What Next for Britain’s Pro-Europeans?

One of the problems with political science is that publishing books and articles takes time, but events move quickly.  In 2005, Stefano Bartolini wrote an influential monograph, Restructuring Europe, which  argued that the ‘Europe issue’ had complicated the internal politics of Member States, but had not yet fundamentally changed party competition.

Cameron’s ‘Europe speech‘, finally delivered on 23rd January 2013, and the anaemic response of Britain’s other major parties, whose leaders ostensibly support the EU but are not willing to expend any political capital making a positive case, have finally forced the issue.  Polls show that, while 40% of the British population would vote to leave the EU, 37% would vote to stay.

Britain already has an influential anti-European party, UKIP.  Having, until now, benefited from the tacit (if unenthusiastic) support of the existing political elite, the pro-European lobby has had less incentive to create a formal political movement.

The first-past-the-post inevitable acts as a straitjacket during Westminster elections.  However, if the anti-European jungle drums continue to beat louder, it seems only a matter of time before the pro-Europeans organise, perhaps in advance of the June 2014 European elections.

Alison Smith is a lecturer in Comparative Government and tutor in European Politics at Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford.  You can follow her on twitter @AliFionaSmith.

Czech Presidential Election: The Count is Almost Finished

With more than 90% of the vote counted, it now looks certain that the second round of the Czech Republic’s presidential election will be a battle between the veteran leftist, Milos Zeman, and the country’s aristocratic foreign minister, Karel Schwarzenberg.  Zeman currently has 24.67% of the vote. Schwarzenberg is hot on his tail with 22.12%.  Former Prime Minister, Jan Fischer, who was long tipped to make the run-off against Zeman, but had a torrid final week after poor debate performances, trails with 16.72%.

The run-off will be held on 25/26 January.

The Race for Prague Castle Heats Up

For months, the Czech Republic’s first presidential election looked like a straight fight between two former Prime Ministers, Jan Fischer and Milos Zeman.  However, the field has opened up in the final week.

While Zemen, a veteran leftist, looks certain to make it through to the final round, Fischer, a technocratic former statistician, has looked lacklustre, spectacularly underperforming in the public debates.  As one commentator put it, ‘emptiness surfaced behind trained gestures‘.

The Czech Republic bans opinion polls in the closing days of the campaign, making predictions difficult.  However, the final poll on Monday suggested that Fischer’s support had fallen to 16.2%, while the support of Karel Schwarzenberg, the country’s aristocratic foreign minister, had risen to 14.2%.

Although still in third place, Schwarzenberg’s campaign has gained momentum, having picked up support from two quarters: those who like neither Zeman nor Fischer; and those on the centre-right who now doubt whether Fischer will be a viable candidate against Zeman in the second round, which is due to be held on 25th-26th January.

Political Developments will keep you informed as the results come in.

Campbell’s Queensland Cabal: Is it ever OK to hire your mates?

Imagine the scenario.  You’ve just started new job as leader of Australia’s most decentralised state. You’ve promised to make a difference within 100 days, and everyone is watching.  But there’s just one problem.  Hiring and firing is notoriously bureaucratic in the public sector.  Before you know it, your 100 days will be over and you’ll barely even have a team.

That’s the dilemma facing Queensland’s new Liberal-National Party (LNP) Premier, Campbell Newman.  During his election campaign, he presented himself as an efficient manager, Mr ‘Can-Do’, someone who can get things done.  The LNP’s main election document reads more like a business plan than a manifesto, with highly specific targets for the first one, seven, thirty, fifty and one hundred days in government.

Naturally, the regional media provides daily updates on whether Mr Newman’s targets are being achieved, including a nifty interactive graphic from the Courier Mail.  Apparently, Mr ‘Can-Do’ has already missed four of his first week targets, including a pledge to begin a full audit of Queensland Health’s notorious payroll system.

Given time pressures, it is not surprising that Mr Newman chose to eschew the conventional public service recruitment process during his first days in office.  However, he has come under fire for some of his choices, including former Federal treasurer, Peter Costello, and David Edwards, the son of a former State treasurer who served under Joh Bjelke-Petersen.  The latter is a particularly sensitive appointment, since the Bjelke-Petersen era is seen by many Queenslanders as a by-word for corruption and authoritarianism.

