{"id":76416,"date":"2016-07-18T12:00:01","date_gmt":"2016-07-18T11:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=76416"},"modified":"2021-02-23T10:51:04","modified_gmt":"2021-02-23T10:51:04","slug":"spain-blame-the-rule-not-the-numbers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2016\/07\/spain-blame-the-rule-not-the-numbers\/","title":{"rendered":"Spain: Blame the Rule, Not the Numbers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Alfaz, Spain<\/em><\/p>\n

Spain got stuck again. The party numbers in a parliament with 350 seats produced no majority 20 December 2015 or 26 July 2016. The arithmetic did not work out.\u00a0 The numbers were wrong.<\/p>\n

Or, could the Rule be wrong?\u00a0 The Rule is majority support for a government to be viable.\u00a0 Actually, for this to work at all the number of seats in the parliament should be uneven, like 351.\u00a0 That aside, let us look at numbers and rules in the light of the number, N, of political parties–programs = position-packages–competing.<\/p>\n

N=1 has a name, dictatorship. Democracy starts at N=2.\u00a0 There could be factions inside that single party; like in the CPC, Communist Party of China, or the LDP, Liberal Democratic Party, in Japan.\u00a0 But N>1 gives people in general a choice, not only members of factions inside one governing party.\u00a0 A major difference.\u00a0 Long live N>1!<\/p>\n

For N=2 the Rule is met with an uneven number of contested seats. Any seat is for one party or the other, no tie is possible. There will be a majority, even if only one seat, 176\/175.\u00a0 N=2 and the Rule are made for each other. Like the two-party system in the UK with parties changing names; and in the USA with parties never changing names.\u00a0 The parties could be dictatorships inside, like PP and PSOE in Spain with strongmen like Rajoy and S\u00e1nchez.\u00a0 But there is a choice between the two.<\/p>\n

Enters Harold Hotelling with his famous law from 1931: when two actors compete, like companies for customers, or political parties for voters, the products they offer tend to become similar. They may imitate each other or steal from each other to be on the right side of the tipping point so that they can dictate prices, or policies. Thus it was that Bill Clinton moved right by picking up Republican policies, and Tony Blair by picking up Tory policies for “New Labour”.<\/p>\n

With position and opposition similar, politics over differences yields to administration of similarities.\u00a0 Spanish: they become gestores<\/em>.<\/p>\n

We are now living the intense history of revolution against N=2 in the USA; and the counter-revolution by denying other parties access to public space, and by fighting party divisions.\u00a0 Spain is ahead, it has already happened with N=4+; four parties up front with 137, 81, 71 and 32 seats respectively.\u00a0 Consequently, politics is up front again, the parties are different; it is not only the psychology of four egos.<\/p>\n

So far, this rules out the obvious Rule solution: back to N=2 with a coalition in position, and an opposition in coalition. A coalition of 2 may foster competition and they become similar–or break up.<\/p>\n

Time for a closer look at N=3, 4, 5: what happens?<\/p>\n

For N=3 absolute majority for one party is still possible. But so is equality in numbers (117 for each) and anything in-between as long as it adds up.\u00a0 With a bipolar political discourse, 2 out of 3 might be close to each other.\u00a0 But how about a tripolar discourse, economically in the socialism-capitalism-green localism triangle? For any of them any alliance means giving up major positions.\u00a0 And how about several bipolar discourses, one economic and one over a unitary vs more federal state, criss-crossing?\u00a0 The Spanish situation, by and large.<\/p>\n

Back to N=3 with three parties, X, Y, Z; the sum 351.\u00a0 There are lots of combinations with one 176 or more, and lots of combinations with this not being the case. The same for N=4, N=5 etc.\u00a0 In other words, as so many point out, more elections in Spain may easily leave us with exactly the same problem.\u00a0 Unless, for instance, a charismatic leader emerges, saying BASTA!, vote for me instead!\u00a0 A solution?<\/p>\n

A huge dilemma for democracy as such: either sacrificing politics through too much similarity to meet the Rule, or failing to satisfy the Rule because of–some say–too much politics.\u00a0 In Spain, that dilemma is highly visible; but it may apply to all.\u00a0 Oscillation, either between two similar parties\/coalitions, nothing new; or between two dissimilar parties\/coalitions using power to destroy the other.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/em>: the Rule has to open for two obvious alternatives:<\/p>\n