Off the petroleum-rich shores of Venezuela lies the archipelagic nation of Trinidad & Tobago, itself a beneficiary of easy access to undersea oil. With the rise in oil prices, T&T's prospects have also risen. Like many other Caribbean island nations, T&T has sought to shed its colonial past, overcome its peripherality and move towards modern economic development. Perhaps inspired by moderate success on the international soccer scene, T&T has recently decided to try to parlay its oil boom into a big-time economic development project, admirably setting a goal to join the ranks of "developed" countries by 2020. To do this, they set up an agency known as the Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad & Tobago Limited, or Udecott, to lead the process. Of course, such development schemes are not without controversy, particularly in small island jurisdictions, where scale of infrastructure and size of projects can collide with conservative-minded citizenries and limited land-base. There is danger for island politicians who push development on a population that may not agree with all the change, good and bad, that such a development will bring. We've seen it here on our own island of PEI. The risk of such development is mulitplied in small island by another factor: The propensity for small-scale corruption. We've seen that here on PEI, too. Yes, the downside of the close-knit communities for which islands are known is that it is easy for interested parties to access decision-makers. Bureaucratic checks and balances found in continental jurisdictions don't exist. Also, the small size of the jurisdiction means that the administrative structure is also small and not as formalized as in bigger polities. This can lead to over-personalization of decisions by administrators. All of which can be detrimental to even the best-intentioned programs. In T&T, the Udecott development scheme is now being jeopardized by allegations of wrong-doing. I have no idea if these charges have any merit, but given the island setting of the situation, it does cause me to scratch my head. The best practice for island governments would be a high degree of transparency in order to avoid suspicion of the kind of thing too many islanders have seen too often. I sincerely hope that Udecott is not up to anything shady and that T&T achieve their development goals, becoming a model of prosperity for other islands.
Posts
6 comments:
Interesting blog, Hans.
In my view, it is interesting to note that most small Island democracies use the first-past-the-post system for their election. Could that system, which promotes executive dominance of the legislature and excludes small and emerging parties.
Would there be less corruption on PEI or Trinidad and Tobago if they had proportional voting systems and coalition governments?
You would have a hard time convincing me that fair voting would not have at least a small mitigating effect on political corruption.
Hi Mark, Thanks for dropping by. I did a paper one time about the credibility the use of Westmninster systems of government provides small island developing states. Coming from the British tradition, often single member plurality systems of representation come with it. Do you have a list of small island democracies that use the single member plurality and a list with those that use a proportional system? That would make for an interesting Island Studies comparative paper.
No doubt I would have a hard time convincing you as you are true believer in the goodness of proportional systems. I would not even try. LOL! Of course, my view is that ther is so much more the story than voting systems. That having been said, I co-authored a peice in the Guardian a few years back that offered a handful of ideas to combat petty corruption and electoral games in without a wholesale change in the voting system and all the dangers that would go along with it.
Hans, I would argue that the declining levels of trust and voter turnout in Westminster parliamentary systems gives it little "credibility". Of course, that hypothesis would have to be tested by looking at those same variables in PR countries. I have yet to read one with recent data (as in the last decade), but would note that Lijphart's classic "Patterns of Democracy" compares 34 countries over 40 years.
Lijphart's cross-national comparisons show that citizens in countries using PR are significantly more satisfied than those in countries using systems like ours. In another measure of voter satisfaction, it has been demonstrated that in PR countries the difference in voter satisfaction between winners of the election (those who voted for parties in government) and losers (those who voted for parties not in government) is significantly smaller in countries with PR systems. Finally, two different studies, using data from the late 70s to mid 80s, shows that governments in PR countries are more like be closer to the median voter, as measured on a left-right scale.
I do not have a list of the electoral systems of small Island democracies, but I would wager that most former British colonies use first-past-the-post while European Islands, like Aland and Iceland for example, use PR.
I would hypothesize that multi-partism is even better than proportional representation in reducing patronage/corruption in small states, but of course, multi-partism is strongly correlated with the use of PR.
I do recall your opinion piece and, if memory serves, it had some good ideas. However, I must say I think you're being naive to think that major change will come to Island politics without adjusting the incentive structure - the electoral system - that shapes the behaviour of our political elites.
