Pros and cons of PR poll system

The lifeblood of democracy lies in the active participation of the people. And the highest manifestation of that participation is found in elections. Elections are not only about choosing rulers but also become the reflection of people's opinions. But a question arises-does the existing majority-based electoral system truly reflect that opinion? Or has it turned into a mere numbers game, where a large portion of votes becomes irrelevant? From this very question arises the discussion of an alternative-the system of Proportional Representation (PR).

 

 

In many countries across the world, this system has already been widely discussed and tested. In some places, it has become the vehicle of democratic diversity, while in others, it has led to political instability. In a country like Bangladesh, where multiparty politics exists but the political trajectory is largely dictated by two major parties, the prospects and limitations of PR become highly relevant.

 

 

The philosophy of proportional representation is simple-parliament should reflect the proportion of votes cast by the people. If a party receives 30 percent of the national vote, then it should secure roughly 30 percent of parliamentary seats. This is not the case in the existing First Past the Post (FPTP) or plurality-majority system. Here, a candidate who secures even one vote more than their rivals wins, even if the total number of votes against them is much higher. Consequently, a large portion of people's votes become "ineffective." But under PR, those votes are reflected in parliament, making democracy more inclusive.

 

 

International experiences offer valuable lessons. For example, Germany has adopted a mixed system-half of the seats are directly elected, while the remaining half are distributed proportionally. This ensures stability for large parties while also giving smaller parties a voice in parliament. The Netherlands operates under a fully proportional system, where even a party securing just one percent of the votes can obtain representation in parliament. Thus, diverse social opinions are reflected. In South Asia, Sri Lanka and Nepal have practiced PR for a long time. Since 2008, Nepal has partially implemented this system in parliamentary elections, which has increased political diversity but also created risks of instability due to coalition dependency.

 

 

In Bangladesh's context, the limitations of the existing system are evident. Here, dominant political parties often secure overwhelming parliamentary majorities, even though their actual share of national votes does not show such a wide margin over their rivals. For example, in the 2018 election, the Awami League secured around 29 percent of the total votes but won more than 90 percent of parliamentary seats. On the other hand, the BNP and other parties received a significant share of votes but were left virtually unrepresented in parliament. The 2001 election also revealed similar disparities-the BNP-Jamaat alliance received about 48 percent of the vote but captured 67 percent of seats, whereas the Awami League, despite securing 41 percent of the votes, received only 21 percent of seats. These examples demonstrate that the existing system fails to reflect the people's actual opinions in parliament.

 

 

Various analysts and researchers have expressed their views on this matter. Dr. Ali Riaz, Professor at Illinois State University, argues that the disparity between votes and seats has intensified Bangladesh's political crisis. According to him, PR can ensure representation for smaller parties, but without strong party discipline, parliament may become ineffective. Professor Nazmul Ahsan Kalimullah of Dhaka University suggests that a mixed system could increase democratic inclusivity in Bangladesh-some seats could be elected directly while others are distributed proportionally. A study by Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) shows that almost 50 percent of votes are wasted under the current system, as they do not translate into seats. PR could help to give value to those votes.

 

 

The positive aspects of PR are clear-parliament becomes more inclusive, minority and small parties get a voice, votes are reflected more accurately, and political diversity is ensured. Most importantly, single-party dominance diminishes, fostering a culture of dialogue and compromise that makes democracy more vibrant.

 

 

However, there are limitations as well. If too many small parties enter parliament, government formation becomes complicated. Coalition governments often become necessary, which may lead to long-term instability. Smaller parties may demand excessive concessions in coalition negotiations, creating opportunities for corruption and transactional politics. Furthermore, implementing a new electoral system would require constitutional and legal reforms, which are not possible without political consensus.

 

 

According to the 2022 report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, nearly 61 percent of parliaments worldwide use some form of PR system. Almost all European countries have adopted PR, where about 90 percent of votes are reflected in parliament. Thus, global experience shows that PR gives people's votes greater respect, although it does not always guarantee political stability.

 

 

For Bangladesh's future, the most realistic solution may lie in a mixed system. One part of parliament could be elected directly under the existing rules, while the other part could be distributed based on the proportion of national votes. This would preserve the stability of larger parties while also ensuring representation for smaller parties and minorities.

 

 

The fundamental goal of democracy is that every single vote should be properly valued and reflected in parliament. In Bangladesh's current system, this reflection is often distorted. PR can correct much of that distortion. However, its limitations must also be acknowledged. Therefore, any reform of the electoral system requires broad national dialogue, political consensus, and decisions based on in-depth research and data. If democracy is to become truly inclusive, we must rethink the question of representation.

 

 

The writer is an Assistant Professor & Head, Department of Sociology, Rosey Mozammel Women's Honors College