Lessons from Australia’s election
By Wei Seng

A concern for Australia's voters
I tend to follow elections in major Western countries closely, if not because of my usual interest in the politics of these countries, then because the publications that I read such as The Economist and (to a lesser extent) The Straits Times have rather heavy coverage of the election, before, during and after. My platoon mate gets very excited about such elections and will often keep reminding me about the election day. But there are several factors that make the Australian election (that took place yesterday) so special this time round and also worth covering here on Erpz.net.
Firstly, the nature of which the current Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard attained power was rather unique. According to John McTernan in the Financial Times, the current ruling party Labour decided to "depose" ex-PM Kevin Rudd because of dips in popularity that were perceived as threatening to the party's cling onto power, a lesson learnt from Britain's Labour Party which held on to Gordon Brown despite his record-low popularity and ended up suffering in defeat during the elections. Gillard wanted a mandate for herself to rule, in view of the seemingly undemocractic circumstances in which she came to power, as well as her popularity just after she was selected as the new PM.
Her popularity dipped with time, however, as she stumbled and flip-flopped over the initiatives she wanted to push forward and her stand on various issues plaguing the country. Now that the election results are partially out, the initial lead over her rival Liberal party has whittled to the extent that the two parties have split the vote, with Liberal having one more seat than Labour but none with any majority significant enough to form a government. So ironically, the lesson that they learnt from Britain's Labour party appeared to be a wrong lesson. Maybe it was not time to depose Kevin Rudd yet.
The main harbinger of this Australian election for future Western elections is the hot topics that were thrown up during the election. Presiding over economic growth in a period where the world experienced a bad recession did not seem to benefit Labour at all. What was on the voters' radars, as McTernan suggested, were the environment, immigration and Australia's position on the global arena, topics which could highly likely be of significant influence in future elections in the West.
The most important topic was on the environment, and the importance of this will undeniably increase with time as the effects of climate change are unleashed upon the world. Rudd's popularity was supposedly a result of his green stance, from the signing of the Kyoto Protocol to his proposal for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for Australia. His popularity was thought to have declined when he climbed down on climate change initiatives such as the ETS. When Rudd was deposed, he was the probably the first leader in the West to be unseated because of environmental issues, which seemed to indicate the growing importance of environmental issues amongst the populace.
What strikes me as weird, however, is how Tony Abbott, the climate change skeptic and leader of the Liberal coalition, actually fared better in the election despite his stand on the environment. This would seem to contradict the lesson learnt that the environment is becoming an issue politicians cannot neglect. This would very much be perhaps a failure on Gillard's part, as she has also been waffling with regard to environmental issues. McKernan claims that Abbott "mined middle Australia’s often conflicted feelings" about the environment, which resulted in his better showing at the polls. This certainly would be quite a terrible lesson to take home though, if politicians were to see being climate change skeptics as vote-grabbing.
Then there's migration and the concept of Big Australia. Voters were uncomfortable with Rudd's plans to expand Australia's population, as much as migration generally has been beneficial for Australia and Australia is very much a country made up of migrants. Australians are generally satisfied with their standard of living and they worry about whether Australia can cope with an increased population, especially one that is a result of immigration. This could also be seen as environment-related, since after all sustainable development needs to be built upon sustainable population growth and certainly an expanding population would place greater stress on the environment. The issue regarding migration that many Australians are most unhappy about, however, is the inflow of refugees to the country. Migration and refugees are issues that would become more significant with time as globalisation opens up access for more and more countries in the developing world to developed countries, and as climate change unleashes its wrath on impoverished populations that would flock to other countries for shelter and a living.
Lastly, the concern about what Australia is to the world. Australians seemed uncomfortable about taking the lead in the region or in the world. Rudd championed several initiatives Pacific-wide that would put Australia at or near the heart of policy and decision making, which made some countries and organisations in the Asia-Pacific uncomfortable at attempts to take away its influence (mainly ASEAN and countries in the region). The country's realignment closer to Asia and further away from its friends in the West (especially America and Britain) seemed to make some Australians uncomfortable as well, especially as rising power China taps into Australia's mineral wealth and has attempted takeover attempts of several Australian mining giants in the process.
