Elections in Asia and the Pacific: A Data Handbook: South East Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific Volume 2

Elections in Asia and the Pacic A Data Handbook VOLUME II South East Asia, East Asia and the South Pacic Edited By D...

Author: Dieter Nohlen | Florian Grotz | Christof Hartmann

59 downloads 2848 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Elections in Asia and the Pacic A Data Handbook VOLUME II South East Asia, East Asia and the South Pacic

Edited By Dieter Nohlen Florian Grotz and Christof Hartmann

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi São Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Dieter Nohlen, Florian Grotz, and Christof Hartmann 2001 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2001 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available ISBN 0–19–924959–8

Preface This two-volume work constitutes the second instalment in the series of election data handbooks published by Oxford University Press. Two years after the apparition of the first title, Elections in Africa, we now present the first-ever compendium of electoral data for all the states in Asia and the Pacific, since their independence to the present day. The fourth volume, covering national elections on the American continent, is currently underway, and a final work dedicated to Europe will close the series of Elections Worldwide. The basic idea of these handbooks—a systematic and historically complete documentation of elections in all the countries of the world—is almost 40 years old. It was born in the early 1960s, when Dolf Sternberger and Bernhard Vogel embarked on a voluminous research project at the Institute for Political Science at the University of Heidelberg (Germany), on ‘The Election of Parliaments and other State Organs’. Since then Heidelberg has been witness to several projects on elections and electoral systems, including empirical and theoretical publications covering all world regions. The first major data-oriented publication was Die Wahl der Parlamente (1969), which recorded and analyzed the national elections in all European countries. In 1978 a second voluminous work on Africa was published under the subtitle Politische Organisation und Repräsentation in Afrika. In the late 1980s a multinational research team directed by Dieter Nohlen began working on parliamentary and presidential elections in Latin America and the Caribbean. The main result concerning electoral data was published in 1993 in German (Handbuch der Wahldaten Lateinamerikas und der Karibik) and in Spanish (Enciclopedia Electoral Latinoamericana y del Caribe). A new project on ‘Elections and Democratization in Africa and Latin America’, begun in 1996, provided the perfect framework to revive the old idea of a worldwide compendium of electoral data handbooks. This path led us to Elections in Africa, edited by Dieter Nohlen, Michael Krennerich, and Bernhard Thibaut, yet it did not end there, but continued to Asia and the Pacific. This latter work was by far the most challenging part of this handbook series, since Asia and the Pacific were the only world regions for which we could not rely on a preceding ‘Heidelberg product’. For this reason, we are especially grateful to those individuals and organizations without whose support it would have been impossible to

iv

CONTENTS

complete this book. First of all, we are deeply indebted to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for its generous funding of this project. Many scholars around the globe were asked to author one or another contribution. Some of them refused or withdrew their promised participation—admittedly, for comprehensible reasons, since most of the country articles demanded a huge amount of time and energy in their elaboration: collecting the relevant information, pressing the quantitative and qualitative data into a strict corset of guidelines, sometimes recalculating national data according to international standards and dealing with never-ending questions from the editors. And such work would produce an apparently paradoxical outcome: the more demanding the elaboration of an article was, the clearer and simpler it finally appears to the reader. We are therefore, more than grateful to our 50 contributors from about 20 different countries; not only have we learnt plenty from them in these three years, but their encouragement and empathy with this project have become a decisive stimulus for us to finish it. Furthermore, we owe much to our editorial team at Heidelberg, especially to Alexander Somoza and Philip Stöver who have tirelessly assisted in collecting and standardizing the relevant information. Emilia Conejo provided most valuable help in correcting the English version. Two of us left Heidelberg during the work on this book. We are thus, particularly grateful to our academic institutions, the European Centre for Comparative Government and Public Policy (Berlin) and the Institute of Development Research and Development Policy (Bochum) respectively, for having given us the opportunity to finish this project besides our new—rather different—commitments. We would also like to express our gratitude to the Institute for Political Science at the University of Heidelberg, the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) in Washington, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) in Stockholm and the dependencies of the Konrad-Adenauer Foundation in various Asian countries. Last but not least, we have to thank Dominic Byatt and Amanda Watkins at Oxford University Press for their encouraging words and their professional support. Working with them has been a real pleasure. Heidelberg/ Berlin/ Bochum, June 2001 Dieter Nohlen Florian Grotz Christof Hartmann

Contents Notes on Editors and Contributors Technical Notes Elections and Electoral Systems in Asia. South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific (Dieter Nohlen, Florian Grotz, and Christof Hartmann) South East Asia Brunei (Florian Grotz) Cambodia (Christof Hartmann) Indonesia (Jürgen Rüland) Laos (Christof Hartmann) Malaysia (Kevin YL Tan) Philippines (Christof Hartmann, Graham Hassall, and Soliman M. Santos Jr.) Singapore (Hans Christoph Rieger) Thailand (Michael H. Nelson) Vietnam (Christof Hartmann) East Asia China (People's Republic) (Xuewu Gu) Japan (Axel Klein) Korea (Democratic People's Republic/ North Korea) (Mark B. Suh) Korea (Republic of Korea/ South Korea) (Aurel Croissant) Mongolia (Peter M. Gluchowski and Florian Grotz) Taiwan (Republic of China) (Marianne Rinza)

vii xiii 1 45 47 53 83 129 143 185 239 261 321 343 345 355 395 411 481 525

vi

NOTES ON EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

South Pacific Australia (Colin A. Hughes) Cook Islands (Graham Hassall) Federated States of Micronesia (Alexander Somoza) Fiji Islands (Christof Hartmann) Kiribati (Alexander Somoza) Marshall Islands (Philip Stöver) Nauru (Benjamin Reilly and Maria Gratschew) New Zealand (Nigel S. Roberts) Palau (Donald R. Shuster) Papua New Guinea (Benjamin Reilly) Samoa (Asofou So'o) Solomon Islands (Jeffrey S. Steeves) Tonga (Ian C. Campbell) Tuvalu (Alexander Somoza) Vanuatu (Philip Stöver) Glossary

571 573 621 633 643 673 687 697 705 741 763 779 795 809 823 833 849

Notes on Editors and Contributors Editors Dieter Nohlen is Professor of Political Science at the University of Heidelberg and a well known expert on electoral systems, regime change, and democratization processes, and development studies with a focus on Latin America. He received the Max Planck prize for internationally outstanding research in 1991. His numerous books include Wahlsysteme der Welt (1978; Spanish edition 1981), Sistemas electorales y partidos políticos (3rd edition 1998), Elections and Electoral Systems (1996). He is also coeditor of an eight-volume Handbook of the Third World (with F. Nuscheler, 3rd edition 1991–1994) and editor of a seven-volume Encyclopedia of Political Science (1992–1998). Florian Grotz (Ph.D., University of Heidelberg, 1999) is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the European Centre for Comparative Government and Public Policy, Free University of Berlin (Germany). His research has focused on electoral systems, party systems, and on institutional aspects of political development in Western and Eastern Europe. He has published several articles on elections and electoral systems and is author of a book on political institutions and party systems in post-communist East Central Europe (2000). Christof Hartmann (Ph.D.) is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Research and Development Policy, Ruhr University of Bochum (Germany). He holds a master's degree (1994) and a Ph.D. (1998) in Political Science from the University of Heidelberg. He has worked on regime change and democratization, development issues and conflict resolution in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. He is author of a book on the international dimension of political transitions in Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Kenya, and Uganda (1999).

viii

TECHNICAL NOTES

Contributors Ian C. Campbell, B.A. (Hons) (New England), Ph.D. (Adelaide), is a Reader in History at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch (New Zealand). He has specialized in Pacific History, and particularly on the history of Tonga. He is the author of A History of the Pacific Islands (1989 and various subsequent reprints) which has been translated into Chinese and French, and Island Kingdom. Tonga Ancient and Modern (1992; second, revised edition, 2001), ‘Gone Native’ in Polynesia. Captivity Narratives and Experiences in the South Pacific (1998) and numerous articles in scholarly journals. Aurel Croissant is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Heidelberg (Germany). His main fields of research are comparative politics, regime change and democratization processes with a focus on East and Southeast Asia. His works include Politischer Systemwechsel in Südkorea (Hamburg 1998) as well as several academic articles about party systems, civil society, interest mediation, and democratic consolidation in Asia. Peter M. Gluchowski is Country Representative of the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation to Mongolia, residing in Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia). Prior to this position he worked as head of Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation's research division in Sankt Augustin (Germany). His research has focused on electoral behavior, political attitudes, political extremism, and personal life styles. In this fields he has published numerous articles. Maria Gratschew is a Researcher at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), Stockholm (Sweden). A graduate of the University of Uppsala, she works on issues of voter turnout, voter registration, and compulsory voting. She is currently responsible for International IDEA's Voter Turnout Project (also available online at http://www.idea.int). Xuewu Gu (Ph.D.) is Senior Fellow and Head of the Europe Asia Programme at the Center for European Integration Studies of the University of Bonn (Germany). He has written books on the chemical weapons debate in Germany (1992), on the relations between China and the Superpowers


ix

during the Cold War (1998), an introduction to the thought of Confucius (1999), and on theories of International Relations (2000). Graham Hassall is Associate Dean, Undergraduate Studies, Landegg International University (Switzerland). He has degrees in education (B.Ed.) and history (B.A. Hons, Ph.D.). From 1990 to 2000 he was Research Fellow and Director of the Asia-Pacific program in the Center for Comparative Constitutional Studies, at the University of Melbourne Law School. He has a particular interest in electoral systems, conflict resolution, and methods of constitutional dialogue and change. In recent years he has been an official observer at general elections in Cambodia (1998) and Indonesia (1999), and in 1999 undertook research on governance issues in Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, and Japan. Colin A. Hughes is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the University of Queensland (Australia). He was the Australian Federal Electoral Commissioner 1984–1989, and on the Board of Directors of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), Stockholm 1996–1999. He has written extensively about elections and electoral administration, primarily in Australia. Axel Klein (Ph.D.) is Lecturer at the Institute for Japanese Studies at the University of Bonn (Germany). He has specialized on Japanese politics and has written a book on the reform of the Japanese electoral system (Das Wahlsystem als Reformobjekt. Eine Untersuchung zu Entstehung und Auswirkung politischer Erneuerungsversuche am Beispiel Japan. 1998). Michael H. Nelson (Ph.D.) is a Senior Research Fellow at the King Prajadhipok Institute, Bangkok (Thailand). His research has focused on Thai politics, comparative local government, and globalization. He published the book Central Authority and Local Democratization in Thailand (1998) and has produced several versions of the Thai Politics Bibliography (the latest version is of January 2001 and can be found at http://www.kpi.ac.th and http://www.leeds.ac.uk/thaipol). Benjamin Reilly (Ph.D.) is a Research Fellow at the National Centre for Development Studies at the Australian National University, Canberra. He was previously a Senior Programme Officer at the International Institute

x

TECHNICAL NOTES

for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Stockholm (Sweden). His books include The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design (co-author, 1997), Democracy and Deep Rooted Conflict: Options for Negotiators (co-editor, 1998), Electoral Systems and Conflict in Divided Societies (co-author, 1999), and Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management (2001) as well as articles in several newspapers and academic journals. Hans Christoph Rieger (Ph.D.) is a development economist and was member of the South Asia Institute at the University of Heidelberg (Germany) from 1963 to 1999. During this time he spent several years in Asian countries—three years in India, two years in Nepal, and seven years in Singapore. The main focus of his work has been on development policy and international economic co-operation and integration, with particular reference to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Marianne Rinza holds master's degrees in Political Science and Public Administration from the University of Heidelberg and the School for Administrative Science Speyer (Germany). Her research focuses on democratic transition, public administration as well as institutional, social and democratic processes in the European Union. She is currently working on her Ph.D. thesis on subsidiarity and legitimacy in the European Union. Nigel S. Roberts is an Associate Professor and Head of the School of Political Science and International Relations at the Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand). He has specialized in the study of electoral systems, New Zealand politics, Scandinavian politics, and voting behavior. He is a member of the New Zealand Political Change project—a publicly-funded seven-year study of the consequences of New Zealand's decision to adopt proportional representation, and is a co-author and/ or co-editor of all its major publications including New Zealand Under MMP (1996), From Campaign to Coalition (1997), Electoral and Constitutional Change in New Zealand (1999), and Left Turn (2000). Jürgen Rüland is Professor of Political Science at the University of Freiburg (Germany) and Director of the ArnoldBergstraesser-Institute Freiburg. His research interests include issues of democratization and international relations in Asia. Among his books are Politische Systeme in


xi

Südostasien (1998) and Urban Government and Development in Southeast Asia (1992). He edited The Dynamics of Metropolitan Management in Southeast Asia (1997) and co-edited Mythos Mittelschichten. Zur Wiederkehr eines Paradigmas der Demokratieforschung (1999). Soliman M. Santos, Jr. has a BA in History from the University of the Philippines, an LLB from the University of Nueva Caceres, and an LLM from the University of Melbourne. He is a Filipino lawyer, legislative consultant and peace advocate. His current areas of interest and publication are the peace process with rebel groups, comparative constitutional law, and international humanitarian law. He has worked both with the government, particularly the legislative department, and with various NGOs. Donald R. Shuster (Ph.D.) is Professor of Education and Micronesian Studies attached to the Richard F. Taitano Micronesian Area Research Center at the University of Guam. He lived in the Republic of Palau for ten years and has written nearly 100 newspaper, magazine, and journal articles about Palau's politics. Shuster served as president of the Pacific Islands Political Studies Association (PIPSA) from 1989–1993 and was awarded the East-West Center's Makana Award for distinguished public service. Alexander Somoza is a Research Assistant and graduate student in Political Science at the University of Heidelberg (Germany). His current research focuses on institutional aspects of the political development in Latin America. Asofou So'o studied Political Science and History and holds a master's degree (1989) and a Ph.D. (1997) from The University of Waikato (New Zealand) and The Australian National University in Canberra (Australia) respectively. He has published numerous articles on Samoan politics and various aspects of Samoan history, including Governance in Samoa: Pulega i Samoa (co-edited; 2000). Jeffrey S. Steeves is Professor in the Department of Political Studies at the University of Saskatchewan (Canada). He has undertaken research on Solomons politics and elections since 1980. He is currently doing research on the ethnic crisis in Solomons and on political succession in Kenya.

xii

TECHNICAL NOTES

Philip Stöver is a Research Assistant and graduate student in Political Science at the University of Heidelberg (Germany). Mark B. SUH (Ph.D.) is Director of the Korea International Peace Research Institute (KIPRI), Seoul, and is a well known expert on East Asian security issues, arms control, North and South Korean politics. He is the only Korean member of the Council, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (Rome et al.) since 1997 and is active in the international peace movement. He is also member of the Advisory Council on Democratic and Peaceful Unification of Korea, Seoul, since 1995, and advises various institutions in Korea dealing with the unification issue. He has published extensively on Korea and security issues of East Asia. Kevin YL Tan graduated with an LLB from the National University of Singapore and holds a LLM and a JSD (Doctor of Juristic Science) from Yale Law School (USA). He is currently Consultant and Director of Equilibrium Consulting Pte Ltd. (Singapore). Between 1998 and 2000 he was Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law (National University of Singapore). His numerous publications on constitutional law and legal reforms include Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore (1991 and 1997) and The Singapore Legal System (1999).

Technical Notes The data in this handbook are presented in the same systematic manner for all countries in order to provide electoral statistics in line with internationally established standards of documentation. The tables are organized in ten parts: 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups d'Etat: Table 2.1 provides an overview of the dates of elections to national political institutions, referendums as well as interruptions of the constitutional order by coups d’état since national independence. Where necessary, the dates of indirect elections are indicated by footnotes. The signs xx/ xx are used to indicate that no information could be found regarding the exact polling date. 2.2 Electoral Body: Table 2.2 provides a comparative overview of the evolution of the electoral body, and records the data on population size, registered voters, and votes cast. The figures of registered voters and votes cast are drawn from the relevant tables 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9. Population data have been generally rounded and their sources are named in a relevant footnote. Where electors have multiple votes, the column for ‘votes cast’ documents the numbers of ‘ballots cast’. A long hyphen (—) indicates that no information was available. All percentages are based on the figures given in the respective columns of this table. 2.3 Abbreviations: The abbreviations and full names of the political parties and alliances that appear in tables 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9 follow an alphabetical order. Party mergers, splinters, or successions are generally indicated in a footnote. As a rule, party names are given in their original language, and the English translation is provided in parentheses. The abbreviations used in the tables are the ones commonly used in the country or in the international reference texts. In the few cases where no abbreviation is mentioned in electoral documents or reference texts, the authors have resorted to party acronyms. These cases are explicitly mentioned in footnotes.

xiv

ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances: The data regarding the participation of political parties and alliances in all direct national elections are presented in a chronological order; they include the year of the elections and the number of elections contested. Only parties recorded in tables 2.6, 2.7, and 2.9 appear in this table. If a party contested an election as part of an alliance, its participation is counted both with regard to the party and to the alliance. 2.5; 2.6; 2.7; 2.9 Distribution of Votes in National Referendums, Elections to Constitutional Assembly, Parliamentary, and Presidential Elections: In these tables we try to provide exhaustive documentation of electoral participation, both in total numbers and in percentages, for every general election held since independence. The percentages refer to votes cast as a percentage of registered voters, invalid, and valid votes as a percentage of votes cast and party votes as a percentage of valid votes. For the purpose of this handbook invalid votes are those that enter the ballot box but are disqualified out of different possible reasons, and therefore do not affect the electoral outcome. Regarding national referendums, their purpose is indicated in a footnote. According to international standards the book uses the term ‘referendum’ for both plebiscites and (constitutional) referendums. Generally, those political parties who secured less than 0.5% of the vote were subsumed in a residual category (‘Others’). The category of ‘Independents’ includes all the candidates that did not run on a party label. A long hyphen (—) indicates the lack of exact data. A short hyphen (–), on the other hand, indicates that the information did not apply in this case, because the political party did not take part in a particular election. As far as exact data were available, the regional distribution of votes is presented in subsections following the respective chapter—‘2.7 a)’ for absolute numbers and ‘2.7 b)’ for percentages. 2.8 Composition of Parliament: This table illustrates the distribution of directly elected seats per party/ alliance as the immediate result of the election. Subsequent changes in party affiliation are not documented. All parties and alliances that won at least one seat in the respective legislature are taken into account. In addition, the numbers of appointed or indirectly elected members are documented in footnotes. A short hyphen (–) indicates that the information was not applicable, because the political party was not represented in Parliament in that particular term. Optional subsections provide differentiated accounts of bicameral chambers,

TECHNICAL NOTES

xv

as well as the distribution of seats according to regions and to segments of electoral systems (in case of combined systems). 2.9 Presidential Elections: see 2.5. 2.10 List of Power Holders: Table 2.10 provides information on the succession in the executive branch of the political system. For presidential systems only the Head of State (corresponding also to the Head of Government) is given. For semi-presidential and parliamentary systems both the Head of State and the Head of Government are provided. As a rule, the remarks describe the circumstances surrounding the accession to and resignation from office.

This page intentionally left blank

Elections and Electoral Systems in Asia and the Pacic South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacic by Dieter Nohlen, Florian Grotz, and Christof Hartmann1 A cross-national analysis of elections in Asia and the Pacific is certainly not an easy task. With an overall land extension of about 53,636,000 square kilometers, comprising 61 independent states,2 Asia is not only the largest continent in the world, but also the most heterogeneous in several respects. Demographically, it includes states as different as the People's Republic of China, with more than one billion people, and the Pacific island of Nauru, with just a few thousand inhabitants. From the socio-economic viewpoint, we have to speak of highly industrialized countries like Japan, contrasting heavily with some very scarcely developed states like North Korea. Finally, the political-structural diversity of Asia is also immense: in contrast to Africa, America, and Europe, in Asia it is possible to find old states that have never been colonized (like Thailand); countries with a classical colonial past (like India); and a series of states—especially in Central Asia—that became independent only ten years ago. Similarly, we find side by side old democracies like Australia or Israel; new democracies like Mongolia or South Korea; and a considerable number of ‘non-democracies’, be they communist (e.g. Vietnam), Islamist (e.g. Iran), or other types of authoritarian regimes (e.g. Myanmar). In view of this extreme heterogeneity, the key question is, how can we compare elections and electoral systems of the Asian-Pacific region without getting entangled in a mere enumeration of idiosyncratic characteristics of the countries concerned? In other words, can we—despite great contextual divergences among the different countries—identify

1

We would like to thank Andreas M. Wüst for his valuable research assistance.

2

These numbers include Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific Islands. For the purpose of this handbook, Asia-Pacific is considered in a geographical sense, covering the whole territory from Turkey, the Caucasus, and the Near East to the South Pacific Island States (including Australia). The only deviation from this geographical definition of Asia is the case of the Russian Federation, considered a European state and therefore excluded from this handbook despite its large territory in north-eastern Asia.

2

BRUNEI

some cross-national patterns of electoral regulations and of their effects? And if so, which factors can explain the different forms of national electoral provisions and/ or their relevant political outcomes? With regard to other world regions, these fundamental questions of comparative election research have been more or less well-investigated. Let us take Western Europe, for instance, for which many scholars—particularly since the seminal work of Stein Rokkan (1970)—have analyzed continuity and change of electoral institutions, party systems, and voter alignments in a systematic-comparative manner.3 But also a look at the relevant literature on Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe reveals a considerable number of cross-national studies on elections, electoral systems and party systems, especially since the third wave of democratization began in the mid-1980s.4 In the case of Asia, however, comparative studies on elections and electoral systems are astonishingly scarce. There are only few cross-national analyses in this area, and these refer to more or less the same samples of selected countries.5 Interestingly enough, we have not been able to find any article, essay, or book comparing elections over the whole Asian continent.6 The reasons for this striking void in the usually highly productive field of comparative election research have already been hinted at: the Asian-Pacific area is extremely large and heterogeneous. This may also explain why—in contrast to all other continents—no

3

To mention only a few major publications in this field: von Beyme 1985; Daalder/ Mair (eds.) 1983; Katz/ Mair 1995; Mair 1997; Rose 1974, 1980; Sartori 1976; Sternberger/ Vogel (eds.) 1969.

4

For relevant literature on Latin-American countries see Bendel 1996; Krennerich 1996; Main-waring/ Scully (eds.) 1995; Nohlen (ed.) 1993 and Nohlen/ Picado/ Zovatto (eds.) 1998. Regarding Africa see Bogaards 2000; Bratton/ Posner 1999; Hartmann 1999; Nohlen/ Krennerich/ Thibaut (eds.) 1999 and Reynolds 1999. For analyses of elections and party systems in post-communist Eastern Europe see for example Grotz 2000b; Kitschelt et al. 1999; Klingemann et al. (eds.) 2000; Nohlen/ Kasapovic 1996 and Ziemer (ed.) 2001.

5

With regard to the Middle East we may cite the book edited by Landau/ Özbudun/ Tachau (1980) about elections in Turkey, Lebanon, and Israel. Southeast-Asian elections are, for example, covered in volumes edited by Taylor (1996) and Sachsenröder/ Frings (1998). The only cross-national overview we found on elections in post-soviet Central Asia is an essay by John Anderson (1998), who did not include the three Caucasian republics. The sole comparative study on elections in the South Pacific was written by Yash Ghai (1988), who mostly refers to the relevant legal provisions at the time of independence.

6

Even most recent reference titles, as for example the International Encyclopedia of Elections edited by Richard Rose (2000), show this structural lack of information on Asian countries. In this sense it is quite indicative that the index of the Encyclopedia gives only two references for Asia, in comparison to seven for Africa, and seventeen for Latin America. Moreover, main entries such as ‘founding elections’ have sub-sections on Africa, Latin America, Eastern and Western Europe, but not on Asia.


3

cross-national data collection for elections in Asia has been published so far.7 This handbook offers a systematic presentation of the legal framework and the political results of all direct national elections and referendums in 61 Asian-Pacific states since their independence. It is therefore a unique source to find profound answers to the key questions raised above. In this sense, we hope that these two volumes will stimulate scholars to get involved in more cross-national analyses of elections and electoral systems in the Asia-Pacific region and thus to break new ground in this field of political research. In the introductory chapter to this volume we try to approach a systematic comparison of elections and electoral systems in Asia and the Pacific. Of course, we do not want to draw a rather simplistic general picture of the whole continent, nor can we dwell in detailed explanations for all historical peculiarities of the relevant electoral provisions and their consequences. Rather, we follow a middle-range approach to highlight the similarities and differences between regional and national contexts that have most clearly influenced the relevant structure of electoral provisions and electoral results. In order to deal more easily with the immense contextual diversity of Asia, we decided to use the common distinction between six sub-regions that are relatively homogeneous with regard to their political culture and their political history. These areas are the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific.8 The subsequent paragraphs present a comprehensive overview of national elections and referendums in all subregions. After this general part, the succeeding sections focus on the areas studied in this volume: South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific. For these countries, the most important features of the legal provisions on suffrage, parliamentary and presidential electoral systems are described and analyzed in a comparative manner (2). We then proceed to analyze some of the political effects that elections and electoral systems have in those states (3). The final section deals with region-specific problems of availability and reliability of official electoral statistics (4).

7

For relevant data collections on Europe see Sternberger/ Vogel (eds.) 1969, Mackie/ Rose 1991, Rose/ Munro/ Mackie 1998, and Caramani 2000; for Latin America see Nohlen (ed.) 1993a, 1993b and Nohlen/ Picado/ Zovatto (eds.) 1998; for Africa refer to Sternberger/ Vogel/ Nohlen/ Landfried (eds.) 1978 and Nohlen/ Krennerich/ Thibaut (eds.) 1999.

8

The 61 country chapters of this handbook are also arranged according to these six areas: This second volume covers South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific, while the countries of the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia are included in the first volume.

4

BRUNEI

1. Elections in Asia and the Pacic: A Historical and Sub-Regional Overview Any overview of elections and electoral systems in Asia-Pacific needs to be based on a set of criteria that make it possible to systematize the flood of heterogeneous data in a sensible way. For this introduction—and for the handbook as a whole—we have relied on an area approach founded on the assumption that countries with a similar historical and/ or cultural background share more relevant characteristics than a random selection of cases (Lijphart 1971). Following this hypothesis, the subdivision of the Asian continent into historical-cultural areas provides benchmarks for fruitful comparisons in at least two respects: first, at the inter-area level, a comparative analysis may reveal some structural patterns of elections and electoral systems that are characteristic of certain Asian sub-regions; second, within a single area, we may, for example, analyze the degree of homogeneity of electoral provisions in the states of that area, and thus find country-specific variables which explain the evolution of the relevant electoral systems and their effects. Table 1 : Independent States and Sub-Regions in Asia and the Pacifica Middle East (14) Central Asia/ Caucasus (8) Bahrain Armenia Iran Azerbaijan Iraq Georgia Israel Kazakhstan Jordan Kyrgyzstan Kuwait Tajikistan Lebanon Turkmenistan Oman Uzbekistan Qatar Saudi-Arabia Syria Turkey UAE Yemen a

South Asia (9) Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India Maldives Myanmar Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka

South East Asia East Asia (6) (9) Brunei China PR Cambodia Japan Indonesia Korea (North) Laos Korea (South) Malaysia Mongolia Philippines Taiwan Singapore Thailand Vietnam

South Pacific (15) Australia Cook Islands FS Micronesia Fiji Islands Kiribati Marshall Islds. Nauru New Zealand Palau Papua NG Samoa Solomon Islds. Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu

This table divides the independent states of Asia-Pacific into six sub-regions. This classification is followed all through the handbook. The figures in parentheses indicate the number of countries per region. Abbreviations: China PR = People's Republic of China; FS Micronesia = Federated States of Micronesia; Islds. = Islands; Papua NG = Papua New Guinea; UAE = United Arab Emirates.


5

Hence, methodological reasons have determined our division of the Asian-Pacific continent: six sub-regions which are relatively homogeneous with regard to the historical and political-cultural background of the countries concerned (see Table 1). In the following we will briefly introduce each of these areas, highlighting the features crucial for the historical evolution and the political functions of the relevant national elections. (i) The Middle East: This most westerly sub-region of the continent covers the area from Asia Minor and the Caspian Sea in the north to the Arab peninsula in the south. It includes a total of 14 independent states.9 From a historical, cultural, and political perspective, the most distinct features of the Middle East are the predominance of Islam and the former belonging of most countries to the Ottoman Empire until 1918. It is true that these countries experienced different degrees of dominance by different European powers (Britain, France), and that concerning the ‘Islamic factor’ we find not only differences among the major sects, but also some notable exceptions (Israel, Lebanon). This notwithstanding, the Middle East can be considered one of the most homogeneous sub-regions in Asia-Pacific. (ii) Central Asia and the Caucasus10: Although territorially divided by the Caspian Sea, these eight states situated along the southern border of the Russian Federation probably constitute the most homogeneous area in Asia, at least in historical-political terms. ‘Colonized’ under the Russian Tsardom from the 18th century on, the relevant countries were subsequently incorporated into the Soviet Empire after the 1917 Revolution and, in their present borders, they were made federative republics of the USSR during the 1920s/ 30s. With the breakdown of the Soviet Union, they all became independent in 1991. These far-reaching similarities among the post-soviet countries should however not overshadow the specific differences concerning state- and nation-building. Broadly speaking, a first subgroup in this regard includes the three Caucasian countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) which saw a short period of independence before sovietization and later actively contributed to the dissolution of the USSR. The five countries of Central Asia, on the other hand, are totally new states and their independence arrived rather to their own surprise.

9

We did not include a separate country chapter for the Palestinian Authority since in mid-2001 it had not yet achieved the internationally recognized status of full independence.

10

For practical reasons, in the following we will mostly use the abbreviated form ‘Central Asia’ for all eight post-soviet states of this area.

6

BRUNEI

(iii) South Asia: The political history of South Asia, the area covering the whole Indian subcontinent from Afghanistan in the west to Myanmar in the east, is mainly characterized by the British dominance until the end of World War II. Apart from this general uniformity, however, there are significant differences concerning the extent of the external influence in the relevant countries: the British legacy has obviously been stronger in the ‘core states’ of the subcontinent, all real colonies (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka) than in the five countries at the ‘periphery’ of British colonial rule. Moreover, like in the Middle East, religious factors have played an important role in South Asian national politics. In this regard, it is important to differentiate not only between countries with Hindu/ Buddhist majorities (Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka), and Islam(ist) states (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Pakistan), but also between different degrees of ‘religious dominance’ in the public sphere. (iv) South East Asia: The countries situated between the Indian sub-continent and the South Pacific are generally considered to form the area of South East Asia. In the following we use this sub-regional definition as well, though national political contexts in South East Asia are definitely more heterogeneous than those in the aforementioned areas. For the nine relevant countries, we have to distinguish at least five groups with different historical backgrounds: (a) the previous British territories of Malaya (Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore); (b) the former French colonies in Indochina (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam); (c) Indonesia, which was under Dutch rule until World War II; (d) the Philippines, with a strong US-American influence until 1935; and (e) the Kingdom of Thailand, which has never been a western colony. (v) East Asia: The countries forming the sub-region of East Asia are an area in the geographical sense, but not in the strict methodological sense explained above. They rather make up a set of individual cases, and are indeed brought together in this handbook for primarily pragmatic reasons. None of them has ever been a classical western colony. Despite their divergence, this sample of countries offers some remarkable historical-political peculiarities. Firstly, among the East Asian states we find two nations—the Chinese and the Koreans—that are divided into different regimes: the communist systems in North Korea and the People's Republic of China on the one hand, and the (newly democratic) regimes in South Korea and in Taiwan on the other. A second striking case is Mongolia, a communist regime for over seven decades that has developed surprisingly fast towards a successful democracy after 1989. And, finally, there is a deviant case, which, though widely known, is none the


7

less remarkable: Japan, which—apart from Israel and India—is the sole old democracy on the Asian continent. These and other peculiarities of East Asia might be interesting for further comparative election studies. In the following we will return to them only selectively, given the limited scope of this introductory overview. (vi) The South Pacific: In contrast to the two preceding sub-regions the South Pacific is fairly homogeneous, given the overall Anglo-American heritage within this area. Of course, a distinction should be made between the large democracies Australia and New Zealand and the 13 island states with only a few (ten) thousand inhabitants each. According to their colonial heritage, the island states could in turn be divided into the former member states of the American Congress of Micronesia (Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands), the states with a British background (Fiji Islands, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu, in a certain sense also Tonga although never a colony), and the former German territories, subsequently administered by New Zealand or Australia, such as Nauru, Papua New Guinea, and Samoa. Vanuatu is the only example of a former FrenchBritish-administered country in the region with other French territories that remain under the jurisdiction of the French Republic until today. On the basis of this regional subdivision it is now possible to start a historical overview on elections and referendums. Between 1945 and 2000 Asia-Pacific was witness to a total of 481 general elections to national parliaments, 108 direct presidential elections and 105 referendums. Rather than being evenly distributed among the relevant countries, the frequency of national elections has been quite different, both synchronically and diachronically. Tables 2a and 2b therefore differentiate the numbers of elections and referendums in Asia and the Pacific according to the six sub-regions and to four historical phases11. Though this quantitative overview remains sketchy, it does point out some fundamental similarities and differences between the types of elections, areas and phases.

11

The phases coincide with the main periods of political development in the Asian-Pacific countries (1945 defeat of Japanese and European colonialism in South, East and South East Asia, 1960 Republican Phase in the Middle East, Breakdown of Democracy in South East Asia; 1975 Independence in South Pacific, 1990 Dissolution of the Soviet Union and [Re-]Democratization in all regions).

8

BRUNEI

Table 2a : Number of Parliamentary Elections, Presidential Elections, and Referendums in the Asian-Pacific SubRegions, 1945–2000 Regionsa Election Parliam. elections

Phase 45–60 61–75 76–90 91–00

Total Presid. elections

45–60 61–75 76–90 91–00

Total Referendums

45–60 61–75 76–90 91–00

Total a

Middle East

Central Asia

South Asia

South East Asia

East Asia

South Pacific Total

33 (8)

–

17 (7)

24 (8)

20 (6)

18 (3)

112 (32)

27 (14) 24 (14) 23 (14) 107 5 (8)

– – 18 (8) 18 –

12 (9) 23 (9) 16 (9) 68 0 (7)

22 (9) 25 (9) 21 (9) 92 4 (8)

18 (6) 22 (6) 12 (6) 72 4 (6)

28 (7) 58 (15) 43 (15) 147 0 (3)

107 (45) 152 (53) 120 (61) 481 13 (32)

2 (14) 7 (14) 7 (14) 21 4 (8)

– – 22 (8) 22 –

3 (9) 8 (9) 4 (9) 15 0 (7)

8 (9) 3 (9) 3 (9) 18 7 (8)

4 (6) 5 (6) 6 (6) 19 1 (6)

0 (7) 8 (15) 5 (15) 13 5 (3)

17 (45) 31 (53) 47 (61) 108 17 (32)

4 (14) 5 (14) 1 (14) 14

– – 24 (8) 24

2 (9) 5 (9) 1 (9) 8

5 (9) 7 (9) 0 (9) 19

4 (6) 2 (6) 0 (6) 7

4 (7) 16 (15) 12 (15) 37

19 (45) 32 (53) 37 (61) 105

Numbers of direct national elections and referendums per sub-region since World War II in different phases (1945–1960, 1961–1975, etc.). ‘Parliam. elections’ refers to general polls held to the lower chamber of Parliament, ‘Presid. elections’ to the popular elections of the relevant heads of state. The numbers of independent states per region/ phase are given in parentheses.

Table 2b : Average Number of Elections in Asia-Pacific, 1945–2000 Regions Parliam. elections

Totala Presid. elections

Totala Referendums

Totala a

East Asia

South Pacific Totala

2.4

South East Asia 3.0

3.3

6.0

3.5

– – 2.3 2.3 –

1.3 2.6 1.8 2.0 0.0

2.4 2.8 2.3 2.9 0.5

3.0 3.7 2.0 3.0 0.7

4.0 3.9 2.9 4.2 0.0

2.4 2.9 2.0 3.0 0.4

0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5

– – 2.8 2.8 –

0.3 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.0

0.9 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.9

0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.2

0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.7

0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5

0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3

– – 3.0 3.0

0.2 0.6 0.1 0.2

0.6 0.8 0.0 0.6

0.7 0.3 0.0 0.3

0.6 1.1 0.8 1.1

0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5

Middle East

Central Asia

South Asia

45–60

4.1

–

61–75 76–90 91–00

1.9 1.7 1.6 2.3 0.6

45–60 61–75 76–90 91–00 45–60 61–75 76–90 91–00

‘Total’ refers to the averages of the relevant figures for sub-regions and phases respectively.


9

In this sense, let us first of all take a look at the regionally specific patterns of achieving national independence after World War II: in three areas—East Asia, South East Asia, and South Asia—the number of states has remained almost unchanged from the 1950s on.12 The Middle East, on the contrary, saw a second wave of independence in the 1960s, while most of the Pacific island states gained full sovereignty in the 1970s (exceptions Samoa, Nauru). At last, the breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave rise to the sudden emergence of a whole area of independent states in Central Asia. A second general feature is the greater number of parliamentary elections than of direct presidential elections and referendums. This fact clearly reflects the predominance of pure parliamentarism throughout Asia; in contrast to Africa, America, and Eastern Europe, where clearly more (semi-)presidential systems have been in use. Beyond the continental level, however, one should not overlook the different numbers of direct presidential elections and referendums in certain sub-regions and phases. The most striking case in this respect is post-soviet Central Asia: since independence, i.e. during the last ten years, one fifth of the total presidential polls (22) and nearly one quarter of all referendums (24) in Asia-Pacific were held in these eight states. The double concentration of presidential elections and referendums in this area mainly results from plebiscitarian practices of the relevant authoritarian leaders who were confirmed in office by (undemocratic) polls and could expand their constitutional powers and/ or their terms of office with ‘popular approval’ (Anderson 1997). Less surprising, but none the less remarkable, are some variations and trends in other sub-regions. Regarding direct presidential elections, the number has increased slightly over time. This is most obvious for the South Pacific, where three micro-states that achieved independence in the 1980s have established a presidential form of government13, but also for the Middle East, where four countries14 have introduced direct presidential polls since the late 1970s. On the contrary, the globally ‘growing use of direct democracy’ (Butler/ Ranney 1994) is not observed in most Asian sub-regions. Besides Central Asia, only the states in the South Pacific have held an increasing number

12

The relevant exceptions for South Asia include the Maldives, which gained full independence in 1965, and Bangladesh, that became a separate state after its secession from Pakistan in 1971. Deviant cases for South East Asia are Singapore (independence in 1965) and Brunei (1984) on the one hand, and on the other Vietnam, which was reunified in 1975.

13

Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, and Palau.

14

These states are Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen; of course, two of them hold ‘presidential referendums'. Syria had already held direct presidential elections in 1949 and 1953.

10

BRUNEI

of referendums since the mid-1970s which are related to the regional and international status of these micro-states (popular ratification of external treaties, compacts, and association agreements). A third interesting point in this respect are the quantitative differences of parliamentary elections in Asia-Pacific across time and sub-regions (see Table 2b). If we assumed all relevant countries elect their national parliaments for four-year terms, we would expect averages of 3.5–4.0 for the 15-year periods (1945–1990) and 2.5 for the decade of the 1990s alone. Most of the relevant figures in Table 2b, however, are lower than these theoretical benchmarks. Yet, temporal and especially regional variations are quite large. For all periods, the highest averages of parliamentary polls per country are found in the South Pacific, followed by East Asia and South East Asia. While the number of elections in Central Asia has been beyond the average since its independence, the Middle East15 and South Asian score lowest. The latter result may seem surprising at first glance since there are states with a long parliamentary tradition among the South Asian countries, such as India and Sri Lanka. This last consideration leads us from the purely quantitative dimension to the main political-structural differences between the Asian-Pacific countries across and within the sub-regions, i.e. with regard to the competitiveness of elections (Krennerich 2000). In this regard Table 3 provides an overview of the most recent parliamentary elections in the 61 relevant countries. The results are remarkable in several respects. The first can be drawn from a comparison with other world regions: whereas competitive parliamentary elections are currently the rule in Europe16, both Americas17 and most parts of Africa18, this is true only for half the states in Asia and the Pacific (30 of 61). Eleven countries hold multi-candidate parliamentary polls, but these do not comply with the international standards of free and fair elections (semi-competitive). The type of non-competitive elections formerly in use in the communist systems of Eastern Europe is still present in seven Asian countries. And there are at least 13 countries that hold no parliamentary elections at all, seven of which have not ever seen a general election.

15

The high number of elections in the Middle East between 1945 and 1960 may be explained by the unstable parliamentary governments in most countries with frequent fresh elections due to interruptions of parliamentary rule by military coup d’états.

16

At present the only European country where no competitive elections to the national parliament are held is Belarus.

17

For Latin America, the only full exception nowadays is Cuba.

18

In Africa, the principle of competitive elections is so far recognized in all countries except Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Sudan, and Swaziland. There are actually several countries where constitutional life is interrupted by civil war, or whose political practices lead us to classify them as semi-competitive settings (Cameroon, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Kenya, Mauritania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe).

11


Table 3 : Competitiveness of Recent Elections in Asia and the Pacific Region Middle East

Central Asia

Armenia Georgia

South Asia

Bangladesh India Nepal Sri Lanka Cambodia Indonesia Philippines Thailand Japan Korea (South) Mongolia Taiwan Australia Cook Islands Fiji Islands FS Micronesiac Kiribati Marshall Islds.c Nauruc New Zealand Palauc Papua NG Samoa Tongac,d Tuvaluc Vanuatu

South East Asia

East Asia

South Pacific

a

b

c d

Degree of Competitivenessa Competitive Israel Lebanon Turkey

No Electionsa Semi-competitive Iran Jordan Kuwait Yemen

Non-competitive Iraq Syria

Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan

Maldives

Malaysia Singapore

Laos Vietnam

Korea (North)

Bahrain Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia UAE

Afghanistan Bhutan Myanmar Pakistanb Brunei

China PR

Solomon Islds.

This qualitative classification of elections in Asia-Pacific relies exclusively on the relevant information given in the following country chapters. The assignment of the countries refers to the most recent parliamentary elections (held before May 2001). As for the categories, general elections without any formal alternatives are considered non-competitive, i.e. in most relevant cases there is a state party whose candidates/ (single) list(s) are simply confirmed; semi-competitive elections are formally multi-candidate races that cannot be considered democratic due to various reasons (e.g. absence of a substantial political competition, (in)formal restrictions of electoral campaigns, fraudulent practices in vote counting, etc.); competitive polls are those that meet international standards of ‘free and fair elections’ (see Elklit 2000; Krennerich 2000). The category ‘No elections’ includes those countries where currently no direct elections to national political institutions are held. For abbreviations of countries see Table 1. In Pakistan, after the 1999 putsch, the (democratic) constitution was put in abeyance; elections have not been held under the new regime, but they were announced for 2002. Political parties are either non-existent or do not play any significant role in the electoral contest. Only a minority of parliamentary seats are distributed via general elections.

12

BRUNEI

It is also difficult to detect a clear pattern regarding the degree of competitiveness of the different regions. There is certainly a clear concentration of countries without elections in the emirates of the Arab peninsula and in the ‘periphery’ of South Asia, and a concentration of competitive settings in the South Pacific (although some micro-states do not have political parties). The intra-regional distribution is also relatively uniform only in the South Pacific. Due to these intra-regional differences we have to restrict our analytical focus to the three regions of this volume when trying to shed some light on the more detailed structure of the relevant electoral provisions.

2. Structure and Evolution of Electoral Provisions 2.1 Suffrage At the beginning of the 21st century the principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are generally accepted and applied worldwide. In Asia and the Pacific, however, there are many more exceptions from these international standards than in other world regions. This holds especially true for the Middle East, but there are also remarkable deviant cases among the countries documented in this volume. In contrast to the Middle East and South Asia, most states of South East Asia and East Asia—democratic and nondemocratic regimes alike—have held general elections to their national parliaments more or less continuously since independence. The only exceptions in this regard are the Islamic sultanate of Brunei, which does not have any representative political institutions, and the People's Republic of China, where the National People's Congress has been elected in an indirect manner. All


13

other (South) East Asian states have been applying the principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage for a considerable time. Characteristic of the states of this region is that they all, both old and newly emerging states, introduced universal franchise in the period immediately following World War II.19 Only two states did so significantly earlier: Thailand with the abolishment of the absolute monarchy in 1932, and the Philippines with the introduction of self-government in 1935.20 Another typical feature of the electoral history of these countries is the fact that suffrage was usually made universal in one single step. Exceptions are the monarchies in Indochina, where women were granted the right to vote one decade after the introduction of male franchise.21 A very special case in this sense are the Philippines, whose 1935 Constitution provided that the introduction of female franchise was to be confirmed by a referendum in which only women were allowed to participate. Thanks to this plebiscite, held in April 1937, women voted for the first time in the 1938 parliamentary elections. It is worth mentioning that in some South East and East Asian countries universal suffrage has not been extended to certain social groups that are unquestionably enfranchised in most other world regions. This is the case, for instance, of religious groups, though the reasons for their exclusion have varied a lot: in some cases the ruling elites felt their legitimacy jeopardized by them22; in others, as in some predominantly Buddhist countries, the political participation of the clergy was contrary to widespread and deep-rooted cultural traditions.23 Members of the armed forces were often another group that acquired voting rights much

19

In Mongolia universal suffrage was formally provided for by a constitutional amendment in 1944 and first applied in the 1951 parliamentary elections. Japan introduced universal adult franchise in 1946, Taiwan in 1947. Both new Korean states did the same in 1948, immediately after their foundation. While the former Dutch colony of Indonesia laid the legal basis for universal suffrage only eight years after independence (1945) in 1953, the British territories in Malaya saw the introduction of universal franchise already before state independence (Malaysia in 1955, Singapore in 1958). In Vietnam, universal suffrage was introduced for the first direct elections in North Vietnam (1946) and South Vietnam (1956).

20

In the Philippines, suffrage was granted to all Christian male literate citizens who owned real property in 1906. The various voter qualifications were successively dropped until 1935.

21

Cambodia introduced universal male suffrage in 1946 and women's franchise in 1956. Laos followed this pattern with one year delay respectively (1947/ 1957). For the gradual process of male enfranchisement in the Philippine case see footnote 19.

22

In communist Mongolia, ‘secular and ecclesiastical feudalists’ were constitutionally deprived of their voting rights from 1924 to 1944. In the Philippines, the Muslim minority was not enfranchised until 1935, almost 30 years after the introduction of Christian male suffrage.

23

In Laos, Buddhist monks, who made up about 25 percent of the total population, were not allowed to vote until 1967. In Cambodia they obtained voting rights in 1972; in Thailand they are still excluded from the right to vote.

14

BRUNEI

later than the bulk of the population.24 In Indonesia, the military was dis-enfranchised in 1969 because the Suharto regime believed that the soldiers' participation in elections might undermine their unity, and with it their loyalty to the government. In order to compensate for this restriction of civil rights, the military has been allocated a contingent of ‘reserved seats’ in the Indonesian Parliament, which exists to date. South Pacific states introduced universal suffrage at very early stages in their political history. This holds especially true for Australia (1902) and New Zealand (1893)—the first country world-wide to introduce universal adult franchise—, but also most island states held elections under universal suffrage long before their independence from colonial rule.25 The only state where women's suffrage was introduced considerably later is the Kingdom of Tonga, which despite applying universal male suffrage since 1875, did not extend it to women until 1951. The persistence of traditional forms of social and cultural organization in some of the small and relatively homogeneous island states has also led to deviations from the internationally accepted principles of franchise: in Samoa, universal suffrage was not introduced until 1991, and candidature is still restricted to the nobility (matai system). Tonga, on its part, still maintains its two-class voting system, with nobles and commoners voting on separate rolls. Finally, the Fiji Islands maintained until recently an institutionalized setting of unequal representation, since the conflict between indigenous Melanesian populations and descendants of Indian migrants had led to a systematic over-weighting of Fijian votes in order to guarantee the supremacy of their parties in government.26 Apart from these general principles of suffrage, a relative uniformity is found in some of the more specific regulations worldwide, and Asia-Pacific presents again the highest number of exceptions to it. A first example is the legal stipulation that citizens must have reached a certain age of voting (see Grotz 2000a). While this threshold of political maturity has varied through time and space, an internationally uniform limit of 18 years has been in existence for the last two decades. Interestingly

24

In the Philippines, officers and soldiers were granted the right to vote in 1947, in Cambodia and Laos only after the establishment of republican regimes in 1970 and 1975, respectively.

25

In the South Pacific, universal suffrage was introduced as follows (country/ date of introduction): Nauru: 1951; Cook Islands: 1957; Fiji Islands: 1963; Papua New Guinea: 1964; Federated States of Micronesia: 1965; Palau: 1965; Marshall Islands: 1965, Kiribati: 1967; Solomon Islands: 1967; Tuvalu: 1967.

26

This occurred implicitly since 1970, it gained official recognition with the 1990 Constitution. Only in 1997 did the new electoral system introduce a more balanced representation of ethnic groups in Parliament (for details see the contribution on Fiji Islands).


15

enough, 16 of the world's 22 deviant cases27 are situated in the Asia-Pacific. In the countries of the six sub-regions we find age limits both above and below the 18-year threshold.28 Although each case is of course at best explained by analyzing the individual context, it is nevertheless possible to state that an abnormally high voting age is usually found in traditional or conservative regimes (like Singapore, Taiwan, or Samoa). On the other hand, populist and/ or leftist regimes tend to lower the voting age under 18, since they need to compensate the lack of political competition by extending participation. In the Philippines, for example, President Marcos lowered the voting age from 21 directly to 15 in 1973, thereby almost doubling the number of registered voters. With the re-democratization and the 1987 Constitution, voting age has been readjusted to the international standard of 18 years. Similarly, in communist North Korea the voting age was lowered from 20 to 18 years in 1962—fairly long before this threshold became the standard in western democracies—and, finally, to 17 years in 1972. Another international trend towards convergent franchise regulations concerns the traditional provision that registered voters must have a permanent residency within the relevant territorial constituency. In the past few years there has been a worldwide tendency to expand the democratic rights of the people by weakening this residency requirement and permitting citizens living abroad to participate in national elections from their foreign place of residence (external voting). Yet, unlike in the case of voting age, there are still not homogeneous structures of external voting provisions across and within other continents (see Nohlen/ Grotz 2000). In the light of this fact it is remarkable that one can distinguish relatively clear patterns of external voting for the three Asian-Pacific regions of this volume (Table 4). In South East and East Asia, most states have resisted the international trend of weakening the residency requirement. Despite controversial debates on this issue in some countries such as Singapore, most governments have refused to permit their citizens to participate in national elections from their foreign place of residence.29

27

There are currently three states with a lower voting age (16 years) in Latin America (Cuba, Nicaragua, and Brazil). Three countries have a higher age limit, two of them in North Africa (Morocco and Tunisia with 20 years) and one in Europe (Austria with 19 years).

28

In Asia-Pacific a voting age limit of 21 years exists currently in Azerbaijan, the Fiji Islands, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Pakistan, Samoa and Singapore. In Japan, Nauru, South Korea, and Taiwan it is set at 20 years, while in Jordan it is 19 years. Lower thresholds are found in Indonesia, North Korea (17 years in both) and Iran (16 years).

29

In Cambodia, external voting was applied for the first time in the 1993 Constitutional Assembly elections, which were organized by the United Nations Transitional Authority. The Cambodian Parliament, however, disregarded these provisions when drafting the legal framework for the following parliamentary elections held in 1998 under national authority.

16

BRUNEI

It has been only recently that a few democracies have granted this right, such as Japan in April 2000, Taiwan in 199130, or Thailand, where external voting was formally introduced in 1997 and first applied in the 2001 parliamentary elections. Table 4 : Cases of External Voting in South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacifica Countries with regulations for external voting

South East Asia Indonesia

East Asia Japan

South Pacific Australia

Thailand

Taiwan

Cook Islands Fiji Islands Marshall Islands FS Micronesia New Zealand Vanuatu Kiribati

Countries without regu- Cambodia lations for external voting Laos Malaysia Philippinesb Singapore Vietnam

North Korea South Korea Mongolia

Nauru Palaub Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu

This table includes only those countries that currently (mid-2001) hold general elections to national parliaments. Despite a constitutional requirement, no external voting provision is in force.

a b

In the South Pacific, on the contrary, external voting was introduced significantly earlier (Australia practiced external voting since 1952, being one of the pioneering countries in the world in this sense) and is a more extended practice, since many of the Pacific micro-states have large parts of their national populations living abroad. In such contexts, however, external voting may cause serious problems, as was the case in the Cook Islands, where the elections of 1978 saw their outcome decided precisely by a group of Cook Islands voters living in Australia and New Zealand, who were flown into the country by one of the competing parties. In order to limit the influence of external voters, a special overseas

30

In the National Assembly of Taiwan overseas Chinese communities vote for 20 members to be allocated proportionally in a separate constituency from party lists.