If Mr Newman can be forgiven for hiring long-term allies to help him through the crucial first days of government, his public comments about the matter suggest a negative attitude towards conventional recruitment in general.  According to The Australian, he did not call for open applications because ‘we’ve been processed to death’.  This reflects a lack of understanding of the sensitivity of public service appointments, which may spell trouble for Mr Newman in the future.

It is a natural instinct for humans to trust people that they know.  However, open recruitment has become the norm in public sectors across the democratic world for good reason.  Recruiting from a narrow social pool eventually leads to stagnation.  Talented people are overlooked in favour of others with less ability but the right contacts.  Although swift and easy in the beginning, the closed approach usually leads to poorer performance in the long run.  It is also terrible for social mobility and, in the public sector context, that matters a lot.  The public owns the public services, and it is important that everyone gets a ‘fair go’.

Moreover, all governments make mistakes, but failures are particularly toxic if they are seen to result from nepotism.  Public sectors are rarely as efficient as voters would like, but transparency and accountability are not negotiable where public money is at stake.

Russia: Gubernatorial Elections to be Re-Introduced, Party Registration Requirements Lowered

Following the safe re-election of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency on March 4th, the Russian government looks set to complete yet another round of institutional tinkering.

Gubernatorial elections, abolished in 2004 following the Beslan Crisis, are set to be re-introduced.   Governors will be elected for five year terms, serving a maximum of two terms.  A second reading of the Bill will take place in the near future, and the final shape of the legislation is still uncertain.  There is disagreement between the political parties in the Duma about how the ‘presidential filter’ (consultations between political parties and the President over who can be a candidate) will work.

Meanwhile, the Federation Council has passed legislation aimed at making it easier for political parties to register.  It will now be possible for parties to register with 500 members, instead of 40,000 as previously required.  Eighty-two parties are awaiting registration.

Although these measures have taken some of the heat out of the anti-Putin opposition, they are unlikely to lead to dramatic changes in the Russian political system.  Parties must still receive 7% of the national vote in order to win representation in the Duma, and small parties will not be permitted to form blocs.  Meanwhile, the ‘presidential filter’ will ensure that only candidates friendly to the Kremlin can secure nominations to stand in gubernatorial elections.

LNP landslide in Queensland: what went wrong for Labor?

In these times of economic upheaval, dramatic electoral results have become commonplace in Europe.   Despite avoiding recession, Australia has also seen big political swings in recent years, with Saturday’s Queensland state election a case in point.

On 24^th March, the Liberal National Party (LNP) won a landslide victory over the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in the Queensland state election, winning 78 seats in the 89 seat Parliament with 49.73% of the first preference vote.  The Australian Labor Party was reduced to only 7 seats despite winning 27% of the first preference vote.  A new entrant, Katter’s Australian Party, won two seats with 11.5% of the vote.  The full results can be viewed here.

Three factors contributed to Queensland Labor’s historic losses.  Firstly, they had governed uninterrupted for the last twelve years and there was a general mood for change.  Although Anna Bligh’s leadership during the Brisbane floods was highly praised,  Labor lost political capital through problems with Queensland Health’s payroll system and the sale of state assets. Queensland also suffered economic setbacks as a result of natural disasters in 2011 and the global financial crisis. Against this backdrop, the LNP managed to convince many voters that only they could ‘get Queensland back on track‘.

Secondly, the federal Labor party did not help their Queensland colleagues by conducting a leadership contest during the opening week of the state election campaign, when Queenslanders were exposed to open warfare amongst the ALP’s most prominent figures in Canberra.  Current Prime Minister Gillard defeated a challenge by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd convincingly, but it was the worst possible moment to re-open the wounds inflicted by Rudd’s ousting less than two years ago.  As a native Queenslander, Rudd has strong support within the state.

