where they are not represented accordingly.

Surname 4

Thirdly, the shortcomings of PR as identified by Barkan have been addressed accordingly

by Reynolds in his article and most of the ways that the latter has suggested seem workable.

According to Barkan, PR is associated with the lack of a linkage between representatives and

their constituents and impedes consolidation (Barkan 107). Reynolds addresses these

shortcomings by providing solutions that are workable. According to him, the idea of instituting

an electoral system that is SMD-based does not help in overcoming the obstacles as the SMDs

that result from overwhelming regional concentrations are party boroughs rather than ideal

representations of the people. Moreover, less competitive seats have been known to breed less

responsive leaders as it was the case in the US and UK (Reynolds 120). Additionally, he believes

that adequate representation does not involve representing only the people that make up 80 or 60

percent of the population, but giving minorities an opportunity to air their views. He also states

that even plurality elections threaten democratic consolidation and the case of South Africa’s

elections justifies the need to have proportionality-based systems as the inclusion of minorities

played a vital role in the stabilization of the country during its early years of democratization.

Therefore, a review of Reynolds’ arguments reveals that they are supported by reliable evidence,

unlike Barkan’s arguments.

Conclusion

The article “The Case for Proportionality” by Andrew Reynolds is more convincing than

Barkan’s article “Elections in Agrarian Societies” because it offers evidence-based support for

proportionality-based systems and advocates for an enhanced diversity of representation and

geographic accountability and proportionality in parliament. Reynolds confirms that in case the

South African parliamentary elections of 1994 utilized an SMD system, then the results would be

associated with high IDs, an aspect to show a poor representation of minorities. Moreover,

Surname 5

proportionality promotes inclusion that in turn plays an important role in decreasing regional

divisions and increasing economic and class mobility. Also, unlike Barkan who is concerned

with majority representation, Reynolds shows his concern for quality representation that involves

the minorities having their interests protected.

Surname 6

Works Cited

Barkan, Joel D. “Elections in Agrarian Societies.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 6, no. 4, 1995, pp.

106-116. Johns Hopkins University Press, doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0058.

Reynolds, Andrew. “The Case for Proportionality.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 6, no. 4, 1995,

pp. 117-124. Johns Hopkins University Press, doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0071.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."