17

voters' seat was provided for Cook Islands citizens living in New Zealand. External voters could thus determine only one of the 25 seats.31

2.2 Parliamentary Electoral Systems A worldwide overview of parliamentary electoral systems reveals that one principle of representation is predominant on each (sub-)continent: whereas proportional representation (PR) is the rule in Europe and Latin America, majority electoral systems have been applied in North America, the Commonwealth Caribbean and wide parts of Africa (see Nohlen/ Grotz/ Krennerich/ Thibaut 2000). Since the 1990s, however, there is an inter-regional trend towards the combination of majority formulas and PR in electoral systems.32 If we turn our attention to Asia and the Pacific, we will find that—despite the great historical-political divergences—majority systems predominate throughout the whole area. Only six of the 48 Asian-Pacific countries which currently hold general parliamentary elections apply PR-systems.33 Yet, the electoral systems in the 42 remaining states differ considerably among themselves in their technical elements, i.e. in the size of their constituencies, voting procedures, majority requirements, etc. Furthermore, the historical evolution of electoral systems varies quite a lot through time and space, and so do the reasons for the relevant institutional choices. Let us take a look now at South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific. Table 5 illustrates the strong influence of the historical-political background on both the structure and evolution of electoral systems in the relevant countries. South East and East Asia significantly differ from the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia insofar as we do not find a uniform type of electoral system across these regions.34 Rather, there

31

Vanuatu, on the contrary, abolished in 1987 the overseas voters' constituency for citizens of Vanuatu living in New-Caledonia, and introduced postal voting.

32

This is especially true for post-communist Eastern Europe, where seven of the 19 relevant states currently apply combined electoral systems. Among the African and American countries that have reformed their electoral systems in similar ways are Bolivia, Ecuador, Guinea, Lesotho (not yet applied), Mexico, Senegal, Seychelles, and Venezuela.

33

These are Cambodia, Indonesia, Israel, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, and Turkey. In the Fiji Islands and Lebanon, we have a (partial) pre-electoral proportional distribution of seats to confessional (Lebanon) or ethnic groups (Fiji) combined with a majority electoral system.

34

For further details on the other areas see the relevant paragraph in the introduction to Volume I.

18

BRUNEI

are at least three subgroups of countries to be distinguished in this context. First, ‘classical’ former colonies, i.e. Malaysia and Singapore on the one hand and Indonesia on the other, have retained their inherited electoral systems since independence almost without major modifications.35 Only Singapore has transferred a considerable number of single-member into multi-member constituencies during the last twelve years. The main reason for the introduction of these so-called Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) was the selfinterest of the power elite: though the official purpose of the GRCs was to provide a more adequate representation of minority communities, the block vote has effectively favored the ruling People's Action Party, thereby reinforcing its hegemonic position in the party system (Li/ Elklit 1999). Second, countries with a communist background, such as North Korea, Mongolia, and North Vietnam, used the Soviet-type absolute majority system for their non-competitive parliamentary elections. While this is still the case in North Korea and Vietnam, Mongolia has been applying different versions of majority systems since the beginning of its transition to democracy in 1990.36 Laos and Cambodia, both with a French colonial background, introduced the plurality system in the late 1940s under the monarchy, and stuck to this institutional choice when elections were re-established under communist rule. In Cambodia, the introduction of a proportional decision rule for the 1993 elections was linked to the strong influence of the mission of the United Nations in the drafting of electoral legislation. However, since most constituencies were rather small—there were eight SMCs and only six constituencies had more than six seats—the system still had a majoritarian effect, so the two major parties have had no reason to change the electoral system until today. Third, other states have either applied the plurality system in SMCs for a long time (Thailand, South Korea, Philippines37) or used a special

35

These electoral systems are the plurality system in single-member constituencies in the first two ‘British’ cases, and proportional representation in multi-member constituencies in Indonesia, former Dutch colony.

36

Mongolia is an interesting case for the confirmation of the hypothesis that power interests of the political elite play an important role in the choice and change of electoral systems during democratization processes. Since 1990, the anti-communist opposition vehemently demanded the introduction of a PR system, until 1996, when, massively favored by the majority effect of the electoral system, it came to power. Once in government, the anti-communist parties retained the majoritarian electoral system. In 2000, however, they ‘paid’ again for this short-term interest when the former state party won nearly all seats in Parliament.

37

In South Korea and the Philippines this option was obviously adopted under US-influence, as in South Vietnam, which also applied plurality in SMCs under the first Republic.


19

type of plurality system in MMCs, the single non-transferable vote (Japan, Taiwan). In recent years, a common feature of this group has been a trend towards the introduction of segmented systems, either in the wake of (re-)democratization processes (Taiwan 1991, Thailand 1997) or due to functional problems in the performance of the old system (Japan, Philippines).38 The South Pacific is again a more homogeneous area regarding the overall structure of the electoral systems applied in national parliamentary elections. In accordance with the Anglo-American tradition in this region, the common starting point of almost all countries was the plurality system in SMCs. In some countries, the plurality decision rule has been applied in constituencies of different size. This choice was dictated primarily by the geographic circumstances, since for pragmatic reasons each member island formed one constituency, and the district magnitude then depended on the respective population size (e.g. in the Marshall Islands or in Tuvalu).39 Yet, in some countries there have been major modifications to this basic type. To date, the only state in the region that has introduced a PR system is New Zealand.40 The main trend, however, has been the change towards different forms of majority systems. In Australia, for example, Alternative Vote (AV) has substituted plurality vote since 1917. Papua New Guinea and Nauru—both administered by Australia—followed this path in the 1960s. Upon independence Nauru slightly modified the system by using AV in small MMCs, while Papua New Guinea opted for a two-tier plurality system in SMCs. The Fiji Islands, strongly encouraged by Australian experts, also introduced an alternative vote system (in SMCs41) in 1997. Kiribati's Constitutional Convention chose an absolute majority system in 1977 after having used the plurality system in SMCs in the parliamentary elections during British colonial rule. This decision was based on a sober analysis of the difficulties encountered by the plurality decision rule in small constituencies fragmented by kinship ties.42 Vanuatu opted for single non-transferable vote at the end of the 1970s, when trying to find a compromise between francophone claims for proportional representation and the established Anglophone tradition of plurality in SMCs.

38

For details on the technical elements of these segmented systems see the annex to this chapter. In Japan the introduction of a segmented system was intended to counterbalance the political dominance of one party that had governed since independence (and to fight voter apathy and political corruption). In the Philippine case, where the plurality system in SMCs had strengthened the position of powerful local individual candidates, the reforms were supposed to strengthen political parties in general.

39

Samoa used traditional administrative units to form single-member constituencies. Subsequently, some of these SMCs became two-member constituencies due to population growth.

40

In view of a widespread disenchantment with the major parties and the disproportional effects of plurality system, a Royal Commission proposed changes to the electoral system in 1986. A first referendum held in 1992 generally approved those changes, and, one year later, when in a further referendum the voters had the choice among four different types of electoral systems, a clear majority of 70.5 percent opted for a German-type mixed-member proportional system.

41

Originally, the Constitutional Review Commission had opted for AV in small MMCs.

42

In the 1978 elections, for example, in some constituencies about 2,000 voters had to select from among as many as 20 candidates.

20

BRUNEI

Table 5 : Parliamentary Electoral Systems and Historical Backgrounds in the South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacifica Anglo-American Background Australia (02–17) Cook Islands (83–) Fiji Islands (68–94) FS Micronesia (79–) Malaysia (55–) New Zealand (14–93) Palau (80–) Philippines (07–38, 53–71) Papua New Guinea (77–) Singapore (68–84) Solomon Islands (80–) Vietnam South (56–63) Plurality System in constituencies of Cook Island (65–78) different sizesb Marshall Islands (79–) New Zealand (1893–05) Philippines (41–51, 78–84) Samoa (64–) Singapore (88–) Tuvalu (82–) Vietnam South (67–73) Absolute Majority System in Kiribati (78–) SMCs/MMCs New Zealand (08–11) Plurality System in SMCs

Alternative Vote

a

b

c d e

f

Segmented Systems

Australia (17–) Fiji Islands (99–) Nauru (71–) Philippines (87/98–)

PR-Systemsf

New Zealand (96–)

Communist Background Cambodia (47–72) Mongolia (96–)

Other Thailand (37–46) Korea S (48–60)

Cambodia (76–81)

Japan (46–93)d

Laos (47–)c Mongolia (92) Vietnam North (60–75)

Taiwan (48–89)d Thailand (48–96) Tonga (1875–) Vanuatu (79–)d

Korea North (48–) Mongolia (51–90)e Vietnam (76–)

Cambodia (93–)

Thailand (01–) Japan (96–) Taiwan (91–) Korea South (63–) Indonesia (55–)

This table includes all electoral systems of South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific that have been applied in general elections to (the lower house of) Parliament since state independence. The names of the states in italics refer to electoral systems that are not applied any longer. The periods of application are given in parentheses. No general elections have been held at all in Brunei and in the People's Republic of China. Currently there are no parliamentary elections in the Solomon Islands. Abbreviations: FS = Federated States; Islds.= Islands; MMCs = multi-member constituencies; N = North; Philipp. = Philippines; S = South; SMCs = single-member constituencies. This category includes a series of plurality systems that vary considerably with regard to the size of the constituencies and voting procedures. For technical details of the relevant electoral systems refer to the appendix to this introduction and the relevant country articles in this handbook. In Laos, the 1960 parliamentary elections were held under absolute majority rule. In Japan, Taiwan and Vanuatu the parliamentary seats were distributed according to the single non-transferable vote (SNTV) system. In the Mongolian founding elections of 1990, the first (and greater) chamber of the transitional Parliament was elected according to an absolute majority system in SMCs, while the seats of the (new) second chamber were distributed according to pure PR. This latter body was abolished again in 1992. This category includes proportional representation systems that differ technically among themselves. While New Zealand has introduced a German-type mixed-member PR-system, the Indonesian and Cambodian Parliaments have been elected according to PR in sub-national MMCs.


21

2.3 Presidential Electoral Systems As mentioned before, direct presidential elections have been less common in Asia than in America, Africa, and Europe. Until the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent creation of (semi-)presidential systems in the successor states, there were very few countries in Asia-Pacific where the Head of State was chosen by popular vote. Unlike in Africa, even the most authoritarian rulers in Asian states did not see any need to organize presidential referendums. This feature, characteristic of whole Asia-Pacific, is fully reflected by the sub-regions documented in this volume. Only seven of the 30 countries in South East Asia, East Asia and the South Pacific elect their Heads of State by popular vote; and, moreover, these cases are not concentrated in one area, but spread over the three regions (see Table 6). Given the historical and cultural heterogeneity of the relevant countries it is quite astonishing that their legal provisions for presidential elections are similar in at least two respects: first, the presidential terms are relatively short. In stark contrast to the Middle East and Central Asia where most Presidents serve five to seven years,43 most popularly elected Heads of State in (South) East Asia and the Pacific have a legal term of

43

For a detailed overview of these cases refer to Table 6 in the introduction to Volume I.

22

BRUNEI

only four years, and in those countries that provide for longer terms the re-election of the incumbent President is constitutionally prohibited (South Korea, Philippines). The only exception to this rule is Singapore, where the presidential term is set at six years and re-election is not limited by law. A second general feature of the regulations for direct presidential elections in South East Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific is the plurality decision rule. In this regard, these sub-regions again clearly differ from the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, where absolute majority systems have been applied in all presidential polls. In (South) East Asia and the Pacific, two-round electoral systems are used only in Mongolia and in Palau, and in the latter case, the plurality rule was applied until the 1990s. Beyond these formal-institutional similarities, however, the historical evolution of direct presidential elections reveals quite distinct patterns. In this sense, we can divide the relevant countries of South East and East Asia into two groups. The first one includes the Philippines and South Korea, where direct presidential elections were introduced at early stages in their national electoral history.44 In South Korea, however, those periods of direct presidential elections were interrupted by several phases in which the Head of State was indirectly elected45; in the Philippines, on the contrary, President Marcos organized presidential referendums to prolong his rule beyond the end of his legal term. Such modifications of the electoral provisions mostly followed regime changes or, in more general terms, resulted from the self-interests of the incumbent Presidents who wanted to secure their re-election by avoiding direct and competitive presidential elections.46 In contrast to South Korea and the Philippines, direct presidential elections were not introduced in Mongolia, Singapore, and Taiwan until the 1990s. The reasons for this institutional change, however, were quite different. In Mongolia, the presidency was created at the beginning of the democratization process in 1990, replacing the pure parliamentary

44

The Philippines introduced direct presidential elections with the 1935 Constitution, which was modeled after the US type, but, unlike the US, provided for the direct election of a Vice-President on a separate ballot. In South Korea, the President was directly elected for the first time in 1952. Historically, there were also direct presidential elections in the Republic of South Vietnam (in 1961, 1967, and 1971).

45

In South Korea, the President was elected by Parliament in 1960, directly from 1963 to 1971, and from this year until 1987, the Head of State was chosen by an Electoral College.

46

As an example from South Korea we may cite Park Chung-hee's resort to the 1972 Constitution and, in order to be confirmed in office, his indirect election by an electoral college, as he had already served three legal terms and feared to have lost the support of the broad public.


23

system of the communist regime with the Speaker of Parliament having been the official Head of State. The first postcommunist Constitution of 1992 stipulated that the President would be directly elected, with the aim of providing the new state organ with additional legitimacy. Unlike in most other post-communist states, Mongolia did not significantly expand the powers of its Head of State; rather on the contrary, the Parliament had the final say in the selection of presidential candidates (who could be nominated exclusively by parliamentary parties). In Singapore, on the other hand, the main reason for introducing direct elections to the already existing presidency in 1991 was to stabilize the rule of the hegemonic People's Action Party. Therefore, together with the establishment of direct presidential elections, the executive powers of the Head of State were expanded.47 In Taiwan, finally, direct presidential elections had been a traditional demand of the opposition and their introduction was the result of the ‘negotiated’ democratic transition. As regards the two South Pacific states with direct presidential elections, their relevant institutional arrangements share few characteristics. In Palau, US-influence is evident. Parliament originally opted for plurality decision rule (applied from 1980–1988); functional problems, however (candidates won with relatively low shares of votes) led to the introduction of a two-round system (the second round held simultaneously with parliamentary elections).48 Interestingly, a certain US influence is still visible in this new institutional setting, since the first round of voting is called ‘primary election’. Unlike in the United States, however, Palauan ‘primaries’ are not an intra-party selection procedure, but the first round of presidential elections. In contrast to Palau's, Kiribati's President is a popularly elected Prime Minister, nominated by the legislature from among its members and removable by a no-confidence motion. This highly unusual institutional arrangement was established by a Constitutional Convention in 1978.49

47

In addition, Singapore is the only country in the world with an institutional arrangement of uncontested presidential elections, i.e. if there is only one candidate, that person is declared President without the polls being held (this was the case in 1999).

48

Like in the Philippines, the Palauan Vice-President is elected simultaneously with the President on a separate ballot.

49

It was apparently motivated by the will to combine a Westminster system with a strengthening of the executive's popular accountability. For details see Van Trease (1991).

24

BRUNEI

Table 6 : Basic Features of Direct Presidential Elections in South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific Region/C- Pluralist ountry electionsa South East Asia Philippines 3 (8) Singapore 1 East Asia Korea (S) 8 Mongolia 3 Taiwan 2 South Pacific Kiribati 7 Palau 6 a

b

c d e f

g

h

Concurrencyb

Term (years)

Consecu- Required tive terms majority

Further Last elecprocedure tion

Strongest candidatec

yesd no

6 6

none n.l.

Plurality Plurality

n.a. n.a.e

1998 1999f

39.9 n.a.f

no no yes

5 4 4

none one one

Plurality 50%+1 Plurality

n.a.e run-off n.a.

1997 2001 2000

40.3 59.2 39.3

no yesh

4 4

twog one

Plurality 50%+1

n.a. run-off

1998 2000

52.3 52.0

n.l. = not limited; n.a. = not applicable. Number of multi-candidate presidential elections held since independence. The number in parentheses indicates elections held before the current period of political development. ‘Yes’ means: both presidential and parliamentary elections must be held on the same day regularly (not incidentally), i.e. President and Parliament have the same electoral period. At the most recent presidential elections (first round). The House of Representatives has a term of three years. Therefore, two parliamentary terms equal one presidential term. In case of a tie, further procedure is lot in Singapore and parliamentary vote in South Korea. In 1999, only one possible nominee met the conditions for candidacy, so he was declared President without an election taking place. In the only pluralist election in 1993, the strongest candidate received 58.7% of the valid votes. As the President in Kiribati may be removed by parliamentary vote, this constitutional clause has raised some debate on the precise meaning of limited terms. Indeed, when President Tabai—only one year after his second election—resigned following a vote of noconfidence in December 1982, he was returned in the subsequent election for a third term. His second term was thus consumed within a single year. In Palau, the first round of the presidential election is called ‘primary election’. The run-off is held simultaneously with parliamentary elections. If there are only two candidates, there is only a single round of presidential elections taking place on the day of the parliamentary polls.

3. Political Effects of Elections and Electoral Systems 3.1 Elections and Patterns of Political Development It is widely assumed that in many Asian countries national elections have not been crucial for the understanding of politics. This common belief may also be one of the reasons why elections and referendums in Asia and the Pacific have attracted relatively little attention from comparative political scientists. However, a closer look at the electoral history provided by the articles of this handbook reveals somewhat different


25

results. For example, even rigged elections or manipulated electoral provisions in non-democratic regimes testify at least to the importance that autocratic rulers ascribed to elections as a powerful instrument of political legitimation and (alleged) contestation. Furthermore, in some cases, the absence of elections of the moment of their re-introduction after periods of ‘unrestricted rule’ say a lot about the political dynamics of the relevant states. Therefore, in the following we would like to briefly consider the role of elections in South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific with regard to two major aspects of political development: the politics of state building and the processes of regime change. It goes without saying that arguments of this kind are extremely difficult and would deserve much more investigation. Nevertheless, on the basis of empirical accounts of this handbook it is possible to gain some comparative insight into the most significant effects of elections in Asian-Pacific states, which will hopefully stimulate future in-depth analyses of these complex issues. Processes of state-building varied a lot among the three sub-regions. In Southeast Asia processes of state formation were linked to different types of colonial rule. All states, except Thailand, were under British, French or Dutch Western rule until World War II, and state boundaries were inevitably drawn and decided by these Western powers. All countries, including Thailand, were under Japanese military occupation for much of the World War II period. Japanese rule promoted the formation of independent statehood in an indirect way, because their precarious political and military domination ended in their withdrawal and the following return of the debilitated former colonial powers; these, in their new situation, had to accept a much stronger version of self-government than the one they had introduced before. The Philippines came under US administration in 1898. In 1935 self-government was established with the Philippine Commonwealth, which led to full independence in 1946. The new dispensation was approved by referendum. There were basically two types of state-formation, with elections and referendums playing a different role. Some countries (Indonesia 1945, Vietnam 194550) sustained a violent and protracted struggle against the colonial authorities that was not so much accompanied by elections and referendums but characterized by revolutionary and/ or religious legitimization. Others (Laos 1953, Cambodia 1953, Malaya 1957, Singapore 1962, Philippines 1946) experienced an incremental process of state formation in consent with the outgoing colonial powers, approved by electoral victories of

50

The dates in the following sentences refer to the year of independence of the relevant state.

26

BRUNEI

nationalist forces in the last pre-independence elections or ratified in referendums.51 The incorporation of Singapore into the Federation of Malaysia was approved in a referendum in September 1962, but the population had no say in the subsequent decision to opt out again.52 In contrast to the other countries covered in this volume, all the states of East Asia escaped direct colonial rule by Western powers. Mongolia, and more recently China and Japan, were regional colonial powers on their own. Stateformation thus reaches back to historical periods when elections or referendums were unknown to both the ruling elites and the citizens.53 However, both China and Korea have been divided in 1948/1949. The decision to have two separate states in Korea was quickly accepted by the international community, and apparently by the relevant population as well. China, on the contrary—at least by the standards of international law—remains one state governed by two rival regimes that effectively control different parts of the country, both claiming to represent the entire Chinese nation and state. The two-state theory and the related question of independence has become an issue in Taiwanese electoral politics only recently. Yet, the new President Chen Shui-Ban, belonging to a party that had advocated separation from Mainland China in the recent past, announced immediately after his electoral victory in 2000 that he would not hold an independence referendum in the near future.54 Different was the case in the South Pacific, were the attainment of independence was preceded by a large number of democratic elections and

51

We do not consider here the special case of state-formation in South Vietnam (1954), where a presidential referendum held in 1955 was considered a founding act of the Republic.

52

The Sultan of Brunei decided not to join the Federation of Malaysia, as the upcoming federal elections would have undermined his absolutist rule. Eventually, Great Britain obliged the Sultanate to accede to independence in 1984.

53

The 1946 independence referendum in Mongolia was a purely formal act confirming the previous agreement of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China on their mutual spheres of influence in eastern Asia. It is highly indicative that there were neither invalid votes nor any votes against independence, with a turnout of almost the entire voting age population.

54

Unheld elections determined the fate of another divided country, namely Vietnam. The Geneva Agreements of 1954 had provided for free elections to take place on the whole territory of Vietnam in July 1956. As the electoral victory of the Vietminh was considered secure by all parties, the South Vietnam Republican government blocked the preparation of the polls, with the support of the United States (see Weinstein 1966). When re-unification eventually took place in 1976, it was significantly implemented by elections to a unified National Assembly in North and South Vietnam. In its inaugural session this National Assembly solemnly declared the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.


27

referendums.55 This might be explained by the relatively late arrival of independence—when norms about political participation and popular legitimacy in such processes were more generally accepted—and by the highly consensual and intense consultations between colonial powers and Pacific leaders. Notable exceptions to this norm were the USadministrated Trust Territory in Micronesia and, to a certain extent, the Fiji Islands and Vanuatu. In Fiji, conflicts during the negotiations leading to independence arose not primarily between Fijian and colonial interests, but among indigenous and migrant (Indo-Fijian) groups. In Vanuatu, the relationship between French and British colonial interests and the two main national contenders led to a rather complex independence process without formal democratic approval. Referendums were not part of British decolonisation and Commonwealth practice, and thus in the Solomon (1976) or Fiji Islands (1966) elections to the Legislative Assemblies were held to seek a popular mandate for the attainment of formal independence. Nevertheless, a referendum held in 1974 allowed the people of the Ellice Islands (now Tuvalu) to decide if they wished to separate from the Gilbert Islands, which later became Kiribati. An independence referendum was also held in (then Western) Samoa because some constitutional provisions, especially restrictions on suffrage and candidature, were highly contested by the international community. This referendum, held in 1961 on the basis of universal suffrage, approved limited franchise, and was actually organized to convince the United Nations that the restrictions were supported by the people. Referendums had the biggest impact on state formation in the US Trust Territory in Micronesia. Palau and the Marshall Islands became independent states because their populations refused to approve the independence Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia (Marshall Islands in 1977, Palau in 1978); finally, it was as a result of a referendum that the Northern Marianas left the Trust Territory to become a Commonwealth of the United States. Patterns of elections and regime change also differ significantly along sub-regional and national contexts. In this regard the political importance of electoral outcomes has depended greatly on the existence of institutionalized party systems, i.e. to which extent political parties, as (freely formed) social organizations, participate in the formation of governments and influence policy formulation.

55

Unlike most Pacific Islands, processes of state-formation in Australia and New Zealand were marked by the gradual acquisition of the attributes of independence and international status via the status of self-governing Dominion within the British Empire.

28

BRUNEI

Few have been the South East Asian states where elections have actually determined ‘who governs’. Certainly, the small sultanate of Brunei has been the only one not to have held elections, but in all the other countries, where elections were regularly held, the incumbents never lost at elections or referendums—at least until very recently. Of course, elections in Malaysia and Indonesia reflected to a certain extent the regimes' changing perceptions of important groups in their societies; their outcomes, however, were mostly decided in pre-electoral agreements. In Indochina, national elections have basically remained an authoritarian exercise of the ruling parties to win popular support for their policies;56 regime changes were rather the result of civil war and/ or military coups than of electoral contests. There is, however, one major exception in this region: The Philippines do have a long tradition of direct elections to President and Parliament. Regime change in both 1972 and 1986 was the consequence of elections. The Marcos coup in 1972 hindered the forthcoming presidential elections to take place, which would have excluded him from the race after the completion of his two presidential terms. In 1986, the rigged presidential elections triggered the People's Power revolution that installed the new democratic regime in power. Elections were much more effective in bringing about regime changes in the East Asian states of South Korea, Mongolia, and Taiwan. The 1987 elections in South Korea and 1993 in Mongolia (three years after the founding elections) gave the victory to the opposition. In Taiwan, democratization was more gradual, and the electoral breakthrough of the opposition arrived ten years after the democratization of the political system. In the Pacific states there is a continuous history of competitive elections. Most countries are so small, however, that they have no organized parties. In some states, non-Western political thinking has accounted for widespread acceptance of non-elected representatives that gain office by appointment or ancestry (Tonga, Samoa). The Fiji Islands saw the firstever military coup in the South Pacific in 1987, when elections led to the victory of a party controlled by IndoFijians. Since then, elections and electoral rules have been crucial for the dynamics of regime change in this country.57

56

In Cambodia, this has changed since the 1993 CA elections, which were organized by the United Nations and ensured the electoral victory of an opposition party. The attempts by the former Communists to annul the principle of competitive elections have not been fully successful, as the civil society and the international community carefully monitor the electoral process.

57

The interruption of constitutional life in the Solomon Islands (2000), on the contrary, was not directly linked to elections.


29

3.2 Political Effects of Electoral Systems After having considered some major aspects of the relationship between elections and national politics, we now turn to the question of how electoral systems affect the structure of party systems in Asia-Pacific. Needless to say, we do not attempt to provide here an exhaustive analysis of the relevant electoral data presented in this handbook. Rather, we would like to focus on one key aspect that has been of major interest in comparative election research: the merely mechanical effects of certain electoral systems on the format of the party system. In order to do so, we will concentrate exclusively on those countries that have had at the same time free multi-candidate parliamentary elections and a political competition structured by political parties. In semi-competitive elections, as well as in fluid or even non-party systems, the mechanical effects of the electoral systems are at best of secondary relevance. In applying these criteria to Asia-Pacific, we have to restrict our analysis once more to one type of electoral system which can be found in many of the countries concerned: the British-type plurality system in single-member constituencies (SMCs). This institutional arrangement is even more interesting from a theoretical perspective, since in the western countries it is generally considered to produce big bonuses, even manufactured majorities58 for the strongest party, and thus favor the evolution of a two-party system (Duverger 1954; Lijphart 1994). It would be interesting to see to which extent this hypothesis is confirmed in Asian-Pacific states. This comparative analysis includes all the relevant countries of the areas studied in this volume (Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Mongolia, Cook Islands, New Zealand, and the Solomon Islands), whose number amounts to 53 cases (see Table 7). In contrast to the plurality systems of the South Asian countries (analyzed in the introduction to Vol. I) the cases listed above do not show a clear threshold of manufactured majorities. These differences in the mechanical effects of the plurality system are mainly explained by the structure of the relevant party systems. In Malaysia and Singapore, the plurality system produced overall strong bonuses for governmental parties. In these cases, the plurality system hence reinforced the predominant party system and led to the

58

This means that a party or coalition wins a majority of seats in Parliament despite having received less than 50% of the valid votes. The electoral system thus ‘manufactures’ the electoral victory.

30

BRUNEI

virtual exclusion of opposition parties from Parliament. Typical manufactured majorities appeared in the two-party systems of New Zealand and Mongolia (1996).59 In New Zealand, moreover, the second largest party profited twice from these effects of plurality system. Manufactured majorities were a major argument for the change of the electoral system in both New Zealand and South Korea, where the last elections held under plurality in 1960 had assured the strongest party 75% of the seats with only 40% of the votes. Finally, the plurality system in SMCs did not produce any structural majority effects in the fragmented multi-party systems in the Pacific Island states (e.g. the Solomon Islands, and to a lesser degree, the Cook Islands). This might be explained by high numbers of independent candidates and a great fragmentation of the votes. Table 7 : Effects of the Plurality System in Smcs in Different Countriesa Region/Coun- Election (year) Relevant Partry ties (5%)

Votes (%)

Seats (%)

Majority

Rose-Indexb

South East Asia Malaysia 1955 1959 1964 1969 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1995 1999 Philippines 1946

2 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4

81.7 51.8 58.5 44.8 60.8 57.2 60.5 57.3 53.4 65.2 56.6 38.8

98.1 71.2 85.6 53.5 87.7 84.4 85.7 83.6 70.6 84.4 75.6 50.0

1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1995 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984

3 3 2 2 2 2 5 1 3 3 2 3

53.0 47.3 61.2 61.0 51.3 58.9 40.7 86.7 70.4 74.1 77.7 64.8

60.0 57.8 80.4 71.2 59.2 80.0 49.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.5

Earned Earned Earned Manufactured Earned Earned Earned Earned Earned Earned Earned Manufactured tie Earned Manufactured Earned Earned Earned Earned None Earned Earned Earned Earned Earned

East Asia Korea (South) 1948 1950 1954

3 3 2

26.1 9.8 36.8

27.8 11.4 56.2

None 95.8 None 96.5 Manufactured 89.0

Singapore

59

Strongest Party (as for the vote share)

86.8 81.5 73.5 80.1 76.0 75.8 74.9 75.7 78.7 80.9 81.0 88.2 93.5 88.9 82.6 92.0 93.3 80.7 90.6 91.4 71.0 74.3 77.7 68.0

The two-party system in the Philippines (until 1969), on the contrary, produced mostly earned majorities. This may be explained by the fact that the two major parties were rather loose alliances, and there was already a high volatility at the voter level.

31


Mongoliac

1958 1960 1996 2000

South Pacific Cook Islands 1994 1999 New Zealand 1949 1951 1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 Solomon Is- 1980 lands 1984 1989 1993 a

b

c

d

2 2 2 4

42.1 41.7 47.0 51.6

54.1 75.1 65.8 94.7

Manufactured Manufactured Manufactured Earned

93.6 80.0 83.1 58.2

3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3

51.4 44.4 51.9 53.9 44.3 48.3 47.6 47.1 43.6 45.2 48.4 47.6 40.4 39.0 43.0 48.0 47.8 35.0 18.0

80.0 40.0 57.5 62.5 56.3 51.3 57.5 56.3 55.0 53.6 63.2 63.2 43.5 46.7 58.9 58.8 69.1 50.5 42.1

Earned None Earned Earned Manufactured Manufactured Manufactured Manufactured Manufactured Manufactured Manufactured Manufactured Manufacturedd Manufacturedd Manufactured Manufactured Manufactured Manufactured None

— 94.6 94.9 91.5 88.3 92.6 90.3 91.4 86.5 90.2 85.9 84.5 82.0 80.5 81.7 90.1 79.9 74.6 81.1

4 3 5

23.2 19.2 23.0

31.6 60.5 42.6

None 86.4 Manufactured 69.1 None 81.9

n.a. = not applicable; — = no data. Countries with electoral systems deviating from ‘pure’ plurality in SMCs (e.g. Cook Islands 1965–1978; Fiji Islands; Papua New Guinea; Philippines 1978–1984; Singapore since 1988; Thailand) are not included in this table. For some elections (e.g. Cook Islands 1983–1989, Philippines 1987–1992 and 1998) no results have been available. For obvious reasons, democracies without parties (Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Palau, Samoa, and Tuvalu) are not included either. The Rose-Index of proportionality is calculated by first adding up the differences between the vote and seat share of each party, and then subtracting half of this total sum from 100. Parties below 0.5% of the national vote share are not included. The Rose-Index ranges theoretically from 0 to 100; the closer a value is to 100, the more proportional the effects of the electoral system are. Strictly speaking, a qualified majority system in SMCs has been in force in Mongolia since 1996. However, the relatively low majority requirement of 25% has not played any role yet, so the electoral system has worked as a ‘pure’ plurality system. In New Zealand, the party with the second largest vote share received a majority of seats in 1978 (39.8% of the votes; 55.4% of the seats) and in 1981 (38.8%; 51.1%).

32

BRUNEI

Different varieties of the plurality system remain the predominant type of electoral system in this region; this circumstance may be accounted for by the social and cultural underpinnings of politics, which sustain a locally based type of political representation. In these specific social and cultural settings of South East Asia and the Pacific the plurality system simply does not cause a higher degree of concentration in the party system.60 What is more, in some countries it may have been one major explaining variable for the lack of an institutionalized party system. In Papua New Guinea, for example, the number of votes obtained by independent candidates increased continuously with each parliamentary election held between 1982 and 1997. If we bracket out for a moment some of the South Pacific island states that lack political parties due to their small size, the party systems of a number of states are characterized by high levels of fragmentation and volatility, for example, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, and Thailand. In these countries party organizations lack the power to enforce their decision about who is going to run the elections in the SMCs as the official party candidate, and local power-holders and notables may still be able to negotiate their allegiance to a specific party. In the Philippines as well as in some Pacific countries, there are still multiple candidates of one party contesting the same seat, and numerous candidates who claim affiliation to two or more parties. Independent candidature remains the norm in the formally multi-party system of Papua New Guinea. The absence of an institutionalized party system has been no obstacle for these countries to hold highly competitive electoral contests. But any radical change towards PR electoral systems is highly unlikely, and it remains to be seen if the PR elements in the segmented electoral systems of (South) East Asian countries like Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand will have the intended effects on the number of effective parties in the middle and long run.

4. Electoral Statistics In principle, collecting electoral data for Asia has been even more difficult than for Africa, and certainly much more than for Europe or the Americas. The first (and main) reason for this is that there was no previous standard reference work, as it had been the case with Sternberger et al.

60

Exceptions from this rule are the Fiji Islands and Vanuatu, where a major ethno-racial cleavage helped political parties to organize and acquire a mass basis.


33

(1969/ 1978) for Europe or Africa. Due to the OECD-membership of some Asian-Pacific countries, these have been included in previous ‘international’ data handbooks61; however, even in such cases, the authors of the present handbook have always had to consult the relevant official sources in order to (a) document in detail the historically complete information on all relevant electoral provisions; (b) add the precise results of, for example, the upper house elections in Japan, the direct Prime Ministerial elections in Israel and the referendums in Australia and New Zealand; and (c) check and eradicate some data inconsistencies of some secondary sources. The second reason for the immense time and energy involved in the elaboration of this handbook is the problem of the language(s). While we had a European lingua franca in nearly all African and Latin American countries (mostly English, French, Spanish or Portuguese), this is only partly the case in Asia. Of course, English is the official language in many countries in South Asia, South East Asia, and the South Pacific; and the same holds true for Russian in the post-soviet area and Arabic in the Near and Middle East. But countries like Iran, Japan, Mongolia, Nepal, Taiwan, Thailand, or Turkey made their electoral statistics available only in their native language (at least until recently); which might also explain why we find so little comparative literature on this area. Therefore, we are most grateful to our (co-)authors that agreed to collect and systematize the historically complete data for the relevant chapters. We have to reiterate the importance of two other obstacles we met in the collection and elaboration of data. The first one refers to the comparatively poor standards of electoral competition in many countries—one common opinion among some observers and scientists is that providing or keeping comprehensive data on façade elections serves no sensible purpose—and the second one is the dominance of plurality systems in small constituencies in the region. Of the numerous majority systems in Asia, only a handful of states have published aggregated results of parties and alliances at the national level; the rest publish only constituency data. In the cases when complete constituency data were available, were it for current or past elections, the authors of this handbook were asked to aggregate the data at regional and national level. We are hence extremely grateful to them for their painstaking efforts, which have opened a whole series of countries to cross-national election research. The task of collecting and elaborating data did not simply entail finding

61

Mackie/ Rose (1991) include Australia, Japan, New Zealand; and, as sole non-OECD-member, Israel.

34

BRUNEI

the relevant data, but often selecting between concurring and inconsistent sets of data published by different national authorities, resolving the inconsistencies that arose from the need to combine the data drawn from those different sources, and finally sometimes re-arranging and recalculating the data according to international standards. Despite the huge efforts to gain access to the scattered sources, we sometimes had to accept some gaps in the documentation of provisions and electoral data. We would like to add a comment on the ever-stronger trend of publishing (official) electoral results in the internet. A growing number of Electoral Commissions and Ministries of the Interior have opened up their websites, sometimes supported by international organizations like the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). The new technical possibilities have allowed the international research community to gain easy access to primary data that ten years ago would have been unattainable without field work or excellent contacts, or which were downright inaccessible. Unfortunately, there is a whole range of problems related to the availability of electoral data in the internet. The highly fast-moving character of the medium itself results in the disappearance of data once they are outdated, or believed to be so by some webmaster. Often data are moved to other websites with different addresses. A second related problem is the common practice of publishing preliminary results and not correcting them later on, or not continuing with the publication of full results once the overall political outcome (i.e. the election victory of a party or coalition) is clear. In the third place, online electoral documentation does not by far cover all countries or regions, and will not do so in the near future because of technical problems and lack of transparency in electoral procedures and results in some countries. Therefore, though collecting data on recent and forthcoming national elections will as a norm become easier in the future, also for most Asian countries, the difficulties implied in the creation of a systematic, complete, consistent, verifiable, and standardized data collection will remain. For this reason, the editorial policy followed all through the handbook has been not to limit ourselves to quote websites of national electoral authorities, but to cite a parallel hardback reference for official documents and results in every case this has been possible. While working on this handbook we could also observe some region-specific peculiarities regarding the availability and reliability of official electoral statistics—though we once again had to learn that the historical-political context of the specific countries was the main determinant in this respect.


35

In South East Asia and East Asia it is not primarily the regime type as such that determines the availability of electoral data. Rather (and more generally), it has been the degree of accessibility of the relevant countries that has conditioned the level of difficulty in the search for official electoral statistics. On the one hand, accessibility is understood here in terms of languages: countries such as Mongolia, Taiwan, and Thailand have had a relatively well-established electoral administration (and, accordingly, a relatively careful official documentation of electoral data), both in authoritarian and in democratic periods62. The problem, however, has been that the electoral statistics, if published, were mostly available only in the relevant national languages. While in Thailand detailed electoral information has recently become available in English via the homepage of the Election Commission, in Mongolia one still has to rely on experts living in the country in order to obtain the results of the—fully democratic—presidential and parliamentary elections. In contrast to those cases, former European colonies like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore have had a functioning electoral administration from the beginning and have continuously made available their election results in European languages, though most polls have not been fully democratic (not to mention the problems regarding the consistency and reliability of electoral statistics in these countries).63 On the other hand, accessibility should also be understood as the openness of a political regime towards the international community. We found out that this factor determined the general availability of electoral statistics to a great extent. Some countries, including in particular the communist systems of North Korea and Laos, have never published their electoral results in absolute figures; accessible are only the well-known percentages ‘100 minus x’ of ‘yes-votes’ for the candidates of the relevant state party.64 The 1993 election for the Cambodian Constitutional Assembly has been undoubtedly ‘very accessible’, since it was fully prepared and organized by the United Nations Transitional Authority. Accessibility, however, is no guarantee for a high standard of electoral

62

One indicator for this is the fact that absolute numbers of the registered voters and the votes cast in the non-competitive parliamentary elections of Mongolia between the 1970s and 1985 were almost regularly published by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU).

63

This is also true of the Republic of South Vietnam, where US support had an enormous role in improving standards of electoral documentation.

64

Laos published complete data for the last elections held in 1997. In Vietnam, this practice has varied. For the elections held in 1976, 1992 and 1997 absolute figures were made public, but not for the 1981 and 1987 elections. There does not seem to be a systematic reason for these variations in the publication policy.

36

BRUNEI

documentation. This is most clearly shown by the Philippine case: the electoral administration, struggling with the disadvantageous geographical setting of the archipelago, has still many difficulties, even in providing reliable totals of registered voters. A highly unstructured party system and a complicated fill-in ballot voting system are additional factors that explain the lack of reliable and consistent data in the country with the longest democratic experience in the region. Collecting electoral data for the South Pacific islands revealed very different problems.65 States without a structured party system (Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, and Tuvalu) have hardly published any official election record. There was usually some reporting around election day (and also in the internet for the most recent elections in both Fiji and Samoa), but electoral data have been neither systematically documented66 nor archived in central public agencies. In the countries where official gazettes documented the electoral data (Fiji Islands, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu), the figures were often not reliable. This is even true for the Fiji Islands, where electoral politics have always been intensely debated and contested.

5. Bibliography Anckar, D., and Anckar, C. (2000). ‘Democracies Without Parties’. Comparative Political Studies, 33/2: 225–247. Anderson, B. R. (1996). ‘Elections and Participation in three Southeast Asian Countries’, in R. H. Taylor (ed.), The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, Mass.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 12–33. Bendel, P. (1996). Parteiensysteme in Zentralamerika. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. Beyme, K. v. (1985). Political Parties in Western Democracies. New York: St. Martin's. Blais, A., Massicotte, L., and Yoshinaka, A. (2001). ‘Deciding who has the Right to Vote: A Comparative Analysis of Election Laws’. Electoral Studies, 20/1: 41–62. Bogaards, M. (2000). ‘Crafting Competitive Party Systems: Electoral Laws and the Opposition in Africa’. Democratization, 7/4: 163–190.

65

On the contrary, collecting data for Australia and New Zealand posed no serious problems.

66

To give just one example, in the two-member constituencies of Samoa (with multiple vote), only the number of valid votes was documented, but not the voter turnout.


37

Bratton, M., and Posner, D. N. (1999). ‘A First Look at Second Elections in Africa, with Illustrations from Zambia’, in R. Joseph (ed.), State, Conflict, and Democracy in Africa. Boulder, Col.: Westview, 377–408. Butler, D., and Ranney, A. (eds.) (1994). Referendums Around the World. The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. Houndmills/ London: Macmillan. Caramani, D. (2000). Elections in Western Europe since 1815. Electoral Results by Constituencies. London: Macmillan. Cox, G. W. (1996). ‘Is the Single Nontransferable Vote Superproportional? Evidence from Japan and Taiwan’. American Journal of Political Science, 40/3: 740–755. —— and Thies, M. F. (1998). ‘The Cost of Intraparty Competition. The Single, Nontransferable Vote and Money Politics in Japan’. Comparative Political Studies, 31/3: 267–291. Crystall, J. (1994). ‘Authoritarianism and its Adversaries in the Arab World’. World Politics, 46/2: 262–289. Daalder, H., and Mair, P. (eds.) (1983). Western European Party Systems. Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage. Diamond, L., Linz, J. J., and Lipset, S. M. (eds.) (1989). Democracy in Developing Countries. Volume III: Asia. Boulder, Col.: Lynne Rienner. Duverger, M. (1954). Political Parties. London: Methuen. Elklit, J. (2000). ‘Free and Fair Elections’, in R. Rose (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 130–135. —— (ed.) (1997). Electoral Systems for Emerging Democracies. Experiences and Suggestions. Copenhagen: Min. of Foreign Affairs, Danida. Fry, G. E. (1982). ‘Successions of Government in the Post-Colonial States of the South-Pacific: New Support for Constitutionalism?’, in P. Sack (ed.), Pacific Constitutions. Canberra: Australian National University, 189–205. Ghai, Y. (ed.) (1988). Law, Government and Politics in the Pacific Island States. Suva: University of the South Pacific. Institute of Pacific Studies. Grotz, F. (2000a). ‘Age of Voting’, in R. Rose (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 14–15. —— (2000b). Politische Institutionen und post-sozialistische Parteiensysteme in Ostmitteleuropa. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. Hartmann, C. (1999). Ethnizität, Präsidentschaftswahlen und Demokratie. Ein Beitrag zur Rolle von politischen Institutionen in den Demokratisierungsprozessen Afrikas. Hamburg: Institut für Afrika-Kunde (Focus-Papiere No.13).

38

BRUNEI

Hassall, G., and Saunders, C. (eds.) (1997). The People's Representatives: Electoral Systems in the Asia-Pacific Region. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Hermet, G., Rose, R., and Rouquié, A. (eds.) (1978). Elections Without Choice. London: Macmillan. Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (1997). Voter Turnout from 1945 to 1997: A Global Report on Political Participation. Stockholm: International IDEA. Katz, R., and Mair, P. (eds.) (1995). Party Organizations. A Data Handbook on Party Organizations in Western Democracies, 1960–90. London: Sage. Kitschelt, H., Mansfeldová, Z., Markowski, R., and Tóka, G. (1999). Post-Communist Party Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. Klingemann, H.-D. et al. (eds.) (2000). Elections in Central and Eastern Europe. The First Wave. Berlin. Edition Sigma. Krennerich, M. (1996). Wahlen und Antiregimekriege in Zentralamerika. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. —— (2000). ‘Competitiveness of Elections’, in R. Rose (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 43–44. Larmour, P. (1994). ‘A Foreign Flower? Democracy in the South Pacific,’ Pacific Studies, 17/1: 45–77. Li, J., and Elklit, J. (1999). ‘The Singapore General Election 1997: Campaigning Strategy, Results, and Analysis’. Electoral Studies, 18/2: 199–216. Lijphart, A. (1971). ‘Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method’. American Political Science Review, 65: 682–693. —— (1991). ‘Constitutional Choices for New Democracies’. Journal of Democracy, 2/1: 72–84. —— (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lopez Pintór, R. (2000). Electoral Management Bodies as Institutions of Governance. New York: UNDP. Mackenzie, W. J. M. (1958). Free Elections. An Elementary Textbook. London: George Allen and Unwin. Mackie, T. T., and Rose, R. (1991). The International Almanac of Electoral History. Fully Revised Third Edition. Houndmills/ London: Macmillan. —— (1997). A Decade of Election Results: Updating the International Almanac. Glasgow: Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde.


39

Mainwaring, S., and Scully, T. (eds.) (1995). Building Democratic Institutions. Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press. Mair, P. (1997). Party System Change. Approaches and Interpretations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nohlen, D. (1978). Wahlsysteme der Welt. München/ Zürich: Piper. —— (1996). Elections and Electoral Systems. Delhi: Macmillan India. —— (2000a). Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem. 3rd edn. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. —— (2000b). ‘Binomial Electoral System’, in R. Rose (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 24. —— and Grotz, F. (2000). ‘External Voting: Legal Framework and Overview of Electoral Legislation’. Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, 33/ No. 99: 1115–1145. —— and Grotz, F., Krennerich, M., and Thibaut, B. (2000). ‘Appendix: Electoral Systems in Independent Countries’, in R. Rose (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 353–379. —— and Kasapovic, M. (1996). Wahlsysteme und Systemwechsel in Osteuropa. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. —— (ed.) (1993a). Enciclopedia Electoral Latinoamericana y del Caribe. San José, Costa Rica: Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos. —— (ed.) (1993b). Elecciones y sistemas de partidos políticos en América Latina. San José, Costa Rica: Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos. —— and Krennerich, M., and Thibaut, B. (eds.) (1999). Elections in Africa. A Data Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— and Picado, S., and Zovatto, D. (eds.) (1998). Tratado de Derecho Electoral Comparado de América Latina. Mexico: FCE et al. Reilly, B. (1999). ‘Party Politics in Papua New Guinea: A Deviant Case?’. Pacific Affairs, 72/2: 225–246. Reynolds, A. (1999). Electoral Systems and Democratization in Southern Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rokkan, S. (1970). Citizens, Elections, Parties. Approaches to Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. —— (1999). State Formation, Nation-building, and Mass Politics in Europe. The Theory of Stein Rokkan, Based on his Collected Works. Ed. by P. Flora et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rose, R. (ed.) (1974). Electoral Behavior. A Comparative Handbook. New York: Free Press. —— (ed.) (1980). Electoral Participation. A Comparative Analysis. Beverly Hills/ London: Sage.

40

BRUNEI

—— (ed.) (2000). International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. —— and Munro, N., and Mackie, T. (1998). Elections in Central and Eastern Europe. Studies in Public Policy No. 300. Glasgow: Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde. Sachsenröder, W., and Frings, U. E. (eds.) (1998). Political Party Systems and Democratic Development in East and Southeast Asia. 2 Volumes. Aldershot: Ashgate. Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— (1994). Comparative Constitutional Engineering. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Shugart, M. S. (2001). ‘Electoral “Efficiency” and the Move to Mixed-Member Systems’. Electoral Studies, 20/2: 173–193. Sing, H. (2000). ‘Democratization or Oligarchic Restructuring? The Politics of Reform in Malaysia’. Government and Opposition, 35/4: 520–546. Smith, T. B. (1986). ‘Referendum Politics in Asia’. Asian Survey, 26/7: 793–814. Stockton, H. (2001). ‘Political Parties, Party Systems, and Democracy in East Asia’. Comparative Political Studies, 34/1: 94–114. Taylor, R. (ed.) (1996). The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Thompson, M. R. (1996). ‘Off the Endangered List. Philippine Democratization in Comparative Perspective’. Comparative Politics, 28/2: 179–205. Van Trease, H. (ed.) (1993). Atoll Politics: The Republic of Kiribati. Suva: IPS/USP. Weinstein, F. B. (1966). Vietnam's Unheld Elections. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Ziemer, K. (ed.) (2001). Wahlen in post-sozialistischen Gesellschaften. Opladen: Leske & Budrich (forthcoming).

41


Appendix: Basic Features of Parliamentary Electoral Systems in South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific Region/ Countrya

Year

South East Asia Cambodia 1998

Indonesia

1999

Laos

1997

Malaysia

1999

Philippines

1998

Singapore

1997

Thailand

2001

Vietnam

1997

Electoral system

PR in MMCs/ plurality system 8 SMCs plurality system in MMCs plurality system in MMCs plurality system in SMCs segmented system with compensatory elementse

plurality system in SMCs/ small and medium MMCs segmented system

absolute majority system in small MMCs

Elected seats

Constituencies

Level(s) of Electoral seat alloca- formula tion

Rose-Indexb

Number

Size(s)

Mean size

122

23

1-18

5.3

MMC/SM- Hare quo- 85.4 C ta; d'Hondt / plurality

462c

27d

4-82

17.1

MMC

99

18

3-14

5.5

193

193

1

1

260:

95.3

MMCs

Hare quota; largest remainder plurality

SMC

plurality

81.0 96.8g

1.3

206 (52)f

206 1

1 (52)f

1 (52)f

83

24

1-6

3.5

500:

n.a.

SMC national MMC

plurality threshold of 2 % of the national vote; maximum of 3 seats per partyf SMC/MM- plurality (67.7)h C

1.2

87.6

400 100

400 1

1 100

1 100

SMC national MMC

450

158

2-3

2.8

TMC/MMC

plurality threshold of 5 % of the national vote; Hare quota; largest remainder absolute n.a. majority

42

BRUNEI

East Asia Japan

2000

Korea (North)

1998

Korea (South)

2000

segmented system

absolute majority system segmented system

480:

1.5

76.5

300

300

1

1

SMC

180 687

11 687

6-30 1

16.4 1

MMC SMC

273: 227 46

qualified majority (one sixth of the valid votes) d'Hondt absolute — majority

1.2 227 1

1 46

1 46

88.8 SMC national MMC

plurality threshold of 5% of the national vote or five seats in the SMC segment;i Hare

quota; largest remainder

76

76

1

1

SMC

qualified 56.6 majority (one forth of the vote total; runoff between two best-placed candidates) 92.0

25 1

1-27 41

6.7 41

MMC national MMC

plurality threshold of 5% of the national vote; HareNiemeyer

148

148

1

1

SMC

82.1

25

25

1

1

SMC

absolute majority plurality

14

14

1

1

plurality

n.a.