So what lessons are there to learn, really? I quote this huge chunk which captures nicely how this election could be a harbinger for future Western elections: "The desire to enjoy growth while defending our lifestyles against outsiders, accepting climate change intellectually while rejecting its implications for our behaviour, and a nagging concern about the rise of China – all are issues which will quickly move up the agenda in Europe and North America".
Quirks of first-past-the-post affecting Britain
By Wei Seng

Clegg, Brown or Cameron? Hmmm
Britain's elections, which just concluded voting yesterday and with almost all votes counted, would produce landmark results never before seen since 1970. To those who have been following the British elections, there must have been some doubts and qualms about the big deal that British politicians and journalists are making over the elections and the way the winner is determined.
Britain, like Singapore (our system is adapted from theirs, for obvious historical reasons), uses the first-past-the-post system, also known as winner-takes-all and plurality voting system. Simply, the winner of the elections is one who has the most number of votes cast for him, but not necessarily with an absolute majority. I had problems trying to understand what this actually meant, but perhaps an example would work well here (the example in the Wikipedia article is quite confusing).
Take the current election for Britain. In brief overview, the British do not directly elect their prime minister, but instead elect a representative in their district, with each party wishing to contest having a representative. The party with the most number of representatives elected would win the election, and then a prime minister would be installed from the party (or alliance, if a few parties came together) that won the most votes. Of the three main parties, the Conservatives have won the most number of seats and the most number of votes in Britain, and hence is the largest party represented in Parliament. This would technically mean that the Conservatives would produce the Prime Minister and lead the Parliament. However, they have not won an absolute majority of votes in the election, as the number of votes for the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, if added together, would outnumber that of the Conservatives. The Telegraph has a detailed breakdown of the results: Conservatives 36.45%, Labour 29.01%, Liberal Democrats 23.03%. So while it might be fair for the Conservatives to claim to represent the most number of people, proportionately this is not true.
In another perverse twist, the Liberal Democrats, while having 23% of the vote, have far from 23% of the seats in Parliament. After some calculations based on the results on The Telegraph, the Conservatives have 36% of the votes but 47% of the seats (there are 650 seats in Parliament). Labour has 29% of the votes but 39% of the seats. The disadvantaged Liberal Democrats have 23% of the votes but only 8% of the seats. So the Liberal Democrats are highly underrepresented in Parliament while Labour and Conservatives are overrepresented by 10%. The whole purpose of such a system is to produce strong parliamentary majorities that will reduce the need for coalition government, which can be messy and fractious as witnessed in countries that practice the proportional representation system (e.g. Germany), but given the conditions Britain is facing, the elections have produced a nightmare that will probably exacerbate the problems. An article in the Christian Science Monitor elaborates more on the implications of such a system.
The conditions have created a hung parliament: where no party wins an outright majority. The government could be created through a coalition of parties to produce a majority, or a minority government could be created by the largest party in Parliament (i.e. the Conservatives). The problems of a hung parliament for Britain are immense, as Britain currently faces a huge budget / debt crisis, that in the face of Greece's debt crisis, is all the more important to tackle fast. Given that a hung Parliament would often be undecisive and wrought by bickering, "leading to paralysis", the people and investors would be spooked, with terrible consequences for Britain's economy and medium-term prospects.
With a hung parliament, first-past-the-post magnifies problems: whoever forms up the government has only so much mandate to govern, given that each party has only so much representation of the electorate, and the electorate has given slaps in the face of all 3 parties. Initially the Conservatives were tipped to win the elections easily with an absolute majority, but somehow as the elections drew nearer the margin between the leading Conservatives and Labour narrowed. Labour is lucky not to have lost as bad, but to have lost 100 seats is an obvious indication of great displeasure with the current Labour administration. The Liberal Democrats rose in popularity during the televised debates (which I covered recently) but somehow that did not translate into votes; they even lost several seats in Parliament. The electorate has spoken and expressed displeasure with the politicians, but unfortunately how this will help to solve problems is anyone's guess. I dont blame the people for having voted like that, because the parties have not been performing to their fullest potential in highlighting the problems the country faces and in providing the solutions to these problems.
I wait with bated breath as the three major parties slug it out in the race to install the new prime minister of Britain.