Thirdly, during the campaign itself, a highly personalised negative attack on the LNP’s leader, Campbell Newman, backfired.  Labor accused Mr Newman of corrupt connections with property developers during his tenure as Brisbane Mayor, but failed to land a killer blow.  They retreated from the allegations in the final week of the campaign, allowing Newman to claim that the allegations were unsubstantiated and should never have been made.  Although there was no time during the campaign when Labor looked like winning, their two party preferred support hovered around 40% until the final week when it plummeted.

Compulsory voting can also contribute to big swings in divisive elections.   Australia is one of only two democracies in the world where citizens are legally required to vote.  Those who are completely disengaged from politics would stay away from the polls in most countries, and are more likely than partisan voters to be swayed by media coverage in the final days of the election campaign.  This certainly worked in the LNP’s favour in Queensland 2012.

Although Labor’s electoral losses on 24^th March were unprecedented, it is worth noting that the final results were distorted by a highly majoritarian electoral system.  The LNP won a super-majority with less than half the vote.  A pure proportional representation system would have given Labor 23 seats instead of the 7 currently awarded.     Therefore, the Labor ‘wipe-out’ is less absolute than it initially seems.  The defeated Premier, Anna Bligh, resigned yesterday, clearing the way for rebuilding efforts.

It will be interesting to see how the LNP wields their super-majority in the Queensland Parliament. They have much to live up to, having promised to cut the unemployment rate to 4%, reduce the cost of living and regain Queensland’s AAA credit rating.   During the campaign, they showed little appreciation of the economic headwinds affecting the Australian economy, including the fallout from the eurozone crisis and the high value of the Australian dollar.  They may yet regret setting such specific economic targets at a time when the global economic climate is so uncertain.  There is never a dull moment in Queensland politics, and the coming years will be no exception.

Follow Alison Smith on twitter @AliFionaSmith.

End of the Line for Russia’s ‘Locomotives’

Russia’s out-going president, Dmitry Medvedev, has submitted a bill to the State Duma proposing that parties should be banned from fielding ‘fake’ candidates at the top of regional lists for Duma elections. These candidates, usually well-known or popular figures, are referred to in Russian as parovozy (locomotives), and have no intention of taking up seats in the Duma. They appear on the ballot paper solely to attract voters. Following the election, they cede their seats to lesser-known candidates further down the list.

Medvedev’s proposals are part of a wider programme of electoral reform, including the re-introduction of gubernatorial elections, which were abolished in 2005. Directly appointed governors had become a liability to the Kremlin in recent years: as an unintended consequence of its refusal to devolve authority, the Kremlin was blamed for all manner of regional problems. Furthermore, many governors disappointed in their role as ‘locomotives’ during the December 2011 election, failing to meet their United Russia vote quotas while being indiscreet in their attempts at electoral manipulation.

United Russia’s insistence on fielding ‘locomotive’ candidates was a testament to farcical nature of Russia’s ‘virtual politics‘. Unsurprisingly, the practice has long attracted criticism from the OSCE. Medvedev’s proposals for reform are welcome, but they will not necessarily improve the quality of Russia’s democracy. Until the Kremlin ceases using its ‘administrative resource’ to control which candidates can stand for election, it will be impossible for genuine opposition to gain a foothold.

Centre-Right Government for Slovenia

Five Slovenian parties have agreed to form a government following drawn-out coalition negotiations.  The December 4th elections produced a surprise victory for Ljubljana Mayor Zoran Jankovic’s Positive Slovenia party.  However, he failed to form a government after his coalition was rejected by parliament on 11th January.

There were no such problems yesterday: the new coalition was supported by 50 of Slovenia’s 90 members, a comfortable majority which should enable the government to push through tough austerity measures.  However, there is considerable ideological variation within the coalition, which brings together four centre right parties (SDS, SLS, Virant List and New Slovenia) with the centre-left pensioners’ party DeSUS.  The Virant List is keen to reign in public spending, while DeSUS have resisted cuts in pensions.

Slovenia’s previous government fell when a referendum in June 2011 rejected proposals to gradually raise the retirement age from 57 (58 for men) to 65.  DeSUS left the coalition early.  Since then, the small nation’s economic problems have worsened, with the EBRD predicting that the economy will contract by 1.1% in the coming year.

