By Dr. Habib M Sesay
Introduction
This self-explanatory paper succinctly examines the intricacies of House of Chiefs, Unicameral Parliament, Parliamentary System of Government and Proportional Representation (PR) mode of election of members of parliament and councilors. Additionally, it proffers the rationale that enables the 1991 Sierra Leone Constitution Review Committee Plenary to carefully consider, vote and anchor the above critical issues in the 2015 Draft Sierra Leone Constitution.
House of Chiefs
The British Government declared Sierra Leone a Crown Colony in 1808 and the hinterland a British Protectorate in 1896. Under the rubric of British colonial administration, Governor Sir Frederick Cadew introduced Indirect Rule in Sierra Leone that was earlier successfully implemented in Northern Nigeria. In that regard, the Protectorate was divided into Karene, Ronietta, Koinadugu, Panguma and Bandajuma Districts. The five districts were further divided into chiefdoms. While British District Commissioners administered the districts, the colonial administration appointed paramount chiefs who ruled British subjects in their chiefdoms. Thus Indirect Rule was reinforced in Sierra Leone: the Governor governed Sierra Leone on behalf of the British Government through district commissioners and paramount chiefs. Subsequently, the districts and chiefdoms were transformed at the convenience of the colonial administration. (See attached maps).
When Sierra Leone achieved political freedom on 27th April 1961, the 1961 Sierra Leone Constitution recognised paramount chiefs and the demarcated chiefdoms. Additionally, paramount chiefs represent twelve districts in the provinces (later regions) in parliament and are elected by an “electoral college”. The 1971, 1978 and 1991 Fundamental Laws duly recognised the local government administrative arrangements. I would like to point out that the election of paramount chiefs to parliament has been controversial since the attainment of independence. And the citizenry question their role in the national legislature. More importantly, a cross section of the electorate rightly assumes that the ineffectiveness of paramount chiefs in the national legislature is perhaps due to the unpredictable reactions of the government of the day.
It is in line with the above that majority of Sierra Leoneans according to the recent tallied questionnaire prefer a “House of Chiefs” anchored in the constitution so that paramount chiefs will have the liberty to deliberate ‘issues’ pertaining to their communities. Indeed, the above resonates well with the paramount chiefs who recently applauded it in their position paper in November 2015. This author is in tandem with the views of the majority of the citizenry which strongly advocate the creation of ‘House of Chiefs’ in the future constitution for the following reasons:
- Being custodians of national heritage: cultural values, beliefs and above all chiefdom lands, the institution of chieftaincy ought to be protected and retained in the Sierra Leonean society through provision of House of Chiefs in the 2015 Draft Sierra Leone Constitution.
- Enactment of by-laws by paramount chiefs that remedy community decay will be enhanced.
- Relevance of paramount chiefs in the local government administration through provision of social services will be improved under House of Chiefs agenda.
- Collection of tax revenues at the chiefdom level will be uniform, efficient and effective under the auspices of House of Chiefs.
Unicameral Parliament
National assemblies of modern states have one or two chambers. That is, they are either unicameral or bi-cameral. Essentially, a bi-cameral legislature makes sense in large federal states such as Nigeria and India where ethnic minorities need protection from the larger and dominant groups. However, the mere presence of two chambers in a country does not guarantee such protection. Indeed, without temperate diffusion of power, a bi-cameral legislature may prove meaningless, insignificant and unproductive. That was the case in the former Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR):1917-1990. In the USSR, the Supreme Soviet had a second chamber, the Soviet of the Nationalities which was to represent the various ethnic groups. Albeit, the enormous and unlimited power wielded by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union rendered it difficult for independent views from members of the Soviet of the Nationalities and the Soviet of the Union to be heard in the legislative process. Similarly, a few unitary countries have bi-cameral legislatures for example Liberia, United Kingdom and France. In the authors view, France serves as a classic example where the senate plays a conservative function designed to curb the possible radicalism of the lower chamber.
Ideally, a national assembly should be large enough to adequately represent different groups in various geographic areas and small enough to allow speedy and efficient deliberation. This ideal scenario fits Sierra Leone today. In retrospect, the 124 seats in parliament adequately represent the eighteen ethnic groups and geographic areas of the nation. In my judgment, there is no need to place an extra financial burden on the limited resources of the treasury when currently it is a struggle for the national government to provide basic social services including electricity, paved streets in the capital city – Freetown, feeder roads, interstate highways, tertiary education, health, piped borne water and descent housing facilities etc. The people of Sierra Leone are content with current state of affairs and therefore, I strongly recommend that the 1991 Sierra Leone Constitution Review Committee Plenary retain the existing unicameral parliament.
Parliamentary System of Government
Since the end of the Berlin Congress of 1884/85, Sierra Leone with many territories including Nigeria, Gold Coast (now Ghana), India, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand etc., formally became part of the British Empire. The citizenry of the dependent territories received British education and were nurtured to adopt British parliamentary system. In that regard, the 1952, 1957, 1958 and 1961 Sierra Leone Constitutions drafted under the watchful eye of the colonial administration underscored the parliamentary system of government. Over the years, the system of government has been radically transformed with lopsided enormous powers to the executive branch of government. This is the time to restore power to the national legislature.
Although the youths of this country are yet to experience the parliamentary system, this paper is poised to make it easy to understand. This is how it works: at the end of national elections, the political party that wins majority of seats in parliament becomes the ‘government party’ and its leader becomes ‘prime minister’ with executive powers. All other political parties within and outside parliament are considered ‘opposition parties’. It is the prime minister who appoints cabinet and non cabinet ministers from among his political party members of parliament. Indeed, parliament has the constitutional responsibility to ratify the cabinet and government programme. In a scenario where the country is a republic as is in Sierra Leone, the prime minister will nominate an eminent Sierra Leonean with parliamentary approval to become president and head of state with ceremonial powers. Also, parliament has the constitutional instrument known as ‘vote of no confidence’ which may ‘bring down a government’ for unconstitutional and unethical behaviour.