71l

71

1

1

local and regional SMC SMC

absolute majority

71.1

Mongolia

2000

plurality system in SMCs

Taiwan

1998

SNTV with 225:k an additional national list 168 41

South Pacific Australia 1998 Cook Islands

1999

FS Micronesia

2001

Fiji Islands

1999

alternative vote system plurality system in SMCs plurality system in SMCs alternative vote system

94.4

43


Kiribati

1998

Marshall Islands

1999

Nauru

2000

New Zealand

1999

Palau

2000

Papua New 1997 Guinea Samoa

2001

Solomon Islands

1997

Tonga

1999

Tuvalu

1998

absolute majority system in SMCs and small MMCs plurality system in SMCs and small MMCs alternative vote system in TMCs and one MMC mixed-member proportional system

plurality system in SMCs plurality system in SMCs plurality system in SMCs and TMCs plurality system in SMCs plurality system in SMCs and small MMCs plurality system in SMCs and TMCs

40

23

1–3

1.7

SMC/MM- absolute C majority

n.a.

33

24

1–5

1.4

SMC/MM- plurality C

n.a.

18

8

2; 4

2.3

TMC/MMC

pluralitym

120:n

n.a.

94.5

67

67

1

1

SMC

plurality

53

1

53

53

MMC

16

16

1

1

SMC

threshold of 5% of the national vote; subtraction of SMC seats of each party before seat allocation; St. Laguë plurality n.a.

109o

109

1

1

87.2

49

42

1–2

1.2

local and plurality regional SMC SMC/TMC plurality

50

50

1

1

SMC

—

18p

10p

1–3

1.8

SMC/MM- plurality C

n.a.

12

8

1–2

1.5

SMC/TMC plurality

n.a.

plurality

97.2

44

BRUNEI

Vanuatu

a

b

c d e f g h k

i l

m

n

o p

1998

SNTV in SMCs and small and medium MMCs

52

15

1–6

3.5

SMC/MM- plurality C

82.4

Abbreviations: SMC = single-member constituency; TMC = two-member constituency; MMC = multi-member constituency; PR = Proportional Representation; SNTV = single non-transferable vote; n.a. = not applicable; ‘—’ = data not available. This table includes only those countries that hold direct parliamentary elections at the time of writing (mid-2001). Not included are therefore those 2 states which do not have a directly elected Parliament (Brunei, People's Republic of China). The Rose-Index of proportionality is calculated by subtracting the half of the sum of the differences between the vote and seat share of each party from 100. Parties below 0.5 % of the national vote share are not included. The Rose-Index theoretically ranges from 0 to 100; the closer a value is to 100, the more proportional are the effects of the electoral system. The figures above refer to the last election documented in this handbook (the relevant year is given in the second column). In addition to the 462 elected representatives, 38 seats are reserved to representatives of the armed forces. Includes East Timor. The five parties with the biggest vote share in the preceding election are excluded from candidacy in the PR segment. In 1998, only 14 of the 52 seats could have been allocated according to the electoral formula. Rose-Index is calculated on the basis of the vote of the various parties in the SMCs. Due to the fact that 47 seats have been uncontested, the calculated Rose-Index is of minor value. In addition to the national (41 seats) and the 25 local (168 seats) constituencies, there are two four-member constituencies (8 seats) for aborigines, and one eight-member constituency for overseas Chinese. Parties that received less than 5%, but at least 3% of the valid votes are granted one seat prior to the regular seat allocation process. Of the 71 elected seats, 25 are elected from an open roll, 46 are elected as representatives of four ethnic groups by voters of the respective ethnic groups registered on separate rolls. 23 seats are reserved to Fijians, 19 to Indo-Fijians, one for Rotuman voters, and three for other ethnic groups (General Voters). Preferential voting: first preferences count as one vote (value 1), 2nd pref. as one half of a vote (value 0.5), 3rd pref. as one third of a vote (value 0.33) etc. More than 120 are elected if a party's seat share resulting from the first (constituency) vote exceeds its seat share resulting from the second vote. (so-called surplus-mandates) Every elector has two votes: one in one of the 89 local and one in one of the 20 corresponding regional constituencies. Class voting: 9 representatives are elected by the people and another 9 by the nobles; each electorate votes in 5 constituencies of exactly the same sizes.

South East Asia


Brunei by Florian Grotz

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview The sultanate of Brunei is situated on the northwestern coast of the island of Borneo and is bounded by the Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak. Ruled by a royal family since the 14th century and under British influence since the 1880s, Negara Brunei Darussalam (Brunei—Abode of Peace) gained full independence in 1984. Apart from hesitant attempts to establish a quasi-parliamentary organ in the 1960s, this small country has had no experience with national elections and representative political institutions. The absolute power of the monarch rests on an Islamic state ideology and a far-reaching welfare state financed from rich oil revenues. Therefore, Brunei's polity seems closer to that of some Arab emirates than to its neighbours' in Southeast Asia. The sultanate of Brunei came under British rule by the Protectorate Agreement of 17 September 1888. Although the protectorate status concerned mainly the sphere of foreign affairs, and the Sultan remained the chairman of the traditionally supreme State Council, since the early 20th century the actual political power laid in the hands of the British Resident. During World War II Brunei was occupied by Japanese forces from 1941 to 1945, after which period Great Britain restored its administration. Since the mid-1950s, however, when a growing number of Asian colonies was reaching independence, the future status of Brunei became a highly contested issue in domestic politics. On the one side, the traditional elite around Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddien III wanted to retain the monarchist-aristocratic regime, and thus opted for the gradual introduction of internal self-government. On the other side, the newly founded People's Party of Brunei (Partai Rakyat Brunei, PRB)—a socialist-oriented, mass-based party whose membership amounted to 75% of the male adult population—called for a rapid transition to democracy and for national independence.

48

CAMBODIA

In 1959, the PRB started talks with Great Britain to create a unitary state out of the territories of Brunei, Sarawak, and North Borneo (Sabah). This provoked the Sultan's reaction, who on 19 September signed a new Agreement with the British government that granted the sultanate full internal self-government, while leaving the responsibility for foreign and defense policies to the British. The 19 September was also the date of the promulgation of the first written Constitution. The latter, though introducing a series of new state organs, conferred the supreme political power on the monarch: he was to appoint and preside over the cabinet (Executive Council); the other bodies—the Religious Council, the Privy Council, and the Council of Succession—were also fully controlled by the Sultan and had mere advisory power. Not even the new Legislative Council (LC) was a true parliament, since the cabinet was not responsible to it at all; moreover, most of its members had to be selected by the Sultan, and the rest were indirectly elected. Elections to the four District Councils—which in turn were to elect the representative LC-members—were held in August 1962. The opposition PRB won all but one seat. In theory, this would have given the PRB all the representative LC-seats; in practice however, the government decided to postpone the convention of the Legislative Council. As a result, on 8 December 1962, the PRB launched an armed revolt against the regime, the Brunei Rebellion, which was suppressed with British aid within the following week. The Sultan declared the state of emergency (formally in force until today), dissolved the LC and banned the PRB on 10 December 1962. Since February 1963 the government of Brunei participated in the negotiations with the British colonies of Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak, and Malaya to build up the Federation of Malaysia. The remaining opposition parties that had merged into the Brunei Alliance Party (BAP) supported this plan openly, in the hope that once having joined Malaysia, the new federal government would demand the introduction of representative institutions in Brunei. These same reasons, however, accounted for the Sultan's final refusal to join Malaysia. In the following, Great Britain increased its pressure upon the monarch for political liberalization, so the latter announced some constitutional reforms, such as the holding of elections to the Legislative Council within two years. These polls—the first ever direct national elections—took place in March 1965. Yet, they did not in the least affect the domestic political structure because most LC-members were still appointed by the Sultan and no opposition party could equal the former electoral strength of the (illegal) PRB.

BRUNEI

49

Thereafter, Great Britain again intensified its demands for political reforms, and even threatened to withdraw from Brunei completely, which led Sultan Omar to resign from the throne on 4 October 1967 in favor of his eldest son, Hassanal Bolkiah. Although Omar continued to pull the strings offstage, this formal transfer of power eased the relations between Great Britain and the Sultan, and in January 1979 both sides finally agreed that Brunei be granted full sovereignty within five years. On 1 January 1984, Brunei became independent and gained admission to the United Nations as its 169th member. This went hand in hand with the revision of some details of the 1959 Constitution. The structure of the absolutist regime, however, did not change. The new cabinet consisted mainly of members of the royal family, whereby the Sultan held simultaneously the offices of Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, and Minister of Home Affairs. The Legislative Council was not formally dissolved, but actually ceased to exist (see below 1.2). There have been few attempts to achieve political liberalization to date, and those few have remained within very narrow limits. The most remarkable step in this direction was taken in 1985, when the Sultan announced elections in due time and allowed for the official registration of two political parties. Yet, as one of these—the Brunei National Democratic Party (BNDP, Partai Kebang-Saan Demokratik Brunei)—demanded the introduction of a representative government, both parties were immediately banned, and the leaders of the BNDP were arrested. The other one—the Brunei National Solidarity Party (Partai Perpaduan Kebang-Saan Brunei)—was readmitted in 1995, and is currently the only officially registered party. With the death of his father in September 1986, Hassanal Bolkiah's rule became effectively absolute. Since then he has created a public self-image of a ‘working monarch’ who is personally responsible for the wealth of the people. Thanks to its vast oil revenues, the state of Brunei has indeed provided its citizens with an unusually wide range of social and welfare benefits. In addition, the Sultan has devised his own state ideology: in 1990 he officially established the Melayu Islam Beraja (Malay Muslim Monarchy) concept, according to which Brunei is based on a unique Malay culture, has Islam as the state religion and is loyal to the Sultan's absolute rule. This combination of public welfare and Islamic ideology provides a solid ground for the monarchy: despite the conflicts within the royal family and economic problems that have emerged in 2000, a political liberalization of the sultanate seems unlikely.

50

CAMBODIA

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Brunei made its first—and up to now last—experiences with national electoral politics before state independence. The 1959 Constitution of the British protectorate provided for the establishment of a Legislative Council (LC, Majlis Masyuarat Megeri). This body, however, cannot be considered a fully representative organ, since the majority (17) of its 33 seats were either filled by ex officio members (8) or appointed by the Sultan (9). The remaining 16 seats were elected indirectly: popular elections were held to four District Councils, which then elected the 16 LC-seats from among their members. The first District Council elections were held on 30 and 31 August 1962. About 89% of the 17,316 registered voters went to the polls to elect 55 deputies, out of a total of 80 candidates (55 of the Partai Rakyat Brunei [PRB], 6 of the Brunei National Organization [BNO], 1 of the Brunei United Party [BUP] and 18 Independents). The opposition PRB won 32 seats uncontested and 22 seats of the 23 contested ones (one seat went to an Independent who later joined the PRB). According to this result, all 16 elected seats in the Legislative Council would have been filled by PRB-members; yet, the government postponed the convention of the council, and finally suspended it altogether after the outbreak of the Brunei Rebellion in December 1962, banning the PRB. The British pressure for political reforms urged the Sultan to hold new elections to the Legislative Council in March 1965. This time the LC was to consist of 21 seats: ten of these would be directly elected, six would be ex officio members and five appointed by the monarch. This perpetuated the absolute majority of non-elected council members. About 80 percent of the 19,144 registered voters took part in these elections. In contrast to 1962, most of the 36 candidates contesting for the ten seats were Independents, among them a few former members of the (illegal) PRB. Since then, no elections have been held to national institutions. In 1970, a Royal Decree turned the Legislative Council into a fully appointed assembly. In 1987, after national independence, the Sultan announced elections once more; however, no serious efforts have been made in this regard until today. Rather on the contrary, the appointed Legislative Council has not even convened in recent years.

BRUNEI

51

2. Tables No national elections or referendums have been held since independence. List of Power Holders 1984–2001 Head of State Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah

Years 1984–

Remarks After Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddien III abdicated on 04/10/1967, his eldest son Hassanal Bokiah was crowned as 29th Sultan of Brunei on 01/08/1968. Becoming Head of State after national independence on 01/01/1984, he simultaneously took up the offices of Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and of Home Affairs. In 1986 he resigned the latter two offices and instead took over the Ministry of Defense from his father, who was responsible for this portfolio until his death on 07/09/1986.

3. Bibliography Brunei Constitutional Documents. Kuala Lumpur: Government Press, 1960. Leake, D. (1989). Brunei: The Modern Southeast-Asian Islamic Sultanate. Jefferson, N.C.: MacFarland. Mani, A. (1998). ‘Brunei’, in W. Sachsenröder and U. E. Frings (eds.), Political Party Systems and Democratic Development in East and Southeast Asia. Vol. 1 (Southeast Asia). Aldershot: Ashgate, 82–97. Rush, K. R., Holt, S. A., and Entwistle, J. (1987). ‘Brunei Darussalam’, in A. P. Blaustein and G. H. Flanz (eds.), Constitutions of the Countries of the World. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications (includes the Constitution of Brunei, Revised Edition of 1984). Saunders, G. (1994). A History of Brunei. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Singh, D. S. R. (1984). Brunei 1839–1983. The Problems of Political Survival. Singapore: Oxford University Press. —— and Sidhu, J. S. (1997). Historical Dictionary of Brunei Darussalam. Lanham, Md./London: The Scarecrow Press. Wagner, C. (1994). ‘Brunei’, in D. Nohlen and F. Nuscheler (eds.), Handbuch der Dritten Welt. Vol. 7: Südasien und Südostasien (3rd edn.). Bonn: Dietz Verlag, 370–383.


Cambodia by Christof Hartmann67

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Elections have been a constant feature of Cambodia's turbulent political history. The various regime changes, however, have never been the consequence of democratic elections, but of coups d'état or regional military conflict. Elections held under Japanese military administration (1945), French colonial rule (1945–1953), Royal Government (1953–1970), the Khmer Republic (1970–1975), the Pol Pot regime (1975–1979), and the government of the Vietnamese-backed People's Republic of Kampuchea (1979–1991) shared two characteristics: while each new regime considered it necessary to organize elections, these at the same time simply ratified the existing political settlement, and never brought about a change of government. Against this background the 1993 elections held under UN administration were unique, insofar as they did reflect popular will and allowed free competition. This achievement was short-lived, however, since the subsequent 1998 elections were tainted again by serious irregularities and government manipulation. By 1884 the ancient kingdom of Cambodia had been fully incorporated into the French colonial empire, with the King preserving many of his prerogatives. The ensuing nationalist uprising was suppressed. A brief period of Japanese military administration followed, during which a republican government was eventually installed, in March 1945. When the French won back Cambodia in October 1945, they immediately reinstalled the young King Norodom Sihanouk and exiled the nationalist movement Khmer Issarak. But the colonial authorities were forced to concede a far larger degree of self-government. In 1946 an elected Constitutional Assembly prepared a democratic constitution providing for a constitutional monarchy with a bicameral Parliament. The Constitution

67

I would like to thank David Chandler, New York, Steve Heder, London, and Peter Hazdra, Vienna for their help in the collection of the data for this contribution, for providing me with unpublished material and sharing their ideas. The responsibility for any remaining error is mine.

54

INDONESIA

was approved on 16 May 1947. Political parties were legalized and prospered during the following years. The moderate nationalist Democratic Party (DP) won both the 1947 and 1951 elections. But it still lacked mass support and had to face the constant challenge of rival parties, most of which created by disgruntled former DP leaders. The parliamentary government of this period was marked by a frequent turnover of cabinets caused by the interventions of the King—who suspended Parliament twice in 1949 and 1952—or by personal quarrels among the various members of the royal family who controlled the political parties. The institutionalization of democratic politics was thus hindered by the alliance of the French colonial authorities and King Sihanouk on the one side, and the armed rebellion both by the Khmer Issarak and the clandestine Communist Party supported by Vietnam. In November 1953 Cambodia gained full sovereignty. The Khmer Issarak gave up its armed rebellion, but not so the Vietnamese-backed Communists. The Geneva Agreements of July 1954 provided for a peaceful resolution of the Indochina conflict and the holding of free parliamentary elections under the supervision of international observers. They won popular approval in a referendum held in February 1955. Since King Sihanouk profited from the patriotic momentum to reconvert himself as nationalist and as politician, he abdicated from the throne and founded a national political movement, the Sangkum Reastr Niyum (People's Socialist Community). Membership of Sangkum excluded allegiance to any other political party. The 1955 parliamentary polls promised to be the first real electoral contest involving all Cambodian political forces. Before, the DP entered an informal alliance with the Khmer Vietminh that had formed the Communist Party (Krom Pracheachon). Sihanouk, however, managed to gain control of the police and the state administration, thereby obstructing free competition. Additionally favored by the plurality system, Sangkum won all parliamentary seats. Following this electoral victory, the other parties faded away. Their members, especially in the civil service, joined the Sangkum. Pracheachon, the last surviving opposition force, was dissolved in 1962. Since 1955, multi-party politics was an anathema of Cambodian politics until the 1990s. For a period of fifteen years Sangkum dominated the political scene. All efforts by Sihanouk to create a strong single-party movement failed, and liberal, conservative, and leftist currents competed freely within Sangkum. In a growingly polarized international and regional context the 1966 elections marked a shift in favor of the more conservative forces within Sangkum. Prominent leftist politicians like Khieu Samphan went underground. The following governments became

CAMBODIA

55

increasingly anti-Communist, and on 18 March 1970 the monarchy was toppled in a coup led by the pro-American veteran politician Lon Nol. By the time Sihanouk was deposed, much of the countryside was under control of the clandestine Communist Party (CPK). The proclamation of the Khmer Republic in 1970 brought an estimated 50,000 US and South Vietnamese troops into the country that engaged in open civil war with the Communists, now massively supported by Vietnamese revolutionary forces. A new Constitution was enacted, modeled on that of the French Fifth Republic. In 1972 direct elections to Presidency and to a bicameral Parliament were held. As Lon Nol rigged the presidential elections, the opposition boycotted the parliamentary polls. The CPK, meanwhile, had suffered a split between a pro-Vietnamese fraction and a nationalist group under Pol Pot—called Khmer Rouge. The latter was supported by the People's Republic of China and allied to Sihanouk, who had established a Royal Government in exile. Having occupied Phnom-Penh in April 1975, the Khmer Rouge established a new regime, called the Democratic Kampuchea. A new Constitution promulgated on 3 January 1976 provided for a unicameral Parliament (Kampuchean People's Representative Assembly, KPRA) that elected both the three-man State Presidency and the Government. Elections to the KPRA were held in March 1976 under strict supervision of the CPK cadres. The totalitarianism of the new regime, in its efforts to overturn the old society with its ‘parasitic’ cities and to build up a new ‘purified’ society based on agricultural self-reliance, led to the death of an estimated 1.7 million people. In 1977, the internal opposition to Khmer Rouge rule began to grow. The pro-Vietnamese wing of the Communist Party (Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party, KPRP) started a new military rebellion, and toward the end of 1978 full-scale warfare broke out between the two countries. In January 1979 Vietnamese troops invaded Phnom-Penh and ousted the Pol Pot regime. The People's Republic of Kampuchea (PRK) was proclaimed, and the KPRP assumed power. A new Constitution modeled closely after the Vietnamese one was eventually promulgated in March 1981, and single-party elections to a National Assembly were held two months later. But the new Republic did not earn international recognition. The KPRP had made clear that there was no place in the new political structure for non-communist political forces that had opposed Pol Pot. Thus in 1982, the conservative nationalist forces (under Son Sann) entered a loose coalition with the royalist movement of Sihanouk (now called FUNCINPEC, Front Uni national pour un Cambodge indépendant, neutre, pacifique et coopératif) and the Khmer Rouge, and established

56

INDONESIA

a Government-in-exile, supported by the People's Republic of China and Thailand. As the PRK tried to consolidate its power, a protracted guerrilla war began in various parts of the country, with all three opposition groups fielding their own armies. Neither could the PRK defeat the rebels nor could the coalition hope to bring down the Government by military means. A political solution to the conflict became possible only when the Soviet Union and China decided in the late 1980s that their interests were no longer served by a continuation of warfare. The PRK government had finally to accept international negotiations with the participation of all parties (also the Khmer Rouge) and the involvement of the United Nations (UN) in the monitoring of a cease-fire and a comprehensive political settlement. In 1989 the PRK dropped the communist designation of the republic, which was now named State of Cambodia. In September 1990 a first meeting of a 12-member Supreme National Council (SNC) was convened with representatives of all four parties, and Sihanouk eventually assumed its chairmanship in June 1991. All major military and political issues were finalized at the Paris Conference on 23 October 1991, with the decision to establish a transitional UN body with authority for civil administration, human rights, civil policy, military, repatriation, rehabilitation and the organization of national elections. The Paris Peace Accords had outlined the contours of the new constitutional dispensation and fixed the main electoral provisions to be applied in the elections to a Constitutional Assembly (CA) that took place in 1993. The elections—although boycotted by the Khmer Rouge and held in a context of mutual mistrust—were the biggest success of the whole UN administration. The turnout was high, the Khmer Rouge threats to disrupt the polls did not materialize and the elections ended with the surprise victory of the FUNCINPEC, now led by Sihanouk's son, Prince Ranariddh. He entered a coalition government with the former KPRP (now renamed CPP). A new Constitution that provided for a parliamentary system with a unicameral assembly and a purely ceremonial role for the King was approved by the CA on 21 September 1993, and on the same day Sihanouk acceded to the throne of the new Kingdom of Cambodia. The Prime Minister was to be elected by a two-thirds majority of all Members of Parliament. The Constitution provided for two prime ministers during the first parliamentary term. In October 1993 Ranariddh and former PRK leader Hun Sen were thus elected First and Second Prime Minister of the new Royal Government. Since 1993 the Khmer Rouges, which had boycotted the 1993 elections, began to lose its influence on the political process in Phnom Penh.

CAMBODIA

57

They became increasingly isolated and were eventually dissolved. After the departure of the UN in late 1993, the CPP used its entrenched positions in the military, police, and provincial offices to gradually regain power by destabilizing and marginalizing the FUNCINPEC (which suffered a dozen splits since then). Hun Sen then deposed First Prime Minister Ranariddh in a coup d'état in July 1997. The organizational structure of FUNCINPEC and the two main opposition parties were destroyed, and many of their political leaders went into exile. Due to a firm reaction of the international community, Hun Sen was forced to re-allow limited standards of competition (and the return of Prime Minister Ranariddh) for the 1998 elections. Since the CPP effectively controlled the preparation of the polls, electoral defeat was unthinkable; however, the former Communists failed to secure the two-thirds majority necessary to control the government. In November 1998 the National Assembly approved a new CPP-FUNCINPEC coalition government with Hun Sen as the only Prime Minister.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Electoral provisions under the monarchy were regulated by the Laws Krâm 185-NS of 31 Mai 1946 and Krâm 363-NS of 26 September 1947, later modified by Krâm 337-NS of 10 August 1959. Male suffrage has been universal, and the principles of direct, equal, and secret elections have been applied immediately with the introduction of national elections in 1946. Electors had to be at least 20 years old. Female suffrage was introduced in 1956 (Krâm 65-NS of 14 January 1956). The military and the Buddhist monks were excluded from the vote (in 1960: 82,000 persons or 1.6 percent of the population). The latter, however, were allowed to vote in the referendums. The 1947 Constitution provided for a bicameral Parliament with a Lower House of 75 deputies, elected from singlemember constituencies (SMCs) by plurality for a term of four years. Boundary delimitation was done by royal decree on the basis of provincial and sub-provincial districts at a rate of 10,000 registered voters per seat. The number of seats was thus raised from 75 to 78 (in 1951) and 91 (in 1955). After the introduction of female vote this ratio was increased to one seat for 30,000 registered voters, and ratified by a constitutional referendum. The number of seats was increased from 61 (in 1958) to 77 (in 1962), and finally 82 (in 1966).

58

INDONESIA

Candidates had to be at least 25 years old and in possession of Cambodian citizenship for not less than ten years before the moment of election. State functionaries were eligible, but had to resign from their offices before elections. All candidates deposited a sum of 500 riels with the Ministry of Interior, reimbursed if the candidate won 25 percent of the valid votes in the constituency. Independent candidature was possible, but the electoral law provided for the official affiliation to political associations, and each association could present only one candidate per SMC. Since the 1958 elections there was a single party, Sangkum, which presented candidates chosen by King Sihanouk himself. In the 1960s he was forced to re-allow limited competition at election day (415 candidates for 82 seats in the 1966 elections). Furthermore, the Conseil du Royaume (Upper House) was also elected by plurality system. It was composed of two members of the Royal Family, two members of the National Assembly, 64 members representing the regions and elected by provincial councilors (since 1963, 80 members), and a variable number of sectoral representatives elected from electoral colleges. For the 1972 elections held under the Khmer Republic voting age was lowered to 18 years. Direct election of President and Vice-President (on a single ticket) were introduced. The President had a term of five years and could be re-elected for one immediately consecutive term. Candidature was restricted to Cambodian citizens by birth over 40 years that were not married to a foreign citizen and were born of parents with Cambodian citizenship. The electoral system applied in the presidential elections was absolute majority system with a run-off between the two-best placed candidates. The bicameral Parliament consisted of a National Assembly of 84 members (the constitutional minimum membership was set at 80), elected for a term of four years from SMCs by plurality, and a Senate with 24 to 40 members, elected for a term of six years, with one half of the Senators renewed every three years. Parliamentary candidates had to be at least 25 years of age. The 1976 Constitution provided for a unicameral Parliament with a term of five years and a government responsible to the National Assembly. The President was elected every five years by Parliament. All citizens over 18 years who had not been convicted of crime had the right to vote. The principles of direct, equal, and secret suffrage were formally applied. In practice, franchise was restricted to supporters of the new regime, and local party officials closely supervised the balloting exercise. Approximately one third of the populations was not allowed to vote. Candidates had to be at least 25 years of age and demonstrate a good record of revolutionary struggle and moral character. Of the 250 Members

CAMBODIA

59

of Parliament, 150 represented the country's peasants, 50 the workers and the remaining 50 the Revolutionary Army. For each contingent the country was divided in specific constituencies. The peasants were elected in ten multi-member constituencies (MMCs) of varying size (between two and 30 seats). The specific electoral provisions were never published. For the 1981 elections (held under the new regime of the People's Republic of Kampuchea) a plurality system was applied in 20 MMCs (the district magnitude ranged from 2 to 13 seats, average size 5.9) with open lists and multiple vote (according to the Vietnamese model). Voters had to strike out the names of candidates who they did not wish to vote for. The term of the National Assembly (117 seats) was five years. Candidates were nominated jointly by the Front Central Committee, the central mass organizations, and the Front Committees and mass organizations at the lower levels. They had to be loyal to the fatherland, agree to follow the political line of the regime and work tirelessly in the service of the people. According to the Electoral Law, in each MMC there had to be more candidates than seats to be distributed. Elections due in 1986 were postponed. The basic provisions for the Constitutional Assembly elections in 1993 were already laid down in the annex of the Paris Agreements (1991), and subsequently approved by the Supreme National Council (SNC) in August 1992. Although all Cambodian parties had initially opted for some variety of majority system, a proportional representation system in MMCs was introduced (with Hare quota and largest remainder as electoral formula). This decision for the first ever PR system in Cambodia's history can be explained by the strong UN influence, and especially the model character of the Namibian Electoral Proclamation that had been prepared in the course of the previous UN mission for the 1989 CA elections in Namibia. It was, however, not the electoral system, but the liberal regulation of suffrage that caused major conflicts within the SNC. The opposition, and especially the Khmer Rouge, argued that the original Paris Accords granted the right to vote to any 18-year-old born in Cambodia or with one parent born in Cambodia, and would thus allow recent Vietnamese settlers to participate in the elections. The UN refused to disenfranchise ethnic Vietnamese who had lived in Cambodia for several generations. Finally, a compromise was reached providing suffrage to all persons over 18 who were born in Cambodia and had at least one Cambodia-born parent. External voting was also introduced for Cambodians residing overseas, provided that they had enrolled personally in Cambodia. Three polling stations were established in Paris, New

60

INDONESIA

York and Sydney, but only a few hundred votes were cast there. Claims by FUNCINPEC for a universal external vote were rejected by the UNTAC. For the 1998 elections the electoral system was slightly modified: the method of the largest remainder was replaced by the d'Hondt formula for the distribution of the remaining seats. External voting was abolished. Apart from these modifications and the more obvious change in the organizational context—the organization and supervision of the elections passed into the hands of the Cambodian authorities and the newly established National Electoral Committee with the 1998 National Assembly elections—most provisions of the original 1992 Electoral Law are still in force and are presented in detail below (1.3).

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of 24 September 1993; Paris Accords of 23 October 1991, Krâm of 26 December 1997 concerning the election of the Deputies; Additional Krâm of 31 March 1998 concerning the election of the Deputies; Krâm of 8 April 1998 concerning the organization and the procedures of the Constitutional Court.

Suffrage: All Cambodian citizens of 18 years or over have the right to vote. The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. Voting is not compulsory. There are no provisions for external voting.

Elected national institutions: National Assembly, elected for a term of five years and composed of at least 120 members (122 in 1998). Vacant seats are filled through appointments from the respective party lists.

Nomination of candidates: All Cambodians of 25 years or over, who are citizens by birth and have been residing permanently in the country for one year before the elections (not applied in the 1998 elections), have the right to stand for elections. State functionaries, judicial personnel, members of the army and the police force have to resign from their offices before applying for candidature. No independent nomination is allowed. Candidates have to be fielded by a registered party. Only those parties will be registered by the National Election Committee that present candidates for at least one third of the seats to be distributed nationwide, and an equal number of replacement candidates. In the constituencies

CAMBODIA

61

where lists are fielded, parties have to present full slates of candidates. All parties have to deposit a sum of ten million Riels (app. US$ 2,600 in 2001) with the National Treasury. This sum will be reimbursed if the party obtains at least three percent of the total votes cast or one seat in the National Assembly.

Electoral system: Proportional Representation (PR) system in constituencies of various size. De facto PR is applied in 15 MMCs (one constituency with three seats, two with four seats, one with five seats, five constituencies with six seats, one with eight, two with eleven, one with twelve and one with 18 seats) and plurality system in eight single-member constituencies (average district magnitude of the 23 constituencies: 5.4). Each voter is entitled to one vote; in MMCs, party lists are closed and blocked. Hare quota is applied. The remaining seats are distributed according to d'Hondt.

Organisational context of elections: For the attribution of seats to the provinces (= constituencies) a specific mathematical formula is applied as laid down in the Electoral Law. One year before the elections a Commission of Seat Determination is formed to calculate first the number of total seats to be distributed (taking into account the current population growth and the population/ seat rate applied in the recent elections), and in a second step the number of seats attributed to the provinces. All provinces will obtain at least a seat each even if their population is smaller than the electoral quota (Art. 9 of the Electoral Law). The National Electoral Committee (NEC) is an independent authority and responsible for the organization of the whole electoral process. It is composed of two independent personalities as President and Vice-President, one additional representative for each party with a seat in the outgoing Assembly, two officials from the Ministry of Interior and a representative of the Non-Governmental Organizations. All members are appointed by decree with the approval of the Assembly (by absolute majority). All decisions within the NEC are reached by absolute majority. The NEC decides on the admission of political parties and the regularity of the lists, and controls the electoral campaign. It oversees the electoral process by a network of appointed sub-commissions and electoral offices on the whole national territory at the levels of the province (Khet, 23 commissions) and municipality (Krung, 1595 commissions). The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to decide upon the regularity of the voting operations, and decides inter alia if the NEC refuses to register voters or political parties to the elections as well as appeals of

62

INDONESIA

defeated candidates following the elections. Additionally, in 1998 15,000 members of Cambodian non-governmental organizations were involved in electoral observation.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Some of the elections held under self-government and early independence were documented in the Journal Officiel. Unfortunately the data are not given for all constituencies, and aggregated data could thus be calculated only for the 1955 elections. These elections were additionally documented in the report of the International Commission for Supervision and Control established by the Geneva Agreement, but there are slight inconsistencies between both sources. Other data from this period presented in the tables stem from Preschez (1961), who cites various secondary sources like Cambodge 08/10/1945 (for the 1945 referendum) and France Asie No. 145, June 1958 (for the 1958 referendum). Data for the 1955 and 1960 referendum are drawn from Chandler (1991), the estimates for the 1951 parliamentary elections from Vandy (1993). Data for the polls held in 1972 are given according to Summary of World Broadcasts of 13/05/1972 and 07/06/1972. The official results of the 1976 and 1981 elections (total valid votes, percentage of turnout per constituency) were published, in accordance with Communist practice, by Radio Phnom Penh, and are given here according to the transcription of Summary of World Broadcast of 23/03/1976 and 09/05/ 1981. Most elections held between 1947 and 1981 were marked by widespread intimidation of voters and manipulative practices during the balloting and counting processes. Some electoral results either were blatantly rigged (as in the case of the 1958 parliamentary and 1972 presidential elections) or seemed to have been simply fabricated by the authorities (like the 1976 results). Most of the data given in the tables should thus be treated with caution. Data on the 1993 elections were published as annex to the official UN reports. For the regional breakdowns the different UN source employed does not include the postal ballots. The 1998 electoral results are given according to information published by the National Electoral Commission on 1 September 1998.

63

CAMBODIA

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups D'etat Year 1945 1946 1947 1949 1951 1955 1958 1959 1960 1962 1966 1970 1972 1975 1976 1979 1981 1993 1998 a b c d

Presidential elec- Parliamentary tions elections

Elections for Constitutional Assembly

Referendums

Coups d'état

03/10 01/09 21/12 09/09 11/09 23/03

07/02 26/01 xx/11 05/06

10/06 11/09 18/03a 04/06

03/09b

30/04 17/04c

20/03 07/01d 01/05 23–28/05 26/07

A civil coup d'état deposed Head of State Sihanouk and abolished the monarchy by creating the Khmer Republic. Elections to both House of Assembly and Senate. In some constituencies a run-off was presumably held on 17/09. Entry of Khmer Rouges in Phnom Penh. Instauration of Democratic Kampuchea. Liberation of Phnom-Penh by Vietnamese troops. Instauration of Popular Republic of Kampuchea (PRK).

64

INDONESIA

2.2 Electoral Body 1945–1998 Year

1945 1946 1947 1951 1955 1955 1958 1958 1959 1960 1962 1966 1972 1972 1972 1976 1981 1993 1998 a b

c d e

Type of electiona

Ref CA NA NA Ref NA Ref NA Ref Ref NA NA Ref Pr NA NA NA CA NA

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

3,046,400 3,046,400 3,244,000 3,750,000 4,358,000 4,358,000 4,740,000 4,740,000 4,845,000 4,952,000 5,728,771 6,320,000 6,944,000 6,944,000 6,944,000 7,735,300 6,682,000 9,308,000 11,426,223

Total Number 674,048 — — 700,000d — — 1,911,770 — — — — — — 1,840,592 — 3,462,868 3,280,565 4,764,618 5,395,595

Total number 541,470c — — — 927,501c 761,744c 1,207,400c 1,646,897c — 2,020,482c — — 1,650,331 1,059,505 1,316,000 3,393,611e 3,209,377e 4,267,192 5,057,679

% pop. 22.1 — — 18.7 — — 40.3 — — — — — — 26.5 — 44.8 49.1 51.2 47.2

% reg. voters 80.3 60.0d — — — 75.0 63.2 — — — — — — 57.6 — 98.0 97.8 89.6 93.7

% pop. 17.8 — — — 21.3 17.5 25.5 34.7 — 40.8 — — 23.8 15.3 19.0 43.9 48.0 45.8 44.4

CA = Constitutional Assembly, Pr = President, NA = National Assembly, Ref = Referendum. Censuses were held in 1936, on 17 April 1962, and on 3 March 1998. All other figures are official government estimates as given in UN Statistical Yearbooks. For the 1945 and 1946 polls the 1936 census figure was applied. US sources have criticized the artificially high figures of 1976 and published alternative estimates of 6,191,000 (1976). Valid Votes. Estimations by secondary sources. Calculation by author.

CAMBODIA

65

2.3 Abbreviations ADD a BLDP a BLP b CCP c CDP CFID CNSP CPK d CPP CRP CUP c DP Ekreach FDRP FP FRP FUNCINPEC KAP KFLD KNCP KNP KNRP d KPRP Labour LDNPS LDP a LFP LP LRP MOLINAKA NDPC NKP NRP (1) NRP (2) NSP NUP PDP PP e Pracheachon PUN PWSC RCP REDEK RNP RSN Sangkum SHDP SRP a SSP VNEP a

b

c d e

Action for Democracy and Development Party Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party Buddhist Liberal Party (Kanakpak Serei Niyum Preah Put Sasna) Cambodian Citizens' Party (Kanakpak Pulroat Khmer) Cambodian Democratic Party (Kanakpak Pracheathippatei Khmer) Cambodian Free Independent Democracy Party Cambodian Nation Supporting Party Communist Party of Kampuchea (Pak Kommunis Kampuchea) Cambodian People's Party (Kanakpak Pracheachon Kampuchea) Cambodge-Renaissance Party Cambodian Unity Party Democratic Party (Krom Pracheathipatay) Khmer Ekreach Free Development Republican Party Farmers' Party Free Republican Party Front Uni national pour un Cambodge indépendant, neutre, pacifique et coopératif Khmer Angkor Party Khmer Farmer Liberal Democracy Khmer National Congress Party Khmer Neutral Party (Kanakpak Kampuchea Appyeakroet) Khmer National Renovation Party Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party Khmer Labour Party Liberal Democratic Party for National Salvation Liberal Democratic Party Light of Freedom Party Liberal Party (Kanaq Serei Pheap) Liberal Reconciliation Party Molinaka and Naktaorsou Khmer for Freedom Neutral Democratic Party of Cambodia Nationalist Khmer Party National Reconstruction Party (Kanapak Damkoeung Pracheacheat) National Restoration Party New Society Party (Sangkum Thmei Party) National Unification Party (Kanakpak Ruop Ruom Cheat) Parti Démocrate Progressiste People's Party Krom Pracheachon (Citizens Group) Parti de l'Union Nationale Party of Women Salvaging Cambodia Republican Coalition Party Republic Democracy Khmer Party Reastr Niyum Party (Nationalist Party) Rassemblement pour la solidarité nationale Sangkum Reastr Niyum (Popular Socialist Community) Social (Bee) Hive Democratic Party Sam Rainsy's Party Sonn Sann's Party Victorious North-East Party (Kanapak Khmer Eisan Mean Chey)

Following a split in 1995, the BLDP was renamed SSP, with the BLP of Ieng Mouly, and the LFP of Thach Reng building separate parties (associated to the CPP). Between 1996 and 1998 a number of FUNCINPEC leaders formed their own parties: CCP (1996); CUP (1997); KAP (1998); NSP (1998); NUP (1998); RNP (1998). Before the 1993 elections In Tam re-founded the original DP as CDP. KPRP was renamed CPP in 1991. Legal Cover Organization for CPK.

66

INDONESIA

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1947–1998 Party/Alliance DP KNRP LP NRP (1) PDP PP PUN VNEP Ekreach Labour Pracheachon Sangkum Social Republicans CPK KPRP ADD BLDPb CDP CFID CPP CRP FDRP FRP FUNCINPEC KFLD KNCP KNP LDP LRP MOLINAKA NDPC NKP RCP REDEK RSN BLP CCP CNSP CUP FP

Years 1947–1955 1947–1955 1947–1955 1951 1951 1951 1951 1951 1955 1955 1955–1958 1955–1966 1972 1976 1981 1993 1993 1993–1998 1993–1998 1993–1998 1993 1993–1998 1993–1998 1993–1998 1993 1993 1993 1993–1998 1993 1993–1998 1993–1998 1993 1993–1998 1993 1993–1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998

Elections contesteda 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

67

CAMBODIA

KAP LDPNS LFP NRP (2) NSP NUP PWSC RNP SHDP SRP SSPb a

b

1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Only parliamentary elections. Total number: 11 (including CA election of 1993). There was one presidential election in 1972, with three contenders who ran as individual candidates. BLDP ran in 1998 as SSP.

68

INDONESIA

2.5 Referendums Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

b

b

1955b % – 80.3 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Total number — — — 927,501 925,667 1,834

% – — — — 99.8 0.2

Referendum on Total Independence and refusal of foreign military presence (six separate questions, all with the same result, two questions with one/two invalid votes). Approval of the initiatives of the King during the Geneva Conference.

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

1945a Total number 674,048 541,470 0 541,470 541,470 0

1958a Total number 1,911,770 — — 1,207,400 1,206,855 545

1960b % – — — 63.2 99.9 0.1

Total number — — — 2,020,482 2,020,349 133

% – — — — 100.0 0.0

Modification of Electoral Law (reduction of the number of deputies). Each elector had four ballot papers: approval of internal and external policies of Sihanouk, vote for Son Ngoc Thanh, communist vote and indifferent vote. No-Votes include all votes other than Sihanouk's.

For the 1959 constitutional referendum (suspension of the local assemblies) no data were available.


Constitutional Referendum.

1972a Total number — 1,650,331 866 1,649,465 1,608,293 41,172

% – — 0.1 99.9 97.5 2.5

69

CAMBODIA

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly On 1 September 1946 a first Constituent Assembly was elected. No official data were published. According to secondary sources the DP won 73 percent of the votes and 50 out of 67 seats. The LP won 14 seats, three were won by independent candidates. In 1993 a second Constitutional Assembly was elected. It was transformed into a National Assembly in 1994. Data are given in table 2.7.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections For the 1947 and 1951 elections no data were available. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Sangkum DP Pracheachon LP Others Independents a

b

1955 Total number — — — 761,744 630,085 93,921 29,505 5,488 2,199b 546

% – — — 77.0a 82.7 12.3 3.9 0.7 0.3 0.1

1958 Total number — — — 1,646,897 1,646,488 – 409 – – –

% – — — — 100.0 – 0.0 – – –

The Official Gazette published the numbers of registered voters only for 80 out of 91 constituencies. Percentages refer to the total of valid votes in these 80 constituencies. Others include RNP 1,140 votes; Ekreach 770 votes, Labour 289 votes.

Parliamentary elections in 1962, 1966, 1972, 1976 and 1981 were single-party contests, with sometimes several candidates running in the same constituency (1962, 1966) or electors having to approve single candidatures (1976, 1981). In 1972 opposition candidates were allowed to run in ten out of 138 constituencies. No detailed data concerning invalid votes and voter participation for these elections are available.

70

INDONESIA

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes FUNCINPEC CPP BLDP/SSP LDP MOLINAKA KNP PD CFID FRP LRP CRP RCP KNCP NDPC KFLD FDRP SRP CDP CNSP LDPNS RNP BLP KAP CCP Others a b

1993 Total number 4,764,618 4,267,192 255,561 4,011,631 1,824,188 1,533,471 152,764 62,698 55,107 48,113 41,799 37,474 31,348 29,738 28,071 27,680 25,751 24,394 20,776 20,425 – – – – – – – – 47,834a

% – 89.6 6.0 94.0 45.5 38.2 3.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 – – – – – – – – 1.2

1998 Total number 5,395,595 5,057,679 155,189 4,902,488 1,554,405 2,030,790 45,849 14,088 8,395 – – 3,938 1,654 – – 14,869 – 3,869 – – 699,665 90,000 71,093 46,424 37,308 32,959 26,482 23,713 196,987b

% – 93.7 3.1 96.9 31.7 41.4 0.9 0.3 0.2 – – 0.1 0.0 – – 0.3 – 0.1 – – 14.3 1.8 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 4.0

Include RSN 14,569 (0.4); ADD 13,914 (0.4); REDEK 11,524 (0.3) NKP 7,827 votes (0.2). Include CUP 19,232 votes (0.4 percent); PWSC 18,892 (0.4); FP 15,597 (0.3); NSP 15,066 (0.3); SHDP 13,952 (0.3); FDRP 13,780 (0.3); RSN 13,038 (0.3); NUP 11,089 (0.2); NRP (2) 10,451 (0.2); LFP 10,027 (0.2); and 12 other parties.

71

CAMBODIA

2.7 a) Elections for Constitutional/national Assembly: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) a

1993 Province Banteay Meanchey Battambang Kampot Kandal Koh Kong Kompong Cham Kompong Chhnang Kompong Speu Kompong Thom Kratié Mondolkiri Phnom Penh Preah Vihear Prey Veng Pursat Ratanakiri Siem Reap Sihanoukville Stung Treng Svay Rieng Takéo Totala a

Valid votes

FUNCINPEC

CPP

BLDP

Others

175,203

81,378

50,257

16,224

27,344

252,831 182,671 356,217 34,307 579,183 129,853

121,689 76,562 214,653 11,232 312,558 41,933

79,228 73,620 88,352 17,682 177,510 68,765

16,731 4,569 12,553 1,400 15,114 1,840

35,183 27,920 40,659 3,993 74,001 17,315

188,719 149,646 83,319 9,621 351,822 27,538 370,356 113,216 30,092 189,412 47,835 26,057 185,501 284,013 3,767,412

53,334 52,833 53,014 1,334 193,680 5,126 142,622 39,826 1,966 93,705 22,460 6,805 54,937 121,565 1,703,212

99,043 67,776 19,876 6,782 108,768 18,776 182,779 53,255 25,247 84,092 15,964 16,037 105,677 115,161 1,474,647

6,691 6,018 2,292 374 12,521 946 12,816 3,896 187 5,199 2,233 1,302 6,875 10,185 139,966

29,651 23,019 8,137 1,131 36,853 2,690 32,139 16,239 2,692 6,416 7,178 1,913 18,012 37,102 449,587

The totals differ from the data given in Table 2.6 as the regional statistics do not take into account the 244,219 tendered votes.

1998 Reg. voters Province Banteay Meanchey 256,595 Battambang 335,186 Kampot 245,916 Kandal 541,010 Kep 13,535 Koh Kong 58,807 Kompong Cham 787,138 Kompong Chhnang 185,748 Kompong Speu 270,729 Kompong Thom 255,275 Kratié 120,533 Mondolkiri 13,834

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votes

234,387 310,952 232,392 519,636 12,884 49,826 745,710 174,666 254,769 237,151 111,255 12,617

9,293 10,619 8,081 10,556 331 3,017 24,504 5,903 9,434 9,690 3,451 745

225,094 300,333 224,311 509,080 12,553 46,809 721,206 168,763 245,335 227,461 107,804 11,872

72

INDONESIA

Pailin Phnom Penh Preah Vihear Prey Veng Pursat Ratanakiri Siem Reap Sihanoukville Stung Treng Svay Rieng Takéo Total

15,761 540,892 53,347 471,882 148,381 41,704 313,312 75,529 35,663 234,165 380,653 5,395,595

12,143 483,803 50,389 453,272 138,249 38,190 293,216 67,289 32,641 223,966 368,274 5,057,679

399 8,622 2,101 10,851 5,439 2,286 10,570 2,751 1,473 5,715 9,358 155,189

11,744 475,181 48,288 442,421 132,810 35,904 282,646 64,538 31,168 218,251 358,916 4,902,488

1998 Province Banteay Meanchey Battambang Kampot Kandal Kep Koh Kong Kompong Cham Kompong Chhnang Kompong Speu Kompong Thom Kratié Mondolkiri Pailin Phnom Penh Preah Vihear Prey Veng Pursat Ratanakiri Siem Reap Sihanoukville Stung Treng Svay Rieng Takéo Total

CPP

FUNCINPEC

SRP

Others

84,225 107,825 104,596 184,742 6,296 20,379 246,900 78,692 124,458 93,467 35,297 8,296 3,326 140,109 34,203 220,915 58,918 27,162 137,661 24,067 17,761 117,687 153,808 2,030,790

56,439 82,653 63,488 198,073 4,316 11,262 277,362 47,046 62,882 69,711 45,497 2,068 2,180 159,008 6,592 143,068 42,760 3,268 69,228 19,945 5,393 52,778 129,388 1,554,405

47,584 64,199 23,516 80,985 995 9,111 96,720 11,143 19,881 22,704 14,969 1,061 5,733 132,127 4,105 30,161 11,259 3,683 43,523 13,535 6,469 18,050 38,152 699,665

36,846 45,656 32,711 45,280 946 6,057 100,224 31,882 38,114 41,579 12,041 447 505 43,937 3,388 48,277 19,873 1,791 32,234 6,991 1,545 29,736 37,568 617,628

73

CAMBODIA

2.7 b) Elections for Constitutional/national Assembly: Regional Level (% Of Valid Votes) 1993 Province Banteay Meanchey Battambang Kampot Kandal Koh Kong Kompong Cham Kompong Chhnang Kompong Speu Kompong Thom Kratié Mondolkiri Phnom Penh Preah Vihear Prey Veng Pursat Ratanakiri Siem Reap Sihanoukville Stung Treng Svay Rieng Takéo Nation-wide a

FUNCINPEC 46.4

CPP 28.7

BLDP 9.3

Others 15.6

Totala 5.0

48.1 41.9 60.3 32.7 54.0 32.3

31.3 40.3 24.8 51.5 30.6 53.0

6.6 2.5 3.5 4.1 2.6 1.4

13.9 15.3 11.4 11.6 12.8 13.3

6.7 4.8 9.5 0.9 15.4 3.4

28.3 35.3 63.6 13.9 55.1 18.6 38.5 35.2 6.5 49.5 47.0 26.1 29.6 42.8 45.2

52.5 45.3 23.9 70.5 30.9 68.2 49.4 47.0 83.9 44.4 33.4 61.5 57.0 40.5 39.1

3.5 4.0 2.8 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.4 0.6 2.7 4.7 5.0 3.7 3.6 3.7

15.7 15.4 9.8 11.8 10.5 9.8 8.7 14.3 8.9 3.4 15.0 7.3 9.7 13.1 11.9

5.0 4.0 2.2 0.3 9.3 0.7 9.8 3.0 0.8 5.0 1.3 0.7 4.9 7.5 100.0

CPP

FUNCINPEC

SRP

Others

Totala

37.4

25.1

21.1

16.4

5.0

35.9 46.6 36.3 50.2 43.5 34.2 46.6

27.5 28.3 38.9 34.4 24.1 38.5 27.9

21.4 10.5 15.9 7.9 19.5 13.4 6.6

15.2 14.6 8.9 7.5 12.9 13.9 18.9

6.1 4.6 10.4 0.3 1.0 14.7 3.4

50.7 41.1 32.7

25.6 30.6 42.2

8.1 10.0 13.9

15.5 18.3 11.2

5.0 4.6 2.2

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide.

1998 Province Banteay Meanchey Battambang Kampot Kandal Kep Koh Kong Kompong Cham Kompong Chhnang Kompong Speu Kompong Thom Kratié

74

INDONESIA

Mondolkiri Pailin Phnom Penh Preah Vihear Prey Veng Pursat Ratanakiri Siem Reap Sihanoukville Stung Treng Svay Rieng Takéo Nation-wide a

69.9 28.3 29.5 70.8 49.9 44.4 75.6 48.7 37.3 57.0 53.9 42.9 41.4

17.4 18.6 33.5 13.7 32.3 32.2 9.1 24.5 30.9 17.3 24.2 36.0 31.7

8.9 48.8 27.8 8.5 6.8 8.5 10.3 15.4 21.0 20.8 8.3 10.6 14.3

3.8 4.3 9.2 7.0 10.9 15.0 5.0 11.4 10.8 5.0 13.6 10.5 12.6

0.2 0.2 9.7 1.0 9.0 2.7 0.7 5.8 1.3 0.6 4.4 7.3 100.0


2.8 Composition of Parliament 1947–1998 Year

1947 Seats 75 DP 44 LP 21 VNEP – RNP – Sangkum – Independ- 10 ents

% 100.0 58.7 28.0 – – – 13.3

1951 Seats 78 54 18 4 2 – 0

% 100.0 69.2 23.1 5.1 2.6 – 0.0

1955 Seats 91 0 0 – 0 91 0

% 100.0 0.0 0.0 – 0.0 100.0 0.0

1958 Seats 61 – – – – 61 –

% 100.0 – – – – 100.0 –

Parliamentary elections in 1962, 1966, 1976, and 1981 were single-party contests. The Sangkum thus won all 77 (1962) and 82 (1966) seats, as the CPK and CPP all 250 (1976) and 117 (1981) respectively. The 1972 elections were boycotted by the opposition, and all seats went to Lon Nol's Social Republicans. Year FUNCINPEC CPP BLDP SRP MOLINAKA a

1993a Seats 120 58 51 10 – 1

% 100.0 48.3 42.5 8.3 – 0.8

Constitutional Assembly that was transformed into Parliament in 1994.