The Kremlin’s two-faced response to opposition: bargaining in public, repression in private

When authoritarian leaders face protests over ‘stolen’ elections, there are usually two possible responses.  They can bargain with the protestors, hoping to retain power by delivering concessions.  Or they can crack down on dissent, dispersing protests, jailing ringleaders and stifling communications.  The Russian leadership, in keeping with its smoke-and-mirrors system of ‘virtual democracy’, is trying both at once.

With presidential elections due in March 2012, the public tone of Russia’s ruling elite is conspicuously conciliatory towards opposition movements.  The Kremlin’s infamous political strategist, Vladimir Surkov, has hailed mass protests as ‘absolutely natural’.  The Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, today submitted draft bills to parliament proposing wide-reaching political reforms, including the return of direct gubernatorial elections and an easing of hurdles for political party registration.  At least seven candidates will compete in March’s presidential election.

Yet behind the scenes, opposition movements are far from basking in the Kremlin’s good will.  Private telephone calls of opposition leaders have been tapped, and disparaging comments made by Boris Nemtsov (co-leader of the Party of People’s Freedom) about fellow oppositionists were published.  The leader of the Left Front, Sergei Udaltsov, received a five-day jail sentence for alleged jaywalking.  As soon as his term was up, he received a further sentence for misbehaviour during his previous arrest.  The editor of a prominent Russian news magazine was fired after publishing a photograph of a ballot paper cast in favour of the opposition Yabloko party with the words ‘Putin Fuck Off’ scrawled across it.

The next three months will be pivotal for Russian politics.  Either private repressions will anger opponents of the Kremlin, reminding them of their common cause.  Or the Kremlin’s divide and conquer tactics will work, with some Russians bought off with promised tax cuts, others placated by long-term promises of political reforms, and the remaining hard-core opponents ground down by repression.  The Russian leadership is clearly banking on the latter to deliver the presidency safely back to Putin next March.

The question the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign wouldn’t answer: “What is AV?”

So it’s official.  The most googled  ‘what is’ question this year was ‘What is AV?’  And, according to a new blog post from a ‘Yes to AV’ campaign insider, James Graham, the Yes campaign made a strategic, but ultimately fatal, decision not to answer this question. The ‘Yes’ campaign was, of course, spectacularly unsuccessful, with almost 70% of the British public choosing to keep the first past the post system during a referendum in May 2011.

Changing Britain’s electoral system was always going to be a tough sell.  The Conservatives wanted no change. Labour was divided on the issue.  Even the Lib Dems, often thought of as the drivers behind electoral reform, were lukewarm, favouring the single transferrable vote system.  Although electoral reform briefly caught the voters’ interest in May 2010, when the General Election produced yet another disproportionate result, public attention soon focussed on the rapidly deteriorating economy.

Moreover, the ‘No to AV’ campaign had snappy messages.  ‘AV will be costly’.  ‘AV will be complex and unfair’.  ‘AV is a politician’s fix’.  So why did the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign decide not to respond with these accusations?   As James Graham, the Web and Social Media Manager explains,‘Yes to AV’ head strategists believed that answering even the simplest explanations risked causing confusion. Graham lobbied strongly for a different approach, but was over-ruled.  In his blog, he wrote that ‘this was a problem that we needed to solve rather than one we could afford to sidestep.’

If strictly applying textbook political campaigning principles, the ‘Yes to AV’ strategists were right.  The received wisdom is simple: ignore negative attacks when the answer is longer than the accusation.  This strategy is effective in election campaigns, where multiple issues compete and the agenda moves quickly.  But ‘Yes to AV’ was a single-issue campaign, and its proponents had almost a year to make their case.  If the ‘Yes to AV’ strategists weren’t prepared to sell their issue, they had reason to be in the debate at all.

As yesterday’s Google results show, the public was ready and willing to give its attention to the pros and cons of electoral system change.  But people needed information in order to make a judgement.  For years to come, political campaigners will use the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign as a cautionary tale of what happens when you don’t at least try to win your argument.

 

The full text of James Graham’s blog is available here.