For example, I would imagine you would agree that legislative investigations into controversial government actions (e.g. Polar and PNP, to be non-partisan) would be more illuminating in a legislature that better reflects how Islanders vote.
But all disagreement aside, I have enjoyed your blog and visit often.
Hi Mark, I'm glad you enjoy the blog. A little debate now and again livens things up! One area where I concede to you is that I think that electoral reform *may* amielorate Island governance. Whereas I'm thinking you would never concede that improvements to Island governance could occur *without* electoral reform? Indeed, I would think you naive to believe that better governance would result from electoral reform without other changes such as more transparency, stricter rules in administration, institutional checks and balances like in the American systems and others that don't come immediately to mind.
Please note that there is much more to Island Studies than electoral politics. I try to to take a broader, transdisciplinary view of things than to just dwell on one aspect of Island governance. For example, there is some research about how the length of colonization of islands has made prospects for development worse i.e. Iceland, which has been independent for a long time has propsered more than say the Turks & Caicos which has been a colony for a long time. Besides electoral systems, what other factors would be part of the fetters of colonization?
Thanks again for commenting and come back anytime!
Cheers,
Hans
As you might have imagined, I love a good debate too Hans. So here are a few more points to chew on.
First, I would certainly concede that improvements to Island governance can be made in the absence of electoral reform. I can cite one recent one right off the top of my head - the increase in human resources allocated to legislative standing committees. I have no doubt that other "tweaks" to the Island's political institutions could make them more democratic and effective. As I noted, if I remember correctly the article you refer to above had a few of them.
However, I think we part on the relative importance of electoral reform, specifically bringing in a form of proportional representation, compared to other reforms. In my view, democratic reformers on PEI should be pushing for PR, because a PR-elected legislature would be more concerned about institutional reform and more independent from the executive (which for some reason is rarely excited about institutional reform).
Why? Because a move to PR would end what seems to have become a permanent trend of lopsided majority governments on the Island. For example, let's imagine what the current legislature might look like under a form of MMP (with the caveat that this is only a thought experiment and that elections under MMP could have different results).
If the last election had occurred under MMP, we would probably be looking at a Liberal government caucus of 15-17 members, a PC opposition of 10-12 members and up to 2 members from the existing smaller parties (although both had an average of under 5% of the vote in the ridings they ran in so could have very well been under the threshold for representation).
In my view, it's easy to see how such a legislature would better serve Islanders. First, a smaller majority would require the Premier and staff to pay closer attention to the legislature (for fear of losing its confidence) and we would likely see increasing influence of its committees and backbench members. Second, the larger opposition would be better able to hold the government to account in the legislature and its committees (and would like have had a good balance of former Cabinet Ministers and new faces). Third, I think that competition from third parties would, in a phrase, keep the traditional parties "on the toes". On the topic of smaller parties, one of the of the arguments against MMP that I found most strange was the idea that smaller parties would extract unpopular policies from the larger parties. If PEI were ever to move to PR, I think that small parties would be very careful to ensure that they are constructive partners in the legislative process. After all, otherwise they would be hurting public support for the very institutional change that gave them any political influence in the beginning!
Of course, it is still possible to have a well-balanced legislature under first-past-the-post (hey, one of the last 6 legislatures have had a functioning opposition!), but it appears to be increasingly unlikely on PEI. What is really important to note is that PR would eliminate lopsided legislatures (well unless, almost all Islanders vote for the same party).
I've gone on too long now, but thanks for the chance to rant and learn a little about Island studies.
The point you made about colonization and its effects on Islands is prescient and illustrates the difficulties with making cross-jurisdictional comparisons. Indeed, I would concede that if PR-voting islands were demonstrated to have better socio-economic indicators, it would have as much to do with history than institutions (even as I would argue that former British island colonies should ditch first-past-the-post, ASAP).
Seriously, a comparative study of electoral systems of islands would make a great paper for Island Studies. You should check out the Island Studies Journal (www.islandstudies.ca). Is your thesis available for public viewing? That would make a great foundation for further research. Maybe you ar sick of academia, though? LOL! Again, thanks for commenting and feel free to comment again in the future. (Although I like to get the last word!!!)
Post a Comment