1998 Seats 122 43 64 – 15 0

% 100.0 35.2 52.5 – 12.3 0.0

75

CAMBODIA

2.8 (a) Constitutional/ National Assembly: Regional Distribution of Seats

a b

1993 Constituency Banteay Meanchey Battambang Kampot Kandal Koh Kong Kompong Cham Kompong Chhnang Kompong Speu Kompong Thom Kratié Mondolkiri Phnom Penh Preah Vihear Prey Veng Pursat Ratanakiri Siem Reap Sihanoukvile Stung Treng Svay Rieng Takéo Total

FUNCINPEC 3 4 3 7 0 10 2 2 2 2 0 7 0 4 2 0 3 1 0 2 4 58

1998 Constituency Banteay Meanchey Battambang Kampot Kandal Kepa Koh Kong Kompong Cham Kompong Chhnang Kompong Speu Kompong Thom Kratié Mondolkiri Pailinb Phnom Penh Preah Vihear Prey Veng Pursat Ratanakiri Siem Reap Sihanoukville Stung Treng Svay Rieng Takéo Total

CPP 3 3 4 4 1 1 7 3 4 4 1 1 0 4 1 7 2 1 3 1 1 4 4 64

In 1993 part of Province Kampot. In 1993 part of Battambang.

CPP 2 3 3 3 1 6 2 3 3 1 1 4 1 6 2 1 2 0 1 3 3 51

BLDP 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 10 FUNCINPEC 2 3 2 5 0 0 8 1 2 2 2 0 0 4 0 4 2 0 2 0 0 1 3 43

Others 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SRP 1 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 15

Total 6 8 6 11 1 18 4 6 6 3 1 12 1 11 4 1 6 1 1 5 8 120 Total 6 8 6 11 1 1 18 4 6 6 3 1 1 12 1 11 4 1 6 1 1 5 8 122

76

INDONESIA

2.9 Presidential Elections 1972 1972 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lon Nol (Social Republicans) In Tam (DP) Keo An (Republican Party)

Total number 1,840,592 1,059,505 6,275 1,053,230 578,560 257,496 217,174

% – 57.6 0.6 99.4 54.9 24.4 20.6

77

CAMBODIA

2.10 List of Power Holders 1945–2001 Head of State Norodom Sihanouk

Years 1945–1955

Norodom Suramarit

1955–1960

Norodom Sihanouk Cheng Heng

1960–1970 1970–1972

Lon Nol

1972–1975

Saukham Khoy Sak Suk Sakham

1975 1975–1976

Khieu Samphan

1976–1979

Heng Samrin

1979–1991

Norodom Sihanouk

1991–

Head of Government Son Ngoc Thanh

Years 1945

Prince Monireth

1945–1947

Prince Sisowath Yutévong Chhéan Vâm Penn Nouth Yem Sambaur

1947–1948 1948 1948–1949 1949–1950

King Norodom Sihanouk

1950

Prince Monipong

1950–1951

Huy Kanthoul King Norodom Sihanouk

1951–1952 1952–1953

Penn Nouth

1953

Chan Nak Penn Nouth Leng Ngeth Norodom Sihanouk San Yun Norodom Sihanouk Sim Var

1953–1954 1954–1955 1955 1955–1956 1956–1957 1957 1957–1958

Remarks King since 1941. On 09/11/1953 Cambodia gained full international sovereignty. When Sihanouk abdicated, on 02/03/1955, his father became King. Died on 03/04/1960. Declared himself Head of State on 20/06/1960. Caretaker President since 18/03/1970, after the destitution of Sihanouk. Lon Nol declared himself President on 10/03/ 1972, and dissolved Parliament. Left the country on 01/04/1975. Acting President since 01/04/1975. Leader of the Military Junta and Chairman of the Supreme Commission of the Khmer Republic since 17/04/1975. Following the PRA elections and the decline of Sihanouk to serve as Head of State Khieu Samphan was elected as Chairman of the State Presidium by the PRA on 14/04/1976. On 07/01/1979 the rebel forces of the KPRP backed by Vietnam occupied Phnom Penh. Heng Samrin became Chairman of the People's Revolutionary Council; since 1981 of the State Council. Chairman of the Supreme National Council since June 1991. On 14/06/1993 re-installed in his functions as Monarch and Head of State. Remarks After Japanese capitulation, deposed and arrested by French authorities on 16/10/1945. First Cabinet under French tutelage since 17/ 10/1945. Elected by National Assembly on 25/09/1947. Elected on 17/02/1948. Elected on 11/08/1948. Elected in April 1949. After dissolution of Parliament re-appointed on 18/09/1949. Took control of government on 03/05/1950 in order to achieve constitutional reforms. Head of Government of National Unity. Dismissed on 26/02/1951 before fresh elections. Head of DP-dominated government. On 15/06/1952 Sihanouk dissolved Parliament and assumed the role of Prime Minister. Went in voluntary exile on 14/07/1953. Stepped back after Sihanouk's return on 09/11/ 1953. Appointed on 14/11/1953. Appointed on 25/01/1955. Since 01/03/1956. Elected by National Assembly on 25/10/1956. Appointed on 30/07/1957.

78

INDONESIA Norodom Sihanouk

1958–1960

Pho Proeung Penn Nouth Norodom Kanthol Lon Nol Son Sann

1960–1961 1961–1962 1962–1966 1966–1967 1967–1968

Penn Nouth Lon Nol Sisovath Sirik Matak

1968–1969 1969–1971 1971–1972

Lon Nol

1972

Son Ngoc Thanh

1972

Hang Thun Hak In Tam Long Boreth

1972–1973 1973 1973–1975

Penn Nouth

1975–1976

Pol Pot

1976–1979

Heng Samrin

1979–1981

Chan Si Hun Sen Supreme National Council/UNTAC

1981–1984 1985–1991 1991–1993

Norodom Ranariddh

1993–1997

Ung Huot

1997–1998

Hun Sen

1998–

Re-assumed the office of Prime Minister on 14/ 07/1958. Elected on 13/04/1960. Appointed by Sihanouk on 28/01/1961. Appointed in October 1962. Elected on 22/10/1966. Appointed on 02/05/1967 as head of extraparliamentary emergency cabinet. Appointed on 01/02/1968. Re-elected Prime Minister on 14/08/1969. Appointed by Lon Nol on 20/10/1971 after state of emergency had been declared. Since 20/03/1972 Lon Nol assumed for some weeks both the Presidency and the Office of Prime Minister. Already Head of Government in 1945, Thanh became Prime Minister following the parliamentary elections in June 1972. Appointed by President Nol on 16/10/1972. Since 11/05/1973. Appointed in December 1973 in the wake of the Khmer Rouge offensive. Following the victory of the Khmer Rouge, the Communists established a Revolutionary Council since 17/04/1975. Relatively unknown until then, he was named Prime Minister after the elections to the PRA on 14/04/1976. Head of State and Government following the invasion of Phnom Penh on 07/01/1979. Died in office on 31/12/1984. Appointed on 14/01/1985. Since 24/06/1991 formal authority resided with a 13-member Supreme National Council, headed by Sihanouk. Effective governmental authority stayed with the SOC administration. On 01/07/1993 Ranariddh was elected Head of a Provisional Government by the Constituent Assembly. On 29/10/1993, he was confirmed as Head of the Royal Government with Hun Sen as Second Prime Minister. Following the removal of Ranariddh, former Foreign Minister Ung Huot was elected First Prime Minister on 07/07/1997. Hun Sen remained Second Prime Minister. Elected on 30/11/1998 by the National Assembly as head of the CPP-FUNCINPEC coalition government.

CAMBODIA

79

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Cambodian National Election Commission (1998a). Regulations and Procedures for the Election of the Members of the National Assembly in the Kingdom of Cambodia. Phnom Penh, 9 June 1998. —— (1998b). Final Results of the July 26 Election. Phnom Penh, 1 September 1998. Royal Government of Cambodia. ‘Constitution of 1947 as modified until 1959’, in Asian African Legal Consultative Committee (ed.) (1968), Constitutions of Asian Countries. Bombay: Tripathi. —— (1993). The Constitution of 24 September 1993. Phnom-Penh. Royal Government of Cambodia/ Office of Council of Ministers (1998). Legal Frame of the Election of Members of the National Assembly. Phnom Penh, April. United Nations, Security Council (1993a). Report of the Secretary-General on the Conduct and Results of the Elections in Cambodia. New York 10 June 1993, UN-Document S/25913.

80

INDONESIA

—— (1993b). Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 7 of Resolution 840 (1993). New York 16 July 1993, UNDocument S/26090. United Nations Transitional Authority for Cambodia, Information/ Education Division (1992). United Nations Electoral Law for Cambodia. Phnom Penh August 1992. —— (1993). Brief No. 32: Party Votes by Province. Phnom Penh June 1993.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Chandler, D. P. (1985). ‘Kampuchea’, in H. Fukui (ed.), Political Parties in Asia and the Pacific. Westport, Ct.: Greenwood, 633–645. —— (1991). The Tragedy of Cambodian History. Politics, War, and Revolution since 1945. New Haven, Conn., and London: Yale UP. Dufaur, M. (1960). ‘Les modalités des élections au suffrage universel au Cambodge’. Annales de la Faculté de Droit de Phnom-Penh, 1/2: 119–141. Finlay, T. (1995). Cambodia. The Legacy and Lessons of UNTAC. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frieson, K. G. (1996). ‘The Cambodian Elections of 1993: A Case of Power to the People?’, in R. H. Taylor (ed.), The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, Mass.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 224–242. Gaillard, M. (1995). Démocratie Cambodgienne. La constitution du 24 septembre 1993. Paris: L'Harmattan. Gour, C.-G., and Roblot, R. (1965). Institutions constitutionnelles et politiques du Cambodge. Paris: Dalloz. Heder, S. R. (1995). ‘Cambodia's Democratic Transition to Neoauthoritarianism’. Current History, 94/596: 425–429. —— (2000). Cambodian Elections Before UNTAC: Intra-State Competition and Suppression of Extra-State Competitors. London: SOAS, unpublished paper. International Parliamentary Union (1977). ‘Cambodia’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections. 1 July 1975–30 June 1976. Geneva: IPU, 37–38. Jennar, R. M. (ed.) (1994). Les Constitutions du Cambodge: 1953–1993. Paris: Documentation Francaise. Kiernan, B. (1985). How Pol Pot Came to Power. A History of Communism in Kampuchea, 1930–1975. London: Verso. Larché, J. (1949). ‘Le nouveau statut intérieur de l'état cambodgien’. Revue Juridique et Politique de l'union française, 3/3: 315–327. Leifer, M. (1962). ‘The Cambodian Elections’. Asian Survey, 2/7: 20–24. Preschez, P. (1961). Essai sur la démocratie au Cambodge. Paris: Centre d'Etudes et Recherches Internationales.

CAMBODIA

81

Raszelenberg, P., and Schier, P. (1995). The Cambodia Conflict: Search for a Settlement, 1979–1991–An Analytical Chronology. Hamburg: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Asienkunde No. 241. Schier, P. (1998). ‘Nationale Wahlen in Kambodscha’. KAS-Auslandsinformationen, 14/12: 60–83. Shawcross, W. (1979). Sideshow. Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia. New York: Simon and Shuster. United Nations (1994). The United Nations in Cambodia. A Vote for Peace. New York: UN. Vander Weyden, P. (2000). ‘Parliamentary Elections in Cambodia 1998’. Electoral Studies, 19/4: 615–621. Vandy, K. (1993). Cambodge 1940–1991. La politique sans les Cambodgiens. Paris: L'Harmattan. Vickery, M. (1982). ‘Looking Back at Cambodia, 1942–76’, in B. Kiernan, and C. Boua (eds.), Peasants and Politics in Kampuchea 1942–1981. London: Zed Press, 89–113. —— (1986). Kampuchea. Politics, Economics and Society. London: Pinter. Weggel, O. (1998). ‘Die Wahlen am 26. Juli in Kambodscha—Farce oder Hoffnungszeichen?’. Südostasien aktuell, 17/5: 376–383.


Indonesia by Jürgen Rüland

68

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Since its independence in 1945, Indonesia has been most of the time under authoritarian rule. Under President Suharto (1967–1998) parliamentary elections were held regularly, but did scarcely contribute to a democracy, as they were tainted by electoral fraud and limited party pluralism. When Suharto's regime collapsed in May 1998, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis, a liberalization process was initiated; it culminated in free and fair parliamentary elections in June 1999. The Indonesian declaration of independence (merdeka), issued on 17 August 1945, put an end to more than 300 years of Dutch colonial rule and to a three-year occupation by Japanese forces during World War II. Dutch attempts to restore their colonial empire after the Japanese capitulation encountered armed resistance by the Indonesian Republic. Although two major Dutch military offensives pushed the nationalists to the brink of defeat, the pressure exerted both by the USA and the United Nations on The Hague finally led to the Dutch withdrawal in late 1949. Apart from the struggle against the common enemy, Indonesians were deeply divided. The more moderate leaders forming the government were opposed by the communists and radical youth groups, who rejected any accommodation with the Dutch. The internal divisions explain the deviations from the constitutional framework during the revolutionary period. Although the 1945 Constitution established a strong presidential system, shifting power relations soon forced President Sukarno to hand over day-to-day government to a Prime Minister, a position not provided for in the Constitution. The 1949 Federal Constitution established a union between the Dutch-controlled regions in the outer islands and the territory held by the

68

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Stefan Merz and Dirk Herberg for their valuable research assistance, and to Dr Kusnanto Anggoro for his help in correcting data inconsistencies.

84

LAOS

Republic in Java and Sumatra. The text was however short-lived and replaced by the more centralist (temporary) Constitution of 1950, which laid the groundwork for a parliamentary system. The legitimacy of this new political system was undermined by numerous rebellions and separatist challenges. These chaotic circumstances precluded the holding of parliamentary elections for nearly five years. Pending the enactment of an electoral law, a temporary parliament was installed; parties negotiated the distribution of its seats on the basis of their respective presumed strength in it. In the absence of clear parliamentary majorities, multiparty coalitions were formed, which were notoriously unstable: six times did the government change from 1950 to 1957. The 1953 Election Law finally paved the way for the country's first parliamentary elections in September 1955. These were the only free and fair elections held before 1999. Yet, neither the September 1955 elections nor the long overdue elections for a Constituent Assembly (Konstituante) in December 1955 could end party fragmentation. One hundred and seventy-two parties and groups contested the 1955 polls, 28 of which won seats. Apart from an Islam-secularism cleavage, both camps were internally split. The two largest Islamic parties, Masyumi and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), stood for different versions of Islam. They agreed, however, in their objective of modifying the Constitution to give Islam a greater role in politics and society. Regarding the secular camp, it included nationalist parties, led by the Partai Nasional Indonesia (PNI), several divided socialist parties and the communists (PKI). The impasse between Islamic and lay parties in both Parliament and Konstituante after the election, a Cabinet paralyzed by heavy infighting and the Permesta rebellion of disgruntled Sumatra-based military officers provided President Sukarno with a pretext to proclaim Martial Law (1957), inaugurate the Guided Democracy and restore the 1945 Constitution in July 1959. Sukarno's regime was based on an organic state concept with nativist overtones. A Mutual Co-operation Cabinet was formed, with an advisory body, the National Council (Dewan Pertimbangan Agung) composed of functional groups. The restored 1945 Constitution shifted power to Presidency, enabling Sukarno to dissolve the elected Parliament and replace it by a wholly appointed Mutual Co-operation Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat—Gotong Royong, DPR-GR). Political parties resisting these changes, such as Masyumi and the Partai Sosialis Indonesia (PSI), were banned (1960). At the core of the rifts inside Indonesian society was an ever more intense power struggle between the army and the PKI. The greater the

INDONESIA

85

power of the army under Martial Law, the more Sukarno tilted towards the PKI. At the same time the PKI, like the army, sought to curtail the influence of political Islam. The rising tensions finally burst into the open with the coup attempt of 30 September 1965. While the coup was quickly suppressed by General Suharto, then commander of a special task force, the army blamed the communists as the coup's masterminds, thereby setting in motion an unprecedented wave of violence. Months before the PKI and its mass organizations were banned in March 1966, army units together with Muslim youths tracked down presumed communists, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Indonesians in the process. By early 1967 Suharto had wrested all power from Sukarno, who was confined to house arrest until his death in 1970. The hopes of anti-Sukarnoist students and the urban middle class for a more open political system faded as Suharto retained the 1945 Constitution and began to consolidate his power. The corporatist Pancasila democracy (Pancasila = Five Principles) became the ideological hallmark of his regime. Pancasila called for a democracy based on nonconfrontative deliberation (musyawarah) and consensus (mufakat). Political competition and (loyal) opposition were inherently alien to such an integrationist political culture. Suharto could thus build his New Order regime (Orde Baru) on two major pillars: the armed forces and a huge bureaucracy. The third pillar was GOLKAR—a body originally formed by the army in 1964 as an umbrella for anti-communist functional groups, which Suharto transformed into a mass organization for mobilizing the population. However, rearguard resistance by the remnants of the Old Order (Orde Lama) and the stubborn opposition of urban intellectuals managed to postpone the elections until 1971. In 1969 a new election law allowed for a conditional restoration of political parties, with the exception of the PKI. Yet, Suharto made sure that the revived parties would come under tight government control. While the PNI was subject to massive government-orchestrated purges, the restoration of Masyumi was prohibited. Its successor party Parmusi included many former Masyumi members, but not its leadership. Ten political parties contested the July 1971 elections, but the entire state apparatus was mobilized in support of GOLKAR. About two million people—most of them presumed former PKI-supporters—were disenfranchised. On the whole the authorities rejected more than 20 percent of the candidates. Freedom of speech was restricted and campaign materials were cleared. In the New Order's history of electoral manipulation,

86

LAOS

the 1971 elections were the dirtiest. Not surprisingly, GOLKAR achieved a landslide victory. The next stage in Suharto's power consolidation was the simplification of the party system. In the early 1973 the People's Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, MPR) decided that only GOLKAR and two political parties would be allowed to contest elections from then on. Soon afterwards, the secular and Christian parties (PNI, IPKI, Murba, Parkindo, and the Partai Katolik) merged into the Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (PDI), while the Islamic parties (NU, Parmusi, PSII and Perti) formed the Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (PPP). Based on the 1975 Party Law, the PDI and the PPP were declared political parties, whereas GOLKAR obtained the status of a mass organization. Despite signs of political liberalization since the late 1980s Suharto still rejected the principle of political opposition. The state continued to intervene into PDI and PPP party affairs, especially when more independent leaders rose to the top, such as Sukarno's daughter Megawati Sukarnoputeri in the PDI. The ensuing wave of political repression against Megawati's faction and other opposition leaders undermined the regime's credibility. In 1997 GOLKAR's best-ever victory at the polls only exacerbated political discontent, as it was marred by fraud and unfairness. The increasing economic hardship caused by the Asian financial crisis in summer 1997 and a leadership unwilling to introduce serious reforms led to growing public discontent. After student demonstrations and riots in Jakarta Suharto stepped down and handed Presidency over to Vice-President Habibie. It was the 21 May 1998. Habibie's government instituted major political reforms, such as freedom of the press, protection of human rights, and restoration of full party competition. Nonetheless, many parts of the country (e.g. Aceh, East Timor, and West Kalimantan) were experiencing an alarming increase in ethnic and religious violence. Amid the growing restiveness, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) held an extraordinary session in November 1998, which paved the way for the first free elections since 1955. Two months later, the People's Representative Body (DPR) passed a new election law, a law on the structure and composition of the MPR, DPR and regional legislatures and a law on political parties. The elections held on 7 June 1999 ended with the victory of Megawati Sukarnoputri's PDI-P. In October 1999 the MPR elected Abdurrahman Wahid (PKB) as the country's new President.

INDONESIA

87

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Since independence elections in Indonesia have been held under three different electoral laws enacted, respectively, in 1953, 1969, and 1999. While the 1953 Law did not specify electoral principles, the 1969 provisions called for universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage. In 1953 all Indonesian citizens who had reached the age of 18 or were married were entitled to vote. In 1969 the voting age was lowered to 17, or less if married. Former members of the PKI and its mass organizations were denied the right to vote and to be elected. The same applied to those ‘directly or indirectly involved in any other prohibited organization’. This provision virtually gave the government a free hand to exclude potential opponents from elections. Parliamentary candidates must be at least 21, literate (in 1975 amended to high school), and of proven loyalty to Pancasila, to the 1945 Constitution and to the Independence Revolution of the Indonesian People as proclaimed on 17 August 1945. Unlike the previous electoral provisions, the 1969 Law deprived members of the armed forces from active and passive voting rights, the idea behind being that participation in elections might undermine the unity of the military. Up to the present, the armed forces are compensated for this curtailment of their civic rights by being allocated reserved seats (see below). Indonesia holds direct nation-wide elections only for Parliament, known as the People's Representative Body (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR). The only exception was the election of a Constitutional Assembly (Konstituante) in 1955. Presidential elections are indirect and usually take place several months after parliamentary elections. The President is elected by the People's Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, MPR), the nominally supreme political body of the country. However, neither the 1969 nor the 1999 MPR Law contained regulations for the presidential candidature and the selection of the President. Under the New Order the President was elected upon a predetermined consensus among the factions in the MPR. The number of members of the MPR varied between 920 (1971–1982) and 1,000 (1987–1997). It comprised the members of the DPR, representatives of the regions, and political and functional groups. Before 1971, Sukarno had installed a wholly appointed Preliminary MPR (Majlis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Semantara, MPRS) with 609 members who first convened in November 1960. Except for the first DPR, which served six years (1971–1977), the parliamentary term of office under the New Order was five years. The

88

LAOS

number of parliamentary seats rose from 257 (1955) to 460 (1971) and, once more in 1982, to 500. The Konstituante elected in 1955 had 514 members. One hundred seats of the DPR were reserved for the armed forces, whose representatives were appointed by the President. In 1995, a Presidential Decree lowered the representation of the armed forces to 75. If elected members of the DPR resigned or were recalled by their faction or party before the expiry of their term (usually on demand of the President), they were replaced by candidates of the party/ organization concerned. Candidacy rules changed between 1953 and 1969. The 1953 Law allowed individual candidacy, but after 1969 candidates had to be nominated by functional groups or political parties. During the New Order candidates were subjected to intensive screening by intelligence agencies. Usually between 10 and 20 percent of nominations were rejected for a wide array of reasons including alleged communist leaning, participation in a rebellion and questionable loyalty to Pancasila. All Indonesian elections (including the Constituent Assembly) applied proportional representation in multi-member constituencies (these being identical to the country's provinces). The provision of the 1953 Law that one seat should represent a population of 300,000 was increased to 400,000 in 1969. If duly applied, the regulation would have given Java, which comprises two thirds of the Indonesian population, a commanding parliamentary majority. For the sake of national cohesion and to counter sentiments of domination in the outer islands an additional regulation stipulated that the number of seats of the outer islands should equal the number of Javanese seats. Moreover, every regency (kabupaten) had to have at least one representative. Since many kabupaten have less than 400,000 inhabitants, the result has been the overrepresentation of small rural outer island districts and the under-representation of Jakarta, Java, and North Sumatra. In 1997 the size of the constituencies ranged from four (Bengkulu, East Timor) to 68 seats (West Java, thereby replacing East Java as the largest constituency). While the minimum size has always been four, the largest constituency rose from 63 to the present level due to population growth. Seats were distributed at the constituency level by the Hare quotient and largest remainder. The 1953 Law left the electoral organization in the hands of a Central Election Committee (Panitia Pemilihan Indonesia) with divisions at provincial, district, municipal, and sub-district level. It was responsible for the technical preparation, supervision and adjudication. Under President Suharto the Ministry of Home Affairs controlled the organization of elections. The Ministry formed an Institute of General Elections (Lembaga

INDONESIA

89

Pemilihan Umum, LPU) with the Minister as chairman. The LPU was responsible for planning and preparing the elections. Its organizational body was the Indonesian Election Commission (Panitia Pemilihan Indonesia, PPI) with subunits at every administrative echelon down to the village level. Due to consistent complaints about electoral fraud, and Election Law Amendment in 1980 created supervisory boards whose structure paralleled that of electoral committees. Although the amendment gave political parties the right to witness the voting and the vote counting, the efficiency of the supervisory boards was questionable, since in their majority they were staffed by pro-regime officials. The lack of transparency of the New Order elections led to the emergence of an Independent Election Watchdog (KIPP) in 1997. KIPP was modeled along the lines of the Philippine (NAMFREL) and Thai (Poll-Watch) election watchdogs, but unlike them—due to government harassment and organizational constraints—it was rather ineffective in curtailing electoral fraud. The campaign period was limited under the New Order—initially to two months (1971), later to one month. The week prior to the election was declared ‘cooling-off period’ (minggu tenang), and campaigning was prohibited. Campaign topics were also legally restricted: it was forbidden to question Pancasila, to raise ethnic or religious issues, and to defame high-ranking government officials. Most campaign activities required prior clearing by the authorities—even campaign speeches were screened by the police. Election advertisement in the media was not allowed.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Law of the Republic of Indonesia, No. 2 of 1999 on Political Parties; Republic of Indonesia's Law No. 3 of 1999 on General Election; Republic of Indonesia's Law No. 4 of 1999 on the Structure and Composition of People's Consultative Assembly and People's Representative Council and Regional People's Representative Council; National Election Commission, KPU Decree 2 of 1999 on the Organization of the National Election Commission; Law of the Republic of Indonesia of the Year 1999 about the Presidency.

90

LAOS

Suffrage: The 1999 Election Law must be viewed as an attempt to democratize parliamentary elections. Accordingly, it explicitly states that elections have to be carried out in a ‘democratic and transparent, honest and just way’. The Law further provides for universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage. The voting age is 17 years, or less if married. In contrast to former electoral legislation voters must register in the voter list. As in previous laws, voting is not compulsory. Eligible voters residing overseas register in the local Overseas Election Commission, located at Indonesian diplomatic missions abroad. The Commission is composed of Indonesians who are appointed by the head of mission upon proposals of the leadership of the contesting parties.

Elected national institutions: President of the Republic and unicameral Parliament (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR). The President is indirectly elected by the People's Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, MPR) for a term of five years. Reelection is possible; no limitation exists on terms of office until now. The DPR has a regular term of five years. It is composed of 462 directly elected representatives and 38 members reserved for the armed forces. While the 1999 Law does not provide for a recall of legislators, replacement of elected representatives requires the involvement of the local party organization. Successors must come from the parties' list of the same province; the Law does not specify the criteria followed to replace parliamentarians. The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) is a kind of expanded parliamentary assembly that elects the President and Vice-President, passes the Guidelines of State Policy (Garis Garis Besar Haluan Negara), and performs limited legislative functions for the next five years. It is formed by the 500 DPR-Members together with 135 representatives of the regional legislatures and 65 delegates of functional groups. Unlike in the past, the latter are not appointed by the President, but by the Election Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum, KPU).

Nomination of Candidates -presidential elections: The MPR forms a Committee for the Election of the President and the Vice-President. It is composed by the leaders of the MPR and representatives of MPR factions. The factions propose names of presidential and vice-presidential candidates to the MPR leadership. After screening them the Committee publishes the names of the candidates standing for election.

INDONESIA

91

-parliamentary elections: Candidates for Parliament must be at least 21 years old, must have attended at least junior high school, and must be of proven loyalty to Pancasila and to the 1945 Constitution. As previously, candidates with a record of PKI-membership or of one of its mass organizations are banned from running. Each party may form constituency lists with twice as many candidates as to be elected in the respective constituency. Candidates are nominated by the parties' central board. However, unlike previously, the national leadership must secure the consent of the party leadership of the province for which a candidate is nominated. The new law has abolished candidate-screening by intelligence agencies. Parties must have their organization in at least 9 out of the 27 provinces of the country, and within them, at least in one-half of the respective administrative sub-units. Only those parties conquering at least two percent of the seats in the DPR or at least three percent of the seats in local legislatures are allowed to run in the following election.

Electoral System -presidential elections: If more than two thirds of the MPR delegates attend the electoral session, the MPR elects the President by plurality. Otherwise he needs a two-third majority of the vote. If no candidate reaches this majority, a second ballot decides by plurality.

-parliamentary elections: Proportional representation in 27 multi-member constituencies (26 after East Timor's independence), ranging from 4 (Bengkulu) to 82 (West Java). The constituencies are territorially identical to the country's 27 provinces. Unlike previously, the 1999 Law does not contain provisions about a seat-population ratio and about seat distribution among the provinces. Seats are allocated at the constituency level according to the Hare quota and largest remainder.

Organizational context of elections: The supervision of elections is the responsibility of the Independent Election Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum, KPU). It consists of five government representatives and one representative from each of the contesting parties. Each member of the KPU nominated by the parties has one vote, each member of the KPU nominated by the government has 9. The term of the Commission ends one year before the 2004 elections. The KPU creates an Election Committee (Panitia Pemilihan Indonesia, PPI) which serves as its executive arm. The PPI is organized down to the village level and is responsible for conducting the election and the vote count. Since in the New Order vote counting was the stage of the

92

LAOS

electoral process most prone to manipulations, the 1999 Electoral Law provides ample space for the electorate to participate in the supervision of canvassing and counting of votes. Political party representatives witness the counting and must certify the fairness of the process. The arbitration of electoral disputes is in the hands of a Supervisory Committee (Panitia Pengawas, PANWAS). At the national level it has 30 members—judges, academics, and public figures of high standing, selected and appointed by the Supreme Court. Below the national level Supervisory Committees exist at each administrative level. These are selected and appointed by the Head of the Appeal Court for the provinces and by the Head of the Court of First Instance for the municipalities. The electoral campaign must conclude two days before the elections (cooling-off period). Though freed from previous government interference and tight control, certain themes such as the questioning of Pancasila, the display of religious and ethnic hatred or the defaming of high-ranking state officials are still off-limits.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Except for the 1955 parliamentary elections and—in particular—the elections for the Konstituante, electoral data were easily accessible. The official results were usually published by the Institute of General Elections (LPU) about one month after the election. All major dailies published the electoral data, broken down in provinces. The official results, however, contain only the valid votes. The number of invalid votes cannot be inferred from the available data. The data listed below are based on the results published by LPU. They are taken from press releases (KOMPAS), official news agencies (Berita Antara, for the Konstituante elections), official LPU reports and secondary sources such as Herbert Feith's study of the 1955 elections and election studies published by the Center of Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in 1992 and 1997. The provinces are listed according to the sequence followed by the LPU. While national election data are congruent in most publications, there are important inconsistencies with regard to provincial data, although in all cases the LPU is cited as source. Careless data transcription, arithmetic errors and ex post modifications may be at the root of such inconsistencies. Particularly error-prone are the 1982 and 1992 electoral results. In one case (East Timor 1987) the statistics record a higher number of

93

INDONESIA

votes cast than of registered voters. Wherever possible, obviously erroneous data have been substituted by more plausible data from alternative sources, such as the IPCOS data bank. Unfortunately, it was impossible to remove all the inconsistencies. Where they appear, they are indicated by a footnote in the corresponding table.

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups D'etat

a b c

Year


1949 1955 1957 1963 1965 1967 1971 1973 1977 1978 1982 1983 1987 1988 1992 1993 1997 1998 1999

16/12b 29/09


Referendums

Coups d'état

15/12 14/03a

18/05c 30/09 12/03

c

22/03

b

03/07 02/05 22/03b 04/05 11/03

b

10/03

b

10/03

b

23/04 09/06 29/05 10/03 20/10b b

07/06

Proclamation of Martial Law. Indirect elections by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) per acclamation. In 1963 and 1967 the President was appointed through the Preliminary People's Consultative Assembly (Majlis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Sementara, MPRS).

94

LAOS


1955 1955 1971 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 1999 a b c

Type of electiona

Pa CA Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

Populationb

Registered voters

Valid votesc

77,987,900 77,987,900 114,190,200 129,842,800 146,531,700 162,921,900 177,447,600 169,286,600 209,389,000

Total number 43,104,464 43,104,464 58,179,245 70,662,155 81,629,250 93,965,953 107,565,697 124,740,987 117,817,405

Total number 37,785,299 37,410,249 54,699,509 63,998,344 75,126,306 85,809,816 97,809,419 112,991,160 105,786,638

% pop. 55.3 55.3 50.9 54.4 55.7 57.7 60.6 73.7 56.3

Pa = Parliament, CA = Constitutional Assembly. Estimates, published by the Institute of General Elections (LPU). No information available on the number of votes cast. The lists correspond to the valid votes.

% reg. Vot- % pop. ers 87.7 48.5 86.8 48.0 94.0 47.9 90.6 49.3 92.0 51.3 91.3 52.7 90.9 55.1 90.6 66.7 89.8 50.5

INDONESIA

95

2.3 Abbreviations Acoma Baperki GOLKAR GPPS IPKI Masyumi N NU Parkindo Parmusi PBB PDI PDI-P Permai Perti PIR PKB PKI PNI PPP PPPRI PPTI PRI PRIM PRN PSI PSII

Angkatan Comunis Muda (Organization of the Communist Youth) Badan Permusyawaratan Kewarganegaraan Indonesia (Citizenship Consultative Council) Golongan Karya (Functional Groups) Gerakan Pembela Pancasila (Movement to Defend the Pancasila) Ikatan Pendukung Kemerdekaan Indonesia (League for the Upholding of Indonesian Independence) Majlis Syuro Muslims in Indonesia (Consultative Council of Indonesian Muslims) Partai Amanat Nasional (National Mandate Party) Nahdlatul Ulama (Renaissance of Islamic Scholars) Partai Kristen Indonesia (Indonesian Christian Party) Partai Muslimin Indonesia (Indonesian Muslim Party) Partai Bulan Bintang (Crescent Star Party) Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (Indonesian Democratic Party) Partai Demokrasi Indonesia—Perjuangan (Indonesian Democratic Party—Struggle) Persatuan Marhaen Indonesia (Organization of the Indonesian Common People) Persatuan Terbijah Islamijah (Islamic Education Party) Persatuan Indonesia Raja (Greater Indonesian Union) Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (National Awakening Party) Partai Komunis Indonesia (Indonesian Communist Party) Partai Nasional Indonesia (Indonesian Nationalist Party) Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (United Development Party) Persatuan Pegawai Polisi Republik Indonesia (Police Employees' Association of Indonesia) Partai Persatuan Tharikat Islam (United Islamic Brotherhood Party) Partai Rakyat Indonesia (Indonesian People's Party) Partai Rakyat Indonesia Merdeka (People's Party of Free Indonesia) Partai Rakyat National (National People's Party) Partai Sosialis Indonesia (Indonesian Socialist Party) Partai Sarekat Islam Indonesia (Islamic Association Party)

96

LAOS

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1955–1999 Party/Alliance Acoma Akui Baperki Gerakan Banteng Republic Indonesia Gerakan Pilihan Sunda (Sunda Voters' Movement) Gerinda GPPS IPKIb L.M. Idrus Effendi Masyumi NUc Parkindob Partai Buruh (Workers' Party) Partai Katolik (Catholic Party)b Partai Murbab Partai Persatuan Daya Partai Rakyat Desa (Village People's Party) Partai Tani Indonesia (Indonesian Peasants' Party) Permai Pertic PIR-Hazairin PIR-Nusa Tenggara PIR-Wongsenogoro PKI PNIb PPPRI PPTI PRI PRIM PRN PSI PSIIc Raja Keprabon dan Kawan-Kawan (Raja Keprabon and His Friends) R. Soedjono Prawirosoedarso dan Kawankawan (R. Soejono Prawirosoedarso and His Friends) GOLKAR

Years 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955,

1955 1955 1955 1955 1955

(CA) (CA) (CA) (CA) (CA)

Elections contesteda 2 2 2 2 2

1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955,

1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955

(CA) (CA) (CA), (CA) (CA) (CA), (CA), (CA) (CA), (CA), (CA) (CA)

2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2

1971

1971 1971 1971 1971

1955, 1955 (CA)

2

1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955. 1955, 1955, 1955,

2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2

1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955

(CA) (CA), 1971 (CA) (CA) (CA) (CA) (CA), 1971 (CA) (CA) (CA) (CA) (CA) (CA), 1971 (CA) (CA)

1955, 1955 (CA)

2

1971–1999

7

97

INDONESIA

Parmusic PDIb PPPc PAN PBB Partai Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Indonesian Unity in Diversity Party) Partai Daulat Rakyat (People's Sovereignty Party) Partai Demokrasi Kasih Bangsa (Love of the Nation Democratic Party) Partai IPKI Partai Keadilan (Justice Party) Partai Keadilan dan Persatuan (Justice and Unity Party) Partai Kebangkitan Umat (Muslim Community Awakening Party) Partai Nahdlatul Umat (Renaissance of the Umma Party) Partai Persatuan (United Party) Partai Syarat Islam Indonesia (Indonesian United Islam Party) PDI-P PKB PNI Front Marhaenis (PNI Front of the Working People) PNI Massa Marhaen (PNI Working Masses) a b

c

1971 1977–1999 1977–1999 1999 1999 1999

1 6 6 1 1 1

1999

1

1999

1

1999 1999 1999

1 1 1

1999

1

1999

1

1999 1999

1 1

1999 1999 1999

1 1 1

1999

1

Only parliamentary elections. Total number (including the CA elections 1955): 9. In 1973 the secular and Christian parties PNI, IPKI, Murba, Parkindo, and the Partai Katolik merged into the Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (PDI). In 1973 the Islamic parties NU, Parmusi, PSII, and Perti formed the Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (PPP).

2.5 Referendums Referendums have not been held.

98

LAOS

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly 1955 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes

Total number 43,104,464 — — 37,410,249

% – — — 86.8 24.2 20.8 18.7 16.7 2.8 2.6 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Seats – – – – 514 119 112 91 80 16 16 10 10 8 7 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

% – – – – 100.0 23.2 21.8 17.7 15.6 3.1 3.1 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

PNI Masyumi NU PKI PSII Parkindo Partai Katolik PSI IPKI Perti Partai Buruh Partai Murba PRN PPPRI Partai Persatuan Daya Permai PIR-Wongsonegoro Baperki Gerinda GPPS PRIM PRI PIR-Hazairin AKUI PPTI Acoma Gerakan Banteng RI Partai Rakyat Desa R. Soedjono Prawirosoedarso dan Kawan-kawan Gerakan Pilihan Sunda PIR-Nusa Tenggara Raja Keprabon dan Kawan-Kawan L.M. Idrus Effendi Partai Tani Indonesia

9,070,218 7,789,619 6,989,333 6,232,512 1,059,922 988,810 748,591 695,932 544,803 465,359 332,047 248,633 220,652 179,346 169,222 164,386 162,420 160,456 157,976 152,892 143,907 134,011 101,509 84,862 74,913 55,844 39,874 39,278 38,356 35,035 33,823 33,660

0.1 0.1 0.1

1 1 1

0.2 0.2 0.2

31,988 30,060

0.1 0.1

1 1

0.2 0.2

99

INDONESIA

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1955–1999 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PNI Masyumi NU PKI PSII Parkindo Partai Katolik PSI IPKI Perti PRN Partai Buruh GPPS PRI PPPRI Partai Murba Baperki PIR GOLKAR Parmusi Othersa & Independents a

1955 Total number 43,104,464 — — 37,785,299 8,434,653 7,903,886 6,955,141 6,176,914 1,091,160 1,003,325 770,740 753,191 541,306 483,014 242,125 224,167 219,985 206,261 200,419 199,588 178,887 178,481 – – 2,022,056

1971 % – — — 87.7 22.3 20.9 18.4 16.3 2.9 2.7 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 – – 5.4

Total number 58,179,245 — — 54,699,509 3,793,266 – 10,213,650 – – 733,359 603,740 1,308,237 338,403 381,309 – – – – – 48,126 – – 34,348,673 2,930,746 –

% – — — 94.0 6.9 – 18.7 – – 1.3 1.1 2.4 0.6 0.7 – – – – – 0.1 – – 62.8 5.4 –

Includes the remaining parties and groups out of 172 which contested the 1955 election.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes GOLKAR PPP PDI Year Registered voters

1977 Total number 70,662,155 — — 63,998,344 39,750,096 18,743,491 5,504,757

1982 % – — — 90.6 62.1 29.3 8.6

Total number 81,629,250 — — 75,126,306 48,334,724 20,871,880 5,919,702

% – — — 92.0 64.3 27.8 7.9

1987 Total number 93,965,953

1992 % –

Total number 107,565,697

% –

100 Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes GOLKAR PPP PDI

— — 85,809,816 62,783,680 13,701,428 9,324,708

— — 91.3 73.2 16.0 10.9

— — 97,809,419 66,599,326 16,624,547 14,585,546

— — 90.9 68.1 17.0 14.9

Year

1997 Total number 124,740,987 — — 112,991,160 84,187,907 25,340,028 3,463,225 – – – – – –

1999a % – — — 90.6 74.5 22.4 3.1 – – – – – –

Total numberb 117,817,405 — — — 23,741,758 11,329,905 655,049 35,689,073 13,336,982 7,528,956 2,049,708 1,436,565 1,065,686

% – — — — 22.5 10.7 0.6 33.8 12.6 7.1 1.9 1.4 1.0

– –

– –

658,069 550,851

0.6 0.5

– – –

– – –

550,808 429,854 375,920

0.5 0.4 0.4

–

–

354,292

0.3

–

–

300,064

0.3

– – –

– – –

363,697 345,720 327,301

0.3 0.3 0.3

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes GOLKAR PPP PDI PDI-P PKB PAN PBB Partai Keadilan Partai Keadilan dan Persatuan Partai Nahdlatul Umat Partai Demokrasi Kasih Bangsa Partai Persatuan Partai Daulat Rakyat Partai Syarat Islam Indonesia Partai Bhinneka Tunggal Ika Partai Kebangkitan Umat PNI Front Marhaenis PNI Massa Marhaen Partai IPKI a b

LAOS

Preliminary data for 1999 are incomplete. At the time of writing no official election results have been released. Includes only those parties with at least one parliamentary seat.

101

INDONESIA

2.7 (a) Parliamentary Elections: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) 1971 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara Maluku West Iriana Total a

Registered voters 1,031,602 2,725,843 1,312,189 718,104 1,554,290 490,949 235,666 1,265,502 10,487,120 2,221,732 11,019,628 1,247,970 13,285,676 880,612 345,395

Valid votes 971,834 2,546,564 1,203,995 671,914 1,414,446 462,900 223,501 1,211,124 10,017,708 1,955,010 10,283,307 1,162,654 12,462,917 829,333 331,247

GOLKAR 483,085 1,786,028 761,165 515,505 885,732 408,331 184,805 869,894 7,625,797 912,409 5,174,182 736,493 6,843,977 552,836 269,681

NU 89,965 136,488 35,889 48,184 153,440 22,077 5,607 137,800 1,310,679 462,803 2,382,462 126,315 4,382,607 89,365 39,852

PNI 3,834 166,135 5,046 8,747 70,274 3,043 1,064 50,626 172,551 227,535 2,003,177 119,421 622,746 24,385 1,195

854,776

796,630

516,492

210,941

3,459

359,422 808,951 442,241 345,802

328,898 778,939 424,836 342,202

180,146 472,974 326,379 316,047

68,040 39,575 18,595 7,929

17,699 44,846 5,156 932

2,614,235 1,105,552 1,114,777

2,514,648 1,049,864 1,055,217

1,970,461 869,404 736,801

230,127 16,725 150,119

6,613 130,233 47,381

1,177,043

1,149,176

706,557

14,413

35,554

534,168 – 58,179,245

510,645 – 54,699,509

243,492 – 34,348,673

33,653 – 10,213,650

21,614 – 3,793,266

Elections in West Irian were held separately in 1971.

1971 (continued) Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi

Parmusi

Partai Katolik

PSI

Parkindo

Others

182,486 187,038 273,196 61,968 169,544 20,004

776 44,067 5,008 2,965 14,053 467

74,787 69,837 23,114 9,403 91,889 4,485

3,630 111,988 7,708 4,540 6,648 682

133,271a 44,983 92,869b 20,602 22,866 3,811

102 Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara Maluku West Irian Total a b c

LAOS

19,830 78,794 399,730 150,735 468,753 108,183 339,919 57,621 10,415

469 10,939 28,013 56,370 52,746 35,439 30,470 54,236 403

3,800 47,478 304,989 56,381 90,466 10,832 154,707 7,322 4,052

525 5,422 40,679 58,130 55,447 13,190 38,047 5,716 3,547

7,401 10,171 135,270 30,647 56,074 12,781 50,444 37,852c 2,102

52,121

898

6,381

1,940

4,398

19,044 42,053 13,568 7,257

9,225 16,548 624 1,187

11,320 96,820 48,186 4,382

18,146 52,238 10,927 424

5,278 13,885 1,401 4,044

126,906 5,436 53,287

9,181 2,016 961

106,720 1,181 52,308

35,084 3,272 2,468

29,556 21,597 11,892

6,964

210,312

11,983

154,582

8,811

75,894 – 2,930,746

16,367 – 603,740

15,414 – 1,308,237

98,379 – 733,359

5,832 – 767,838

Registered voters 1,220,816 3,444,965 1,593,494 905,451 1,964,442 632,110 294,412 1,823,378 12,771,226 2,821,422 12,964,814 1,467,453 15,665,710 1,072,981

Valid Votes 1,119,638 3,178,776 1,417,601 797,020 1,673,551 598,950 272,987 1,706,807 11,959,500 2,496,426 10,898,716 1,310,792 14,510,485 1,000,878

GOLKAR 460,392a 2,112,550 942,752 504,724 833,804 500,091 208,684 1,055,525 7,925,728 980,452 5,735,379 741,611 8,538,502 689,376

PPP 641,256 706,289 460,024 270,374 713,310 93,797 59,676 525,527 3,413,310 1,085,069 3,082,757 304,510 5,230,707 218,474

PDI 17,390 359,937 14,825 21,922 126,437 5,062 4,627 125,755 620,462 430,905 2,080,580 264,671 741,276 93,028

Perti: 127,861 votes. Perti: 83,556 votes. IPKI: 36,338 votes.

1977 Region Aceha North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java DKI Jakarta Central Java D.I. Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan

103

INDONESIA

Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timorc Maluku West Irian Total a b c

426,586

399,272

278,912

106,361

13,999

978,958

845,239

419,095

417,590

8,554

533,133 993,420 571,959 409,601

459,099 936,447 531,782 409,473

261,520 682,484 421,749 393,521

162,621 165,026 102,552 12,791

34,958 88,937 7,481 3,161

2,914,368 1,304,724 1,299,157

2,793,738 1,173,936 1,086,976

2,379,834 1,002,143 624,900

391,420 19,318 398,234

22,484 152,475 63,842

1,349,574

1,309,383

1,182,116

25,451

101,816

– 643,054 552,148 70,662,155b

– 608,007 502,865 63,998,344

– 436,910 436,742 39,750,096

– 115,694 21,353 18,743,491

– 55,403 44,770 5,504,757

Inconsistent result. The sum for GOLKAR should be 460,992. The officially published electoral results are inconsistent. The sum of registered voters amounts only to 70,619,356. No elections were held in East Timor.

1982 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi

Registered voters 1,409,886 4,210,774 1,807,745 1,181,456 2,497,512 786,328 404,602 2,429,545 14,770,851 3,447,510 14,232,371 1,625,342 17,229,789 1,366,996 549,460

Valid votes 1,308,089 3,919,563 1,588,410 1,072,881 2,226,119 762,517 363,196 2,204,059 13,572,006 3,236,804 13,130,290 1,442,181 15,647,405 1,257,593 525,024

GOLKAR 483,570 2,843,427 959,492 769,131 1,247,287 646,591 256,485 1,308,274 8,596,458 1,456,216 7,940,158 873,260 8,884,252 892,801 442,197

PPP 772,819 801,296 615,789 276,678 847,045 105,337 94,959 661,719 3,687,132 1,268,878 3,640,383 336,664 5,732,623 260,722 76,392

PDI 51,700 274,840 13,129 27,072 131,787 10,589 11,752 234,066 1,288,416 511,710 1,549,749 232,257 1,030,530 104,070 6,435

1,178,437

1,075,715

637,397

426,485

11,833

678,748 1,158,815 685,570

575,444 1,124,212 672,190

352,746 979,486 546,468

183,280 76,060 104,343

39,418 68,666 21,379

104 Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku West Irian Total a

LAOS

505,131

498,841

483,598

12,775

2,468

3,252,294 1,441,160 1,454,553

3,105,669 1,361,754 1,319,502

2,769,736 1,203,101 905,280

317,824 26,444 371,509

18,109 132,209 42,713

1,499,363

1,472,960

1,419,204

19,100

34,656

311,796 752,545 666,674 81,629,250a

311,325 709,798 642,759 75,126,306

309,608 534,086 594,415 48,334,724

673 134,597 20,354 20,871,880

1,044 4,1115 27,990 5,919,702

The officially published results are inconsistent. The sum of registered voters amounts only to 81,535,253.

1987 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java DKI Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timora

Registered voters 1,645,982 4,839,765 2,061,668 1,444,743 2,989,835 944,677 528,823 2,751,223 17,582,857 4,435,120 16,039,205 1,776,717 19,098,967 1,603,559 675,398

Valid Votes 1,537,613 4,500,345 1,912,869 1,353,307 2,699,266 910,638 502,667 2,685,883 15,911,962 3,975,152 14,284,597 1,572,111 17,174,064 1,451,606 664,873

GOLKAR 798,983 3,274,533 1,504,457 1,078,942 1,869,635 809,299 426,301 2,337,563 11,347,051 1,996,837 9,743,228 1,103,429 12,230,362 997,707 592,973

PPP 660,644 606,617 375,529 203,555 508,006 74,706 51,547 196,820 2,197,846 851,456 2,600,746 227,846 3,568,918 224,996 56,237

PDI 77,986 619,195 32,883 70,810 321,625 26,633 24,819 151,500 2,367,065 1,126,859 1,940,623 240,836 1,374,784 228,903 15,663

1,334,953

1,228,102

881,987

304,716

41,399

874,127 1,348,093 822,992 602,425

746,005 1,312,877 787,670 600,517

505,919 1,148,651 654,742 583,386

157,474 71,064 94,150 11,927

82,612 93,162 38,778 5,204

3,574,325 1,632,600 1,646,441

3,387,439 1,525,896 1,475,290

3,049,126 1,338,876 1,217,950

300,629 25,398 175,337

37,684 161,622 82,003

1,671,657

1,629,216

1,543,497

21,330

64,389

360,144

360,900

338,078

2,648

20,174

105

INDONESIA

Maluku Irian Jaya Total a

870,914 808,743 93,965,953

825,124 793,827 85,809,816

672,281 737,887 62,783,680

109,570 21,716 13,701,428

43,273 34,224 9,324,708

The officially published results for East Timor are inconsistent, as there are more votes than registered voters.

