Chamber Practice

I describe and comment here on several unusual parliamentary models or related practices of forming governments. The first model is historic while the rest still exist around the world today. Many focus on demographic rather than geographic or ideological representation and all are interesting even if they are open to criticism.

The bogus tricameral parliament of South Africa in the final decade of Apartheid in the 80s was an extraordinary exercise in institutional window-dressing intended to give credence to the flimsy notion of 'separate but equal'. Separatism tends towards stratification at the best of times and, in the case of Apartheid, it was a rationalization for entrenched racism that fooled nobody. Internal and external pressure on the regime grew and in response it developed a new three-chamber parliament consisting of a 178-member House Of Assembly, a 85-member House Of Representatives, and a 45-member House Of Delegates.

The Assembly was for whites, the Representatives for mixed-background coloureds and the Delegates for ethnic Indians (a significant part of the South African population). Each arbitrarily named chamber was supposed to legislate for matters relating to each segment of society but all the most important issues were the preserve of the Assembly. Sometimes the three chambers would have a joint sitting and notice that 178 is greater than 85 and 45 combined. And finally the very powerful role of President was reserved only for a white.

I'm yet to mention black South Africans because they were supposedly citizens of separate and autonomous 'homelands' (known to journalists as 'bantustans') in a further enforcement of Apartheid. Conditions within them were generally poor and most residents still had to live and work in wider South Africa as guest-workers in their own nation. However these enclaves had tribal elites whose positions were dependent on the continuation of those structures and who therefore became complicit in maintaining the regime. But the start of the 90s was a time of rapid positive change and Apartheid gave way to a unified and democratic polity in South Africa.

Comparisons have been drawn between Apartheid era South Africa and Israel. How well this fits depends on focus. The Knesset is a unicameral parliament elected by citizens of all creeds within Israel proper via nation-wide proportional representation. I say creed because the character of prejudice in the Levant is one of religion far more than race. But the democratic nature of Israeli politics is only part of the bigger picture and the Palestinian Territories can be compared to bantustans. If only they could eventually be returned to the rule of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in a kind of four-state solution. But that is as distant as any resolution while various forces are recalcitrant.

In neigbouring Lebanon the solution to similar divisions is the confessionalist National Pact. Under this several-decades old agreement the President is Catholic, the Prime Minister is Sunni, the Deputy Prime Minister is Orthodox, the Speaker of Parliament is Shia, and so on. Initially there were more Christian than Muslim seats allocated in parliament. Such a power-sharing arrangement lacks flexibility as demographics change. It also severely limits the talent pool for any given governmental position. And if anything such formal recognition of demographic divides only reinforces them. Conflict still occurred in the form of civil war in the 70s and 80s. The model has been refined since then with Christians and Muslims having the same number of parliamentary seats.

A more recent response to sectarian conflict is the Good Friday Agreement in the British province of Northern Ireland that has been in force since the late 90s. It involves all members of parliament of whatever party choosing to be designated as 'unionist' (wishing for Northern Ireland to continue to be part of the United Kingdom) or 'nationalist' (wishing for Northern Ireland to become part of the Republic of Ireland) or 'other'. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister, despite those titles, share executive power and must come, one each, from the unionist and nationalist groupings. The unionist-nationalist divide has a confessional character - Protestant versus Catholic - but is more flexibly cast in terms of a major political question, one that stands even if religious identifications change.

There are objections, however, to this model, in that it locks in a form of governmental alliance that can slow policy reform, and limits political identity in relation to many other important issues. But maybe distorting parliamentarism is the price of keeping the peace there, one that might now be undermined by the complications of Brexit.

Across the British border in the Republic Of Ireland they have a bicameral parliament comprising an Assembly (lower house) and a Senate (upper house). The historical distinction between lower and upper houses is that the former represents the common populace while the latter involves an elite (such as nobility and clergy). Most upper houses however have long since been adapted to some other purpose. In Ireland the Assembly is elected by many multi-member geographic electorates while, in contrast, the Senate is composed of members chosen to represent a mix of demographic interests within the Irish economy and society.

There are 60 senators. 11 of these are chosen by the Prime Minister (who is a member of the Assembly). 6 are elected by the graduates of particular universities. And 43 are selected from five vocational panels by a sort of electoral college comprising all current parliamentarians and the members of local municipal councils (Ireland is a unitary state with just two levels of government). Vocational representative organizations (like guilds or unions) have a hand in the nomination of candidates and those nominees are supposed to have understanding and experience of the sectors they are to represent. Those five sectors are agriculture (11 senators), labour (11 senators), industry and commerce (9 senators), administrative and community services (7 senators), culture and the arts (5 senators).

These vocational representatives make the Irish Senate a classic example of corporatism. This is the representation of groups rather than individuals and usually involves the delegates of distinct economic classes. By itself corporatism is a problem because human identity and interests go far beyond what we do for a living. However here it is only part of a bigger design as this particular senate can only advise the Assembly and delay its legislation. The senators chosen by the Prime Minister also tend to ensure a government majority. And the members of both chambers are usually loyal to political parties over electorates or vocations.

The philosphical justification for corporatism in the Irish Senate was derived from the Catholic concept of the body politic ('corpus politicum') which describes society as an organic whole comprising complementary parts working in unison. But corporatist models can be developed from or made use of by many different ideological camps. Consider the functional constituency model in Hong Kong (an autonomous city-state of China following its return from British governorship). The unicameral Legislative Council membership consists half-and-half of the more usual geographic representatives along with vocational representatives (chosen by an electoral college and drawn from an elaborate array of professional associations).

The geographic members can be drawn from an ideological variety of approved political parties but once combined with the vocational members, the legislature becomes dominated by those loyal to the Marxist-Leninist regime of China, which is in-effect a one-party state like another I once described.

The same nationality can develop many different kinds of polity. The Chinese on the island of Taiwan practice a form of parliamentary democracy with some distinct local innovations. They recognize five arms of government as having executive, legislative, judicial, auditing and examining roles (the last two of which we in Australia consider merely bureaucratic). Each has its own yuan or 'court' and the one of interest for me is the unicameral Legislative Yuan.

Voters elect both local representatives and party list representatives (totalling 73 and 34 respectively). The same number of women as men must be elected from each party list, something which can be done in a proportional representation vote. This practice of legislative (rather than just internal political party) quotas is found in several parts of the world and it will be interesting to see how it adapts to changing conceptions of gender differentiation. Finally, there are 6 representatives of the Indigenous Taiwanese elected from two electorates of three members each across the entire island. The indigenous Taiwanese happen to be related to the Polynesians, which allows me to segue to the topic of dedicated Maori electorates.

New Zealand also has a unicameral parliament comprising both local and party list representatives. As part of this 120-member chamber there are 49 party list positions and 71 local positions. 7 of those local positions are reserved for Maori represention from a distinct map of nation-wide electorates. It is amazing to me that they have existed in one form or another since the 1860s but that is just part of the surprising history of Maori-Pakeha relations. Maori choose whether to be enrolled in general or Maori electorates. Anyone can seek election to these postions as long as they are familiar with Maori language, culture and traditions. Likewise Maori can seek election to any of the other electorates or party list positions. If ever there were grounds for reserving seats for particular demographics it is this - disposesed indigenous popululations who have become a minority in their own land.

There are many other designs and redesigns of representative institutions worldwide. I have only scratched the surface but with what I hope is an interesting sampling of the variety that exists. I would be cautious in recommending many of these. They can needlessly complicate the job of representing public opinion. And it is worth remembering that 'representation' has different meanings. Reflecting the composition of a society may be a distinct thing from forming a government that works in the best interests of that society.