Electoral system debate is opened

I have been arguing against the current electoral system and striving to design alternatives in numerous reports for more than 15 years.
The readers of this column are partly aware of my efforts. In January, Bahçeşehir University's Center for Economic and Social Research (BETAM) published my latest report on the issue which suggested an electoral system with narrowed electoral constituencies (maximum six seats) but which simultaneously cancelled the electoral threshold of 10 percent. While announcing the impatiently awaited democratization package today, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erodoğan gave priority to electoral system reform. I hope Turkey will finally be successful in changing the existing electoral system inherited from the military coup of Sept. 12, 1980. The prime minister suggested three alternatives: Keep the electoral system intact, lower the threshold to 5 percent along with narrowing electoral constituencies to five seats, or finally, cancel the electoral threshold and establish single seat constituencies. Keeping the actual system intact is certainly not a reform alternative, and I do not know why the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) leader even suggested this possibility. I guess and I hope he wants to force the Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) to accept one of the two other choices. In the coming weeks, electoral reform will be extensively debated. Certainly I will come back to the issue in this column many times before and after a new electoral system is accepted. Today, I will share with you my first comments on the proposed alternatives. Let's begin with the second alternative. Lowering the electoral threshold to 5 percent could solve the problem of BDP representation in Parliament rather than the party being obliged to present independent candidates, as was the case in the last two general elections. Indeed, the BDP's share of the vote in the last elections has been over 5 percent, and recent surveys estimate its current likely share at over 6 percent. Narrowing constituencies to five seats would have little impact on the potential number of eligible deputies from the BDP, since it is placed first or second in the constituencies of the East and Southeast. It will lose one or two seats in the west, particularly in İstanbul, but those losses will be easily compensated for with additional seats in the Southeast, thanks to narrowed constituencies. My simulation model forecasts 32-33 seats for the BDP at 6 percent of the vote. Furthermore, the prime minister announced that the threshold for party financing from the public budget will be lowered from 7 percent to 3 percent. So, this thorny problem would also be solved. I must say that without the political pressure created by the settlement process, electoral reform would never have been on the government agenda. So much the better!The beneficiary of this new arrangement would be, as expected, the AK Party, since it is the first ranked party in the majority of constituencies. I forecast more than 330 seats for it at 45 percent of votes cast. This is a critical outcome, since the AK Party will obtain the referendum majority in the next elections as long as its vote share does not decrease below 45 percent. Let me remind readers that with 49.9 percent the AK Party could not obtain this majority in the elections of June 2011. In this new model, the CHP's number of seats would likely be slightly diminished compared to the current system. The real loser would be the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Its number of seats would probably be cut dramatically. For the sake of comparison, I prepared the table below with my estimation of the distribution of parliamentary seats in the existing system and in the reformed system. I assume that the Felicity Party (SP), the Democrat Party (DP), the Islamist and the center-right parties will not be able to overcome the threshold of 5 percent. As for the third alternative system, the single seat setup, Erdoğan was not precise as to if the AK Party envisions one tour, like in the British system of the “first past the post,” or a double tour, like in the French system. The number of tours is crucial concerning the political outcome and the shaping of the party system, as well as the formation of political alliances. I do not know if this alternative will be seriously debated and if the AK Party has a preference regarding the number of tours. However, I can say that the single seat system could allow the BDP to be represented in Parliament with more than 30 deputies. As for the MHP, it will be simply decimated if the “first past the post” system is adopted. Table: Comparison of seats distiribution in the acutal electoral system and the alternative one AKP BDP CHP MHP Votes’shares (%) 45 6 26 13 Actual system 308 35 147 60 Reformed system 337 32 141 40