1992 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java DKI Jakarta Central Java DI Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Total

Registered voters 1,927,890 5,438,086 2,295,044 1,845,227 3,540,232 1,132,251 662,384 3,293,864 20,998,299 5,104,473 17,770,458 1,911,164 21,173,457 1,833,888 799,190

Valid votes 1,821,027 5,081,703 2,177,944 1,713,656 3,218,413 1,094,370 632,646 3,192,004 18,993,272 4,771,519 15,538,500 1,683,529 18,825,900 1,644,586 785,045

GOLKAR 1,063,623 3,622,891 1,787,435 1,311,893 2,260,716 992,438 544,529 2,887,420 13,387,077 2,596,286 8,606,820 986,517 11,073,118 1,050,112 677,245

PPP 628,508 553,846 314,088 245,536 384,040 53,463 36,389 118,761 2,836,243 1,136,110 3,556,412 343,803 4,746,682 240,221 61,358

PDI 128,896 904,966 76,421 156,227 573,657 48,469 51,728 185,823 2,769,952 1,039,123 3,375,268 353,209 3,006,100 354,253 46,442

1,545,740

1,427,444

994,293

300,457

132,694

1,091,614 1,543,760 969,781 717,655

924,179 1,488,581 930,556 708,148

568,302 1,313,421 751,662 668,135

165,035 66,717 102,009 13,035

190,842 108,443 76885 26,978

4,043,948 1,855,666 1,865,460

3,814,021 1,717,928 1,660,317

3,424,003 1,348,153 1,303,310

294,214 34,225 183,427

95,804 335,550 173,580

1,839,135

1,770,766

1,615,130

32,610

123,026

416,002 1,021,924 929,105 107,565,697

370,298 942,427 880,640 97,809,419

305,930 696,109 762,758 66,599,326

5,291 150,982 21,085 16,624,547

59,077 95,336 96,797 14,585,546

1997 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau

Registered voters Valid votes 2,204,994 2,099,174 6,134,414 5,787,469 2,510,659 2,429,792 2,466,644 2,273,222

GOLKAR 1,360,379 4,648,928 2,214,666 1,879,977

PPP 668,802 742,958 188,168 313,013

PDI 69,993 395,583 26,958 80,232

106 South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Total

LAOS

4,147,941 1,350,964 805,500 3,783,739 25,438,360 7,453,416 19,695,072 2,075,097 23,067,742 2,110,689 998,156

3,955,087 1,304,943 788,387 3,674,349 23,100,233 6,812,852 17,099,787 1,761,482 20,042,196 1,862,773 973,518

3,361,164 1,208,090 747,140 3,424,949 16,709,824 4,451,503 11,671,667 1,102,256 12,620,089 1,298,746 843,065

446,792 76,964 30,344 177,244 6,003,471 2,239,418 4,961,280 602,739 6,791,399 281,992 95,736

147,131 19,889 10,903 72,156 386,938 121,931 466,840 56,487 630,708 282,035 34,717

1,790,343

1,616,275

1,164,085

405,719

46,471

1,382,584 1,735,698 1,158,295 851,934

1,153,541 1,718,614 1,104,474 845,694

807,678 1,648,075 937,551 822,163

272,961 42,018 114,748 17,498

72,902 28,521 52,175 6,033

4,585,485 2,086,598 2,086,005

4,391,622 1,853,633 1,840,632

4,023,937 1,727,810 1,484,697

322,308 60,779 268,022

45,377 65,044 87,913

2,039,691

1,966,886

1,867,339

29,667

69,880

455,950 1,178,073 1,146,944 124,740,987

395,201 1,083,189 1,056,135 112,991,160

334,718 888,948 938,463 84,187,907

7,188 140,604 38,196 25,340,028

53,295 53,637 79,476 3,463,225


108

LAOS

2.7 (b) Parliamentary Elections: Regional Level (% Of Valid Votes) 1971 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara Maluku Nation-wide 1971 (continued) Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta

GOLKAR 49.7 70.1 63.2 76.7 62.6 88.2 82.7 71.8 76.1 46.7 50.3 63.3 54.9 66.7 81.4 64.8 54.8 60.7 76.8 92.4 78.4 82.8 69.8 61.5 47.7 62.8

NU 9.3 5.4 3.0 7.2 10.8 4.8 2.5 11.4 13.1 23.7 23.2 10.9 35.2 10.8 12.0 26.5 20.7 5.1 4.4 2.3 9.2 1.6 14.2 1.3 6.6 18.7

PNI 0.4 6.5 0.4 1.3 5.0 0.7 0.5 4.2 1.7 11.6 19.5 10.3 5.0 2.9 0.4 0.4 5.4 5.8 1.2 0.3 0.3 12.4 4.5 3.1 4.2 6.9

Parmusi 18.8 7.3 22.7 9.2 12.0 4.3 8.9 6.5 4.0 7.7 4.6 9.3 2.7 6.9 3.1 6.5 5.8 5.4 3.2 2.1 5.0 0.5 5.0 0.6 14.9 5.4

Partai Katolik

PSI

Parkindo

Others

Totala

0.1 1.7 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.3 2.9 0.5 3.0

7.7 2.7 1.9 1.4 6.5 1.0 1.7 3.9 3.0 2.9 0.9 0.9

0.4 4.4 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 3.0 0.5 1.1

13.7b 1.8 7.6c 3.1 1.6 0.7 3.3 0.8 1.4 1.6 0.6 1.1

1.8 4.7 2.2 1.2 2.6 0.8 0.4 2.2 18.3 3.6 18.8 2.1

109

INDONESIA

East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara Maluku Nation-wide a b c d

0.2 6.5 0.1

1.2 0.9 1.2

0.3 0.7 1.1

0.4 4.6d 0.6

22.8 1.5 0.6

0.1

0.8

0.2

0.5

1.5

2.8 2.1 0.1 0.3

3.4 12.4 11.3 1.3

5.5 6.7 2.6 0.1

1.6 1.8 0.4 1.2

0.6 1.4 0.8 0.6

0.4 0.2 0.1

4.2 0.1 5.0

1.4 0.3 0.2

1.1 2.1 1.2

4.6 1.9 1.9

18.3

1.0

13.5

0.7

2.1

3.2 1.1

3.0 2.4

19.3 1.3

1.2 1.4

0.9 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. Perti: 13.2 Perti: 6.9 IPKI: 4.4

1977 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi

GOLKAR 41.1 66.5 66.5 63.3 49.8 83.5 76.4 61.8 66.3 39.3 52.6 56.6 58.8 68.9 69.9 49.6 57.0 72.9 79.3 96.1 85.2

PPP 57.3 22.2 32.5 33.9 42.6 15.7 21.9 30.8 28.5 43.5 28.3 23.2 36.0 21.8 26.6 49.4 35.4 17.6 19.3 3.1 14.0

PDI 1.6 11.3 1.0 2.8 7.6 0.8 1.7 7.4 5.2 17.3 19.1 20.2 5.1 9.3 3.5 1.0 7.6 9.5 1.4 0.8 0.8

Totala 1.7 5.0 2.2 1.2 2.6 0.9 0.4 2.7 18.7 3.9 17.0 2.0 22.7 1.6 0.6 1.3 0.7 1.5 0.8 0.6 4.4

110 Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timorb Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide a b

85.4 57.5 90.3 – 71.9 86.9 62.1

1.6 36.6 1.9 – 19.0 4.2 29.3

13.0 5.9 7.8 – 9.1 8.9 8.6

1.8 1.7 2.0 – 1.0 0.8 100.0

PPP 59.1 20.4 38.8 25.8 38.1 13.8 26.1 30.0 27.2 39.2 27.7 23.3 36.6 20.7 14.6 39.6 31.9 6.8 15.5 2.6 10.2 1.9 28.2 1.3 0.2 19.0 3.2 27.8

PDI 4.0 7.0 0.8 2.5 5.9 1.4 3.2 10.6 9.5 15.8 11.8 16.1 6.6 8.3 1.2 1.1 6.9 6.1 3.2 0.5 0.6 9.7 3.2 2.4 0.3 5.8 4.4 7.9

Totala 1.7 5.2 2.1 1.4 3.0 1.0 0.5 2.9 18.1 4.3 17.5 1.9 20.8 1.7 0.7 1.4 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.7 4.1 1.8 1.8 2.0 0.4 0.9 0.9 100.0

PPP 43.0 13.5 19.6

PDI 5.1 13.8 1.7

Totala 1.8 5.2 2.2

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. No elections were held in East Timor.

1982 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide a

LAOS

GOLKAR 37.0 72.5 60.4 71.7 56.0 84.8 70.6 59.4 63.3 45.0 60.5 60.6 56.8 71.0 84.2 59.3 61.3 87.1 81.3 96.9 89.2 88.3 68.6 96.4 99.4 75.2 92.5 64.3


1987 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra

GOLKAR 52.0 72.8 78.6

111

INDONESIA

Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide a

79.7 69.3 88.9 84.8 87.0 71.3 50.2 68.2 70.2 71.2 68.7 89.2 71.8 67.8 87.5 83.1 97.1 90.0 87.7 82.6 94.7 93.7 81.5 93.0 73.2

15.0 18.8 8.2 10.3 7.3 13.8 21.4 18.2 14.5 20.8 15.5 8.5 24.8 21.1 5.4 12.0 2.0 8.9 1.7 11.9 1.3 0.7 13.3 2.7 16.0

5.2 11.9 2.9 4.9 5.6 14.9 28.3 13.6 15.3 8.0 15.8 2.4 3.4 11.1 7.1 4.9 0.9 1.1 10.6 5.6 4.0 5.6 5.2 4.3 10.9

1.6 3.1 1.1 0.6 3.1 18.5 4.6 16.6 1.8 20.0 1.7 0.8 1.4 0.9 1.5 0.9 0.7 3.9 1.8 1.7 1.9 0.4 1.0 0.9 100.0

PPP 34.5 10.9 14.4 14.3 11.9 4.9 5.8 3.7 14.9 23.8 22.9 20.4 25.2 14.6 7.8 21.0

PDI 7.1 17.8 3.5 9.1 17.8 4.4 8.2 5.8 14.6 21.8 21.7 21.0 16.0 21.5 5.9 9.3

Totala 1.9 5.2 2.2 1.8 3.3 1.1 0.6 3.3 19.4 4.9 15.9 1.7 19.2 1.7 0.8 1.5


1992 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan

GOLKAR 58.4 71.3 82.1 76.6 70.2 90.7 86.1 90.5 70.5 54.4 55.4 58.6 58.8 63.9 86.3 69.7

112 East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide a

61.5 88.2 80.8 94.3 89.8 78.5 78.5 91.2 82.6 73.9 86.6 68.1

17.9 4.5 11.0 1.8 7.7 2.0 11.0 1.8 1.4 16.0 2.4 17.0

20.6 7.3 8.3 3.8 2.5 19.5 10.5 6.9 16.0 10.1 11.0 14.9

0.9 1.5 1.0 0.7 3.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 0.4 1.0 0.9 100.0

PPP 31.9 12.8 7.7 13.8 11.3 5.9 3.8 4.8 26.0 32.9 29.0 34.2 33.9 15.1 9.8 25.1 23.7 2.4 10.4 2.1 7.3 3.3 14.6 1.5 1.8 13.0 3.6 22.4

PDI 3.3 6.8 1.1 3.5 3.7 1.5 1.4 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.7 3.2 3.1 15.1 3.6 2.9 6.3 1.7 4.7 0.7 1.0 3.5 4.8 3.6 13.5 5.0 7.5 3.1

Totala 1.9 5.1 2.2 2.0 3.5 1.2 0.7 3.3 20.4 6.0 15.1 1.6 17.7 1.6 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.7 3.9 1.6 1.6 1.7 0.3 1.0 0.9 100.0


1997 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide a

LAOS

GOLKAR 64.8 80.3 91.1 82.7 85.0 92.6 94.8 93.2 72.3 65.3 68.3 62.6 63.0 69.7 86.6 72.0 70.0 95.9 84.9 97.2 91.6 93.2 80.7 94.9 84.7 82.1 88.9 74.5




115

INDONESIA

2.8 Composition of Parliament Year PNI Masyumi NU PKI PSII Parkindo Partai Katolik PSI IPKI Perti PRN Partai Buruh GPPS PRI PPPRI Partai Murba Baperki PIR GOLKAR Parmusi PPP PDI Others & Indep. a b

1955 Seats 257 57 57 45 39 8 8 6

% 100.0 22.2 22.2 17.5 15.2 3.1 3.1 2.3

1971a Seats 360b 20 – 58 – 10 7 3

% 100.0 4.3 – 12.6 – 2.2 1.5 0.7

1977 Seats 360b – – – – – – –

% 100.0 – – – – – – –

1982 Seats 360b – – – – – – –

% 100.0 – – – – – – –

5 4 4 2 2

1.9 1.6 1.6 0.8 0.8

– 0 2 – –

– 0.0 0.4 – –

– – – – –

– – – – –

– – – – –

– – – – –

2 2 2 2

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

– – – 0

– – – 0.0

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

1 1 – – – – 10

0.4 0.4 – – – – 3.9

– – 236 24 – – –

– – 51.3 5.2 – – –

– – 232 – 99 29 –

– – 50.4 – 21.5 6.3 –

– – 242 – 94 24 –

– – 52.6 – 20.4 5.2 –

% 100.0 65.0 17.8 2.2 – – – – –

1999 Seats 462c 120 59 2 154 51 35 13 6

% 100.0 24.0 11.8 0.4 30.8 10.2 7.0 2.6 1.2

Elections in West Irian were held separately in 1971. All 9 seats went to GOLKAR. In 1971, 1977, and 1982 100 additional seats were reserved for the armed forces.

Year

1987 Seats 400a GOLKAR 299 PPP 61 PDI 40 PDI-P – PKB – PAN – PBB – Partai Kea- – dilan

% 100.0 59.8 12.2 8.0 – – – – –

1992 Seats 400a 282 62 56 – – – – –

% 100.0 56.4 12.4 11.2 – – – – –

1997 Seats 425b 325 89 11 – – – – –

116 Partai Keadilan dan Persatuan Partai Demokrasi Kasih Bangsa Partai Nahdlatul Umat Partai Bhinneka Tunggal Ika Partai Kebangkitan Umat Partai Syarat Islam Indonesia PNI Front Marhaenis Partai IPKI PNI Massa Marhaen Partai Persatuan Partai Daulat Rakyat a b c

LAOS

–

–

–

–

–

–

6

1.2

–

–

–

–

–

–

3

0.6

–

–

–

–

–

–

3

0.6

–

–

–

–

–

–

3

0.6

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

0.2

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

0.2

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

0.2

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

1 1

0.2 0.2

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

0.2

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

0.2

In 1987 and 1992, 100 additional seats were reserved for the armed forces. In 1997, 75 additional seats were reserved for the armed forces. In 1999, 38 additional seats were reserved for the armed forces.

117

INDONESIA

2.8. a) Parliamentary Elections: Regional Distribution of Seats 1971 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide a

GOLKAR 5 12

NU 1 1

Parmusi 1 1

PNI 0 1

PSI 1 1

Othersa 1 1

Total 9 17

9

1

3

0

0

1

14

5 6

0 1

1 1

0 1

0 1

0 0

6 10

5 3 5 35 4 29 4 35 5

1 0 1 6 2 13 1 22 1

0 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 0

0 0 0 1 1 11 1 3 0

0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

6 4 7 46 9 57 7 63 7

5

1

0

0

0

0

6

7

2

1

0

0

0

10

3

1

1

0

0

1

6

4

0

0

0

1

1

6

3

0

0

0

1

0

4

4

0

0

0

0

0

4

18

2

2

0

1

0

23

7 4

0 1

0 1

1 0

0 0

0 0

8 6

8

0

0

0

0

4

12

2 9 236

0 0 58

1 0 24

0 0 20

0 0 10

1 0 12

4 9 360

Includes Parkindo, Partai Katolik, and PI Perti.

1977 Region

GOLKAR

PPP

PDI

Total

118

LAOS

Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide

4 12 9 4 5 5 3 5 33 5 27 4 35 5 4 5 3 4 3 4 20 7 4 11 3 8 232

6 4 5 2 4 1 1 2 14 5 15 1 21 1 2 5 2 1 1 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 99

0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 2 10 1 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 29

10 18 14 6 10 6 4 8 50 12 52 6 59 7 6 10 6 6 4 4 23 8 6 12 4 9 360

1982 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan

GOLKAR 4 14 9 4 6 5 3 5 32 6 31 4 32 3 5

PPP 6 4 5 2 4 1 1 2 13 5 14 1 21 1 1

PDI 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 2 6 1 4 1 0

Total 10 19 14 6 11 6 4 8 50 13 51 6 57 5 6

119

INDONESIA

South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide

6 4 5 3 4 21 7 4 12 4 3 8 244

4 2 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 94

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 24

10 6 6 4 4 23 8 6 12 4 4 9 362

1987 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide

GOLKAR 5 15 11 6 9 5 3 9 44 8 40 5 46 5 5 7 4 5 3 4 21 7 6 11 4 3 8 299

PPP 4 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 8 3 10 1 13 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 61

PDI 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 9 4 8 1 5 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 40

Total 10 21 14 7 13 6 4 10 61 15 58 7 64 7 6 10 6 6 4 4 23 8 7 12 4 4 9 400

1992 Region

GOLKAR

PPP

PDI

Total

120

LAOS

Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide

6 16 11 5 9 6 4 10 43 8 32 4 36 5 5 7 4 6 3 4 21 6 5 11 3 4 8 282

3 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 9 3 13 1 16 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 62

1 4 1 1 2 0 0 1 9 3 12 1 10 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 56

10 22 14 7 13 6 4 11 61 14 57 6 62 8 6 10 6 7 4 4 23 8 7 12 3 5 9 400

1997 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan

GOLKAR 7 18 13 7 12 6 4 10 49 12 40 4 40 6

PPP 3 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 18 6 17 3 22 1

PDI 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 1

Total 10 23 14 8 14 6 4 11 68 18 59 7 64 8

121

INDONESIA

Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide 1999 Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara

5 7 4 7 4 5 21 9 7 12 3 4 9 325

1 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 89

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 11

6 10 6 8 4 5 23 9 8 13 4 5 10 425

PDI-P 2 10 2 3 6 2 1 6 27 7 26 2 23 2 2

GOLKAR 2 5 4 3 4 2 1 3 20 2 8 1 9 3 2

PPP 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 13 3 7 1 4 1 1

PKB 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 6 1 10 1 24 0 1

PAN 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 4 1 3 0 0

2

3

2

1

1

3 2 1 1

2 4 3 3

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0

2 7 1

16 1 4

2 0 1

1 1 0

1 0 1

5

6

1

0

0

122

LAOS

East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide 1999 (continued) Region Aceh North Sumatra West Sumatra Riau South Sumatra Jambi Bengkulu Lampung West Java Jakarta Central Java Yogyakarta East Java West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan South Kalimantan East Kalimantan North Sulawesi Central Sulawesi Southeast Sulawesi South Sulawesi Bali West Nusa Tenggara East Nusa Tenggara East Timor Maluku Irian Jaya Nation-wide

2 2 4 153

2 2 5 120

0 1 0 58

0 0 0 51

0 0 1 34

PBB

PK

PNU

PDKB

Others

Total

1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 2 2

12 24 14 10 15 6 4 15 82 18 60 6 68 9

0

0

0

0

0

6

1

0

1

0

0

11

0

0

0

0

0

7

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

7 5

0

0

0

0

0

5

1 0 1

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 0 1

24 9 9

0

0

0

1

0

13

0 0 0 13

0 0 0 7

0 0 0 5

0 1 1 5

0 0 2 16

4 6 13 462


124

LAOS

2.9 Presidential Elections No direct presidential elections have been held. All presidents have been elected by a parliamentary assembly called People's Consultative Assembly (see 1.3 for details).

125

INDONESIA

2.10 List of Power Holders 1945–2001

a

Head of State Achmed Sukarno

Years 1945–1967

Remarks 18/08/1945–12/03/1967. Established his Guided Democracy, a regime known for his anti-colonial and antiWestern foreign policy. 12/03/1967–21/05/1998. Pursued a staunchly anticommunist policy, uncompromising suppression of alleged communist activities. Realignment with Western donor nations and international organizations. Toppled in 1998 due to rampant cronyism, endemic corruption, and incompetence in handling the impact of the Asian financial crisis. 21/05/1998–20/10/1999. Leader of a transitional government; inaugurated a precarious democratization process, but lacked popular support because of longstanding association with his predecessor Suharto. Came into office on 20/10/1999. Presided over a national unity government including all major political forces of Indonesian society. Continued democratization while continued power struggle with the army.

Suharto

1967–1998

Jusuf Bacharuddin Habibie

1998–1999

Abdurrahman Wahid

1999–

Head of Governmenta Sjahrir Sutan Amir Sjarifuddin Mohammed Hatta Sjafruddin Prawiranegara Mohammed Hatta Mohammed Natsir Sukiman Wirjosandjojo Wilopo Ali Sastroamidjojo Burhanuddin Harahap Ali Sastroamidjojo

Years 1945–1947 1947 1948 1949

Remarks 14/11/1945–xx/06/1947. 03/07/1947–11/11/1947. 01/1948–19/12/1948. 04/08/1949–19/12/1949.

1949–1950 1950–1951 1951–1952

20/12/1949–13/07/1950. 06/09/1950–21/03/1951. 26/04/1951–21/02/1952.

1952–1953 1953–1955 1955–1956 1956–1957

01/04/1952–02/06/1953. 31/07/1953–24/10/1955. 12/08/1955–03/03/1956. 20/03/1956–14/03/1957.

Only for the period 1945–1957 did the Head of State and the Head of Government fall upon different persons. Prime Ministers in office between November 1945 and December 1949 contradicted the 1945 Constitution, which did not provide for such a position. Their appointment reflected the power struggles among Indonesian nationalists and the de facto suspension of the 1945 Constitution three months after its promulgation, despite remaining formally in force.

126

LAOS

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources National Election Commission. KPU Decree Number 2 of 1999 on the Organization of the National Election Commission. Rancangan Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 2 Tahun 1999 Tentang Partai Politik (Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 1999 on Political Parties). Rancangan Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 3 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemilihan Umum (Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3 of 1999 on General Election). Rancangan Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 4 Tahun 1999 Tentang Susunan Dan Kedudukan MPR, DPR, Dan DPRD (Law of the Republic of Indonesia on the Composition and Status of the MPR, DPR and DPRD). Rancangan Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor Tahun 1999 Tentang Kepresidenan (Law of the Republic of Indonesia of the Year 1999 about the Presidency). Susunan Dalam Satu Naskah Dari Undang-Undang Nomor 15, Tahun 1969 Tentang Pemilihan Umum Anggota-Anggota Badan Permusyawaratan/Perwakilan Rakyat Sebaigaimana Telah Diubah Pertama Dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 1975, kedua Dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 1980, dan Ketiga Dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1985 (Law No. 15 of the Year 1969 Concerning General Elections to Elect Members of the People's Deliberative/ Representative Institutions, as amended by Law No. 4 of the Year 1975, Law No. 2 of the Year 1980 and Law Number 1 of the Year 1985). Undang-Undang Nomor 7, Tahun 1953 (Law No. 7, 1953).

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Asia Society (1999). Indonesia's 1999 Elections. A Second Chance for Democracy (http://www.AsiaSociety.org/publications/ indonesia). Budiardjo, M., and Ambong, I. (eds.) (1995). Fungsi Legislatif Dalam Sistem Politik Indonesian (The Functions of the Legislature in the Indonesian Political System). Cetakan kedua, Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada. Cribb, R. (1984). ‘Elections in Jakarta’. Asian Survey, 24/6: 655–664. Dahm, B. (1978). Indonesien. Geschichte eines Entwicklungslandes (1945–1971). Leiden/ Cologne: E.J. Brill. Djadijono, M. (1999). ‘Indonesia Approaching the 1999 General Election’. The Indonesian Quarterly, 27/1: 9–21.

INDONESIA

127

Eklöf, S. (1997). ‘The 1997 General Election in Indonesia’. Asian Survey, 37/12: 1181–1196. Feith, H. (1962). The Decline of Constitutional Democracy in Indonesia. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. —— (1999). Pemilihan Umum 1955 di Indonesia (The Indonesian General Elections of 1955). Jakarta: Perpustakaan Populer Gramedia. Gaffar, A. (1992). Javanese Voters. A Case Study of Election Under a Hegemonic Party System. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press. Hering, B. B., and Willis, G. A. (1973). The Indonesian General Election of 1971. Bruxelles: Centre d'Etude du Sud-Est Asiatique et de L'Extreme Orient. Hindley, D. (1972). ‘Indonesia 1971: Pantjasila Democracy and the Second Parliamentary Elections’. Asian Survey, 12/ 1: 56–68. Hruschka, W. (1997). ‘Parlamentswahlen in Indonesien—Eine Legitimation für den Status quo’. KASAuslandsinformationen, 08/97: 69–84. Interparliamentary Union (1999). Indonesia (http:///www.ipu.org/parline%De/reports/2147.htm). Karim, R. (1991). Pemilu Demokratis Kompetitif (Competitive Democratic Elections). Yogyakarta: Pt. Tiara Wacana Yogya. King, B. A. (1992). ‘The 1992 General Election and Indonesia's Political Landscape’. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 14/2: 154–173. King, D. Y., and Rasjid, M. R. (1988). ‘The Golkar Landslide in the 1987 Indonesian Elections. The Case of Aceh’. Asian Survey, 28/9: 916–925. Kristiadi, J., Legowo, T.A., and Harjanto, B. N. T. (1997). Pemilihan Umum 1997. Perkiraan, Harapan dan Evaluasi (The 1997 General Elections. Beliefs, Hopes and Evaluation). Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Legowo, T. A. (1999). ‘The 1999 General Election’. The Indonesian Quarterly, 27/2: 98–108. Nasution, M. Y. (1953). Konstituante-Parlamen dan Pemilihan Umum (Konstituante Parliament and General Elections). Jakarta: Pustaka Antara N.V. National Democratic Institute (1999). The New Legal Framework for Elections in Indonesia. A Report of an NDI Assessment Team. Jakarta. Oey Hong Lee (ed.) (1974). Indonesia after the 1971 Elections. London/ Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Rasyid, R. M. (1997): The Process of General Elections in Indonesia. (http://www.ifes.org/AsiaAssocSite/a_asia_ea/ s_rasyid.htm) Ricklefs, M. C. (1993). A History of Modern Indonesia Since c. 1300 (2nd edn.). Houndmills: The MacMillan Press. Silalahi, H. T. (1977). ‘The 1977 General Elections: The Results and the Role of the Traditional Authority Relations in Modern Indonesian Society’. Indonesian Quarterly, 5/3: 3–33.

128

LAOS

Sjamsuddin, N. (1993). Dinamika Sistem Politik Indonesia (The Dynamics of the Indonesian Political System). Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Soeroso (1982). ‘The Outcome of the 1982 General Election’. The Indonesian Quarterly, 10/3: 9–22. Sudibjo, M. (1995). Pemilihan Umum 1992. Suatu Evaluasi (The 1992 General Elections. An Evaluation). Jakarta: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Suryadinata, L. (1982). Political Parties and the 1982 General Election in Indonesia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Ward, K. (1974). The 1971 Election in Indonesia: An East Java Case Study. Melbourne: Monash University, Monash Papers on Southeast Asia, No. 2.

Laos by Christof Hartmann

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview The political history of modern Laos may be divided into two broad phases. From the end of World War II, when the country first gained independence, until the end of the Second Indochina War in 1975 the country was—due to its uneasy proximity to China and Vietnam—inevitably drawn into the political-military confrontation in the region. The search for a viable political system was thus overshadowed by the struggle between Western (first French and then US) powers and Vietnam. Laotian actors were relegated to mere junior partners in their own country, and elections—though regularly held—had no real impact upon the political process. Since the victory of the revolutionary forces in 1975, a pro-Vietnamese regime has held military, economic, and political supremacy. Since the 1990s, the communist system has experimented with economic liberalization and single-party parliamentary elections have been reintroduced. Laos, a landlocked country on the Indochina peninsula in Southeast Asia, is a sparsely settled territory (five millions by the mid-1990s on a surface as large as Great Britain), neighboring Burma, Thailand, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Its foundation as a separate state at the beginning of the 20th century was the incidental consequence of French and British colonial interests, insofar as these countries agreed on a division of the peninsula. At that time most ethnic Laotians lived across the Mekong river in Thailand, and the new province of French Indochina served mainly as a hinterland for the economic and political control of Vietnam. It brought together Laotians and a number of ethnic minorities living in the mountains along the border to Vietnam, and was mainly run by Vietnamese middlemen, who enjoyed a limited degree of autonomy. Laos had been a kingdom (Lan Xang) since the 14th century. The royal family residing in the northern town of Luang Phrabang enjoyed the formal acknowledgement and support of the French colonial administration,

130

MALAYSIA

and could thus hardly become a symbol of national unity for the newly formed territory. The nationalist movement of Lao Issara (Free Lao) took advantage of the Japanese occupation on 9 March 1945 to declare independence and to form a provisional government. The leaders of the movement were three brothers and princes of the royal family, who would remain at the front of political life for the next 30 years: Phetxarat, Souvanna Phouma, and Souphanuvong. Although the French forces re-established colonial rule in April 1946 and the nationalist government had to flee to Thailand, the quest for self-government could not be halted any longer. In 1949 Laos gained quasi-independence within the French Union, and in October 1953, after the French military defeat, full independence arrived. In 1946 an elected Constitutional Assembly elaborated a constitution providing for a parliamentary monarchy with the government elected by a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. First elections for a National Assembly were held in 1947. A fully appointed Council of the King was established as the second legislative organ. The French offer of self-government and the outbreak of the first Indochina War divided the nationalist movement: Phetxarat stayed in Thailand and Souvanna Phouma returned in 1949 to Laotian capital Vientiane to push for full independence. The third brother, Souphanuvong, sided with the Vietnamese Communists and formed the resistance movement Neo Lao Issara (Lao Freedom Front) with the military wing Pathet Lao in the north-eastern part of the country. Since 1953 two provinces were occupied by Pathet Lao troops with the help of the Vietminh, and the Geneva Agreements of 1954 formalized the division of Laos. As most political actors had opted out of parliamentary politics, the new democratic institutions and the new political parties could not consolidate. Political (and military) conflicts were regulated in diplomatic circles or extraconstitutional ‘coalition governments’ (under the direction of Souvanna Phouma) that grouped rightist, neutralist, and Pathet Lao ministers. It was not until 1958 that elections could be held throughout the whole national territory with the participation of all relevant parties. The good standing of the leftist candidates in these elections elicited a strong response from the divided royalist forces (with the formation of the Lao People's Rally) and led to open US involvement. The failure of the National Union Government after only eight months in late 1958 convinced the Pathet Lao to resume military operations. US agencies were responsible for the massive reinforcement of the royal army and its ever more direct involvement in politics, which culminated in the subversion and eventual breakdown of parliamentary and party

LAOS

131

politics since the early 1960s. Elections were held on a regular basis until 1972, but most candidates ran on an individual basis and relied primarily on local support rather than outwardly supporting the platforms of political organizations. During the 1950s political parties were controlled by an urban elite of competing families bound together by blood ties and marriages. Personal alliances were more important than the transient names of party organizations. The Lao People's Party (LPP), which contested as Neo Lao Hak Xat (NLHX, Lao Patriotic Front) until 1972, on the contrary, recruited rural masses and integrated the ethnic minorities on an equal basis into the party ranks. Since the 1960s new ad hoc alliances and groups emerged, no longer dominated by aristocratic notables, but mainly by younger army officers. The victory of the hardliners on both sides and their growing dependency on external powers plunged the country deeper into civil war and rendered the commitment for an independent and neutral Laos, solemnly declared at the Geneva Conference, meaningless. Souvanna owed his position as Prime Minister (until 1975) not to a popular vote or the support of a party, but to a decision by the US and other Western powers that he remain Head of Government in order to preserve the pretence of Lao neutrality. After the abdication of the King in December 1975 the new revolutionary regime of the Lao's People Democratic Republic was established in Vientiane. The radical nationalism of the Pathet Lao, with its emphasis on a multi-ethnic and egalitarian participation, triumphed over the elite Lao tradition of royal legitimation and aristocratic patronage, but at the cost of subservience to Vietnam. For the next 14 years all legislative and executive powers remained in the hands of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party (LPRP), without any legal or constitutional framework. A Supreme People's Council was appointed in 1975, but the Politburo controlled the political process and major policy decisions were taken by the Party Congresses, held at irregular intervals (1982, 1986, 1991, 1996). The failure of the economic transformation, especially of the co-operativization of agriculture—by the mid-1980s a tenth of the population had fled the country—gave way to economic liberalization. The new Constitution enacted in 1991 confirmed the leading position of the LPRP. In contrast to the Vietnamese model, the Constitution does not establish a collective presidency (drawn from the Standing Committee of the National Assembly), but provides for a powerful State President elected by the National Assembly. The President appoints his Prime Minister and government, who are elected by the National Assembly.

132

MALAYSIA

The possibility of conflicts arising between the President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly, and the Prime Minister as a consequence of these constitutional rules, however, has been relegated to a mere hypothetical level by the de facto rule of the single party: The State President is also President of the Party, and the Prime Minister and President of the National Assembly are ranked second and third in the LPRP Politburo. In this context regular elections to a Supreme People's Assembly (1989) and National Assembly (1992, 1997) are not signs of political opening, but rather the attempt to create a legal framework for economic restructuring and controlled political participation within the bounds of an authoritarian single-party system.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The 1947 Constitution—elaborated by a popularly elected 44-member Constitutional Assembly—provided for a bicameral Parliament, but only the National Assembly was directly elected. The nine-member Senate was partly appointed by the King (six members) and partly by the Assembly (three). The constitutional reforms of 1957 extended its membership to 12, half of whom were appointed by the King and the other half by Parliament. The term of the National Assembly was four years; becoming five in 1960. The Assembly was initially composed of 35 members, based on a fixed quota of 40,000 inhabitants per parliamentary seat. The number of seats was subsequently raised to 39 for the 1951 and 1955 elections. With the special election in 1958, 20 additional seats were created, and all through the 1960s the number of seats stood at 59. For the 1972 elections the number of parliamentary seats rose to 60. In case of vacancies by-elections were held. A plurality system in single-member (SMCs) and multi-member constituencies (MMCs) was applied, with the exception of the 1960 elections, when an absolute majority system was introduced (with a run-off between the two best-placed candidates in the second ballot). In 1965 the plurality system in 16 SMCs and MMCs was reestablished. Suffrage was initially restricted to male citizens over 18 years. The Buddhist clergy (amounting to one fourth of the population), members of the royal family and the military were excluded from voting. Voting was not compulsory. The 1957 constitutional reforms provided for women's suffrage, first applied in the special elections of 1958. In 1960

LAOS

133

voting age was raised to 21 years, the legal age, but was lowered to 18 years again for the 1967 elections. The Buddhist clergy remained excluded from suffrage. When fighting prevented the holding of overdue elections, constitutional amendments permitted an interim National Assembly to be elected via restricted suffrage in July 1965. Only the 22,000 notables of the regime were allowed to vote (former ministers, deputies or advisors, civil servants, officers of the army and the police [from the level of lieutenant on], municipal and provincial officers, and members of the chamber of commerce, agriculture). For the 1967 and 1972 elections universal suffrage was re-introduced. In 1947, parliamentary candidates had to be 25 years old and hold an educational degree. Members of the military, the police and the judiciary were not allowed to run for Parliament. The age requirement was raised to 30 years in 1951, and a deposit of 1,000 Kip was introduced. Candidates had to have resided in the country for the five years preceding the elections. Since 1958 women were allowed to run, and the formal educational requirement was replaced by a literacy test organized by the Government. The deposit was raised to 10,000 Kip, and the conditions for reimbursement were significantly restricted (20 percent of the valid votes). In order to curb the chances of Pathet Lao members to get elected, candidature requirements became more rigorous for the 1960 elections. The deposit was increased to 20,000 Kip (with reimbursement in the case of 20 percent of valid votes in the first round and 30 percent in the second round). The minimal educational requirements (formal degrees) became also more stringent. Whereas in 1965 only civil servants or military officers could be elected, the 1960 provisions were re-established for the 1967 elections; nevertheless, the minimum age was now raised to 35 years and the deposit replaced by a non-reimbursable fee of 30,000 Kip. In 1972 the deposit (now 50,000 Kip, reimbursed in case of 20 percent of valid votes) was reintroduced again. Electoral legislation did not provide for any formal endorsement of candidature by political parties. Elections were organized by the Ministry of Interior, who appointed electoral commissions at three territorial levels (province, arrondissement, canton). In 1989, the socialist government re-introduced elections to a (Supreme) National Assembly. Three elections have been held so far, whose relevant provisions (see 1.3 below) have remained unchanged. Only the number of constituencies and seats has been modified: from 79 seats elected in 17 MMCs (in 1989), to 85 seats elected in 18 MMCs (in 1992), to finally 99 seats in 18 MMCs (in 1997).

134

MALAYSIA

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Lao People's Democratic Republic of 1991; Electoral Law of 19 April 1988.

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret vote are applied. All citizens of 18 or over are entitled to vote. Voting is compulsory. External voting is not provided for.

Elected national institutions: Unicameral Parliament (Sapha Heng Xat) with 99 members and a term of five years. Vacancies are filled through byelections. The President of the Republic is elected by the National Assembly for a term of five years.

Nomination of candidates: Candidates must be at least 21 years old and Lao citizens. The Electoral Law includes additional political qualifications, such as loyalty to the fatherland and the principles of socialism. In each constituency, committees of the State party select and approve a number of candidates higher than the number of seats to be distributed.

Electoral system: Plurality system in 18 multi-member constituencies of varying size (three to 14 seats, average size: 5.5). Each voter has as many votes as seats are to be distributed in the constituency.

Organizational context of elections: The elections are organized by the Ministry of Interior. No detailed information was available.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics In Laos, official electoral data have never been published. During the monarchy most elections were held in a context of war and precarious control of the national territory by the central government. Halpern (1964) published some data for the 1955 and 1958 elections that are based on data given by the Lao Ministry of Interior. The seat distribution documented below follows the most accurate secondary literature (Deuve 1984; Stuart-Fox 1997), as well as IPU (1973) for the 1972 elections. The data regarding the elections of the People's Democratic Republic are based on Radio Vientiane as reported by Summary of World Broadcasts (28/03/1989; 28/01/1993; 09/01/1998).

135

LAOS

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups D'etat Year


1946 1947 1951 1955 1958 1959 1960 1965 1967 1972 1989 1992 1997

Elections for Constitutional Assembly 15/12

Referendums

Coups d'état

24/08 18/08 25/12 04/08 24/12 08/08

24/04 18/07 01/01 02/01 26/03 20/12 21/12


1951 1955 1958 1960 1965 1967 1972 1989 1992 1997 a b c d

Type of electiona

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

1,297,000 1,450,000 1,690,000 1,805,000 2,439,000 2,763,000 3,106,000 4,020,000 4,413,000 5,305,000b

Total number 233,119 301,283c 840,197 700,000c,d 22,000c,d — 913,862 1,800,000d — 2,299,128

Total number — 227,841 689,598 — — — 619,271e — — 2,284,632

% pop. 18.0 20.8 49.7 38.8 0.9 — 29.4 44.8 — 43.3

% reg. voters — 75.6 82.1 — — — 67.8 98.4 99.3 99.4

% pop. — 15.7 40.8 — — — 19.9 — — 43.1

CA = Constitutional Assembly; NA = National Assembly. Data are UN estimates on the basis of the censuses held in 1957 (1,575,450) and 1985 (3,584,803). The 1997 figure is from 1996. Held in ten out of twelve provinces. In 1960 twelve out of 59 seats were won unopposed. Estimates.

136

MALAYSIA

2.3 Abbreviations CDNIa DP IP LNP LNUP LPF/NLHX LPRb LPRP

Committee for the Defense of National Interests Democratic Party (Phak Pa Sa Thi Patai) Independent Party (Phak Séri) Lao Neutralist Party (Phak Lao Pen Khang) Lao National Union Party (Phak Lao Houam Samphan) Lao Patriotic Front (Néo Lao Hak Xat) Lao People's Rally (Phak Lao Hom Lao) Lao People's Revolutionary Party (Phak Pasason Patavit Lao) National Progressive Party (Phak Sat Kao Na) Peace Through Neutrality Party (Santhiphab Pen Kang)

NPP Santhiphab a b

After the 1960 elections the CDNI was renamed Social Democratic Party (Phak Praxa Xangkhom). Formed as a merger of National Progressive and Independent Party in June 1958.

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1951–1997 Party / Alliance DP IP LNUP NPP LPF/NLHX Santhiphab CDNI LPR LNPb Southern Blocc Vientiane Groupd Youth Movemente Lao Development Association NPP LPRP a b c d e

Years 1951–1958 1951–1958 1951–1960 1955–1958 1958–1960 1958–1960 1960 1960 1965–1967 1965–1967 1965–1972 1965–1972 1972 1972 1987–1997

Elections contesteda 3 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 3

Only parliamentary elections. Total: 10. Successor to Santhiphab. Successor to CDNI. Renamed Lao Development Association after the 1967 elections. Coalition of former LPR politicians. Renamed Association of Northern Deputies after the 1967 elections. Successor of CDNI.

137

LAOS

2.5 Referendums No referendums have been held.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly The elections to the Constitutional Assembly were held in 1946 on a no-party basis. No detailed data are available.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections No data were available for the parliamentary elections held between 1947 and 1972. Figures of registered voters and voter participation are referred to in table 2.2.

2.8 Composition of Parliament Elections in 1947 were held on a no-party basis. Year

1951 Seats 39 NPP 19 IP 10 DP 4 LNUP 2 NLHX – Santhiphab – CDNI – LPR – Independ- 4 ents

a

1965 Seats 59 15 14 12

Southern Bloca LNP Youth Movement Vientiane 9 Group NPP – Independents 9 b

% 100.0 56.4 17.9 7.7 5.1 – – – – 12.8

1958 Seats 21a 4 – – – 9 4 – – 4

% 100.0 19.0 – – – 42.9 19.0 – – 19.0

1960 Seats 59 – – – – 0 0 34 17 8

% 100.0 – – – – 0.0 0.0 57.6 28.8 13.6

The 21 seats were added to the 39 seats distributed in the 1955 elections.

Year

a

% 100.0 48.7 25.6 10.3 5.1 – – – – 10.3

1955 Seats 39 22 7 3 2 – – – – 5

% 100.0 25.4 23.7 20.3

1967 Seats 59 — — –

% 100.0 — — –

1972 Seats 60 — — –

% 100.0 — — –

15.3

—

—

—

—

– 15.3

– —

– —

3 —

5.0 —

% 100.0 100.0 0.0

1997 Seats 99 98 1

% 100.0 99.0 1.0

Renamed Lao Development Association for the 1972 elections. Allied with Lao Neutralist Party.

Year LPRP Independents

1989 Seats 79 65 14

% 100.0 82.3 17.7

1992 Seats 85 85 0

138

MALAYSIA

2.9 Presidential Elections Until 1975 Laos was a kingdom with a hereditary monarch. The office of State President was established under the People's Democratic Republic, within the frame of the 1991 Constitution. The President has been formally elected and re-confirmed after each Party Congress by the National Assembly.

LAOS

139


a

Head of State Sisavong Vonga

Years 1946–1959

Savang Vatthana

1959–1975

Prince Thao Soupha-nouvong

1975–1991

Phoumi Vongvichit

1986–1991

Kayson Phomvihan

1991–1992

Nouhak Phoumsavan

1992–1998

Kanthay Siphandon

1998–

Remarks King (Rath) of Laos. Was re-established in the office by French forces on 23/04/1946. Died on 29/10/ 1959. King (Rath) until the fall of the monarchy in 1975. First President of the Lao People's Democratic Republic (which was proclaimed on 02/12/1975). Died in 1995. Acting President for Souphanouvong since 31/10/1986. The latter went on permanent leave without having vacated the office. Prime Minister since 1975. Head of the LPRP. Elected by National Assembly to presidency on 15/08/ 1991. After Phomvihan's death, elected by Parliament on 25/11/1992. Prime Minister between 1991 and 1998, Siphandon was elected President of the Republic by the National Assembly on 24/02/1998.

Until January 1954 Laos was a French protectorate. The Commissioners of the French Republic in Laos were Jean Leon François Marie de Raymond (1946–1947), Maurice Auguste Michaudel (1947–1948), Alfred Gabriel Joseph Valmary (1948–1949), Robert Regnier (1949–1953), and Miguel Joaquin de Pereyra (1953–1954).

Head of Government Prince Tiao Souvannarath

Years 1947–1948

Prince Boun Oum na Champasak Phoui Sananikon

1948–1950 1950–1951

Prince Souvanna Phouma

1951–1954

Katay Don Sasorith

1954–1956

Remarks Elected Prime Minister by the first National Assembly on 15/03/1947. Elected on 25/03/1948. Elected on 24/02/1950. His government included two members of the Progressive Party. Elected on 21/11/1951 after the electoral victory of the National Progressive Party. In the wake of the Geneva Conference Katay was elected on 25/11/ 1954. His party won the elections in December 1955 but failed to reach the necessary two-thirds majority.

140

MALAYSIA


1956–1958

Phoui Sananikon

1958–1959

Kou Abhay

1960

Prince Tiami Sovanith

1960


1960–1962

Prince Boun Oum na Champasak

1960–1962


1962–1975

Kayson Phomvihan

1975–1991

Khamtay Siphandon

1991–1998

Sisavat Keobounphan

1998–2001

Boungnang Volachit

2001–

Was nominated to lead his second cabinet on 21/03/1956, since November 1957 as a Government of National Union with two NLHX ministers. Resigned on 23/07/1958. Vice-President of the LPR. Elected on 18/08/1958 as head of a USbacked government. Forced to resign by an army coup on 31 December 1959. Elected on 06/01/1960 as head of a caretaker government to oversee the elections. Elected on 03/06/1960 as Head of CDNI government. After the second military coup Souvanna was confirmed unanimously as head of a coalition government on 30/08/1960. After military pressure his cabinet went into voluntary exile in Cambodia, where he continued in office until June 1962. Elected as head of parallel government since 15/12/1960. Following the Second Geneva Conference, a third Coalition Government was installed, elected on 23/ 06/1962. Head of first socialist Government after the abdication of the King. Appointed on 02/12/1975. When Kayson was elected Head of State on 15/08/1991, Khamtay was elected new Prime Minister. After Khamtay's election to President, Vice-President Sisavat was elected Prime Minister on 24/02/ 1998. Former Minister of Finance and Member of the Politburo since 1996. Elected on 27/03/2001 by the National Assembly following the 7th Congress of the ruling LPRP.

LAOS

141

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources ‘The Constitution of the Kingdom of Laos of 11 May 1947’, in Asian African Legal Consultative Committee (ed.) (1968), Constitutions of Asian Countries. Bombay: Tripathi, 588–596. ‘The Constitution of the Lao People's Democratic Republic of 14 August 1991’, in G. H. Flanz, and A. Blaustein (eds.), Constitutions of the Countries of the World. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana.

3.2 Books and Articles Deuve, J. (1984). Le royaume de Laos, 1949–1965. Paris: Ecole Francaise de l'extreme Orient. Doré, F. (1966). ‘Chronique Constitutionelle’. Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et à l'Etranger, 82: 295–323. Gilkey, R. (1958). ‘Laos. Politics, Elections and Foreign Aid’. Far Eastern Survey, 27/6: 80–94. Halpern, J. M. (1964). Government, Politics and Social Structure in Laos: A Study of Tradition and Innovation. New Haven: Yale UP. Levy, P. (1974). Histoire du Laos. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Sasorith, Mongkhol-Katary (1973). Les forces politiques et la vie politique au Laos. Paris: Thése Universitaire. Smith, R. M. (1961). ‘Laos’, in G. Mct. Kahin (ed.), Government and Politics of Southeast Asia. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell UP, 527–592. Souvannaphouma, Prince M. (1976). L'agonie du Laos. Paris: Plon. Stuart-Fox, M. (1986). Laos. Politics, Economics and Society. London: Pinter. —— (1991). ‘The Constitution of the Lao People's Democratic Republic’. Review of Socialist Law, 17/4: 299–317. —— (1997). A History of Laos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zasloff, J. J., and Stern, L. M. (1985). ‘Laos’, in H. Fukui (ed.), Political Parties of Asia and Pacific. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 679–699.


Malaysia by Kevin YL Tan69

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Malaysia, consisting of the Malay peninsula and the two territories of Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo, is a multi-ethnic federal state. Since its independence from British rule in 1957 the country has experienced a nearly uninterrupted development of constitutional government. Nevertheless, parliamentary elections have not brought any change of power because the Alliance/ National Front—a multiethnic coalition—has held the hegemony over politics until today. After the British decision to withdraw from the Malay peninsula, which they dominated for over 150 years, political life began to awake and political parties started to emerge in the early 1950s. From the very beginning, most parties organized themselves along communal lines, reflecting the ethnic diversity of the peninsula's population, made up of a rural Malay majority, an urban, economically powerful, Chinese minority and an Indian minority in the western coast. The first elections for the Federal Legislative Council of the colony were held in July 1955. The three main ethnic parties—the United Malays' National Organization (UMNO), the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC)—contested these elections in a coalition named Alliance. This multi-ethnic coalition enjoyed a strong support on the part of the British, who preferred it against more radical parties; thus, it succeeded in winning nearly all contested seats. For the election, the coalition presented a single slate of candidates, thus avoiding the danger of vote-splitting. Through this relatively disciplined approach the Alliance was rewarded at the elections. After the polls, its leader, Tunku Abdul Rahman, became Malaya's first elected Chief Minister (this post changed to Prime Minister in 1957,

69

I would like to thank my research assistants Ernest Wee, Ng Wei Kurk, and Daniel Tan for their hard work in gathering the relevant data and materials for this article. Any errors remain mine alone.

144

PHILIPPINES

when Malaya became independent). In 1956 the British and the Malay Rulers appointed a Constitutional Commission headed by the distinguished Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Reid. The Commission comprised a constitutional expert from each of the following countries: the United Kingdom, Australia, India, and Pakistan. The Commission duly submitted its report, which was published on 21 February 1957. After the British Parliament passed the Federation of Malaya Independence Act, the British High Commissioner and the Rulers of the Malay States concluded the Federation of Malaya Agreement, which established the Federation of Malaya and its new Constitution. Finally, after the Legislative Council and the legislatures of the Malay states had approved the Agreement, Malaya became independent and the new Constitution came in force on 31 August 1957. A federation with 11 constituent states was established, each one with its own parliament and constitution. A parliamentary system with a bicameral legislature and a Prime Minister responsible to Parliament was introduced. According to the Constitution, an elected King (Yang di-Pertuan Agong) was to be Head of State. Tunku Abdul Rahman became the first Prime Minister. On 16 September 1963 the former British colonies Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak joined Malaya and established the Federation of Malaysia. Except for Singapore, which left Malaysia in 1965—after a difficult two-year union where racial, economic, and political differences brought the island-state in confrontation with the Federal Government—the 13-state Federation has remained intact to day. Since then, the Alliance has dominated the party system, with UMNO as the strongest party within the coalition. In the following national elections of 1959 and 1964 the Alliance consolidated its hegemonic position, gaining more than two thirds of the contested seats in the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, the extent of the Alliance's domination changed over time. By the late 1960s its popularity was declining, and increasing factionalism within its three member parties, as well as newly-established opposition parties, began to challenge its position. In the 1969 general elections only half of the Malay population and one third of the non-Malays supported the Alliance, and it achieved less than 50 percent of the votes. It could only secure its parliamentary majority by means of the heavily gerrymandered electoral system, and thanks to the fragmentation of the opposition. However, in view of its increased electoral support, the (Chinese) opposition held a ‘victory parade’ on the day after the elections, which provoked ethnic riots launched by economically underprivileged Malays. In this situation the government declared the state of emergency, suspended Parliament and conferred

MALAYSIA

145

power to a National Operations Council (NOC), led by the UMNO Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Razak Hussein. Under the Emergency Regulations, the NOC was the paramount body responsible for guaranteeing peace and order, carrying out daily administration and restoring ‘harmony and mutual trust among the races’. Power struggles within UMNO resulted in the resignation of the long-standing Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman in 1970. His successor Tun Abdul Razak Hussein restored parliamentary democratic rule in 1971 and started discussions with all major parties to re-organize the Alliance as an enlarged coalition. Two months before the 1974 election a new coalition called the National Front (Barisan Nasional, BN) was registered, which, apart from the original Alliance partners UMNO, MCA, and MIC, included also most opposition parties. Only the Democratic Action Party (DAP), an offshoot of Singapore's ruling People's Action Party, remained as major opposition party. In the following elections the BN won nearly 90 percent of the parliamentary seats and thus replaced its organizational predecessor, the Alliance, as hegemonic political force. After Tun Razak's death in 1976 his deputy Datuk Hussein Onn became Prime Minister and carried on the consolidation of the BN after the victory at the 1978 elections. He resigned in 1981 due to health problems and was replaced by Dato Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamed, who has been Prime Minister to date. The 1980s and 1990s saw regular general elections; yet, the electoral organization, the campaigning, and the mass media could not escape the ever broader control of the ruling UMNO elite. Finally, the political arena was characterized by severe restrictions resulting from a draconian legislation and stringent regulations. A climate of fear was created, which reduced the number of open debates in the public. In this context the BN and Prime Minister Mahathir obtained overwhelming and uncontested electoral victories. Since the re-establishment of multiparty elections in 1971 the DAP and the Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), which abandoned the BN in 1977, have been the major opposition parties. While they experienced some success in state elections, they never constituted a severe challenge to the BN's dominant position. Only in the most recent elections has it become apparent that BN has lost substantial ground support. This has owed much to the much-publicized purging of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. PAS, which retained its stronghold in Kelantan, also won the neighboring state of Trengganu. While some pundits see this as a widening fissure between religious and secular elements, a likelier explanation is that voters were simply tired of BN's tactics and ethics (or lack of them).