It is important to note that a prime minister may stay in office as long as his political party continues to win the confidence of the electorate. Hence the idea of extending the term of office by changing the constitution through ‘referendum’ does not arise in a parliamentary democracy. Recall that Pierre Trudeau was many times prime minister of Canada because the Canadian electorate had confidence in his leadership and political party. In recent time, David Cameron won the confidence of the British voters for a second term.
It is from the above perspective and the under-mentioned that the author very strongly recommends the parliamentary system to the 1991 Sierra Leone Constitution Review Committee Plenary for consideration.
- The ‘popular political party’ becomes the government party
- The leader of the popular political party becomes ‘prime minister’.
- Corrupt governments and officials are brought down easily through ‘vote of no confidence’.
- ‘Question Time’ in parliament-a constitutional instrument that engenders resignation of governments and brings about general elections may reveal mal-administrative practices.
- It is easy to institute changes in the leadership of a political party if the need arises.
Proportional Representation (PR) System
The Proportional Representation popularly known as (PR) is different from presidential and parliamentary systems of government. Indeed, they are systems of national government that citizens of sovereign countries are at liberty to adopt in referenda. Essentially, the PR is the most democratic mode of electing representatives. As a result of its attractiveness, it is used in many countries including Scandinavian countries Germany, Ireland, France and the United States of America, etc.
Unlike the presidential and parliamentary systems, PR underscores how votes are counted to accrue maximum benefit to electors, parties and candidates. As a flexible voting scheme, PR has been adopted in school board, town, city, and national legislative elections in Europe and North America. Hence the countries that use PR combine it with a parliamentary system. Trust that it does not always have to be so since presidential system may use PR.
In a presidential or parliamentary election held in Country A for example, the candidate who receives the highest votes from a single member parliamentary constituency is declared “elected”. This means no representation for those who supported other candidates, except the representative elected chooses to give voice to those who did not vote for him. In the above scenario, direct representation is not afforded minority groups.
This is where PR becomes relevant. Essentially, the underlying rationale for PR is to ensure that parliament reflects more or less mathematical exactness of the various divisions in the electorate. The proponents of PR including this author are inspired by the notion that there can be no genuine democracy unless the various viewpoints in the electorate are represented in parliament as fairly as possible. This is a popular view held by citizens of many countries. In order to give unbiased representation to their citizenry, many governments of European countries with Norway taking the lead in its 1814 Constitution have adopted PR in national elections.
In contrast to winner-take-all in single member parliamentary constituencies, where votes cast to a losing candidate are wasted even if that candidate gains 49.9% of the total votes cast, PR elects from multi-seat constituencies in proportion to the number of votes received. Suffice it to say that PR assures that political parties need not come first to win seats and receive per cent of parliamentary seats that reflect their public support. Furthermore, candidates need not come first to win seats and receive per cent parliamentary seats that reflect their popular support.
Types of Proportional Representation
List System/National List: The list system is one of the most popular types of PR. It is used by many countries worldwide. Under the list system, the nation becomes a single constituency and voters are presented with a slate of candidates that political parties prepare in advance. Voters select one of the parties and its list of candidates to represent them in parliament. At the end of the election, the votes are tallied and parliamentary seats are accorded according to the votes won by each party. Essentially, the number of seats that each party wins in parliament is a reflection of its popularity.
In the closed party list voters are asked to select the party with its slate of candidates. Similarly, the open list system allows voters to indicate preference for individual candidates of their choice. At the end of the election, if for example Party A wins 50% of the total popular votes, Party A receives 50% (62 seats) of the 124 seats in parliament. If Party B wins 40% of the popular votes, Party B receives 40% (50 seats) of total seats in parliament. Finally, if Party C wins 10% of the total votes cast in an election, Party C receives 10% (12 seats) of the total seats in parliament and so on.
Mixed Member (MM) System: In some instances, a hybrid proportional representation type elects half of the members of parliament from single member parliamentary constituencies characterized by winner-take-all and the other half through the list system.
Preference Voting (PV): The third and final option of proportional representation is the preference voting which mandates voters to rank candidates in order in which the voter prefers. For example 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. When a voter’s first choice is elected, the excess votes are “transferred “to the next preference or preferred candidate. Indeed, under the regime of preference voting, not a single vote is wasted. Every vote counts. The preference voting is ideal for non-partisan elections.
It is in line with the above that many democracies that adopt PR have endured and stood the test of time. In that regard, the author very strongly recommends the ‘national closed list’ system for the under-mentioned reasons.
- Research shows greater voter turnout between 70-90%.
- Electors (voters) are exposed to many choices (candidates) to choose from.
- Diverse representatives are elected.
- Members of small ethnic groups and women have better chances of been elected.
- Campaigns emphasise ‘issues’ instead of opposing candidates.
- Reduced effect of money is ascertained.
- Minor parties have improved chance of winning seats in parliament.
Paper Presented at the 1991 Sierra Leone Constitution Review Committee Plenary, CRC Secretariat, Youyi Building, Brookfields, Freetown, Republic of Sierra Leone 18th December 2015
About the Author: Dr. Habib M Sesay, Senior Lecturer Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Law Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone Mount Aureol, Freetown Republic of Sierra Leone Chairman, Executive Sub-committee 1991 Sierra Leone Constitution Review Committee Representing PMDC
(C) Politico 02/02/16