146

PHILIPPINES

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The first experiences with elections were made in the early 1950s, when several districts of the colony introduced popular elections at local level for municipal authorities. The first general elections took place in 1955, when Malaya was still under British colonial rule. Since then, it has held a total of eleven parliamentary elections under the principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret adult suffrage. The right to vote has been granted to all Malaysians above the age of 21 who have registered and resided in a constituency. Citizens living abroad have not been allowed to vote from their foreign place of residence. Voting has not been made compulsory. The only national institution elected directly has been the lower chamber of the bicameral Parliament, the House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat). Its membership has increased continually from 104 in 1959 up to 193 members in 1999. Its legal term of office is five years, but it has been common for the Prime Minister at the time to dissolve it and call for fresh elections after four years. The Prime Minister must request the King (Yang di-Pertuan Agong) for an early dissolution, and in deciding on such request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is constitutionally required to use his personal discretion and not simply act on the Cabinet's advice. By-elections were stipulated to fill vacancies, but a recent amendment provided that casual vacancies occurring within the six months prior to the date of dissolution need not be filled. Candidacy provisions have undergone only slight changes since independence. The age limit for nominees has always been 21 years. Since 1958 every candidate has had to evidence the support of six voters registered in his/ her constituency; this requirement was lowered to two supporters in 1986. Furthermore, s/he has to make an electoral deposit (M$ 1,000, equals approx. US$ 260 in 2001; since 1986: M$ 5,000), which is reimbursed if the candidate obtains more than 12.5% of the votes. In all general elections the plurality system in single-member constituencies has been applied. The Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan elect eleven and one representatives to Parliament respectively. The upper chamber, the Senate (Dewan Negara), had 65 members until 1963, 68 until 1986 and 69 members since then. Each of the 13 federal states is entitled to two Senators elected indirectly by their respective state legislatures. The remaining Senators are appointed by the King, including two representatives for the Federal Territory of Kuala

MALAYSIA

147

Lumpur and one for the Federal Territory of Labuan. The legal term of the Senate was originally six years, but was reduced to three years in 1978. Vacancies are filled through by-elections. The re-election of Senators has been legally restricted to two terms. Candidates to the Senate have had to be at least 30 years of age. The King (Yang di-Pertuan Agong) is elected indirectly by the Conference of Rulers. The Conference was established by the Constitution to ensure equal opportunities and treatment among Malaysia's nine hereditary rulers. There are several unusual features about the provisions regarding the election of the King. First, only the hereditary Rulers may stand as candidates. Second, only Rulers may vote. Third, the most senior Ruler (in age) is elected, and fourth, no state may have its Ruler elected King again until the Ruler of every state (who is willing and suitable) has had the chance of becoming the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Although State Governors are also members of the Conference of Rulers, they do not participate in the election of the King. The organizational context of general elections has undergone some significant changes. Under the 1957 Federal Constitution, an independent Election Commission was created. The Chairman and the three other members of the Commission were appointed by the King, and to ensure their independence, the Constitution forbids their removal except on the same grounds for which a judge of the Federal Court may be removed: misbehavior, incapacity or some physical/ mental infirmity or any other cause which renders his unfit or unable to discharge the functions of his office in a proper manner. Even so, the member may only be removed upon the recommendation of a tribunal formed by at least five judges and ex-judges. Members of the Commission enjoy security of tenure up to the age of 65 years, as well as security of remuneration. Among other functions, the Commission delimits the boundaries of the parliamentary constituencies. However, this power was transferred to Parliament in 1962. The main reason for this was the dismay the Alliance Government must have felt when reading the Election Commission's 1960 report on constituency delimitation. UMNO found the report unacceptable, and the Government even attempted to remove the Chairman of the Commission by means of a constitutional amendment. However, the Chairman succeeded in preventing his removal by appealing to Article 114(6) of the Constitution, which protected the independence of the Commission. This move was sharply criticized, because given the various numerical possibilities between rural (Malayan) and urban (non-Malayan) constituencies, boundary delimitation was a very powerful instrument to generate structural advantages for the parliamentary majority.

148

PHILIPPINES

The different changes introduced into the electoral legislation over the years have also aimed at diffusing or preempting rioting and electoral violence. Since political parties are organized along ethnic or communal lines, a polarization along these cleavages appears to be reinforced during elections. In 1968, in anticipation to the 1969 elections, an Electoral Behavior Code was introduced that forbade politicians to make racial or religious remarks of incendiary nature. The DAP was somewhat restricted by the ban preventing the questioning of sensitive issues, and could not afford to be quite as aggressive as it had been. The DAP lost followers because of its opposition to the ban, which hindered public discussion of most aspects of the party platform. The ban may have prevented incitement of communal violence by extremists, but could neither reduce the hostile feelings nor eliminate their causes.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Federation of Malaysia Constitution, 1957; Elections Act 1958, Reprint No. 1 of 1982, Laws of Malaysia Act 19; Elections (Amendment) Act 1986 (A639 of 1986); Elections (Amendment) Act 1990 (A768 of 1990); Elections Offences Act 1954, Reprint No. 2 of 1982, Laws of Malaysia Act 5; Election Offices (Amendment) Act 1986 (A640 of 1986); and Election Offices (Amendment) Act 1990 (A769 of 1990); Elections Commissions Act, 1957; Election Commission (Amendment) Act 1972 (A150 of 1972).

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. Every citizen of at least 21 years who is registered and resident in a constituency has the right to vote. Voters may be disqualified if they are serving a sentence of imprisonment, or have been convicted for an offence and sentenced to death or imprisonment for a term exceeding 12 months anywhere in the Commonwealth. Voting is not compulsory.

Elected National Institutions: The King (Yang di-Pertuan Agong) is the official Head of State. He is elected by the Council of Rulers (Majlis Raja-Raja), which comprises the nine hereditary Malay Rulers for a regular term of five years. Although the incumbent Yang diPertuan Agong may stand for re-election, this has never happened, as there is a tacit agreement that the kingship be rotated among the hereditary rulers. The bicameral Parliament consists of the House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat) and the Senate (Dewan Negara). The 193 members of

MALAYSIA

149

the House of Representatives are directly elected for a regular term of five years. The 69 members of the Senate fall into two categories: those indirectly elected from the 13 States (2 per State) and those appointed by the King (43). Senators may not hold office for more than two terms. In both houses casual vacancies are filled through by-elections. Six months before the expiration of the Dewan Rakyat's term no by-elections are held.

Nomination of Candidates - King: The election of the King is based on a rotational system involving the nine royal houses of the various states. Only Rulers may stand for election as King. No State may have its Ruler re-elected Yang di-Pertuan Agong until the Ruler of every State (who is willing and suitable) has had a chance of becoming Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

- House of Representatives: Candidates to the House of Representatives must be at least 21 years old. Nominees may be disqualified in the following cases: they have been declared of unsound mind; they are undischarged bankrupts; they hold offices of profit; they have been nominated for election to the Senate; they have acted as election agent to another candidate; they have failed to lodge a return of election expenses required by law; they have been sentenced by a court to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or a fine of not less than M$ 2,000 (approx. US$ 520 in 2001); and/ or they have voluntarily acquired citizenship in a foreign country. Furthermore, each candidate—party member or independent—has to evidence the support of two voters registered in the respective constituency. Additionally, he/ she has to make a deposit of M$ 5,000 (equals approx. US$ 1,300 in 2001). This amount is reimbursed, if the candidate wins more than 12.5% of the votes cast in the constituency.

- Senate: Candidates must be at least 30 years of age. Provisions for disqualification are identical to those of the House of Representatives.

Electoral System - King: By absolute majority vote of the Council of Rulers. Only Rulers may vote. Usually the most senior Ruler should be elected, and if at least five rulers vote him suitable as Yang di-Pertuan Agong, he is offered the office.

- House of Representatives: Plurality system in 193 single-member constituencies.

- Senate: 26 of the 69 Senators are indirectly elected by the state legislatures. Each member of the state legislature is entitled to vote for as

150

PHILIPPINES

many candidates as there are vacancies to be filled. The candidates who receive the largest number of votes are declared elected.

Organizational Context of Elections: An Election Commission ensures that elections are conducted fairly. It is empowered to ‘conduct elections to the House of Representatives and the Legislative Assemblies of the States’. Originally the Election Commission comprised a Chairman and two members, but with the formation of Malaysia in 1963 an additional member was added to represent the states of East Malaysia. In 1981, one more member was added, so the Commission now comprises five members—a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and three members. The members are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong after consultation with the Conference of Rulers. In their appointment, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is constitutionally required to consider the importance of securing a commission that enjoys public confidence. The Commission has the power to prepare and revise the electoral rolls. Its other powers pertain to the conduct of elections and to the elaboration of the relevant rules. It conducts elections to the House of Representatives and the Legislative Assemblies of the States. Federal or state law may authorize it to conduct other elections as well, and in 1960 Parliament enacted the Local Government Elections Act, entrusting the conduct of local government elections to the Commission. Thus the only elections not conducted by the Commission are Senate elections, since these are not by direct vote of electors.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The following electoral statistics have been compiled from numerous sources, and all reasonable effort has been made to verify them. Greatest reliance has been placed on official government publications, such as the Report on the Parliamentary and State Legislative General Elections and data given by the Elections Commission (http://www.spr.gov.my). A particularly useful compilation is Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures 1955–1990 published by the New Straits Times Press Research and Information Services. For the very latest electoral results, the authors have also resorted to local newspapers like The New Straits Times, The Star and Singapore's The Straits Times. Data on the 1955 elections are derived from Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures 1955–1990. Data on the 1959 and the 1964 elections are drawn from The Malaysian Parliamentary Elections of 1964 by Ratnam

MALAYSIA

151

and Milne. The data given for the 1969 election are based on two sources: Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures 1955–1990, and Ratnam/ Milne (1970). The data on the 1974 elections also derive from two sources: Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures 1955–1990, and Information Malaysia Yearbook 1974. The figures for the 1978 and the 1982 elections were taken from the Report on the Malaysian General Elections 1982 by the Elections Commission. The data on the 1986 elections are documented according to the Final Report on the 1986 Malaysian Parliamentary & State Elections prepared by Office Automation Sdn Bhd and commissioned by the National Union of Journalists, Malaysia. Data for the 1990 election derive from Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures 1955–1990. Figures for the 1999 election are based on data of the Malaysian Elections Commission as provided by Funston (2000). The source for the regional distribution of 1969 is The Straits Times, of 12 May 1969. Elections were suspended on 15 May 1969. Whenever regional data are based on other sources than those used for the compilation of the national figures, this is indicated by a footnote next to the respective figure.

152

PHILIPPINES


Elections for Kinga

b c


House of Rep- Senateb resentatives 27/07 19/08 25/04 10/05c 24/08–14/09 08/07 22/04 03/08 21/10 25/04 29/11

1955 1959 1964 1969 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1995 1999 a

Parliamentary elections

Referendums

Coups d'état

The King has been elected indirectly in 1957, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994, and 1999. Senate elections have been indirect. Dates are unavailable as the mass media do not report this data. The election in the eastern states of Sabah and Sarawak were postponed to 21–27 June 1970.


1955 1959 1964 1969 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1995 1999 a b

Type of electiona

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

Populationb

Registered votersc

Votes cast

6,058,000 6,300,000 9,273,000 10,612,000 11,760,000 13,080,000 14,698,000 16,109,000 17,800,000 20,100,000 21,500,000

Total number 1,240,058 2,133,272 2,720,100 3,440,307 3,992,632 4,776,361 5,775,605 6,968,974 7,924,178 9,012,370 9,564,151

Total number 1,027,211 1,564,575 2,146,608 2,532,042 2,220,186 3,596,732 4,296,312 4,745,996 5,751,727 6,152,809 6,795,921

% pop. 20.5 33.9 29.3 32.4 34.0 36.5 39.3 43.3 44.5 44.8 44.5

% reg. voters 82.8 73.3 78.9 73.6 55.6 75.3 74.4 68.1 72.6 68.3 71.1

% pop. 17.0 24.8 23.1 23.9 18.9 27.5 29.2 29.5 32.3 30.6 31.6

Pa = Parliament. Population figures were mainly drawn from Information Malaysia. As these figures are necessarily estimates, they are rounded up to the nearest 1,000. Precise figures are available only when national censuses have been conducted (1955: 6,058,317; 1969: 10,611,694; 1974: 11,759,949; 1982: 14,698,292).

MALAYSIA

153

2.3 Abbreviations

a

b

c d

e f

ALa BNb DAP GRMc Keadiland MCAa MICa MP PAP PASe PBS PEKEMAS

Alliance Barisan Nasional (National Front) Parti Tindakan Demokratik (Democratic Action Party) Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Malaysian People's Movement) Parti Keadilan Nasional (National Justice Party) Persatuan China Malaysia (Malaysian Chinese Association) Kongres India SeMalaysia (Malaysian Indian Congress) Malaya Party People's Action Party Parti Islam SeMalaysia (Islamic Party of Malaysia) Parti Bersatu Sabah (Sabah United Party) Parti Keadilan Masyarat Malaysia (Social Justice Party of

PESAKAc PN PPPc

Parti Pesaka Sarawak Parti Negara Parti Kemajuan Rakyat Malaysia (People's Progressive

PR PRM PSRM

Parti Rakyat (People's Party) Parti Rakyat Malaysia (Malaysian People's Party) Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia (Malaysian Socialist People's

S46f SAPO SCAc SF SNAPc SUPPc

Parti Semangat ‘46 (Spirit of ‘46) Sarawak People's Organization Sabah Chinese Association Socialist Front Sarawak National Party Parti Rakyat Bersatu Sarawak (Sarawak United People's

UDP UMCO UMNOa

United Democratic Party United Malaysian Chinese Organization Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu (United Malays Na-

USNOc

United Sabah National Organization

Malaysia)

Party)

Party)

Party)

tional Organization)

Coalition formed before the first election of 1955 by the three leading communal parties UMNO, MCA, and MIC. The Alliance was reorganized in 1974 under the name Barisan Nasional (BN). Organizational successor of the Alliance, formed in 1974 and led since then by the three main communal parties: UMNO, MCA, and MIC. In the 1999 General Elections, the BN consisted of 14 political parties. GRM, PESAKA, PPP, SCA, SNAP, SUPP, and USNO joint Barisan Nasional (BN) in 1974. This party was formed only in 1999 after the ouster of Deputy Prime Minister and UMNO Deputy President Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from UMNO and the ruling BN coalition. PAS is also known as PMIP (Pan-Malayan Islamic Party). S46 ceased to exist after the 1995 elections when its leader, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, and his followers rejoined UMNO.

154

PHILIPPINES

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1955–1999 Party / Alliance AL PASb PN PPP MP SF PAP UDP DAP GRM PESAKA PR SCA SNAP SUPP UMCO USNO BN PEKEMAS PSRM SAPO PBS S46 Keadilan PRM a b

Years 1955–1969 1955–1969, 1978–1999 1955–1964 1955–1969 1959 1959–1964 1964 1964 1969–1999 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969–1974 1969 1969 1969 1974–1999 1974 1974 1978 1990–1999 1990–1995 1999 1999

Elections contesteda 4 10 3 4 1 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 3 2 1 1

Only parliamentary elections. Total Number: 11. In the 1974, PAS contested the elections as part of BN.

2.5 / 2.6 Referendums/ Elections for Constitutional Assembly Referendums and Elections for Constitutional Assembly have not been held.

155

MALAYSIA

2.7 Parliamentary Elections Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes AL PN PAS PPP SF MP Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes AL SF PAS UDP PPP PAP DAP GRM SUPP SNAP USNO PESAKA PR Others Independents a

b c

1955 Total number 1,240,058 1,027,211 25,684 1,001,527 818,013 78,909 40,667 1,081 – – 31,215 31,642 1964 Total number 2,720,100 2,146,608 89,104 2,057,504 1,204,340 330,898 301,187 88,223 69,898 42,130 – – – – – – – 7,319b 13,509

% – 82.8 2.5 97.5 81.7 7.9 4.1 0.1 – – 3.1 3.2

1959 Total number 2,133,272 1,564,575 17,306 1,547,269 800,944 32,578 329,070 97,391 199,688 13,404 – 74,194

% – 73.3 1.1 98.9 51.8 2.1 21.3 6.3 12.9 0.9 – 4.8

% – 78.9 4.2 95.8 58.5 16.1 14.6 4.3 3.4 2.0 – – – – – – – 0.4 0.7

1969 Total number 3,440,307 2,532,042 134,230a 2,373,113a 1,063,238 – 495,641 – 80,756 – 286,606 178,971 71,293 64,593 31,947 30,765 25,785 1,808c 41,710

% – 73.6 5.4a 94.6a 44.8 – 20.9 – 3.4 – 12.1 7.5 3.0 2.7 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.1 1.8

24,699 votes from one constituency in Malacca are not reported. Therefore, the totals of valid and invalid votes do not sum up to the totals of votes cast given in this table. Accordingly percentages of valid and invalid votes do not take into account the votes cast in the Malacca seat. PN: 7,319. UMCO: 1,808.

Year

1974 Total number

%

1978 Total number

%

156 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes BN DAP SNAP PEKEMAS PSRM PAS SAPO Others Independents a b c

2,956,395a 2,220,186 100,269 2,119,917c 1,287,400 387,845 117,566 105,718 84,206 – – 9,979 124,202

– 75.1 4.5 95.5 60.8 18.3 5.6 5.0 4.0 – – 0.5 5.9

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes BN DAP PAS Others Independents

1982 Total number 5,775,605a 4,296,312 130,615 4,165,697 2,522,079 815,473 602,530 68,386 157,229

% – 74.4 3.0 97.0 60.5 19.6 14.5 1.6 3.8

– 75.3 3.4 96.6 57.2 19.1 – – – 15.5 0.3 3.2 4.6

1986 Total number 6,968,974 4,745,996 126,235 4,619,761 2,649,263 968,009 718,891 136,695 146,903

% – 68.1 2.7 97.3 57.3 21.0 15.6 3.0 3.2

Voters in contested constituencies. The number of voters in all constituencies is 6,081,628.

Year

1990 Total number Registered voters 7,958,641a Votes cast 5,751,725 Invalid votes 158,498 Valid votes 5,593,227 BN 2,985,392 DAP 985,228 S46 826,398 PAS 391,813 PBS 128,260 Others & Independ- 276,136 ents a

4,776,361b 3,596,732 123,302 3,473,430 1,987,907 664,433 – – – 537,720 10,150 112,850 160,370

Candidates were returned unopposed in 47 constituencies. The number of registered voters in all constituencies is 4,017,266. Candidates were returned unopposed in nine constituencies. The number of registered voters in all constituencies is 5,059,689. Data are inconsistent. The total number of party votes amounts to 2,116,916. Percentages have been recalculated on the basis of this corrected figure.

Year

a

PHILIPPINES

1995 % – 72.3 2.8 97.2 53.4 17.6 14.8 7.0 2.3 4.9

Includes electors in uncontested constituencies.

Year

1999

Total number 9,012,370a 6,152,809 196,114 5,956,695 3,881,214 712,175 616,589 430,098 198,594 118,025

% – 68.3 3.2 96.8 65.2 12.0 10.4 7.2 3.3 2.0

157

MALAYSIA

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes BN PAS DAP Keadilan PBS PRM Others & Independents

Total number 9,564,151 6,795,921 144,084 6,651,837 3,762,556 996,437 848,040 767,969 143,338 68,990 64,507

% – 71.1 2.1 97.9 56.6 15.0 12.7 11.5 2.2 1.0 1.0

158

PHILIPPINES

2.7 (a) Parliamentary Elections: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) 1955 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Total a

Reg. voters 30,936 193,789 205,743 71,536 90,032 201,364 64,952 85,437 58,132 59,715 178,422 1,240,058

Votes cast 27,173 169,424 172,595 48,091 70,680 168,376 53,346 71,913 50,533 50,885 144,234 1,027,211a

Invalid votes 590 3,201 5,466 749 3,016 5,322 1,171 1,429 903 976 2,900 25,684a

Valid votes 26,583 166,223 167,129 47,342 67,664 163,054 52,175 70,484 49,630 49,909 141,334 1,001,527

Discrepancy of 39 votes between the regional and the total figures of votes cast and invalid votes. Regional data were taken from Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures 1955–1990, while national data were taken from The Straits Times, 29 July 1955.

1955 (continued) State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Total

AL

PN

PAS

17,769 155,151 130,513 37,815 57,424 115,033 46,932 50,178 41,656 43,894 121,648 818,013

– 6,692 20,459 – – – – 11,796 7,468 2,821 19,433 78,909

– 1,563 13,399 3,523 – 13,694 1,999 6,489 – – – 40,667

Others & Independents 8,814 2,817 2,758 6,004 10,240 34,327 3,244 2,021 506 3,194 253 63,938

1959 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor

Reg. voters 38,355 268,115 240,552 188,668 97,164 449,969 109,535 271,360 95,573 93,737 280,244

Votes cast 29,826 198,428 171,207 138,141 68,337 314,361 79,681 199,820 73,403 75,344 216,027

Invalid votes 223 2,481 1,446 1,358 898 3,881 790 2,259 756 680 2,534

Valid votes 29,603 195,947 169,761 136,783 67,439 310,480 78,891 197,561 72,647 74,664 213,493

159

MALAYSIA

Total 1959 (continued) State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Total

2,133,272

17,306

1,547,269

AL

PAS

SF

PPP

17,653 127,965 53,382 60,249 25,237 154,056 52,786 87,577 37,634 44,186 140,219 800,944

11,950 52,235 116,087 14,829 32,124 47,757 9,169 15,691 12,103 12,133 4,992 329,070

– 14,142 – 52,237 595 8,862 16,936 59,987 7,934 8,684 30,311 199,688

– – – 3,899 – 83,509 – 7,821 – – 2,162 97,391

1964 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Total 1964 (continued) State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Total

1,564,575

Reg. voters 46,491 336,858 271,731 253,455 145,217 524,487 141,592 388,211 152,114 125,585 334,359 2,720,100

Votes cast 37,940 257,472 217,769 211,548 112,338 417,120 109,914 284,565 121,711 105,788 270,443 2,146,608

Invalid votes 1,564 10,973 8,875 5,902 4,786 17,344 5,358 13,581 5,548 3,192 11,981 89,104

AL

SF

PAS

PPP

23,007 168,995 89,710 97,204 60,792 222,141 74,323 146,002 68,855 67,898 185,413 1,204,340

– 11,794 414 64,986 4,919 32,339 18,996 86,210 26,484 27,478 57,278 330,898

13,369 61,861 118,770 5,527 34,522 41,941 11,237 6,528 – 3,759 3,673 301,187

– – – – – 66,330 – 2,219 1,349 – – 69,898

Others & Independ. – 1,605 292 5,569 9,483 16,296 – 26,485 14,976 9,661 35,809 120,176 Valid votes 36,376 246,499 208,894 205,646 107,552 399,776 104,556 270,984 116,163 102,596 258,462 2,057,504 Others & Independ. – 3,849 – 37,929 7,319 37,025 – 30,025 19,475 3,461 12,098 151,181

160

PHILIPPINES

1969 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Total a

b

c

b c d

Votes cast 44,982 293,156 248,863 199,671 135,420 448,036a 84,645 340,039 106,867 110,332a 208,987 46,031a 265,013a 2,532,042

Invalid votes 1,591 10,916 7,626 11,860 7,559 21,550 4,916 19,104 7,023 4,090b 12,505 1,458 24,032 134,230b

Valid votes 43,391 282,240 241,237 187,811 127,861 426,486 79,729 320,935 99,844 81,543b 196,482 44,573c 240,981c 2,373,113b

While the main source for the regional distribution of the 1969 election is The Straits Times of 12 May 1969, these figures are taken from Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures on the Elections 1955–1990. Valid and invalid votes for one seat in Malacca are not reported in The Straits Times as the contest was postponed. Therefore, the total valid and invalid votes do not sum up to the total votes cast. Figures for the votes cast in Sabah and Sarawak are taken from Vasil (1972).

1969 (continued) State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malaccaa Johor Sabahb Sarawakb Total a

Reg. votersa 56,060 388,167 333,754 257,608 179,365 613,572 119,254 516,984 143,583 147,765 287,936 63,522 332,737 3,440,307

AL

PAS

DAP

GRM

22,195 150,977 114,593 69,225 63,918 184,364 48,507 141,131 46,291 36,828 132,854 – 52,355 1,063,238

18,286 115,861 126,409 13,211 63,943 76,158 19,458 23,041 16,299 15,042 7,933 – – 495,641

– – – 20,930 – 68,651 – 100,716 35,446 18,562 42,301 – – 286,606

– 15,402 – 83,670 – 15,641 – 56,047 – – 8,211 – – 178,971

Others & Independ. 2,910 – 235 775 – 81,672 11,764 – 1,808 11,111 5,183 44,573c 188,626d 348,657

The data for one constituency in Malacca are not reported in The Straits Times because the contest was postponed. It appears that even in 1972, by-elections were not held for this particular seat. Figures for Sabah and Sarawak were taken from Vasil (1972). USNO: 31,947. PESAKA 30,765; SNAP 64,593; SUPP 71,293; Independents 21,975.

1974 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan

Reg. voters 58,721 165,675 209,953

Votes cast 45,755 115,605 155,624

Invalid votes — — —

Valid votes — — —

161

MALAYSIA

Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Total

266,222 155,825 555,478 126,711 290,264 121,097 151,699 290,503 14,419 375,882 173,946 2,956,395

218,366 114,315 416,589 95,893 219,413 92,879 118,391 218,079 11,069 282,439 115,769 2,220,186

— — — — — — — — — — — 100,269

— — — — — — — — — — — 2,119,917

There are no absolute numbers of party votes available for the regional breakdown of the 1974 electoral results. For percentages see table 2.7 b).

162

PHILIPPINES

1978 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Total 1978 (continued) State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Total 1982 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor

Reg. voters 68,572 461,290 340,141 383,134 178,576 736,963 258,024 515,497 190,379 141,841 572,447 282,369 385,345 261,783 4,776,361

Votes cast 52,873 356,602 256,381 303,541 136,096 569,798 194,225 383,053 148,681 110,728 445,413 187,469 265,712 186,160 3,596,732

Invalid votes 2,232 10,099 2,600 10,321 6,367 21,127 9,297 14,623 6,906 4,428 18,283 5,685 9,424 1,910 123,302

BN

DAP

PAS

SAPO

30,762 197,865 143,161 138,173 75,722 293,563 123,593 212,065 81,671 59,188 330,233 94,225 161,539 46,147 1,987,907

– 2,828 – 79,918 – 200,547 16,354 111,050 41,736 34,576 64,385 11,733 – 101,306 664,433

16,973 137,400 110,620 31,667 49,363 52,655 34,156 36,615 11,217 12,536 32,512 – – 12,006 537,720

– – – – – – – – – – – – 10,150 – 10,150

Reg. voters 79,018 541,924 418,242 460,387 242,092 848,885 325,831 647,761

Votes cast 60,858 418,251 334,810 354,091 193,858 627,924 242,457 468,516

Invalid votes 2,283 11,938 8,945 9,746 7,711 20,135 9,160 14,175

Valid votes 50,641 346,503 253,781 293,220 129,729 548,671 184,928 368,430 141,775 106,300 427,130 181,784 256,288 184,250 3,473,430 Others & Independ. 2,906 8,410 – 43,462 4,644 1,906 10,825 8,700 7,151 – – 75,826 84,599 24,791 273,220 Valid votes 58,575 406,313 325,865 344,345 186,147 607,789 233,297 454,341

163

MALAYSIA

a

Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Total

261,632 219,236 587,458 324,199 412,158 406,782 5,775,605

201,646 168,408 443,800 217,875 275,454 288,364 4,296,312

6,301 5,438 19,725 4,163 7,656 3,239 130,615

195,345 162,970 424,075 213,712 267,798 285,125 4,165,697

1982 (continued) State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Total

BN

DAP

PAS

39,715 248,816 171,992 193,610 106,869 372,137 140,896 288,882 131,463 108,281 312,529 112,779 151,988 142,122 2,522,079

– 24,354 1,896 124,089 – 154,472 40,016 110,413 53,592 34,584 71,351 18,641 48,623 133,442 815,473

18,860 131,872 151,629 8,612 76,991 79,264 46,951 33,292 8,751 20,105 18,224 – – 7,979 602,530

Others & Independents – 1,271 348 18,034 2,287 1,916 5,434 21,754 1,539 – 21,971 82,292 67,187 1,582 225,615

1986 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Total

Reg. votersa 88,364 598,188 470,125 522,194 273,345 954,115 380,979 763,914 298,660 242,913 858,819 421,388 610,159 473,640 12,171 6,968,974

Votes cast 62,667 430,938 354,678 381,089 215,021 650,670 270,818 532,389 216,577 177,761 548,656 215,735 371,533 309,301 8,163 4,745,996

Invalid votes 1,560 10,053 8,332 9,476 5,867 18,749 7,893 16,864 6,246 5,508 23,303 2,323 7,491 2,492 78 126,235

Valid votes 61,107 420,885 346,346 371,613 209,154 631,921 262,925 515,525 210,331 172,253 525,353 213,412 364,042 306,809 8,085 4,619,761

While the main source for the regional distribution of the 1986 election is Final Report on the 1986 Malaysian Parliamentary & State Elections, the figures for the regional distribution of the registered voters were taken from Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures 1955–1990.

164

a b

c

PHILIPPINES

1986 (continued) State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Total

BN

DAP

PAS

40,619 256,693 187,511 183,724 125,891 349,892 169,118 325,562 135,530 100,655 345,299 101,195 200,428 124,881 2,265 2,649,263

– 9,880 – 147,641 – 181,561 33,632 109,763 63,809 55,430 93,228 41,392 68,197 163,476 – 968,009

20,488 154,063 158,835 24,053 83,263 94,585 60,175 48,972 10,992 16,168 28,493 8,346 – 10,458 – 718,891

Others & Independents – 249 – 16,195 – 5,883 – 31,228 – – 58,333 62,479 95,417 7,994 5,820 283,598

1990 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perakb Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johorb Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Total

Reg. voters 99,097 657,322 536,020 559,223 326,393 1,031,381 452,997 922,615 345,468 265,059 972,171 543,612 703,061 527,834 16,388 7,958,641c

Votes casta 75,521 497,393 420,449 428,072 268,683 719,731 334,458 674,059 260,431 204,855 720,881 307,524 466,787 360,770 12,111 5,751,725

Invalid votesa 2,544 14,838 10,173 9,371 7,063 22,514 11,627 21,001 7,935 6,284 26,670 6,527 7,571 4,215 165 158,498

Valid votesa 72,977 482,555 410,276 418,701 261,620 697,217 322,831 653,058 252,496 198,571 694,211 300,997 459,216 356,555 11,946 5,593,227

Figures were taken from Information Malaysia. Figures for Perak and Johor have been reported inconsistently in various sources. The figures used here are based on Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures 1955–1990 data. Candidates were returned unopposed in two constituencies. There were 7,924,178 electors in the contested districts.

1990 (continued) State Perlis Kedah Kelantan

BN

DAP

S46

PAS

47,767 300,715 134,279

– 5,360 –

12,056 99,007 124,337

13,154 76,936 149,195

Others & Independ.a – 537 2,465

165

MALAYSIA

Penang Trengganu Perakb Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johorb Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Total a b

213,532 141,561 391,628 203,504 380,021 152,118 120,233 426,854 50,235 262,092 153,723 7,130 2,985,392

b

7,174 62,006 82,971 66,337 114,683 41,857 40,326 142,227 – – 33,417 – 826,398

14,322 57,488 33,955 29,960 12,358 – 4,019 – 426 – – – 391,813

13,620 565 2,516 – – – – 20,290 221,789 110,107 27,691 4,816 404,396

Figures were taken from Information Malaysia. Figures for Perak and Johor have been reported inconsistently in various sources. The figures used here relied on the Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures 1955–1990 data.

1995 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Total a

170,053 – 186,147 23,030 145,996 58,521 33,993 104,840 28,547 87,017 141,724 – 985,228

Reg. votersa 104,195 724,758 608,502 634,726 367,676 1,115,628 498,221 1,099,358 381,888 292,855 1,108,335 646,719 817,460 591,806 20,243 9,012,370b

Votes cast 78,463 533,728 458,242 482,677 296,656 683,862 359,783 720,662 276,177 220,683 807,349 438,474 383,752 398,943 13,358 6,152,809

Invalid votes 2,744 18,985 17,663 12,049 9,662 25,489 15,514 22,912 10,693 6,522 35,706 5,795 7,283 4,744 353 196,114

Valid votes 75,719 514,743 440,579 470,628 286,994 658,373 344,269 697,750 265,484 214,161 771,643 432,679 376,469 394,199 13,005 5,956,695

Figures were taken from Moten/ Mokhtar (1997). Contested district voters: 8,685,876.

1995 (continued) State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang

BN

DAP

S46

PAS

51,839 332,145 186,017 286,040 156,747 451,343 243,306

– – – 159,865 – 125,103 15,342

16,280 53,284 137,403 11,355 65,593 61,152 56,638

7,600 128,137 111,929 11,497 64,654 19,118 24,650

Others & Independ. – 1,177 5,230 1,871 – 1,657 4,333

166 Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Total

PHILIPPINES

519,690 186,728 146,151 612,856 227,961 239,297 232,018 9,076 3,881,214

1999 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Total 1999 (continued) State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan

47,317 46,330 45,213 53,663 16,902 78,456 123,984 – 712,175

Reg. voters 105,733 765,028 641,754 653,572 387,339 1,159,858 522,871 1,195,278 405,531 313,676 1,190,400 719,131 854,992 627,377 21,611 9,564,151

95,331 24,544 7,491 69,442 – – 18,076 – 616,589

Votes cast 83,607 578,215 489,810 492,969 314,947 768,474 385,295 876,846 293,064 241,137 861,199 435,347 519,445 443,213 12,353 6,795,921

12,815 6,217 15,306 19,536 825 – 7,814 – 430,098 Invalid votes 1,337 12,139 9,151 10,387 5,305 20,419 10,520 18,294 8,995 6,433 23,207 4,840 8,781 4,100 176 144,084

BN

PAS

DAP

Keadilan

46,236 315,622 187,102 247,870 127,700 415,112 215,003 470,248 168,185 132,803 611,053 258,656 337,787 220,492 8,687

26,162 171,825 228111 8,810 161,052 93,454 81,984 95,643 23,773 25,239 57,273 2,244 2,438 17,111 1,318

– 13,258 – 169,973 – 156,110 26,786 106,905 68,526 33,611 79,200 973 75,922 116,776 –

9,872 65,371 64,763 54,987 20,715 80,067 50,711 161,575 23,585 43,051 62,554 18,344 49,774 62,600 –

22,597 1,665 – 16,146 186,991 58,716 12,307 3,929 316,619 Valid votes 82,270 566,076 480,659 482,582 309,642 748,055 374,775 858,552 284,069 234,704 837,992 430,507 510,664 439,113 12,177 6,651,837 Others & Independ. – – 683 942 175 3,312 291 24,181a – – 27,912b 150,290c 44,743 22,134d 2,172e

167

MALAYSIA

Total a b c d e f

3,762,556

PRM: 20,736 votes. PRM: 27,912 votes. PBS: 141,166 votes. PRM: 20,342 votes. PBS: 2,172 votes. PBS: 143,338 votes; PRM: 68,990 votes.

996,437

848,040

767,969

276,835f

168

PHILIPPINES

2.7 b) Parliamentary Elections: Regional Level (% Of Valid Votes)

a

1955 State

AL

PN

PAS

Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Nation-wide

66.8 93.3 78.1 79.9 84.9 70.5 90.0 71.2 83.9 87.9 86.1 81.7

– 4.0 12.2 – – – – 16.7 15.1 5.7 13.8 7.9

– 0.9 8.0 7.4 – 8.4 3.8 9.2 – – – 4.1

b c d e f

Totala 2.7 16.6 16.7 4.7 6.8 16.3 5.2 7.0 5.0 5.0 14.1 100.0


1959 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Nation-wide a

Others & Independ. 33.2 1.7 1.7 12.7 15.1 21.1 6.2 2.9 1.0 6.4 0.2 6.4

AL 59.6 65.3 31.4 44.0 37.4 49.6 66.9 44.3 51.8

PAS 40.4 26.7 68.4 10.8 47.6 15.4 11.7 7.9 16.6

SF – 7.2 – 38.2 0.9 2.9 21.5 30.4 10.9

PPP – – – 2.9 – 26.9 – 4.0 –

Others & Ind. Totala – 1.9 0.8 12.7 0.2 11.0 4.1 8.8 b 14.1 4.4 5.2 20.1 – 5.1 c 13.4 12.8 d 20.6 4.7

59.2 65.7 51.8

16.3 2.3 21.3

11.6 14.2 12.9

– 1.0 6.3

12.9e 16.8f 7.8

PAS 36.8 25.1 56.9 2.7 32.1 10.5 10.7

PPP – – – – – 16.6 –

Others & Ind. Totala – 1.8 1.6 12.0 – 10.2 b 18.4 10.0 6.8c 5.2 d 9.3 19.4 – 5.1

4.8 13.8 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. PN: 11.8%. Independents: 11.4%. Independents: 14.5%; PN: 6.0%. MP: 12.8%. PN: 9.4%; Independents: 7.4%.

1964 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang

AL 63.2 68.6 42.9 47.3 56.5 55.6 71.1

SF – 4.8 0.2 31.6 4.6 8.1 18.2

169

MALAYSIA

Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Nation-wide a b c d e f g h

b c d e f g h i j

31.8 22.8

2.4 –

0.8 1.2

11.1e 16.8f

13.2 5.6

66.2 71.7 58.5

26.8 22.2 16.1

3.7 1.4 14.6

– – 3.4

3.4g 4.7h 6.5

5.0 12.6 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. UDP 18.1%. PN: 6.8%. UDP: 6.5%. PAP: 11.1%. UDP: 9.9%; PAP: 4.7%. PAP: 3.4%. UDP 3.7%.

1969 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Nation-wide a

53.9 59.3

AL 51.2 53.5 47.5 36.9 50.0 43.2 60.8 44.0 46.4

PAS 42.1 41.1 52.4 7.0 50.0 17.9 24.4 7.2 16.3

DAP – – – 11.1 – 16.1 – 31.4 35.5

GRM – 5.5 – 44.6 – 3.7 – 17.5 –

Others & Ind. Totala 6.7b 1.8 – 11.9 0.1 10.2 0.4 7.9 – 5.4 c 19.1 18.0 d 14.8 3.4 – 13.5 e 1.8 4.2

45.2 67.6 – 21.7 46.1

18.4 4.0 – – 20.9

22.8 21.5 – – 12.1

– 4.2 – – 7.5

13.6f 2.6g 100.0h 78.3i 27.3

3.4j 8.3 1.9 10.2 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. PR: 6.7%. PPP: 18.8%. PR: 14.8%. UMCO: 1.8%. PR: 13.6%; Data for one constituency not available. Independents: 2.6%. USNO: 71.7%; Independents: 28.3%. SUPP: 29.6%; SNAP: 26.8%; PESAKA: 12.8%; Independents: 9.1%. Malacca is under-weighted because the data for one constituency are not available.


BN 67.0 74.5 74.9 56.0 64.5 52.2 68.2

DAP – 8.6 – 24.3 – 36.2 13.1

PEKEM AS – – – 13.2 – 4.0 –

PSRM 6.5 3.7 – 5.9 30.7 – 15.7

Others & Ind. Totala 26.5b — c 13.2 — d 25.1 — 0.6 — e 4.8 — f 7.6 — g 3.0 —

170 Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Nation-wide a b c d e f g h i j k l m

b c

61.8 61.7

19.0 31.8

12.8 1.1

– 1.7

6.4h 3.7i

— —

62.5 71.6 60.8 55.3 44.0 60.8

15.5 20.6 – – 37.4 18.3

11.3 – 39.2 – 18.0 5.0

9.0 2.9 – – – 4.0

1.7j 4.9k – 44.7l 0.6m 11.9

— — — — — 100

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. No data were available. Independents: 26.5%. Independents: 9.5%. Independents: 25.1%. Independents: 4.8%. Independents: 7.4%. Independents: 3.0%. Independents: 6.4%. Independents: 2.2%. Independents: 1.7%. Independents: 4.9%. SNAP: 43.9%; Independents: 0.8%. Independents: 0.6%.

1978 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Nation-wide a

PHILIPPINES

BN 60.7 57.1 56.4 47.1 58.4 53.5 66.8 57.6 57.6

DAP – 0.8 – 27.3 – 36.6 8.8 30.1 29.4

PAS 33.5 39.7 43.6 10.8 38.1 9.6 18.5 9.9 7.9

SAPO – – – – – – – – –

Others & Ind. Totala 5.7 1.5 2.4 10.0 – 7.3 14.8 8.4 3.6 3.7 0.3 15.8 5.9 5.3 2.4 10.6 5.0 4.1

55.7 77.3 51.8 63.0 25.0 57.2

32.5 15.1 6.5 – 55.0 19.1

11.8 7.6 – – 6.5 15.5

– – – 4.0 – 0.3

– – 41.7b 33.0c 13.5 7.9

3.1 12.3 5.2 7.4 5.3 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. Independents: 34.9%. Independents: 17.5%.

1982 State

BN

DAP

PAS

Perlis Kedah Kelantan

67.8 61.2 52.8

– 6.0 0.6

32.2 32.5 46.5

Others & Independ. – 0.3 0.1

Totala 1.4 9.8 7.8

171

MALAYSIA

Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Nation-wide a b c

a b c d

56.2 57.4 61.2 60.4 63.6 67.3 66.4 73.7 52.8 56.8 49.8 60.5

36.0 – 25.4 17.2 24.3 27.4 21.2 16.8 8.7 18.2 46.8 19.6

2.5 41.4 13.0 20.1 7.3 4.5 12.3 4.3 – – 2.8 14.5

5.2 1.2 0.3 2.3 4.8 0.8 – 5.2 38.5b 25.1c 0.6 5.4

8.3 4.5 14.6 5.6 10.9 4.7 3.9 10.2 5.1 6.4 6.8 100.0

Others & Independ. – 0.1 – 4.4 – 0.9 – 6.1 – – 11.1 29.3b 26.2c 2.6 72.0d 6.1

Totala

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. Independents: 25.9%. Independents: 24.5%.

1986 State

BN

DAP

PAS

Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Nation-wide

66.5 61.0 54.1 49.4 60.2 55.4 64.3 63.2 64.4 58.4 65.7 47.4 55.1 40.7 28.0 57.3

– 2.3 – 39.7 – 28.7 12.8 21.3 30.3 32.2 17.7 19.4 18.7 53.3 – 21.0

33.5 36.6 45.9 6.5 39.8 15.0 22.9 9.5 5.2 9.4 5.4 3.9 – 3.4 – 15.6

1.3 9.1 7.5 8.0 4.5 13.7 5.7 11.2 4.6 3.7 11.4 4.6 7.9 6.6 0.2 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. Independents: 19.7%. Independents: 25.9%. Independents: 64.6%.


BN 65.5 62.3 32.7 51.0 54.1 56.2 63.0

DAP – 1.1 – 40.6 – 26.7 7.1

S46 16.5 20.5 30.3 1.7 23.7 11.9 20.5

PAS 18.0 15.9 36.4 3.4 22.0 4.9 9.3

Others & Ind. Totala – 1.3 0.1 8.6 0.6 7.3 3.3 7.5 0.2 4.7 0.4 12.5 – 5.8

172 Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Nation-wide a b c d

b c

58.2 60.2

22.4 23.2

17.6 16.6

1.9 –

– –

11.7 4.5

60.5 61.5 16.7 57.1 43.1 59.7 53.4

17.1 15.1 9.5 18.9 39.7 – 17.6

20.3 20.5 – – 9.4 – 14.8

2.0 – 0.1 – – – 7.0

– 2.9 73.7b 24.0c 7.8 40.3d 7.2

3.6 12.4 5.4 8.2 6.4 0.2 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. PBS: 42.6%; Independents: 26.9%. Independents: 17.9%. Independents: 40.3%.

1995 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Nation-wide a

PHILIPPINES

BN 68.5 64.5 42.2 60.8 54.6 68.6 70.7 74.5 70.3

DAP – – – 34.0 – 19.0 4.5 6.8 17.5

S46 21.5 10.4 31.2 2.4 22.9 9.3 16.5 13.7 9.2

PAS 10.0 24.9 25.4 2.4 22.5 2.9 7.2 1.8 2.3

Others & Ind. Totala – 1.3 0.2 8.6 1.2 7.4 0.4 7.9 – 4.8 0.3 11.1 1.3 5.8 3.2 11.7 0.6 4.5

68.2 79.4 52.7 63.6 58.9 69.8 65.2

21.1 7.0 3.9 20.8 31.5 – 12.0

3.5 9.0 – – 4.6 – 10.4

7.1 2.5 0.2 – 2.0 – 7.2

– 2.1 43.2b 15.6c 3.1 30.2c 5.3

DAP – 2.3 – 35.2 – 20.9 7.1 12.5

Keadilan 12.0 11.5 13.5 11.4 6.7 10.7 13.5 18.8

Others & Ind. Totala – 1.2 – 8.5 0.1 7.2 0.2 7.3 0.1 4.7 0.4 11.2 0.1 5.6 b 2.8 12.9

3.6 13.0 7.3 6.3 6.6 0.2 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. PBS: 43.0%. Independents: 14.1% (Sarawak), 30.2% (Labuan).

1999 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor

BN 56.2 55.8 38.9 51.4 41.2 55.5 57.4 54.8

PAS 31.8 30.4 47.5 1.8 52.0 12.5 21.9 11.1

173

MALAYSIA

Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Nation-wide a b c d e f g

59.2

8.4

24.1

8.3

–

4.3

56.6 72.9 60.1 66.1 50.2 71.3 56.6

10.8 6.8 0.5 0.5 3.9 10.8 15.0

14.3 9.5 0.2 14.9 26.6 – 12.7

18.3 7.5 4.3 9.7 14.3 – 11.5

– 3.3c 34.9d 8.8 5.0e 17.8f 4.2g

3.5 12.6 6.5 7.7 6.6 0.2 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. PRM: 2.4%. PRM: 3.3%. PBS: 32.8%. PRM: 4.6%. PBS: 17.8%. PBS: 2.2%; PRM: 1.0%.

174

PHILIPPINES

2.8 Composition of Parliament Year

1955 Seats 52 AL 51 PAS 1 PN 0 PPP 0 SF – MP – UDP – PAP – DAP – USNO – SNAP – GRM – SUPP – PESAKA – Independ- 0 ents a

1959 Seats 104 74 13 1 4 8 1 – – – – – – – – 3

1964 Seats 104 89 9 0 2 2 – 1 1 – – – – – – 0

% 100.0 85.6 8.7 0.0 1.9 1.9 – 1.0 1.0 – – – – – – 0.0

1969 Seats 144 77a 12 – 4 – – – – 13 13 9 8 5 2 1

% 100.0 53.5 8.3 – 2.8 – – – – 9.0 9.0 6.3 5.6 3.5 1.4 0.7

% 100.0 87.7 5.8 5.8 0.6

1978 Seats 154 131 16 – –

% 100.0 84.4 10.4 – –

1982 Seats 154 132 9 – –

% 100.0 85.7 5.8 – –

1986 Seats 177 148 24 – –

% 100.0 83.6 13.6 – –

– – 0.0

5 1 1

3.2 0.6 1.3

5 – 8

3.2 – 5.2

1 – 4

0.6 – 2.3

Three of the AL seats were won by the SCA in Sabah.

Year

1974 Seats 154 135 9 9 1

BN DAP SNAP PEKEMAS PASa – SAPO – Independ- 0 ents a

% 100.0 71.2 12.5 1.0 3.8 7.7 1.0 – – – – – – – – 2.9

% 100.0 98.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 – – – – – – – – – – 0.0

PAS was part of the BN in the 1974 general elections.

Year BN DAP S46 PAS PBS Keadilan Independents

1990 Seats 180 127 20 8 7 14 – 4

% 100.0 70.6 11.1 4.4 3.9 7.8 – 2.2

1995 Seats 192 162 9 6 7 8 – 0

% 100.0 84.4 4.7 3.1 3.6 4.2 – 0.0

1999 Seats 193 148 10 – 27 3 5 0

% 100.0 75.6 5.7 – 13.5 1.6 2.6 0.0

175

MALAYSIA

2.8 a) Parliamentary Elections: Regional Distribution of Seats 1955 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Nation-wide 1959 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Nation-wide 1964 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Nation-wide

AL 1 6 5 4 3 9 3 7 3 2 8 51

PAS – 0 0 0 – 1 0 0 – – – 1

Total 1 6 5 4 3 10 3 7 3 2 8 52

AL 2 12 1 5 1 15 6 9 4

PAS 0 0 9 0 4 0 0 0 0

SF – 0 – 3 0 0 0 5 0

PPP – – – 0 – 4 – 0 –

Others & Ind. Total – 2 0 12 0 10 0 8 1 6 1 20 – 6 0 14 2 6

3 16 74

0 0 13

0 0 8

– 0 4

1 0 5

4 16 104

AL 2 12 2 6 5 18 6 12 6

PAS 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 –

SF – 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

PPP – – – – – 2 – 0 0

Others – 0 – 1 0 0 – 1 0

Total 2 12 10 8 6 20 6 14 6

4 16 89

0 0 9

0 0 2

– – 2

0 0 2

4 16 104

176 1969 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Nation-wide 1974 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Nation-wide 1978 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan

PHILIPPINES

AL 2 9 4 2 4 9 6 9 3

DAP – – – 1 – 5 – 3 3

USNO – – – – – – – – –

PAS 0 3 6 0 2 1 0 0 0

Others & Ind. Total 0 2 0 12 0 10 5 8 – 6 5 20 0 6 2 14 0 6

3 16 3 7 74

1 0 – – 13

– – 13 – 13

0 0 – – 12

0 0 0 17 32

BN 2 13 12 9 7 17 8 10 5 3 16 16 15 2 135 BN 2 11 10 4 7 17 8 10 5

DAP – 0 – 0 – 4 0 1 1 1 0 – – 2 9 DAP – 0 – 4 – 4 0 1 1

SNAP – – – – – – – – – – – – 9 – 9 PAS 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

PEKE-MAS – – – 0 – 0 – 0 0 0 – 0 – 1 1 SAPO – – – – – – – – –

Indep. 0 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 16 16 24 144 Total 2 13 12 9 7 21 8 11 6 4 16 16 24 5 154 Total 2 13 12 9 7 21 8 11 6

177

MALAYSIA

Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Nation-wide

3 15 14 23 2 131

1 1 1 – 3 16

0 0 – – 0 5

– – – 1 – 1

– – 1 0 0 1

4 16 16 24 5 154

1982 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Nation-wide

BN 2 12 8 7 7 21 8 11 6 3 16 10 19 2 132

DAP – 0 0 2 – 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 9

PAS 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – 0 5

Indep. – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 5 3 0 8

Total 2 13 12 9 7 21 8 11 6 4 16 16 24 5 154

1986 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Nation-wide

BN 2 14 12 5 8 19 10 12 5 4 18 15 21 3 0 148

DAP – 0 – 6 – 4 0 2 2 1 0 4 1 4 – 24

PAS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 – 1

Indep. – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – – 0 1 2 0 1 4

Total 2 14 13 11 8 23 10 14 7 5 18 20 24 7 1 177

1990 State Perlis Kedah

BN 2 14

DAP – 0

S46 0 0

PAS 0 0

Others & Ind. Total – 2 0 14

178 Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Nation-wide a

0 5 6 19 10 11 7

– 6 – 4 0 3 0

7 0 1 0 0 0 0

6 0 1 0 0 0 –

0 0 0 0 – – –

13 11 8 23 10 14 7

4 18 6 21 3 1 127

1 0 0 2 4 – 20

0 0 – – 0 – 8

0 – 0 – – – 7

– 0 14a 4 0 0 18

5 18 20 27 7 1 180

BN 3 15 2 8 7 23 11 17 7

DAP – – – 3 – 0 0 0 0

PAS 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0

S46 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Others – 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 0

Total 3 15 14 11 8 23 11 17 7

4 20 12 26 6 1 162

1 0 0 1 4 – 9

0 0 0 – 0 – 7

0 0 – – 0 – 6

– 0 8a 0 0 0 8

5 20 20 27 10 1 192

BN 3 7 1 6 0 20 11

PAS 0 8 10 0 7 2 0

DAP – 0 – 4 – 1 0

Keadilan 0 0 3 1 1 0 0

PBS – – 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3 15 14 11 8 23 11

PBS: 14.

1995 State Perlis Kedah Kelantan Penang Trengganu Perak Pahang Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Nation-wide a

PHILIPPINES

PBS: 8.


179

MALAYSIA

Selangor Negri Sembilan Malacca Johor Sabah Sarawak Kuala Lumpur Labuan Nation-wide

17 7

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 –

17 7

4 20 17 28 6 1 148

0 0 0 0 0 0 27

1 0 0 0 4 – 10

0 0 0 0 0 – 5

– 0 3 0 0 0 3

5 20 20 28 10 1 193

180

PHILIPPINES

2.9 Presidential Elections There are no presidential elections since the King is the Head of State.

2.10 List of Power Holders 1957–2001 Head of Statea Tuanku Abdul Rahman ibni alMarhum Yamtuan Muhammad Tuanku Hisamuddin Alam Shah ibni al-Marhum Sultan Alaeddin Sulaiman Shah Saiyid Harun Putera ibni al-Marhum Saiyid Hasan Jamalullail Tuanku Ismail Nasiruddin Shah ibni al-Marhum Sultan Zainal Abidin Muadzam Shah Tuanku Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah ibni al-Marhum Sultan Tengku Badli Shah Tuanku Yahaya Petra ibni al-Marhum Sultan Ibrahim Tuanku Ahmad Shah al-Mustain Billah ibni al-Marhum Sultan Abu Bakar Riayatuddin al-Muadzam Shah Tuanku Mahmud Iskandar ibni alMarhum Sultan Ismail Tuanku Azlan Muhibuddin Shah ibni al-Marhum Sultan Yusuf Izuddin Ghafarullah Shah Tuanku Jaafar ibni al-Marhum Yamtuan Abdul Rahman Tuanku Salehuddin Abdul Aziz Shah ibni al-Marhum Sultan Hisamuddin Alam Shah a

Years 1957–1960 1960

Remarks Assumed office on 31/08/1957. Died in office. Succeeded on 01/04/1960. Died in office after a few months.

1960–1965

Assumed office on 01/09/1960.

1965–1970


1970–1975


1975–1979 1979–1984

Assumed office on 21/09/1975. Died in office. Assumed office on 29/03/1979.

1984–1989


1989–1994


1994–1999


1999–


The King is Head of State.

Head of Government Years Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al Haj 1957–1970

Remarks Also known as Bapa Malaysia (Father of Malaysia). The Tunku, as he is affectionately known as Malaya's first Chief Minister in 1956, became Prime Minister upon Merdeka (Independence) in 1957. Re-elected after the General Elections of 1959, 1964 and 1969. He died in 1990.

MALAYSIA

Tun Haji Abdul Razak bin Hussein 1970–1976

Datuk Hussein Onn

1976–1981

Dato Seri Dr Mahathir bin Mohamed

1981–

181 Assumed office on 21/09/1970. Re-elected after the General Elections of 1974. Died in London on 15/01/1976 while undergoing medical treatment. Succeeded by his deputy, Datuk Hussein Onn. Assumed office on 15/01/1976. Re-elected after the General Elections of 1978. Resigned due to health problems on 16/07/1981. He died in 1990. Assumed office on 16/07/1981. Re-elected after the General Elections of 1982, 1986, 1990, 1995, and 1999.

182

PHILIPPINES

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources ‘Federation of Malaysia Constitution (1957)’, in A. P. Blaustein, and G. H. Flanz (eds.), Constitutions of the Countries of the World. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications. Federation of Malaya (1955). Annual Report of the Federation of Malaya. Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. Federation of Malaysia (various years). Annual Report of the Federation of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. Malaysian Elections Commission (1983). Report on the Malaysian General Elections 1982. Kuala Lumpur: Government Press.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Crouch, H. (1982). Malaysia's 1982 General Election. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Research Notes and Discussion Papers No. 34. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. —— (1996). ‘Malaysia: Do Elections Make a Difference?’, in R. H. Taylor (ed.), The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, Mass.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 114–135. Drummond, S., and Hawkins, D. (1970). ‘The Malaysian Elections of 1969: An Analysis of the Campaign and the Results’. Asian Survey, 10/4: 320–335. Funston, J. (2000). ‘Malaysia's Tenth Elections: Status Quo, Reformasi, or Islamization?’. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 22/ 1: 23–59. Gomez, E. T. (1996). The 1995 Malaysian General Elections: A Report and Commentary. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Gomez, E. T. (1998). ‘Malaysia’, in W. Sachsenröder and U. E. Frings (eds.), Political Party Systems and Democratic Development in East and Southeast Asia. Vol. 1 (Southeast Asia). Aldershot: Ashgate, 226–288. Information Malaysia (various years). Kuala Lumpur: Berita Publishing. Information Malaysia Yearbook (various years). Kuala Lumpur: Berita Publishing. Jomo, K. S. (1996). ‘Elections' Janus Face: Limitations and Potential in Malaysia’, in R. H. Taylor (ed.), The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, Mass.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 90–113. Mauzy, D. (1979). ‘A Vote for Continuity: The 1978 General Elections in Malaysia’. Asian Survey, 19/4: 281–296. —— (1983). ‘The 1982 General Elections in Malaysia’. Asian Survey, 23/7: 497–517.

MALAYSIA

183

Moten, A. R., and Mokhtar, T. M. (1997). ‘The 1995 General Elections in Malaysia: A Trend Analysis’. Asian Profile, 5/ 2. National Union of Journalists, Malaysia (1986). Final Report on the 1986 Malaysian Parliamentary & State Elections. Petaling Jaya: Office Automation Sdn Bhd. NSTP Research and Information Services (1991). Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures 1955–1990. Kuala Lumpur: Berita Publishing. Ratnam, K. J., and Milne, R. S. (1967). The Malaysian Parliamentary Elections of 1964. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. —— (1970). ‘The Malaysian Parliamentary Elections of 1969’. Pacific Affairs, 43/2: 203–226. Senftleben, W. (1974). Die Wahlen in Malaysia 1974. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Asienkunde No. 60. Hamburg: Institut für Asienkunde. Suffian, M. (1976). An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia. 2nd edn. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. Vasil, R. K. (1972). The Malaysian General Election of 1969. Singapore/ Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.


Philippines by Christof Hartmann, Graham Hassall, and Soliman M. Santos Jr.70

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview The history of the Republic of the Philippines can be divided in five periods: the pre-colonial, the Spanish (1565–1898), the American (1900–1935), the Commonwealth (1935–1946), and the post-independence period. In turn, since 1946 political development has evolved through three distinctive phases, namely the apparition of a relatively stable two-party system, the period under Martial Law or Marcos' dictatorship (1972–1986; Martial Law ended in 1981) and the re-establishment of democratic politics, since 1986. With some minor exceptions during the Japanese occupation and in the first years of Martial Law, direct elections to national offices have been regarded by the political elites and the population as a central and necessary mechanism of political legitimization. Nevertheless, elections in the Philippines were from the beginning characterized by intense competition and a widespread disregard for the rules. The history of the Philippine legislative system began with the unicameral Malolos Congress, during the short-lived Philippine Republic of 1898–1899, soon replaced by American rule. An appointed all-American Philippine Commission was established in 1901, evolving into a predominantly elected Filipino-controlled legislature, and finally extended to a bicameral system by the Jones Act of 1916. This set-up lasted until November 1935, when the semiindependent Commonwealth of the Philippines was inaugurated. An elected Constitutional Convention drafted a new Constitution following the guidelines provided by the American Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934. It introduced a presidential

70

The authors are grateful to officials at the Commission on Elections, particularly its Chair, Harriet Demetriou; and Celia Romero, Anita Gabriel, Myrna Segundo, and Marlene Rito. They also thank Clarita R. Carlos and Rommel Banlaoi of the National Defence College of the Philippines; Renato Velasco, University of the Philippines; Christina Montiel, Ateneo de Manila University; Julio Cabral Teehankee and Francisco A. Magno of De La Salle University, and Carl Landé of Kansas University for their assistance and access to their archives on Philippine elections.

186

SINGAPORE

system with a unicameral National Assembly. Manuel L. Quezon, elected on 17 September 1935, became the first President of the Commonwealth. In 1941 the Constitution was amended to restore the bicameral legislature, afterwards known as the Congress. A new Constitution was enacted on 7 September 1943, during the Japanese occupation, by an appointed 117-delegate assembly. The Congress was restored in 1945 and functioned as the national legislature until September 1972, when President Marcos declared Martial Law. The Philippines were granted formal independence on 4 July 1964, yet upheld the constitutional framework of the Commonwealth. The political process operated within its bounds until 1972. The Nacionalista Party (NP)—though divided in two wings in the 1920s and 1930s—dominated the elections until the mid-1940s, when it split into two competing groups over the issue of collaboration with the Japanese. President Quezon failed in his attempt to introduce a partyless democracy, and from the 1946 elections onwards a relatively stable two-party system emerged, with the Liberal Party (LP) as the main contender. In the following decades third parties remained unstable, as either their leaders re-joined the NP or the LP, or they were denied full political rights. This was the case of the radical and peasant-supported Democratic Alliance (in 1946). The failure to co-opt its leaders into Parliament led eventually to an armed rebellion in the 1950s. Until 1972 governmental power alternated between the NP and LP. Four incumbent presidents were defeated at the polls, and the regular change of deputies signaled a highly responsive political process. Nevertheless, electoral competitiveness resulted mainly from the low degree of policy differentiation between both major parties. They were coalitions of large and prominent families whose popular base of support depended on their ability to dispense spoils and patronage. Politicians and voters switched frequently from one party to the other, depending on which one had won the elections. Both parties were tainted by factionalism and the existence of ‘rebels’ who ran against the official candidates. These circumstances have won the Philippine party system of this period the label ‘indistinct two-party system’ (Tancangco 1988). The growing discontent with the elite-centered and increasingly costly electoral process led to the calling of a new Constitutional Convention in 1970. The constitutional process was brought to an end on 21 September 1972 by President Marcos' declaration of Martial Law. Political parties were disbanded. The Constitutional Convention, albeit in fear, continued and enacted a new Constitution on 29 November, which provided for a

PHILIPPINES

187

parliamentary system with a ceremonial Head of State elected by the Assembly. The text included also several transitory provisions that granted President Marcos executive, legislative, military, and administrative power. A referendum was held in January 1973 to approve the draft Constitution. In July a new referendum allowed President Marcos to continue in office after 1973 in order to finish the reforms initiated during Martial Law. In the following years referendums were instituted as an alternative mode of political participation by which national and local issues were referred to the people. The re-introduction of partly elected Assemblies (Batasang Pambansa) in 1978 did not alter the ‘constitutional authoritarianism’ of the political system, where the President assumed the offices of both Prime Minister (under the 1973 Constitution) and President (under provisions of the old 1935 Constitution that had been maintained) with indefinite tenure, full veto and emergency rights. The re-establishment of direct presidential elections in 1981, the lifting of Martial Law and semi-competitive elections to Parliament in 1984 revealed the growing lack of legitimacy of Marco's regime. In January 1986 President Marcos held a snap election, amply considered fraudulent. On the 15 February Marcos was declared winner by the Batasang Pambansa, but a People's Power Revolution ousted him. After the bloodless coup of 22–25 February 1986 Corazon Aquino was installed as President. Aquino was backed by a large coalition whose common objective was to put an end to Marcos' dictatorship. She appointed a constitutional commission, whose 1987 Constitution was passed by referendum. Ironically, the imperative of establishing legitimacy as soon as possible deprived the Filipino people of an opportunity for a more profound constitutional dialogue. The 1987 Constitution reinstated a presidential system with a bicameral Congress, yet it apparently brought many pre-martial problems to surface, including the potential for deadlock between the President, the House of Representatives, and the small (24-member) Senate, generally dominated by elite families. The debate over the relative merits of parliamentarism versus presidentialism continued during the 1990s. One of the major legacies of the Marcos period is the party system. Martial Law allowed only one nation-wide political organization; when Marcos re-allowed limited party competition he favored parties with regional constituencies that would not endanger the monopoly of his Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) at the national level. By 1986 both NP and LP had disintegrated, although they participated in the following elections. The very nature of the People's Power Revolution (with the spontaneous mass involvement of grass-roots organizations) led to the emergence

188

SINGAPORE

of new mass-based parties, which tried to integrate cause-oriented groups into politics. The constitutional provision against turncoatism introduced by Marcos in the 1970s was excluded from the 1987 Constitution. The party-list electoral system introduced in 1998, however, did not benefit the established minor parties. Instead of creating a viable multiparty system, elections in the 1990s were characterized by shifting coalitions of unstable political alliances. The strongest parties were often founded just before the elections. For the first time in Philippine history, presidential elections in the 1990s have seen the rise of political outsiders like Estrada, and Presidents elected by pluralities of 20–30 percent of the popular vote.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The first widespread electoral exercise to national institutions took place under American tutelage in 1907. On instructions of US President Wilson the Philippine Commission passed an electoral law (Act No. 1582), which served later as a basis for the Election Law of the Philippine Commonwealth (Commonwealth Act No. 357) of 1939 and the revised Election Code (Republic Act No. 180) of 1947. Since 1978 elections have been regulated by the 1978 Elections Code and the additional Electoral Laws of 1988 and 1994. The Electoral Code of 1907 provided for elections in provinces not inhabited by Moros (i.e. Muslims) or other nonChristian tribes, and for the secret vote. Suffrage was granted to all Christian male citizens over 23 years who could read and write, owned real property, and had resided in the Philippines for at least one year prior to the election. In 1916 the voting age became 21 years. The American administration introduced write-in ballots with the names of all offices contested on one side and on the other space for electors to write the name(s) of their candidate(s) to each office. This peculiar form of ballot (and the requirement to fill in an application form for registration) reinforced hence the literacy requirements of the electoral legislation. A 1924 amendment allowed illiterates to vote in the presence of someone whom they trusted, but the National Assembly's Commonwealth Act No. 233 of September 1937 disenfranchised them again. In 1935 all property qualifications were abolished and suffrage was legally extended to non-Christian voters and to women. Regarding the latter, their right to vote was confirmed—as required by the 1935 Constitution—through a special referendum reserved for women, in April

PHILIPPINES

189

1937. They voted for the first time in the parliamentary elections of November 1938. The literacy requirement remained. One was generally considered literate if one could write one's own name and prepare one's own ballot. Soldiers and officers were granted suffrage in 1947. A permanent system of registration was adopted early in 1964 in order to prepare a new electoral roll, under relatively strict requirements, for the general elections of 1965. The Election Code of 1971 authorized precinct-level registration of voters. Since the 1984 elections special registration has been held before each election/ referendum. The 1973 Constitution—first applied in the Interim Batasang Pambansa elections of 1978—lowered the voting age to 18 years, suppressed formally the literacy requirement and made voting compulsory. The official literacy rate at that time was 83 percent of the population. Under Martial Law President Marcos decreed the creation of an alternative electoral body of about 40,000 citizens assemblies, in which voting age was 15. With the reduction of voting age in 1973 (from 21 to 15), the voting population nearly doubled. Yet this voting age—along with the citizens assemblies as electoral body—was restricted to referendums. When Marcos re-established national elections to Parliament voting age was set at 18, in compliance with the 1973 Constitution. Abstention from voting in any election or referendum was penalized with up to six-month imprisonment or deprivation of the right to vote and to hold public offices for six years. (P.D. Nos. 210 and 229, 8 June 1973). If applied, over seven million citizens would have gone to prison in 1981; yet there was no systematic effort to penalize non-participants. In 1987 compulsory voting was repealed. During the period of American occupation a total of ten legislatures were elected at three-year intervals (first: 1907, last: 1934). Since the Jones Law of 1916 Parliament was bicameral. For both directly elected chambers a plurality system was applied, in single-member constituencies (SMCs) to the House of Representatives (whose number increased from 78 in 1907 to 94 in 1934), and in 12 two-member constituencies (with two votes per voter) for the Senate. The size of the Senate has remained 24 seats ever since. If necessary, legislative seats were replaced through byelections. During the Commonwealth period three legislatures were elected, in 1935, 1938, and 1941. The new presidential Constitution of 1935 introduced a unicameral National Assembly, but the 1940 constitutional amendment re-established the bicameral system, which remained until 1972. After formal independence in 1946 the basic features of the electoral system remained. Between 1941 and 1951, however, voting took place

190

SINGAPORE

in multi-member constituencies (MMCs), and electors could write a party name on the ballot paper instead of the names of single candidates, thus voting for the official candidates of the party for all elective posts. For the 1953 elections, the plurality system in SMCs was re-introduced. In 1947 the term of the House of Representatives was extended to four years, and the term of the Senate to six years, with one third (i.e. eight members) renewed every two years in a national eight-member constituency by plurality (eight votes). General elections took place every four years on the second Tuesday of November. The number of deputies (and single-member constituencies) in the lower chamber was constitutionally limited to 120, and grew steadily from 98 (1946) to 110 (in 1969). All attempts to correct the original, very unequal distribution of SMCs (per population) failed, and the Re-Apportionment Law of 1961 (R.A. 3040) was rejected by the Supreme Court because it favored the governing party instead of creating a more balanced distribution of constituencies. The size of the constituencies ranged in population from 10,000 to over one million per deputy (1960; and over two millions in 1970). For the 1970 Constitutional Convention the number of seats was raised to 320 and the more populous congressional SMCs became multi-member delegate constituencies. With the declaration of Martial Law the Congress was abolished and in 1978 replaced by a unicameral National Assembly (Interim Batasang Pambansa IBP) with 190 members elected for a six-year term. 165 deputies were elected by plurality in 13 multi-member constituencies (corresponding to the regions, size ranging from 8 to 21 seats, average size 12.7, multiple vote). Additionally, 14 representatives were drawn from various sectors—six from the youth and four each from agricultural and industrial labor—as well as 11 deputies chosen by the President among the members of the Cabinet. In the MMCs block-voting was introduced again, but the option of voting for individual candidates remained. The Electoral Commission had to issue guidelines to define valid votes. Especially problematic were ballots where voters had written, in the space provided for Party/ Group Voting, the names of parties which had not fielded complete line-ups of candidates, and, at the same time, had voted for individual candidates who did not belong to that party/ group. The IBP was succeeded by the regular Batasang Pambansa (1984–1986), composed of 200 members (183 elected). Block-voting was abolished for the 1984 elections, and at the same time the number of constituencies increased (45 SMCs, 44 two-member, nine three-member, eight four-member, two five-member, three six-member, and one seven-member

PHILIPPINES

191

constituency; average size 2.0, voters had as many votes as there were seats to be distributed). The 1987 Constitution re-established the basic conditions of premartial-law electoral politics. Simultaneous elections were held for the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, using plurality system in SMCs for the House of Representatives (now with 200 members) and in one national 12-member constituency for the Senate (one half reelected every three years). The term of Congress was again reduced to three years. The 1987 Constitution provided also for a fifth of the seats to be distributed among registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. During the first three consecutive terms one half of these seats would be elected through a party-list system, the other drawn, by election or selection, from the peasant sector, labor, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, as well as from women, youth, and other sectors, except the religious one. In 1987, 1992 and 1995, however, this provision could only partly be implemented because the necessary legislation had not been passed, and the President appointed a few additional members. For the 1998 elections to Congress the additional national list system was introduced (for details see 1.3 below). Since the Commonwealth period (1935) the Philippines have had a presidential form of government. The President was initially elected by plurality for a single term of six years, but under the first elected President Quezon the tenure was reduced from six to four years, with one consecutive re-election allowed. Marcos, when failing to extend his rule legally after December 1997 (the definite end of this second term), urged the Constitutional Convention to adopt a parliamentary system (in order to continue ruling as Prime Minister). When the Convention considered adjourning until after the 1973 elections, Marcos declared Martial Law to guarantee his perpetual rule. During Martial Law Marcos organized plebiscites in 1973 and 1977 to legitimize his rule. Direct presidential elections were re-established in 1981 (under the modified 1973 Constitution), with a term of six years and no restrictions on tenure. After 1987, however, the principle of a single presidential term was reintroduced. Since 1935 there have been also direct elections to Vice-Presidency. Although presidential candidates indicated their preference for a vice-presidential candidate, they were not elected together on a single ticket, but in separate contests. In fact, on two occasions, an elected President had to co-operate with a Vice-President who had stood on another ticket. As the 1973 Constitution provided for a parliamentary form of government with a Prime Minister, no vicepresidential elections took place in

192

SINGAPORE

1981. In 1984 a constitutional revision reintroduced the direct election of the Vice-President, and according to a subsequent new additional provision (applied only in the 1986 snap elections) if in a vote cast for the presidential candidate of a party the space reserved for the vice-presidency was left blank, the vote was considered a vote for the vice-presidential candidate of the same party. On the contrary, if in a vote cast for the vice-presidential candidate the space reserved for the presidency was left blank, the vote was not counted as a vote for the presidential candidate of the same party. Since the first elections in 1907 all candidates to Parliament (and later to Presidency) had to be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and registered voters (literacy requirement). Women had the right to candidacy since 1937, when women suffrage was introduced. Under the 1935 Constitution Presidents had to be at least 45 years and had to have lived in the country for the ten years immediately preceding the election. The 1973 Constitution increased the minimum age to 50, but the 1984 constitutional revisions lowered it again to 40 years, and the 1987 Constitution confirmed it. To be eligible, Senators had to be at least 35, and candidates for deputy at least 25 years. In addition, Senators must have resided two years in the country, and deputies one year in the constituency where they contend. Candidates also had to fulfill the literacy requirements, although they had been abolished in 1972 for suffrage. Furthermore, they might either run as independents or as candidates for a political party. No further conditions were applied. For the 1934 and 1970 elections to the Constitutional Assembly the same provisions applied as for the House of Representatives elections. The main challenge for the authorities has been how to develop and maintain the ability to conduct free and fair elections. Voters' illiteracy has given rise to continuous fraud, because unscrupulous candidates did not hesitate to bribe the electoral officers who assisted illiterates in writing their ballots. A constitutional amendment of 1940 (Act No. 607) established the independent Commission on Elections. It comprised representatives of the major political parties and resorted to the existing network of schoolteachers as election supervisors. The Electoral Commission was created as a reaction to the widespread dissatisfaction with the manner in which the former Philippine Legislature had exercised its authority to judge the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members (cf. Hayden 1947). Election contests were usually decided upon the basis of politics rather than of justice. Often no decision was reached until the last weeks of the three-year period for which the Legislature was chosen. The ‘mixed’ commission which was provided for

PHILIPPINES

193

(i.e. three justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and six members chosen by the National Assembly) was a compromise between those who preferred the British system of assigning election contests to the courts and those who believed that the Assembly should not be denied the authority to determine who, legally, were its members. With regard to presidential and vice-presidential elections, however, the Congress maintained some competencies (centralization of results, declaration of winners). Until the 1987 elections (with the exception of 1978) only the representatives of the two major political parties—i.e. the governing and opposition party (in 1987 the regional dominant opposition party DOP)—were full members of the precinct Board of Election Inspectors. Therefore, candidates were strongly inclined to join one of the two major parties as a way to have a guarantee in ballot counting. In the elections during the Marcos era a number of opposition candidates decided to have double, triple or even quadruple listings of party affiliation in order to avail themselves of the DOP's privileges (election inspectors, official copies of election returns). Since 1987 all registered parties can appoint poll-watchers, but party representatives are no longer members of the Board of Election Inspectors. The Electoral Commission has made continuous attempts to end the widespread mal-practices that plague Philippine elections—except during the Martial Law period, when the integrity of the Commission itself was questioned. The main deficiencies of the democratic process in the Philippines are the fraudulent practices, including ‘flying voters’, disenfranchisement of voters of the opposition, ballot tampering, vote buying, and intimidation and violence. Electoral inspectors had to be especially careful in order to ascertain the validity of those ballots where voters had to write forty names (as in 1987 and 1992). The independent National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) was established in time for the 1951 elections, in response to the massive irregularities experienced during the 1949 elections. Although later disbanded, it re-appeared in the 1970s. Its observation and reporting of the 1986 presidential election (involving more than 500,000 volunteers) was largely determinant for the fate of Marcos' regime.

194

SINGAPORE

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of 1987; Republic Act No. 180 of 1947 (Revised Election Law); Republic Act No. 6646 of 1988 (Additional Election Law); Republic Act No. 607 of 1940 (providing for the establishment of the Comelec); Republic Act No. 7941 of 1994 (Party-list System Act).

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied to citizens aged 18 or over. Voting is not compulsory. Voters have to reside in the country for at least one year prior to the election.

Elected National Institutions: President and Vice-President, both directly and separately elected for a term of six years. In the case of the President, no re-election is allowed, the Vice-President may serve a second consecutive term. The Parliament (Kongreso) is bicameral. The Constitution provides for a House of Representatives (Kapulungan Ng mga Kinatawan) with an upper limit of 260 seats elected for a three-year term. The Senate (Senado) has 24 members, elected for a six-year term, one half of the membership is renewed every 3 years. The Constitution has also set term limits for Senators (two consecutive terms, i.e. 12 years) and for representatives (three consecutive terms or nine years). Vacancies are filled through by-elections. The elections to President, Vice-President, the House of Representatives, and half of the Senate members are held on the same day and on a single ballot paper, but with separate votes.

Nomination of Candidates -Presidential Elections: Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines, literate, aged over 40 years, and residing in the country for the last ten years prior to the election may candidate for the office of President and Vice-President.

-Elections for the House of Representatives: Candidates have to be natural-born citizens, qualified and literate electors and at least 25 years of age. Nominees for the plurality contests in the SMCs may run either as independents or on a party ticket, and they must have resided in their constituency for at least one year preceding the poll. No deposit is requested, but candidates have to pay for the legally prescribed distribution of their candidature certificates in all precincts, i.e. an average of 1,000 copies for the candidates to the House of Representatives. In 1998, 853 candidates were allowed to run in the 206 SMC contests.

PHILIPPINES

195

Only registered organized groups may compete for the PR contest, but the five parties with the largest representation in the outgoing chamber are disqualified. In order to gain registration, a political party must have regional offices in at least nine of the 16 regions of the country, and support in more than 50 percent of the cities and provinces where its candidates run. Furthermore, they must have identifiable leadership, membership and structure. It is considered that civil servants have resigned their position when they fill a certificate of candidacy for election. Nominees must be bona fide members of the party or organization they seek to represent for at least ninety days preceding the day of the election. The Electoral Law also recognizes so-called sectoral parties and organizations. Sectoral parties are organized groups of citizens revolving around different interests, such as Labor, Women, Peasants, Youth, Urban Poor, Overseas Workers, Indigenous Cultural Communities, Fisher Folk, Elderly, Veterans, Handicapped, and Professionals. A sectoral organization is a group of qualified voters bound together by similar physical attributes or characteristics, or by employment, interests or concerns. All registered parties and organizations must submit a list of not less than five candidates to the Electoral Commission. Candidates that have lost their bid for an elective office in the immediately preceding election are excluded from candidacy.

-Elections for the Senate: Senate Candidates have to be natural-born citizens, qualified and literate electors, at least 35 years, and have resided in the country for at least two years before the poll. Nominees have to pay for the legally prescribed distribution of their candidature certificates in all precincts, i.e. over 200,000 copies for the Senate elections.

Electoral System -Presidential Elections: Plurality system.

-Elections for the House of Representatives: Segmented system with compensatory elements. Each elector has two votes. 206 seats are distributed by plurality in SMCs. Boundary delimitation is based on political subdivisions and the number of registered voters. As a rule, each province, disregarding its voting population, must have one SMC (the smallest province had approximately 8,000 voters in 1998). The Constitution orders for constituency boundaries to be reconstituted and redrawn every five years. Up to 52 seats (20 percent of total seats) are allotted in a separate ballot on a national list according to proportional representation. Since the five strongest parties of the last election must not participate in the allocation of the PRmandates, a compensatory element favoring the

196

SINGAPORE

smaller parties is introduced in the segmented electoral system. All other parties, but also sectoral parties/ organizations may present five-candidate lists. Parties need two percent of the total valid votes for the PR-lists in order to gain parliamentary representation. They obtain one seat for every two percent of the total votes, but can hold a maximum of three seats. In 1998 some 122 sectoral organizations and coalitions registered for participation, only ten of which reached the necessary threshold. Thus, as the electoral law does not provide for any further distribution of the remaining seats, only 14 of the possible 52 seats were filled.

-Elections for the Senate: Plurality system in one national (twelve-member) constituency. Every voter has as many votes as there are seats to be filled, i.e. twelve votes.

Organizational Context of Elections: The Electoral Commission is a permanent constitutional organ. It organizes elections in all their aspects—including judicial resolution of disputes—except for presidential and vice-presidential elections, where the Congress is responsible for the centralization and publication of the results. The Chairman and the six Commissioners are chosen by the President of the Republic for seven years; reappointment is not allowed.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Tables for the elections before 1940 are based on secondary sources, mainly Forbes (1928)—who resorts to the official data of the American administration—, Hayden (1947), and Carlos/ Banlaoi (1996). Given the high inconsistency of the data of this period, these should be regarded cautiously. Since its establishment in 1940, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) has reported the electoral results. The Commission issued its first comprehensive report after the 1951 elections, in a format which has been adopted in every subsequent election. The following tables are based on these official data. Figures for the early referendums are from Cornejo (1939) and Orendain (1984). Referendums since 1940 have been recorded by the Comelec, but often not published in official reports. Therefore, data are based on summary reports from the Comelec (1984) or on secondary sources that cite official Comelec data, such as de Guzman (1977) or Tancangco (1992). In reporting electoral data Comelec had to contend with the basic givens of the electoral system, which often did not allow for accurate and consistent data collection. Some characteristics of the vote are thus not

PHILIPPINES

197

recorded in the official statistics. Electors had several votes for each ballot, i.e., a single voter voted for several offices at the national level (sometimes having several votes for one office), but also at the provincial and local levels. So far, electoral laws have not provided for a separate tabulation of invalid and blank votes at the precinct level, and thus no aggregation was drawn up at the province or national level. A valid ballot paper might thus contain valid votes for one office and invalid votes, i.e. nuisance entries or blank rows, for another office, but only the valid ballot paper and the valid votes are recorded statistically. In the 1998 elections the number of valid votes for the party lists were only one third of the votes for the SMCs, but no specific statistics were made available with regard to the millions of ballot papers with invalid votes. The official reports indicate thus the total number of valid ballots and, for each elected office, the valid votes obtained by each candidate. Additions of valid votes of candidates to a national aggregated sum of total valid votes and totals of invalid/ blank votes have been calculated by the authors. The number of invalid votes includes ballot papers with blank rows for the elective office. Official canvassing, counting, and reporting would generally take months (in the 1980s and 1990s there were some 400 million valid votes for the Senate), and often candidates were declared winners before all precincts had been properly counted. Once the winners were declared the interest in the exact figures ceased. The data on referendums and elections of the Marcos period are not reliable, as shown by several authors (Manlapaz 1986, Tancangco 1992: Voting in the barangays was initially viva voce, no proper registration took place, some assemblies did not meet at all, and negative votes were often not recorded. The irregularities of the Marcos era led to the introduction of quick counts by Comelec and Namfrel, a common feature of elections since the 1980s. In the snap presidential elections of 1986 which led to Marcos' removal from power there were thus three parallel counting procedures that brought about widely differing outcomes and served as the main argument for the opposition in order not to accept the results. Quick counts rarely cover the whole country and cannot produce reliable data to be included in this handbook. Yet they do reveal the remaining irregularities of the electoral recording resulting from the extraordinarily complicated ballot system, with up to 40 hand-written names of candidates for several offices listed on one single ballot paper. Counting and reporting is so time-consuming that in the 1980s and 1990s the Congress was formally constituted with only four fifths of the deputies formally declared winners. Detailed data are often released

198

SINGAPORE

years later and are still inconsistent. However, the proposals for a two-ballot system, submitted by Namfrel in the 1980s, have been withdrawn. The structure of Philippine politics causes additional problems. As Comelec data only give results at constituency level all tables given in 2.7 (absolute votes for parties/ alliances at the national level) are calculated by the authors. During the two-party system of the 1950s and 1960s there were regularly several candidates of one party standing for one seat in the same constituency. There were additionally independent candidates, who actually declared their loyalty to one of the major parties. Since 1987 the opposite phenomenon has been common, i.e. candidates running for several parties. In the 1992 elections, for example, one candidate ran under seven different banners at a time. At the constituency level there are varying ad hoc alliances of parties that are actually fierce opponents at the national level. It is therefore very difficult to aggregate these results at the national level, and the tables reflect the complexity of electoral politics in this period. The 1998 elections, however, have been characterized by a more orderly and partisan affiliation of constituency candidates. For the Senate elections ‘sample ballots’ of candidates were distributed to local party leaders in order for them to hand them out to voters, who might take them into the polling booth. Sample ballots allow their originators to put together their own slates of recommended candidates, which may include popular members of a rival political party, to the detriment of their own party-mates (cf. Lande 1965). Senate elections have remained personality contests, so national aggregation of party votes is of limited relevance.

199

PHILIPPINES

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups D'etat Year 1907 1909 1912 1916 1919 1922 1925 1928 1931 1934 1935 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1943 1946 1947 1947 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1973 1975 1976 1977 1977 1978 1981 1981 1984 1986 1987 1992 1995 1998 a b c d e f

a

b

Presidential elections


17/09

Lower Chamber 30/07 02/11 04/06 06/06 03/06 06/06 02/06 05/06 02/06 05/06 17/09

Upper Chamber

06/06 03/06 06/06 02/06 05/06 02/06 05/06

Elections for Constit. Convention

26/06

08/11 11/11 25/09c 23/04

11/11

11/11

23/04

23/04

09/11

09/11

10/11

10/11

12/11

12/11

14/11

14/11

09/11

09/11

11/11

11/11

11/11 09/11 13/11 10/11 08/11 12/11 10/11 14/11 12/11 09/11 14/11 11/11 09/11

16/06 07/02 11/05 11/05

07/04 (1st) 27/04 (2nd)

11/05 11/05 08/05 11/05

24/10 18/06

11/03

14/11 10/11

07/04 16/06 27/01

14/05 11/05 11/05 08/05 11/05

Coups d'état

14/05 30/04

10–15/01 e 27–28/07 27–28/02 16–17/10 17/08 16–17/12

27–28/07e

16–17/12

Referendums

02/02

21/09d

25/02f

Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections were held separately (except for the 1943 and 1981 elections). From 1935 to 1938 and during Martial Law (1972 to 1986) there was a unicameral National Assembly. Indirect election by appointed members of advisory Parliament and provincial and municipal officers (under Japanese occupation). Declaration of Martial Law by elected President Marcos; suppression of constitutional institutions and political parties. Referendum on the continuation of the extra-constitutional rule of President Marcos. Military coup d'état leading to the People's Revolution and acceptance of Aquino's electoral victory.

200

SINGAPORE


1907 1909 1912 1916 1919 1922 1925 1928 1931 1934 1934 1935 1935 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1946 1947 1947 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1970 1971 1973 1973 1975 1976

Type of electiona

NA NA NA C C C C C C C CA Ref Pr/NA Ref NA Ref Ref Pr/C Pr/C Ref S Pr/C S Pr/C S Pr/C S Pr/C S Pr/C Ref/S Pr/C CA S Ref Pr/Ref Ref Ref

Populationb

Registered voters

Ballots cast

7,635,426 7,635,426 8,276,802 8,831,618 10,314,310 10,314,310 11,234,409 11,913,167 12,420,927 13,055,220 13,055,220 13,099,405 13,099,405 15,445,000 — 16,000,303 — 16,971,100 18,846,800 19,067,000 19,067,000 19,234,182 21,211,000 23,160,933 24,203,000 25,142,000 26,943,000 28,041,070 30,161,010 32,030,000 34,129,648 36,366,940 36,684,486 38,575,300 40,732,340 40,732,340 42,070,660 44,022,580

Total number 104,966 208,845 249,805 702,700 670,867 713,889 1,017,019 — — — — 1,935,972 1,600,000 — — — — — 2,898,604 3,096,413 4,233,528 5,135,814 4,754,307 5,603,231 6,487,061 6,763,897 7,822,472 8,483,568 9,691,121 9,962,345 9,744,604 10,300,898 9,811,431 11,661,909 22,883,632 23,700,000 24,390,269 26,167,635

Total Number 97,251 192,975 241,813 281,403 637,324 685,333 884,806 873,140 1,001,962 1,121,040 — 1,258,009c 843,678 487,817c 1,772,460 — 1,318,896c 1,638,000c 2,596,880 1,971,155 3,264,423 3,579,917 4,391,109 4,326,706 5,046,488 5,108,112 6,393,724 6,738,805 7,712,019 7,610,051 7,957,019 8,202,793 6,682,905 9,419,568 19,908,760 20,100,000 23,109,780 23,740,107

% pop. 1.4 2.7 3.0 8.0 6.5 6.9 9.1 — — — — 14.8 12.2 — — — — — 15.4 16.2 22.2 26.7 22.4 24.2 26.8 26.9 29.0 30.3 32.1 31.1 28.6 28.3 26.7 30.2 56.2 58.2 58.0 59.4

% reg. voters 92.7 92.4 96.8 40.0 95.0 96.0 87.0 — — — — 65.0 52.7 — — — — — 89.6 63.7 77.1 69.7 92.4 77.2 77.8 75.5 81.7 79.4 79.6 76.4 81.7 79.6 68.1 80.8 87.0 84.1 94.8 89.7

% pop. 1.3 2.5 2.9 3.2 6.2 6.6 7.9 7.3 8.1 8.6 — 9.6 6.4 — — — — 9.7 13.8 10.3 17.1 18.6 20.7 18.7 20.9 20.3 23.7 24.0 25.6 23.8 22.2 22.6 18.2 24.2 48.9 49.3 54.9 53.9

201

PHILIPPINES

1977 1978 1981 1981 1984 1984 1986 1987 1987 1992 1995 1998 a b

c

Pr/Ref NA Ref Pr/Ref Ref NA Pr Ref C Pr/C C Pr/C

45,059,008 46,119,840 49,525,232 49,525,232 53,528,152 53,528,152 55,838,940 57,034,992 57,034,992 63,413,540 68,616,536 73,130,985

23,464,213 21,464,213 25,611,145 26,986,451 — 24,822,438 26,278,744 25,026,995 26,569,539 32,141,079 36,415,154 33,873,665

52.1 46.5 51.7 54.5 — 46.4 47.1 43.9 46.6 50.7 53.1 46.3

22,003,192 18,356,849 17,700,124 21,843,829 13,765,507 22,205,284 20,716,075 22,337,112 22,739,995 24,254,954 25,736,505 29,285,775

93.8 85.5 69.1 80.9 — 89.5 78.8 89.3 85.6 75.5 70.7 86.5

48.8 39.8 35.7 44.1 25.7 41.5 37.1 39.2 39.9 38.2 37.5 40.0

Pr = President, NA = National Assembly, C = Congress, S = Senate, CA = Constitutional Assembly, Ref = Referendum. Population data are based on the Census of 1903 for 1907 and 1909, Census 1910 for 1912, estimation 1913 for 1916, Census 1918 for 1919 and 1922, estimation 1924 for 1925, Census 1939, Census 1948 for 1949, Census 1960 (27,087,685) for 1961, Census 1970, 1975, 1980, 1990, 1995. The estimates for 1916, 1925, 1928, 1931, 1934, 1935, 1941, 1946, 1955, 1957, and 1959 are taken from the Statesman's Yearbook. In 1939 the official literacy rate was 48.8%; in 1948 the literacy rate was 59.8%, in 1960 72%. Number of valid votes.

202

SINGAPORE

2.3 Abbreviations ABA AKBAYAN AKO

ALAGAD APEC BAYAN BLKNNL BUTIL CCA CIA COCOFED COOP NATCCO CP CUP DA DP DSP ESP GAD KAMPI KBL KPP LP LABAN (1) LABAN (2) LAKAS LAMMP LDP LE LM LSB NCP NP

Alyansang Bayanihan ng mag Magsasaka ManggagawangBukid at Mangingisda (Alliance of United Farmers) Akbayan (Citizens' Action Party) Ako or Adhikain at Kilusan Ng Ordinaryong-Tao Para Sa Lupa, Pabahay, Hanapbuhay at Kaunlaran (Cause and Movement of Ordinary People for Land, Housing, Jobs, and Progress) Partido ng Maralitang Lungsod (Party of the Urban Poor) Association of the Philippine Electric Cooperatives Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (New Nationalist Alliance) Bagong Lipunan-Kilusan ng Nagkakaisang Nacionalista, Liberal (New Society Movement for a Unified Nacionalista-Liberal Party) Luzon Farmers' Party Concerned Citizens' Aggrupation Confederation of Ilocano Associations Philippine Coconut Producers Federation Cooperative Natcco Network Party Citizen's Party Citizens Union Progress Democratic Alliance Democratic Party Dominion Status Party Emancipated Scientists Party Grand Alliance for Democracy Kabalikat ñg Malayang Pilipino (Partner of the Free Pilipino) Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (New Society Movement) Kilusan Para sa Pambansang Pagpapabago (National Renewal Movement) Liberal Party (Partido Liberal) Lakas ñg Bayan (People's Power) [1978] Lakas ñg Bansa (Nation's Power) [1987–] Lakas ñg Sambayanan (Strength of People's Power) Laban ñg Makabayang Masang Pilipino (Struggle of the Philippine Masses) Laban ñg Demokratikong Pilipino (Struggle of the Democratic Filipinos) Lakas ng EDSA (Strength of EDSA) Lapiang Manggagawa (Workers Party) Lapiang Bagong Silang Nationalist Citizens Party Nacionalista Party

PHILIPPINES

NPC NPDP NSP NUCD PBP PD PDN PDP PDSP PF PLP PMP PNB PNP PPP (1) PPP (2) PPSP PROMDI PRP PSBP PSP PVDMGG REPORMA RP RPP SCFO SCP SDP UMDP UNIDO YDM YP

203

Nationalist Peoples' Coalition Nacionalista and Democratic Coalesced National Socialist Party National Union of Christian Democrats Partido ng Bagong Pilipino Partido Democrata Partido Democrata Nacional Partido Demokratiko ñg Pilipinas (Philippine Democratic Party) Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (Philippine Democratic Socialist Party) Popular Front Philippine Labor Party Partido ñg Masang Pilipino (Party of the Philippine Masses) Partido ñg Bayan (Party of the Nation) Partido Nacionalista ng Pilipinas (Nacionalist Party of the Philippines) Partido Pilipino (Progressive Party of the Philippines) Party for Philippine Progress [1965–1969] Philippine Pro-Socialist Party Progressive Movement For Devolution Of Initiative Political Party Of Central Visayas People's Reform Party Public Service Bloc Party Partido Sambayanang Pilipino People's (Veterans) Democratic Movement for Good Government Reporma-Lapiang Manggagawa (Party for Democratic Reforms) Republican Party Reformist Party of the Philippines National Federation of Small Coconut Farmers Organization Sovereign Citizens Party Social Democratic Party United Muslim Democratic Party United Nationalist Democratic Organization Youth Democratic Movement Young Philippines

204

SINGAPORE

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1907–1998 Party / Alliance

Years 1907–1998c 1907–1916 1907, 1935, 1938e 1909 1916, 1938e, 1941 1919 1919–1931 1922–1934 1925–1934

Elections contested Pra 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Pab 33 4 3 1 3 1 5 5 4

NP Progresista Partyd RP (I) Liguero PDN Liga Popular Nacionalista PDf Partido Nacionalista Colectivistag Partido Nacionalista Consolidadosh Partido Pro-Independencia Nazionalista Sakdalista Party NSP Allied Minorities DA LPj Laborite Party Modernist Party NP (Osmena Wing) PF Philippine Masses Party Popular Democratic Party RP (II) YP Christian Democrats CP DP LP (Avelino Wing) People's Party APOY-NPPW Federal Party (I) NPDP Lapiang Makabansa National Patriotic Party NCPk Partido'y Mahirap PPPk (1) PVDMGG United Rural Community Party Women's Party

1934i, 1935

0

2

1934–1938e 1935–1938e 1938 1946 1946–1971, 1984–1998 1946 1946 1946 1946 1946 1946 1946, 1953, 1965, 1967 1946, 1953, 1965, 1969, 1978 1949 1949, 1953 1949, 1953, 1957 1949 1949, 1953 1951 1953–1961 1953 1957 1957 1957, 1959, 1961, 1965 1957 1957, 1959l, 1961l 1957, 1969 1957

0 1 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

3 2 1 1 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 1

1957

0

1

205

PHILIPPINES

Cooperative Democratic Party DSP Allied Party PPP (2) Partido ñg Bansa Labor Party New Leaf Party PPSP RPP Bagong Pilipino Bicol Saro BLKNNL CCA CIA Consumers' Party CUP ESP KBL LABAN LSB Mindanao Alliance PBP PLP PSP Pusyon Bisava SCP YDM Federal Party (II) PDP-Laban UNIDO SDP GAD NUCD Partido Panaghiusa PNB PNP LDPr Lakas-NUCD NPC PDSP PRP PMP LM ABA ABANSE! PINAY

1959

0

1

1961 1965 1965, 1969 1965, 1967, 1969 1965, 1969 1965, 1969 1965, 1969 1965, 1969 1969 1978 1978 1978, 1984, 1987 1978 1978 1978 1978, 1987 1978–1998 1978, 1984m, 1986n, 1987o 1978 1978, 1984, 1987 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978, 1981 1978 1981 1984m, 1986n, 1987o, 1992p, 1995, 1998q 1984, 1986n, 1987o 1986 1987 1987o 1987, 1992, 1995 1987 1987, 1992, 1995 1992, 1995s, 1998t 1992, 1995s, 1998u 1992, 1995, 1998t 1992, 1995, 1998 1992, 1995, 1998 1992, 1995, 1998t 1995–1998 1998 1998

1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

0 0 2 3 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 6 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 5

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0

2 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 1

206 AKBAYAN AKO Aksyon Demokratiko ALAGAD APEC BUTIL COCOFED COOP NATCCO GABAYBAYAN KAMPI KPP LAMMP Partido ng Bansang Marangal PROMDI REPORMA SANLAKAS SCFO Veterans Federation a b c

d

e f g

h i j

k

l

m n o p q r s t u

SINGAPORE

1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998u 1998 1998t 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

Includes candidature at vice-presidential elections. Total: 13. Total: 33. In the elections of 1925, 1928, 1931, 1934 and 1935 the NP was split, and one—or both—of its wings contested under separate names (Partido Nacionalista Colectivista, Partido Nacionalista Consolidados; Partido Pro-Independencia Nacionalista). All wings reunited in 1937. Since 1978 they re-emerged in various alliances, in 1987 one wing as part of LABAN, and one wing as part of the GAD. Succeeded in 1907 from the US-loyal Partido Federal, which had contended local elections under American control between 1900 and 1905. Dissolved in 1916. Part of the Allied Minorities alliance. Merger of Progresista Party and Partido Democrata Nacional. In 1925 joined the United Front Party. Dissolved in 1932. Succeeded the Nacionalista Party after the re-integration of Colectivista-wing in 1924. In 1935 it contested under the label Nacionalista Coalition Party. Emerged from NP-splinter. Emerged from Nacionalista Party in 1933. Liberal Party in 1946 still under the name Nacionalista Party-Liberal Wing. Since 1984 with two separate wings, the first, Kalaw participated in the 1984 elections (under the UNIDO banner), and the second Salonga boycotted all Marcos elections. In 1987 one wing was part of LABAN and one wing part of the GAD. In 1992 built a coalition with the PDP. In 1957 the Citizen's Party split into two rival parties: Nationalist Citizens' Party (merger with the 1956-founded Nationalist Party) and Progressive Party of the Philippines. In the 1959 elections PPP ran a separate Senate ticket with disgruntled NP and LP candidates; in 1961 PPP united with LP for vicepresidential and senatorial race under the alliance of United Opposition. As part of UNIDO. Corazon Aquino as common presidential candidate of PDP, LABAN, and UNIDO. Part of Aquino's presidential coalition. In 1992 coalition of PDP and Liberal Party. As PDP-Laban. Successor party to LABAN. Lakas-NUCD and LDP presented a common list. Coalition of PMP, LDP and NPC, created in 1997. Lakas-NUCD in coalition with the 1997-founded KAMPI (of former LDP members).

207

PHILIPPINES

2.5 Referendums Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a b

1935a Total number 1,935,972 — — 1,258,009 1,213,046 44,963

1937b Total number — — — 487,817 443,771 44,046

% – — — 65.0 96.4 3.6

% – — — — 91.0 9.0

Constitutional referendum. Plebiscite on female suffrage, reserved for women. Commonwealth Act No. 34. The 1935 Constitution required for 300,000 qualified women electors to vote affirmatively. The results were published as NA Resolution No. 75 of 7 September 1937.

For the Constitutional Referendum on 24/10/1939 no data were available. It concerned an amendment dealing with trade relations with the United States (Commonwealth Act No. 357). 1940a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a b c

d

Total Number % — – — Prop.Ib — 1,318,896 1,043,712 275,184

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No b

Total number %

Prop.IIc — 1,312,671 1,072,039 240,632

Prop.IIId — 1,305,526 1,017,606 287,920

— — — 79.1 20.9

— — 81.7 18.3

— — 77.9 22.1

Constitutional referendum (Commonwealth Act No. 517). Proposition I asked voters to approve (yes) or disapprove (no) the establishment of a Bicameral Legislature. Proposition II asked the voter to approve or disapprove the new term of office of President and Vice-President and the possibility of one re-election, but not more than eight consecutive years. Proposition III asked voters about the establishment of a Commission on Elections.

Year

a

Total number %

1947a Total number 3,096,413 1,971,155 — 1,971,149 1,744,893 226,256

% – 63.7 — — 88.5 11.5

1967b Total number 9,744,604 7,957,019 — — — —

% – 81.7 — — — —

Constitutional referendum, granting US citizens the right to dispose and use Philippine natural resources. Constitutional referendum. No detailed data are available. Proposition I concerned the amendment to Sections 5 and 16, Article VI of the Constitution—not approved. Proposition II regarded the division of the Province of Agusan into two separated provinces (Agusan del Sur and Agusan del Norte)—approved.

Year Registered voters

10–15/01/1973a Total number 22,883,632

% –

27–28/07/1973b Total number 23,700,000

% –

208 Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

b

SINGAPORE

19,908,760 — 15,720,430 14,976,561 743,869

87.0 — — 95.3 4.7

20,100,000 — 19,908,760 18,052,016 1,856,744

84.8 — — 90.7 9.3

Referendum in which the Citizens Assemblies voted for (1) the ratification of the 1973 Constitution; and at the same time (2) the suspension of the convening of the Interim National Assembly provided for in the same Constitution; (3) the continuation of Martial Law and (4) a moratorium on elections for a period of at least seven years (not conducted by the Comelec). Regarding question (3): ‘whether people would still like a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution’, 14,298,814 voters answered that ‘there was no need for a plebiscite and that the vote of the Barangays should be considered as a vote in a plebiscite’. The question was: ‘Under the present Constitution the President, if he so desires, can continue in office after 1973. Do you want President Marcos to continue after 1973 and finish the reforms he has initiated under Martial Law?’ A new feature in the referendum was the provision of ‘remark sheets’ on which voters could write down remarks about the present administration and explain their votes.

For the referendums in 1975, 1976 and August 1977 no detailed data were available. Number of registered voters and votes cast are reported in table 2.2. The 1975 Referendum asked whether President Marcos could restructure local governments whose elective terms had expired in 1973 and appoint local elective officials, and allow Martial Law to continue. In the 1976 Referendum the first vote decided the continuation of Martial Law, and the second ratified nine proposed amendments to the Constitution, allowing inter alia President Marcos to exercise the constitutional powers of Prime Minister under the 1972 Constitution, and of the President under the 1935 Constitution, and substituting the Interim

209

PHILIPPINES

Batasang Pambansa for the Interim National Assembly (which had actually never convened). The August 1977 Referendum asked voters to endorse new regional and provincial boundaries. All referendums were approved. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

b

16/12/1977a Total number 23,464,213 22,003,192 — — — —

% 94.6 — — — —

07/04/1981b Total number 25,611,145 17,700,124 — 17,412,440 13,847,765 3,564,675

% 69.1 — — — —

It was approved by majority that President Ferdinand E. Marcos would continue in office as incumbent President and Prime Minister after the organization of the Interim Batasang Pambansa, pursuant to Amendment No. 3 of the 1976 Constitutional Amendments. Constitutional referendum which introduced a modified parliamentary system, created the Executive Committee on succession, reintroduced a two-party system, and forbid elective officials to change party affiliation, pursuant to BP Law No. 122.

On 16/06/1981 a referendum was held simultaneously with the presidential election over the immediate celebration of the barangay elections, pursuant to Proclamation No. 2088. It was approved, detailed data are not available. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

b

1984a Total number — 13,765,507 — — — —

% – — — — — —

1987b Total number 25,029,329 22,337,112 218,903 22,118,209 17,059,495 5,058,714

% – 89.3 1.0 99.0 77.1 22.9

Constitutional referendum to introduce the following amendments (a) creation of the Vice-Presidential office; (b) abolition of the Executive Committee; (c) holding of elections for regular members of Batasang Pambansa by provinces, highly urbanized cities and districts of Metro Manila; and (d) land grant and urban housing program, pursuant to BP Law No. 643—approved. Referendum regarding the 1986 Constitution.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly In 1934 elections to a Philippine Constitutional Convention (202 seats) took place. No detailed data are available.

210

SINGAPORE

The 1970 Elections to the Constitutional Convention (320 seats) were non-partisan in character, and congressmen could not become delegates themselves. Numbers of registered voters and votes cast are reported in Table 2.2.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 House of Representatives 1907–1998 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes NP Progresista Party Others Independents a b

% – — — 92.7 35.2 23.9 17.3 23.5

1909 Total number 208,845 — — 192,975 92,996 38,588 50,927b 10,464

% – — — 92.4 48.2 20.0 26.4 5.4

% – 95.0 — — 54.2 – 21.5 7.4 8.2 8.7

Include votes for Immediatistas, Independistas, Catholic, and Philippine Independent. 47,306 scattered votes and 3,621 for Liguero.

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid votes Valid votes NP Progresista Party PD Liga Popular Nacionalista Others Independents a

1907 Total number 104,966 — — 97,251 34,277 23,234 16,862a 22,878

a

1912 Total number 249,805 — — 241,813 124,753 37,842 – –

% – — — 96.8 51.6 15.6 – –

1919a Total number 670,867 637,324 — 1,957,152 1,059,853 – 421,507 145,370

14,414 64,804

6.0 26.8

160,622 169,800

Official data for the elections in 1919; aggregated votes for the House of Representatives and the Senate, where each voter had several votes. The number of valid votes is thus higher than the number of ballots cast.

For the 1916 elections no detailed data were available.

211

PHILIPPINES

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid votes Valid votes NP PD Nacionalista Colectivista Partido Nacionalista Consolidados Others Independents a

1922a Total number 713,889 685,333 — 2,918,265 1,125,387 836,485 590,581

% – 96.0 — — 38.6 28.7 20.2

1925a Total number 1,017,019 884,806 — 1,168,911 37,046 291,785 –

% – 87.0 — — 3.2 25.0 –

–

–

719,528

61.6

115,572 250,240

4.0 8.6

60,512 120,552

5.2 10.3

Official data for the elections in 1922 and 1925; aggregated votes for House of Representatives and Senate, where each elector had several votes. The number of valid votes is thus higher than the number of ballots cast.

For the elections from 1928 to 1941 no data were available. Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes LPb LP (Avelino Wing) NP NP (Osmena Wing) DA PF YP Popular Democratic P. Others Independents a b

c d

e

1946 Total number 2,898,604 2,569,880 — 2,341,901a 908,740 – 864,752 205,219 152,410 62,286 31,222 20,089 8,807c 87,770

% – 89.6 — — 38.8 – 36.9 8.8 6.5 2.7 1.3 0.9 0.4 3.7

1949 Total number 5,135,814 3,579,917 — 3,460,890a 1,834,173 385,188 1,178,402 – – – – – 13,862d 49,265e

% – 69.7 — — 53.0 11.1 34.0 – – – – – 0.4 1.4

The electoral statistics do not provide the number of absolute votes for all candidates in one constituency. In 1946 as NP (Liberal Wing). For the 1949 elections, Comelec's constituency data give separate data for LP (1,414,445 votes), LP/Quirino Wing (419,728), and LP/Avelino Wing (385,188). As Quirino was the effective leader of the LP, the votes of both candidates have been added up. Includes Laborite Party: 3,324 votes; Modernist Party: 570; RP: 516; Philippine Masses Party: 56. Others include Citizens' Party: 6,434 votes; Democratic Party: 3,760; People's Party: 3,423; Collectivista Party: 193; Christian Democrats: 52. Includes 31,106 votes for Independents, 9,769 for LP-Independents and 8,390 for NP-Independents. Year Registered voters Ballots cast Blank ballots Valid votes NP LP

1953 Total number 5,603,231 4,326,706 245,495 4,081,211 1,930,367 1,624,571

% – 77.2 5.7 94.3 47.3 39.8

1957 Total number 6,763,897 5,108,112 289,562 4,818,550 2,948,409 1,453,527

% – 75.5 5.7 94.3 61.2 30.2

212 DP NCP PPP Others Independents a b

c d

Registered voters Ballots cast Blank ballots Valid votes NP LP PPP Others Independents b c d

Registered voters Ballots cast Blank/Invalid ballots Valid votes NP LP KBL LABAN Pusyon Bisaya BLKNNL Mindanao Alliance Bicol Saro YP CCA Others Independents b

c d

e

8.4 – – 0.1 4.4

42,890 137,093 62,968 6,565b 167,098d

0.9 2.8 1.3 0.1 3.5

1961 Total number 8,483,568 6,738,805 308,993 6,429,812 3,923,390 2,167,641 – 7,837a 330,944c

% – 79.4 4.6 95.4 61.0 33.7 – 0.1 5.1

1965 Total number 9,962,345 7,610,051 358,537 7,251,514 3,028,224 3,721,460 41,983 12,564b 447,283d

% – 76.4 4.7 95.3 41.8 51.3 0.6 0.2 6.2

Others include NCP: 7,837 votes. Others include YP: 12,479 votes; RP: 85. Includes 243,110 votes for Independents, 47,614 for LP-Independents, and 40,220 for NP-Independents. Includes 268,327 votes for Independents, 107,001 for LP-Independents, and 71,955 for NP-Independents. Year

a

342,889 – – 4,206a 179,168c

Others include People's Party: 3,155 votes; New Young Philippines Party: 620; RP: 431; Citizens' Party: 0. Others include United Rural Community Party: 3,296 votes; Lampiang Makabansa: 1,765; PVDMGG: 968; Partido'y Makirap: 524; National Patriotic Party: 12. Includes 111,160 votes for Independents, 25,927 for LP-Independents, and 42,081 for NP-Independents. Includes 112,537 votes for Independents, 2,802 for LP-Independents, and 51,729 for NP-Independents. Year

a

SINGAPORE

1969 Total number 10,300,898 8,202,793 412,970 7,789,823a 4,590,374 2,641,786 – – – – – – – – 8,991c 548,670e

% – 79.6 5.0 95.0 58.9 33.9 – – – – – – – – 0.1 7.0

1978 Total number 21,464,213 18,356,849 — 207,894,708b 688,130 – 147,885,493 21,541,600 9,495,416 7,981,060 6,685,224 2,105,599 1,471,381 1,374,549 1,032,405d 7,633,851

% – 85.5 — — 0.3 – 71.1 10.4 4.6 3.8 3.2 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 3.7

The results in one constituency were declared null and void and are thus not included in the total of valid votes. Electors had between 8 and 21 votes, depending on the size of the constituencies. Only the KBL presented candidates in every (13) constituency. Most opposition parties focused on one or two regions. Others include PPP (2): 5,031 votes; YP: 3,917; RPP: 43. Others include ESP: 392,819 votes; PBP: 140,365; DP: 112,140; PLP: 94,287; CIA: 81,594; Consumers Party: 69,216; CUP: 44,893; YDM: 40,571; SCP: 18,814; PSP: 15,050; LSB: 11,457; Banyuhay: 11,190. Includes 394,700 Independents, 129,424 NP-Independents, and 24,546 LP-Independents.

PHILIPPINES

213

For the 1984 and 1987 elections the official statistics provide only the absolute number of valid votes for the victorious candidates. It was thus impossible to calculate total party votes at the national level. For the 1992 elections, Comelec provides only data for 174 out of 200 constituencies (NCR region missing). The authors elaborated a provisional aggregation on the basis of these 174 constituencies (total of 15,875,062 votes). The strongest parties were LDP with 5,254,773 votes (33.1% of valid votes), Lakas-NUCD 3,523,961 (22.2%), NPC 2,935,816 (18.5%); LP-PDP 1,217,582 (7.7%), and NP with 665,490 votes (4.2%).

214

SINGAPORE

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes Lakas-NUCD LDP Lakas-NUCD/ LDP Lakas-NUCD/ LP LP NP PDP-Laban Government Coalition NPC NPC/ KBL PRP PMP NPC/ PMP Opposition Coalition Hybrid Coalitions Others Independents a

b c

d e

1995 Total number 36,415,154 25,736,505 6,525,349 19,211,156 7,811,625 2,079,611 1,998,810 437,080 358,245 153,088 130,695 486,651a 2,342,378 183,256 171,454 101,624 100,879 205,185b 989,723c 274,845d 1,386,007e

% – 70.7 25.4 74.6 40.7 10.8 10.4 2.3 1.9 0.8 0.7 2.5 12.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.1 5.2 1.4 7.2

Includes Lakas-Panaghiusa: 15,631 votes; Lakas-LM: 15,726; Lakas-NP: 68,542; Lakas-PDP-Laban: 32,417; LABAN-LP: 106,387; LABAN-NP: 65,970; LABAN-LM: 3,814; LABAN-PDP-Laban: 54,508; Lakas-NUCD-LABAN/ LP: 55,991; Lakas-NUCD-LABAN/ NP: 43,589; PDP-Laban/ NP: 24,076. Includes NPC/ PMP/ KBL: 75,957 votes; NPC/PRP: 6,523; NPC/ LP: 62,338; NPC/ NP: 54,153; PRP/ NP: 6,214 votes. Includes LABAN/ NPC: 187,705 votes; LABAN/ Lakas/ NPC: 257,821; Lakas/ NPC: 195,532; NPC/ PDP-Laban/ PRP: 87,241; LABAN/ Lakas/ PMP: 71,804; LABAN/ NPC/ PMP: 71,692; LABAN/ PRP: 66,176; PDP-Laban/ PMP/ PRP: 51,752. Includes LM: 104,407 votes; PDSP: 7,563; PNP: 123; Unidentified: 162,752. Figure for Independents includes 139,427 votes for Independents (Lakas-NUCD) and 8,366 votes for Independents (LABAN).

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid/ Blank ballots Valid votes Lakas-NUCD LAMMP LP NPC REPORMA

1998a Total number 33,873,665 29,285,775 1st votes (SMCs) 4,841,377

16.5

2nd votes (party lists) 20,130,466 68.7b

24,444,398 11,981,024 6,520,744 1,773,124 998,239 966,653

83.5 49.0 26.7 7.3 4.1 4.0

9,155,309 –c –c –c –c –

% – 86.5

Total number

%

31.3 – – – – –

215

PHILIPPINES

PROMDI PDP-Laban Aksyon Demokratiko OMPIA APEC ABA ALAGAD Veterans Federation AKO SCFO ABANSE! PINAY AKBAYAN BUTIL SANLAKAS Coop NATCCO COCOFED Others Independents a b

c

d

e

586,954 134,331 106,843

2.3 0.5 0.4

255,184 62,172 132,913

2.8 0.7 1.5

46,462 – – – – – – – – – – – – 495,090d 834,934

0.2 – – – – – – – – – – – – 2.0 3.4

– 503,487 321,646 312,500 304,902 239,042 238,303 235,548 232,376 215,643 194,617 189,802 186,388 5,218,140e –

– 5.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 57.0 –

Each voter had two votes for the House of Representatives. The party-list count was completely abandoned in some areas due to the indifference and unawareness of canvassers of the board of election (Rodriguez/ Velasco 1998). Lakas-NUCD, LP, LDP (now LAMMP), NPC, and KBL were disqualified by legal provisions to participate in the party-list system (five strongest parties in the 1995 elections). Includes 348,281 votes for candidates without identified affiliation (in the official electoral statistics), as well as for KAMPI: 47,273; KBL: 35,522; PRP: 38,640; PDSP: 8,850; LM: 8,792; NP: 4,412; PMP: 2,010; KPP: 1,310. In total: 108 other lists, only 68 of them could garner more than 50,000 votes; only 28 of them attained over 100,000.

216

SINGAPORE

2.7.2 Senate 1916–1998 Elections to the Senate were held regularly in 1916–1934, 1941–1971, and 1987–1998 respectively. For the elections between 1916 and 1934 no separate election statistics were produced. Total votes for both Houses of Parliament in the elections between 1916 and 1925 are given under 2.7.1. For numbers of registered voters and ballots cast in the Senate elections 1928–1935 and 1941 see table 2.2. Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes LP NP PF Laborite Modernist Others Independents a b c d

Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes LP NP LP (Avelino Wing) APOY-NWW Independents b

% – 89.6 — — 47.8 41.2 6.6 2.8 1.1 0.2 0.3

1947b Total number 4,233,528 3,264,423 — 22,474,462 12,241,929 10,114,453 – – – 15,082d 102,998

% – 77.1 — — 54.5 45.0 – – – 0.1 0.5

Each voter had 16 votes. There were 42 candidates, among them 17 from NP and 15 from LP. Each voter had 8 votes. There were 23 candidates, among them 10 from LP and 8 from NP. Includes DA 44,718. Includes YP: 13,441 votes; Goodwill Party: 1,641.

Year

a

1946a Total number 2,898,604 2,569,880 — 18,081,774 8,626,965 7,454,075 1,199,138 505,770 203,276 44,718c 47,802

1949a Total number 5,135,814 3,579,917 — 24,336,652 12,782,449 8,900,568 2,649,512 – 4,123

% – 69.7 — — 52.5 36.6 10.9 – 0.0

1951b Total number 4,754,307 4,391,109 — 22,465,664 8,764,190 13,266,643 – 431,328 3,503

% – 92.4 — — 39.0 59.1 – 1.9 0.0

Each voter had 8 votes. There were 27 candidates, with NP, LP, and LP (Avelino) presenting candidates for all eight seats. Each voter had 8 votes. There were 20 candidates, among them 8 from NP and 9 from LP.

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes NP LP

1953a Total number 5,603,231 4,326,706 — 24,634,585 9,813,166 8,861,244

% – 77.2 — — 39.8 36.0

1955b Total number 6,487,061 5,046,488 — 25,629,034 17,319,389 7,395,988

% – 77.8 — — 67.6 28.9

217

PHILIPPINES

DP CP FP Independents a b

Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes NP LP PPP (1) NCP PVDMGG Others Independents b c d

Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes LP NP Independents b

– – 906,846 6,811

– – 3.5 0.0

1957a Total number 6,763,897 5,108,112 — 28,108,309 13,273,945 8,934,218 3,393,935 1,949,972 346,585 77,407c 132,247

% – 75.5 — — 47.2 31.8 12.1 6.9 1.2 0.3 0.5

1959b Total number 7,822,472 6,393,724 — 33,233,895 17,160,618 10,850,799 3,163,609 2,029,200 – 29,669d 1,015,676

% – 81.7 — — 51.6 32.6 9.5 6.1 – 0.1 3.1

Each voter had 8 votes. There were 54 candidates, with four parties (NP, LP, PPP, and NCP) presenting full slates of candidates. Each voter had 8 votes. There were 32 candidates, among them 10 from NP and 9 from LP. Figure includes Lapiang Makabansa: 62,682 votes; Women's Party: 14,725. Figure includes FP: 27,383 votes; Cooperative Democratic Party: 2,286.

Year

a

15.4 8.8 0.0 0.0

Each voter had 8 votes. There were 20 candidates, among them 7 from NP and 8 from LP. Each voter had 8 votes. There were 21 candidates, among them 10 from NP and 6 from LP.

Year

a

3,793,654 2,156,717 5,365 4,439

1961a Total number 8,483,568 6,738,805 — 39,572,377 21,566,638 17,834,477 171,262

% – 79.4 — — 54.5 45.1 0.4

1963b Total number 9,691,121 7,712,019 — 45,812,465 22,794,310 22,983,457 34,698

% – 80.0 — — 49.8 50.2 0.1

% – 76.4 — — 46.9 43.8 6.1 2.3

1967b Total number 9,744,604 7,957,019 — 48,856,012 18,127,926 30,704,100 – –

% – 81.7 — — 37.1 62.8 – –

Each voter had 8 votes. There were 22 candidates. Each voter had 8 votes. There were 19 candidates.

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes LP NP NCP PPP

1965a Total number 9,962,345 7,610,051 — 49,355,332 23,158,197 21,619,502 3,014,618 1,128,675

218 Others Independents a b c d

Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes NP LP Others Independents b c

Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes LABAN Lakas-NUCD-LDP GAD NPC KBL PNB PRP Others Independents b

c

d e f g

0.0 0.8

23,826d 160

0.0 0.0

1969a Total number 10,300,898 8,202,793 — 53,822,099 32,726,305 21,060,474 27,999c 7,321

% – 79.6 — — 60.8 39.1 0.1 0.0

1971b Total number 11,661,909 9,419,568 — 58,288,852 24,819,175 33,469,677 – –

% – 80.8 — — 42.6 57.4 – –

Each voter had 8 votes. There were 29 candidates. Each voter had 8 votes. There were 16 candidates. Figure includes Partido ñg Bansa: 16,525 votes; Bagong Pilipino: 9,087; Labor Party: 1,440; New Leaf Party: 947.

Year

a

21,269c 413,071

Each voter had 8 votes. There were 30 candidates. Each voter had 8 votes. There were 29 candidates, LP, NP, and Partido ñg Bansa presenting full lists. Figure includes Partido ñg Bansa: 11,402 votes; New Leaf Party: 9,867. Figure includes Partido ñg Bansa: 23,557 votes; RP (II): 269.

Year

a

SINGAPORE

1987a Total number 26,569,539 22,739,995 — 375,004,620 243,431,395c – 99,754,162d – 16,356,441e 8,532,855 – 55,519f 6,874,428

% – 85.6 — — 64.9 – 26.6 – 4.4 2.3 – 0.0 1.8

1995b Total number 36,415,154 25,736,505 — 180,361,231 – 123,678,255 – 28,452,737 8,168,768 – 19,619,923 441,548g –

% – 70.7 — — – 68.6 – 15.8 4.5 – 10.9 0.2 –

Each voter had 24 votes. There were 84 candidates. Each voter had 12 votes. There were 28 candidates. Only the governing coalition Lakas-NUCD-LDP presented a full slate of 12 candidates. For the Senate Elections all candidates of the Aquino coalition (PDP-Laban, Lakas ñg Bansa, NUCD, currents of UNIDO, NP, and LP) were fielded on a presidential LABAN ticket that included 24 candidates. For the Senate elections some leaders of NP, LP, Unido, smaller regional parties from Bicol and Mindanao formed the GAD. KBL presented a list together with the Union for Peace and Progress (UPP). Figure includes PNP: 55,519 votes. Figure includes PDSP: 307,878 votes; Bicol Sara: 85,832; PNP: 47,838.

219

PHILIPPINES

For the 1992 Senate elections Comelec does not provide the absolute numbers of valid votes for all candidates (152 in 1992). Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes Lakas-NUCD LAMMP-LDP REPORMA LP KPP Others a b

1998a Total number 33,873,665 29,285,775 — 206,248,556 93,847,018 91,473,870 13,313,669 5,454,146 1,805,270 354,561b

% – 86.5 — — 45.5 44.3 6.5 2.6 0.9 0.2

Each voter had 12 votes. There were 40 candidates. Only Lakas-NUCD and LAMMP-LDP presented a full slate of 12 candidates. One independent candidate with 354,561 votes.

220

SINGAPORE

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 House of Representatives 1907–1998 Year

1907 Seats 80 NP 32 Progresista 16 Party PDN – Others 7 Independ- 25 ents

% 100.0 76.5 20.0

1916 Seats 90 75 7

% 100.0 83.3 7.7

– 3.7 0.0

2 0 6

2.2 0.0 6.7

% 100.0 31.2 28.0 37.6

1925 Seats 92 – 22 –

% 100.0 – 23.9 –

1928 Seats 94 – 16 –

% 100.0 – 17.0 –

–

–

64

69.6

71

75.5

3.3

3

3.2

6

6.5

7

7.5

1931 Seats 86 66

% 100.0 76.7

1934 Seats 92 19

% 100.0 20.7

1935 Seats 89 –

% 100.0 –

1938 Seats 98 98

% 100.0 100.0

13 2

15.1 2.3

– 70

– 76.1

– 19

– 21.3

– –

– –

– –

– –

3 –

3.3 –

0 64

0.0 71.9

0 –

0.0 –

5

5.8

0

0.0

6

6.7

0

0.0

1919 Seats 90 NP 83 PD 4 Colectivis- – tas NP Con- – solidados Others & 3 Independents

% 100.0 40.0 20.0

1909 Seats 81 62 17

% 100.0 76.5 21.0

1912 Seats 81 62 16

– 8.8 31.3

– 0 2

– 0.0 2.5

– 3 0

% 100.0 92.2 4.4 –

1922 Seats 93 29 26 35

–

Year

Year NP Consolidados PD Partido Pro-Independencia Nationalista Sakdalistas NP-Queson Others & Independents

For 1941 no data were available.

221

PHILIPPINES

Year

1946 Seats 98 LP 49 LP-Avelino – NP 28 NP-Osmena 7 DA 6 Popular 1 Democratic Party PF 1 YP 1 DP – NCP – Independ5 ents a

NP LP KBL Pusyon Bisaya Mindanao All. BLKNNL Independents b c d e

1.0 1.0 – – 5.1

– – 0 – 1

% 100.0 60.0 6.0 33.0 – –

1953 Seats 102 31 – 59 – –

% 100.0 30.4 – 57.8 – –

1957 Seats 102 19 – 82 – –

% 100.0 18.6 – 80.4 – –

– – 0.0 – 1.0

– – 11a – 1

– – 10.8 – 1.0

– – – 1 0

– – – 1.0 0.0

Two of the 11 seats were won on a common DP-NP ticket. Year

a

% 100.0 50.0 – 28.6 7.1 6.1 1.0

1949 Seats 100 60 6 33 – –

1961 Seats 104 74 29 – –

% 100.0 71.2 27.9 – –

1965 Seats 103a 38 61 – –

% 100.0 36.9 59.2 – –

1969 Seats 110b 88 18 – –

% 100.0 80.0 16.4 – –

1978 Seats 165c 0 – 137 13

% 100.0 0.0 – 83.0 7.9

–

–

–

–

–

–

1

0.6

– 1

– 1.0

– 5d

– 4.9

– 4e

– 3.6

14 0

8.5 0.0

Another seat was declared invalid. Another seat was declared invalid. Additionally ten nominated and 14 indirectly elected members. Two of the five elected Independents belonged to NP and LP (one seat each). Two candidates, elected as Independents, belonged to NP. Year KBL UNIDO NP LABAN PDP-Laban LP LP-PDP Govmt. Coalition GAD PNB LDP Lakas-NUCD

1984 Seats 183a 112 60d 4d –d –d –d – –

% 100.0 61.2 32.8 2.2 – – – – –

1987 Seats 200b 13 16 4e 29 24 17 – 59g

% 100.0 6.5 8.0 2.0 14.5 12.0 8.5 – 29.5

1992 Seats 200 4 – 6 – –f –f 12f 1h

% 100.0 2.0 – 3.0 – – – 6.0 0.5

1995 Seats 204 1c – 1 – 1 5 – 9i

% 100.0 0.5 – 0.5 – 0.5 2.5 – 4.4

– – – –

– – – –

10j 2 – –

5.0 1.0 – –

– – 86 43

– – 43.0 21.5

– – 17 100

– – 8.3 49.0

222 LDP/ Lakas NPC PMP Opp. Coalition Others Independents a b c d

e f g

h i j k l m n

Lakas-NUCD LAMMP LP NPC PROMDI REPORMA APEC Others Independents b c

– – – –

– – – –

– – –

– – –

– 34 1 8k

– 17.0 0.5 4.0

25 22 1 1l

12.3 10.8 1.0 1.0

– 7

– 3.8

3 23

1.5 11.5

4m 1

2.0 0.5

14n 7

6.9 3.4

Additionally 3 nominated and 14 indirectly elected members. The President nominated 5 additional members from underrepresented social and political groups. In 1995 as NPC-KBL. UNIDO was an umbrella organization of the opposition, bringing together inter alia PDP-Laban, LP, parts of the NP, CCA and Mindanao Alliance. We have added here all those victorious candidates that ran on the UNIDO ticket. Out of 60 seats, 22 went to UNIDO, 10 to UNIDO-PDP-Laban; 6 to UNIDO-PDP-Laban-LP, 6 to UNIDO-LP, 6 to UNIDO-NP, 3 to CCA-UNIDO; 3 to UNIDO-Mindanao Alliance; 2 to UNIDO-Laban and 2 to UNIDO-NP-LP. Laurel Wing of the NP. Seats for other NP-Wing figure under GAD. In 1992 as LP-PDP List. A range of candidates that supported President Aquino did not run under a single party name, but combined up to seven or eight parties in a single candidature. Among the 59 victorious candidates we thus 25 LABAN-PDP-Laban tickets; 5 LABAN-LP; 6 UNIDO-LABAN; 6 LP-PDP-Laban-UNIDO, and some seats for smaller parties like CCA, PNP or Partido Panaghiusa which also ran as part of the presidential coalition. One seat for a candidate on a NP/ LDP ticket. 5 seats for Lakas-LP; 2 seats for LDP-LP; one seat each for LDP-NP and Lakas/ PDP-Laban. GAD includes seats for candidates that presented mixed KBL-NP, GAD-NP tickets. Four seats for candidates on NPC-NP ticket; two seats each for NPC-KBL tickets and NPC-KBL-NP lists. One seat for a candidate on a NPC/PMP ticket. Seats for candidates on mixed government/ opposition lists: Lakas-NUCD/ LDP/ NPC two seats, and LP-PDP/ NPC list one seat. Seats for candidates on mixed government/ opposition lists: LABAN/ NPC 2 seats; LABAN/ Lakas/ NPC 3 seats; Lakas/ NPC 4 seats; NPC/ PDP-Laban/ PRP; LABAN/ Lakas/ PMP; LABAN/ NPC/ PMP; LABAN/ PRP; PDP-Laban/ PMP/ PRP each one seat. Year

a

SINGAPORE

1998 Const. 206 111 55 15 9 4 4 – 6b 2

Nat. 14a – – – – 1 0 2 11c –

Total 220 111 55 15 9 5 4 2 17 2

% 100.0 50.5 25.0 6.8 4.1 2.3 1.8 0.9 7.7 0.9

38 seats remained unfilled. Others include one seat each for Aksyon Demokratiko and OMPIA, as well as four seats for candidates with unknown party identification. Others include one seat each for ABA, ABANSE! PINAY, AKO, ALAGAD, AKBAYAN, BUTIL, COOP NATCO, COCOFED, SANLAKAS, SCFO, and the Veterans Federation.

223

PHILIPPINES

2.8.2 Senate 1916–1998 Year

1916 Seats 24 NP 22 Progresista 1 PD – Colectivis- – tas Naciona- – lista Consolidado Independ- 1 ents Year Nacionalista Consolidado PD Sakkdalistas LP NP Independents Yeara LP NP PF a

b

c d e

% 100.0 91.6 4.2 – –

1919 Seats 24 21 – 1 –

% 100.0 87.5 – 4.2 –

1922 Seats 24 12 – 5 3

–

4.2

% 100.0 50.0 – 20.8 12.5

1925 Seats 24 5 – 8 3

% 100.0 20.8 – 33.3 12.5

–

–

–

–

6

25.0

2

8.3

4

16.7

2

8.3

1928 Seats 24 24

% 100.0 100.0

1931 Seats 12 6

% 100.0 50.0

1934 Seats 24 6

% 100.0 25.0

0 – – – –

0.0 – – – –

4 – – – 2

33.3 – – – 16.7

17 – – 1 –

70.8 – – 4.2 –

1946 Seats 16b 8 7 1

% 100.0 56.3 37.5 6.2

1947 Seats 24c 16 7 1

% 100.0 66.7 29.2 4.2

1949 Seats 24d 20 4 1

% 100.0 83.3 16.7 4.2

1951 Seats 24e 14 10 –

% 100.0 58.3 41.7 –

Tables show the composition of the Senate after each election once the newly elected Senators have joined those continuing their terms from both previous third-Senate election. The tables consider the possible defections and subsequent filling of casual vacancies since that previous election. Vacant seats were usually filled by the next best-placed candidate of the last elections. The eight candidates with the eight highest numbers of votes were elected for a six-year term (5 LP, 2 NP, 1 PF), eight other for a four-year term (3 LP, 5 NP). The election of the NP candidate Romero was declared invalid after a protest, and the LP candidate Sanidad, seventeenth in the ranking, was declared elected. Final composition of Senate in 1946 thus 9 LP, 6 NP, and 1 PF. 8 seats were elected for a six-year term. The results were: LP 7, NP 1. 8 seats were replaced for a six-year term. The results were: LP 8, NP 0, LP (Avelino) 0. 8 seats were replaced for a six-year term. The results were: NP 8, LP 0.

Year NP LP DP CP NCP

1953 Seats 24a 14 7 2 1 –

% 100.0 58.3 29.2 8.3 4.2 –

1955 Seats 24b 21 0 2 1 –

% 100.0 87.5 0.0 8.3 4.2 –

1957 Seats 24c 19 2 2 1 0

% 100.0 79.2 8.3 8.3 4.2 0.0

1959 Seats 24d 19 4 – – 1

% 100.0 79.2 16.7 – – 4.2

224 a b c d

8 8 8 8

SINGAPORE

seats seats seats seats

were were were were

Year

b c d

8 8 8 8


for for for for

were were were were

replaced replaced replaced replaced

for for for for

Year

b

LABAN GAD LDP NPC LAMMPLDP Lakas-NUCD LP-PDP PRP b c

d e

term. term. term. term.

% 100.0 54.2 41.7 4.2 six-year six-year six-year six-year

term. term. term. term.

The The The The

results results results results

were: were: were: were:

1963 Seats 24b 11 12 1 The The The The



NP NP NP NP

5, 8, 6, 5,

DP 2, CP 1, LP 0. LP 0. LP 2, PP 0, NCP 0. LP 2, NCP 1, PPP 0.

% 100.0 45.8 50.0 4.2

1965 Seats 24c 11 12 1

LP 6, NP NP 4, LP NP 5, LP NP 7, LP

2. 4. 2, NCP 1, PPP 0. 1.

% 100.0 45.8 50.0 4.2

1967 Seats 24d 16 7 1

1971 Seats 24b 16 8 –

% 100.0 79.2 16.7 4.2

% 100.0 66.7 29.2 4.2

% 100.0 66.6 33.3 –

8 seats were replaced for a six-year term. The results were: NP 7, LP 1. 8 seats were replaced for a six-year term. The results were: LP 6, NP 2.

Year

a

a a a a

six-year six-year six-year six-year

1969 Seats 24a 19 4 1

NP LP NCP a

a a a a

1961 Seats 24a 13 10 1

NP LP NCP a

replaced replaced replaced replaced

1987 Seats 24 22 2 – – –

% 100.0 91.7 8.3 – – –

1992 Seats 24b – – 16 5 –

% 100.0 – – 66.7 20.8 –

1995 Seats 24c – – 14 2 –

–a

–

–a –

– –

% 100.0 – – 58.3 8.3 –

1998 Seats 24d – – – – 12e

% 100.0 – – – – 50.0

2

8.3

6

25.0

10

41.7

1 –

4.2 –

– 2

– 8.3

0 2

0.0 8.3

5 LP-PDP and 1 NUCD candidates were elected on the LABAN ticket. The twelve candidates with the twelve highest numbers votes were elected for a six-year term, twelve other for a three-year-term. 12 seats were replaced for a six-year term: Nine seats went to the coalition of Lakas-NUCD and LDP, two seats to PRP and one seat to NPC. Hence, the governing coalition controls 20 out of 24 seats. 12 seats were replaced for a six-year term: 7 seats went to the coalition of LAMMP-LDP and 5 seats to Lakas-NUCD. Including the seats won by LDP and NPC in 1995.

225

PHILIPPINES

2.9 Presidential Elections 1935–1998 2.9.1 Elections to Presidency 1935 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Manuel Luis Quezon (NP) Emilio Aguinaldo (NSP) Gregorio Aglipay (RP) Pascual Racuyal (Independent) a

Total number 1,600,000 1,021,445 — 1,022,547a 694,546 179,402 148,441 158

% – 63.8 — — 68.0 17.5 14.5 0.0

Total number — — — 1,638,000 1,340,000 298,000

% – — — — 81.8 18.2

Official data are inconsistent.

1941 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Manuel Luis Quezon (NP) Juan Sumulong (PDN)

226

SINGAPORE

On 25/09/1943—under Japanese occupation—José P. Laurel was elected President of the Second Philippine Republic by an assembly of 108 appointed local, provincial, and national delegates. Yet, elected President Quezon held the legal presidency in exile. After Quezon's death Vice-President Osmena succeeded him and regained control of the presidency on 27/02/1945. 1946 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Manuel Roxas (LP) Sergio Osmeña (NP) Hilario Moncado (Modernist Party)

Total number 2,898,604 2,596,880 125,342 2,471,538 1,333,006 1,129,994 8,538

% – 89.6 4.8 95.2 53.9 45.7 0.3

1949 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Elpidio Quirino (LP) Jose Laurel, Sr (NP) Jose Avelino (LP–Avelino Wing)

Total number 5,135,814 3,579,917 37,899 3,542,018 1,803,808 1,318,320 419,890

% – 69.7 1.1 98.9 50.9 37.2 11.9

1953 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Ramon Magsaysay (NP) Elpidio Quirino (LP) Guadencio Bueno (Independent)

Total number 5,603,231 4,326,706 98,987 4,227,719 2,912,992 1,313,991 736

% – 77.2 2.3 97.7 68.9 31.1 0.0

1957 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Carlos P. Garcia (NP) Jose Yulo (LP) Manuel P. Manahan (PPP) Claro M. Recto (NCP) Antonio Quirino (LP) Valentin Santos (Lapiang Malaya) Alfredo Abcede (FP)

Total number 6,763,897 5,108,112 87,908 5,020,204 2,072,257 1,386,829 1,049,420 429,226 60,328 21,674 470

% – 75.5 1.7 98.3 41.3 27.6 20.9 8.5 1.2 0.4 0.0

1961 Registered voters

Total number 8,483,568

% –

227

PHILIPPINES

Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Diosdado Macapagal (LP) Carlos P. Garcia (NP) Othersa a

b

% – 76.4 2.3 97.7 51.9 42.9 5.2 0.0

Total number 10,300,898 8,202,793 140,989 8,061,804 5,017,343 3,043,122 1,339

% – 79.6 1.7 98.3 62.2 37.8 0.0

Ten candidates: Pascual B. Racuyal (Independent): 778; Segundo Baldovi (Partido ñg Bansa): 177; Pantaleon H. Panelo (Independent): 123; German Federe Villanueva (Independent): 82; Guadencio F. Bueno (NLP): 44; Angel Comagon (Independent): 35; Cesar Bulacan (Independent): 31; E. D. Buencamino (NP): 23; Nic V. Garces (PPSP): 23; Benito José (Independent): 23.

1981a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Ferdinand E. Marcos (KBL) Alejo S. Santos (NP-Roy Wing) Bartolome C. Cabangbang (FP) Othersb a

Total number 9,962,345 7,610,051 175,620 7,434,431 3,861,324 3,187,752 384,564 791

Nine candidates: Guadencio F. Bueno: 199 votes; Aniceto A. Hidalgo (both NLP): 156; Segundo Baldovi (Partido ñg Bansa): 139; Nic V. Garces (PPSP): 130; German Federe Villanueva (Independent): 106; Guillermo M. Mercado (Labor Party): 27; Antonio Nicolas Jr. (Allied Party): 27; Blandino P. Ruan: 6; Praxedes Floro (both Independents): 1.

1969 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Ferdinand E. Marcos (NP) Sergio Osmena, Jr. (LP) Othersa a

79.4 4.2 95.8 55.0 45.0 0.0

Four candidates: Alfredo Abcede (FP): 7 votes; German Villanueva: 2; Gregorio L. Llanza: 2; Praxedes Floro (all Independents): 0.

1965 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Ferdinand E. Marcos (NP) Diosdado Macapagal (LP) Raul S. Manglapus (PPP) Othersa a

6,738,805 280,988 6,457,817 3,554,840 2,902,966 11

Total number 26,986,451 21,843,829 1,042,426 20,801,403 18,309,360 1,716,449 749,845 25,749

% – 80.9 4.8 95.2 88.0 8.3 3.6 0.1

Elections were boycotted by all major opposition parties. Ten candidates: Delfin R. Manlapaz: 6,499 votes; Ursula C. Dajao: 4,955; Benito L. Valdez: 4,224; Lope B. Rimando (all Independents): 1,954; Lucio A. Hingpit (Sovereign Citizen Party): 1,945; Pacifico S. Morelos: 1,740; Jose C. Igrobay: 1,421; Simeon G. del Rosario: 1,234; Salvador Q. Enage: 1,185; Florencio Z. Tipano (all Independents): 592.

1986a

Total number

%

228 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Ferdinand Marcos (KBL) Corazon C. Aquino (UNIDO) Reuben R. Canoy (SDP) Narciso S. Padilla (Indep.) a

SINGAPORE

26,278,744 20,716,075 559,469 20,156,606 10,807,197 9,291,716 34,041 23,652

– 78.8 2.7 97.3 53.6 46.1 0.2 0.1

There are three data sources: The official Batasan count—shown here—as published in Business Day 17/02/1986 has substantial discrepancies, as demonstrated by Manlapaz (1986); the incomplete COMELEC count, last version of 13/02 published in Business Day of 14/02/1986, and the incomplete NAMFREL counts, last version of 12/02, published in Business Day 13/02 and 14/02/1986. Manlapaz, extrapolating/ projecting both the Comelec and Namfrel data to 100% of the precincts, arrives at the following results: Comelec (projected) Marcos: 11,021,336; Aquino: 9,957,400; Namfrel (projected) Marcos: 10,062,802; Aquino: 10,670,962.

1992 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Fidel V. Ramos (Lakas-NUCD) Miriam Defensor Santiago (PRP) Eduardo Cojuangco (NPC) Ramon Mitra (LDP) Imelda Romualdez Marcos (KBL) Jovito Salonga (LP) Salvador H. Laurel (NP)

Total number 32,141,079 24,254,954 1,600,759 22,654,195 5,342,521 4,468,173 4,116,376 3,316,661 2,338,294 2,302,124 770,046

% – 75.5 6.6 93.4 23.6 19.7 18.2 14.6 10.3 10.2 3.4

1998 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Joseph E. Estrada (LAMMP) Jose C. de Venecia Jr. (LakasNUCD) Raul S. Roco (Aksyon Demokratiko) Emilio R. Osmeña (PROMDI) Alfredo S. Lim (LP) Renato S. de Villa (Reporma) Miriam Defensor Santiago (PRP) Juan Ponce Enrile (Independent) Santiago F. Dumlao, Jr. (KPP) Manuel L. Morato (Partido ñg Bansang Marangal)

Total number 33,873,665 29,285,775 2,383,239 26,902,536 10,722,295 4,268,483

% – 86.5 8.1 91.9 39.9 15.9

3,720,212 3,347,631 2,344,362 1,308,352 797,206 343,139 32,212 18,644

13.8 12.4 8.7 4.9 3.0 1.3 0.1 0.1

229

PHILIPPINES

2.9.2 Elections to Vice-Presidency 1935–1998 1935 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Sergio Osmeña (NP) Melliza (NSP) Nabong (RP)

Total number 1,600,000 1,021,445 87,317 934,128 811,138 71,040 51,590

% – 63.8 8.5 91.5 86.8 7.6 5.5

1941 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Sergio Osmeña (NP)

Total number — — — 1,446,000 1,446,000

% – — — — 100.0

1946 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Elpidio Quirino (LP) Eulogio Rodriguez (NP) Luis Saluddor (Modernista)

Total number 2,898,604 2,596,880 378,033 2,218,847 1,161,725 1,051,243 5,879

% – 89.6 14.6 85.4 52.4 47.4 0.3

1949 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Fernando Lopez (LP) Manuel Briones (NP) Vicente J. Francisco (LP-Avelino)

Total number 5,135,814 3,579,917 209,850 3,370,067 1,741,302 1,184,215 444,550

% – 69.7 5.9 94.1 51.7 35.1 13.2

1953 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Carlos P. Garcia (NP) Jose Yulo (LP)

Total number 5,603,231 4,326,706 327,639 3,999,067 2,515,265 1,483,802

% – 77.2 7.6 92.4 62.9 37.1

1957 Registered voters Votes cast

Total number 6,763,897 5,108,112

% – 75.5

230

a

Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Diosdado Macapagal (NP) Jose Laurel Jr. (LP) Vicente Araneta (PPP) Lorenzo Tanada (NCP) Restituto Fresto (Lapiang Makabansa)

405,634 4,702,478 2,189,197 1,783,012 375,090 344,685 10,494

7.9 92.1 46.6 37.9 8.0 7.3 0.2

1961 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Emmanuel Pelaez (LP) Sergio Osmena Jr. (Independent) Gil Puyat (NP) Chenchay Reyes Juta (DSP)

Total number 8,483,568 6,738,805 365,992 6,372,813 2,394,400 2,190,424 1,787,987 2

% – 79.4 5.4 94.6 37.6 34.4 28.1 0.0

1965 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Fernando Lopez (NP) Gerardo Roxas (LP) Manuel P. Manahan (PPP) Othersa

Total number 9,962,345 7,610,051 325,240 7,284,811 3,531,550 3,504,826 247,426 1,009

% – 76.4 4.3 95.7 48.5 48.1 3.4 0.0

Three candidates: Gonzalo D. Vasquez (RPP): 644 votes; Severo Capales (NLP): 193; Eleodoro M. Salvador (Partido ñg Bansa): 172.

1969 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Fernando H. Lopez (NP) Genaro F. Magsaysay (LP) Othersa a

SINGAPORE

Total number 10,300,898 8,202,793 232,140 7,970,653 5,001,737 2,968,526 390

% – 79.6 2.8 97.2 62.8 37.2 0.0

Two candidates: Victoriano Mallari (Partido ñg Bansa): 229 votes; Modesto T. Jalandoni (PPSP): 161.

1986a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Arturo M. Tolentino (KBL) Salvador H. Laurel (UNIDO)

Total number 26,278,744 20,716,075 710,681 20,005,394 10,134,130 9,173,105

% – 78.8 3.4 96.6 50.7 45.9

231

PHILIPPINES

Eva Estrada-Kalaw (LP) Roger Arrienda (Indep.) a

a

662,185 35,974

3.3 0.2

Official data according to the Batasan count. Manlapaz (1986) gives the following data estimations for the Comelec Quick count: Tolentino: 10,465,399 votes; Laurel: 9,851,751; and for the Namfrel count: Tolentino: 9,438,791; Laurel: 10,436,722.

1992 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Joseph E. Estrada (PMP) Marcelo B. Fernan (LDP) Emilio Osmena (Lakas-NUCD) Ramon B. Magsaysay Jr. (PRP) Aquilino Pimentel (PDP-Laban) Vicente P. Magsaysay (KBL) Eva Estrada-Kalaw (LP-Kalaw)

Total number 32,141,079 24,254,954 3,844,785 20,410,169 6,739,738 4,438,494 3,362,467 2,900,556 2,023,289 699,895 255,730

% – 75.5 15.9 84.1 33.0 21.7 16.5 14.2 9.9 3.4 1.3

1998 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid and blank votes Valid votes Gloria M. Macapagal-Arroyo (Lakas-NUCD) Edgardo J. Angara (LAMMP) Oscar M. Orbos (REPORMA) Sergio Osmena III. (LP) Francisco S. Tatad (Independent) Ismael D. Sueno (PROMDI) Othersa

Total number 29,285,775 3,726,506 25,559,269 12,667,252

% – 86.5 12.7 87.3 49.6

5,652,068 3,321,779 2,351,462 745,389 537,677 283,642

22.1 13.0 9.2 2.9 2.1 1.1

Three other candidates: Irene M. Santiago (Aksyon Demokratiko): 240,210 votes; Camilo L. Sabio (Independent): 22,010; Reynaldo D. Pacheco (KPP): 21,422.


PHILIPPINES

233


a

Head of State US Presidenta

Years 1901–1935

Manuel L. Quezon

1935–1942

Jorges B. Vargas

1942–1943 1943

José P. Laurel

1943–1945

Sergio Osmeña

1944–1946

Manuel Roxas Elpidio Quirino

1946–1948 1949–1953

Ramon Magsaysay Carlos P. García

1953–1957 1957–1961

Diosdado P. Macapagal

1961–1965

Ferdinand E. Marcos

1965–1986

M. Corazon Aquino Fidel V. Ramos

1986–1992 1992–1998

Joseph M. Estrada

1998–2001

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

2001–

Represented by the following governors: William Taft (1901–1904); Luke E. Wright (1904–1906); Henry C. Ide (1906); James F. Smith (1906–1909); W. Cameron Forbes (1909–1913); Francis B. Harrison (1913–1920); Leonard Wood (1921-1927); Henry L. Stimson (1928–1929); Dwight F. Davis (1929–1932); Theodore Roosevelt (1932–1933); Frank H. Murphy (1933–1935).

Head of Governmenta Cesar Virata

a

Remarks First civil governor William Taft was nominated by US-Government on 21/06/1901. Since 15/11/1935 President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines (exiled in the US since 03/01/1942). Japanese Military Administration. President of the Executive Commission of the Philippine Council of State (under Japanese occupation) from 23/01 until 14/10/1943. Since 14/10/1943 elected President of the nominal Republic of the Philippines (under Japanese occupation). Elected in 1941 Vice-President of Commonwealth of the Philippines; returned from US exile on 20/10/1944 as President after Quezon's death. Elected on 28/05/1946 as first LP-President. After Roxas' death on 15/04/1948 Vice-President Quirino took power. Confirmed in presidential elections of 1949. Elected President. Took office on 30/12/1953. After Magsaysay's death in a plane crash on 17/ 03/1957 Vice-President Garcia assumed office, and was confirmed in subsequent elections. Former Vice-President. Elected to Presidency in 1961. Took office on 31/12/1961. Elected President in November 1965. Re-elected in 1969. Declared Martial Law in 1972. Reelected in 1981. Deposed in the peaceful revolution of 1986. Declared President on 25/02/1986. Elected President. Assumed office on 30/06. Leading figure in the 1986 coup. Elected President. Assumed office on 30/06/ 1998. Vice-President from 1992–98. Deposed during a popular uprising against his rule in January 2001. Vice-President since 1998. She was declared President on 20/01/2001.

Years 1981–1986

Remarks Appointed on 08/04/1981 after the ratification of the constitutional revisions.

From 1972 to 1981 President Marcos held simultaneously the offices of President and Prime Minister. In 1986 the office of Prime Minister was abolished.

234

SINGAPORE

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Commission on Elections (n.d.). Results of the National Plebiscites of June 18, 1940 and March 11, 1947. Manila. —(n.d.). Reports of the Commission on Elections to the Congress and the President of the Philippines 1940–1951. Manila. —— (1952). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Elections were held on November 13, 1951. Manila. —— (1954). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Elections were held on November 10, 1953. Manila. —— (1956). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Elections were held on November 8, 1955. Manila. —— (1958). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Elections were held on November 12, 1957. Manila. —— (1960). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Election was held on November 10, 1959. Manila. —— (1962). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Elections were held on November 14, 1961. Manila. —— (1965). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Elections were held on November 12, 1963. Manila. —— (1967). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Elections were held on November 9, 1965. Manila. —— (1968). The Commission on Elections Yearbook, Vol 1. Manila: Recorder Publishing Co.

PHILIPPINES

235

—— (1969). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Elections were held on November 14, 1967. Manila. —— (1971a). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Elections were held on November 11, 1969. Manila. —— (1971b). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Elections for delegates to the Constitutional Convention was held on November 10, 1970. Manila. —— (1973). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines and the Congress on the Manner the Elections were held on November 8, 1971. Manila. —— (1979). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President/ Prime Minister of the Philippines and the Batasang Pambansa on the Manner the Election of Representatives to the Batasang Pambansa were held on April 7 and 27, 1978. Manila. —— (1981). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President of the Philippines, the Prime Minister, and the Batasang Pambansa on the Manner the Election of President of the Philippines was held on June 16, 1981. Manila. —(n.d.). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President and Congress of the Republic of the Philippines on the manner the Elections for Members of the Congress of the Philippines were held on May 11, 1987. Manila. —(n.d.). Report of the Commission on Elections to the President and Congress of the Republic of the Philippines on the Conduct of the Synchronized National and Local Elections of May 11, 1992. 2 Volumes. Manila. —(n.d.). Report of the Commission on Elections to his Excellency, President Fidel V. Ramos and to the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines on the Conduct of the National and Local Elections held on May 8, 1995. Manila. —— (1992). ‘Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 of 1985)’, in Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) With Other Electoral Laws. Manila: Commission on Elections, 1–100. —— (1992). ‘Congressional Elections Law of 1987 (Executive Order No. 134)’, in Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) With Other Electoral Laws. Manila: Commission on Elections, 131–134.

236

SINGAPORE

—— (1992). ‘The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (Republic Act No. 6646)’, in Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) With Other Electoral Laws. Manila: Commission on Elections, 118–127. The Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935). ‘The 1935 Constitution’, in F. Gupit, Jr., and D. T. Martinez (1993), A Guide to Philippine Legal Materials. Manila: Rex Books Store, 829–846. —— (1938). ‘Election Code’ or ‘Commonwealth Act No. 357’, in Public Laws of the Commonwealth, Vol. II. Manila: (n.p.), 427–510. —— (1940). ‘Organization of the Commission on Elections (Commonwealth Act No. 607)’, in Public Laws of the Commonwealth, Vol. IV. Manila: (n.p.), 312–314. The Congress of the Philippines (1998). The Party-List System Act (Republic Act No. 7941). Looseleaf copy. Republic of the Philippines, Office of the President (1947). ‘Revised Election Code of 1947’. Official Gazette, 43/7: 2788–2842. —— (1978). ‘Election Code of 1978 (Presidential Decree No. 1296), with commentaries’, in R. G. Martin, and M. S. Martin (1981), Administrative Law, Law of Public Officers, and Election Law. Revised Ed. Manila: Premium Book Store, Part III, 26–331. —— (1984). ‘The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines of 1973, including all amendments until 27/01/ 1984’, cited in A. Orendain, New Philippine Constitution and Government Annotated (2nd edn.), Manila: Merriam & Webster. —— (1986). ‘Proclamation No. 3 issued on 25 March 1986 (‘Freedom Constitution’)’, cited in A. Javate-de Dios, P. B. Daroy, and L. Kalaw-Tirol (eds.), Dictatorship and Revolution. Roots of People's Power. Metro Manila: Conspectus 1988, 765–768. —— (1987). ‘The 1987 Constitution’, in F. Gupit, Jr. and D. T. Martinez (1993), A Guide to Philippine Legal Materials. Manila: Rex Books Store, 876–935. US-Administration of the Philippines (1907). Election Law of 09/01/1907 (Act No. 1582), in Public Laws Passed by the Philippine Commission. Manila: Office of the Reporter, S∇upreme Court of the Philippine Islands, 1908, 47–76. —— (1916). ‘The Jones Law or Act of Congress of August 29, 1916’, in M. R. Cornejo (1939), Cornejo's Pre-War Encyclopedic Directory of the Philippines. Manila: Miguel R. Cornejo, 120–132. —— (1934). ‘Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934’, in M. R. Cornejo (1939), Cornejo's Pre War Encyclopedic Directory of the Philippines. Manila: Miguel R. Cornejo, 302–310.

PHILIPPINES

237

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Ando, H. (1969). ‘Voting Turnout in the Philippines’. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 13/4: 424–441. Carlos, C. R. (1997). Dynamics of Political Parties in the Philippines. Makati City: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. —— (1998). A Chronicle of the 1998 Elections in the Philippines. Makati City: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. —— and Banlaoi, R. C. (1996a). Elections in the Philippines: From Precolonial Period to the Present. Makati City: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. —— (1996b). Political Parties in the Philippines: From 1900 to the Present. Makati City: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. The Commission on Elections—50th Anniversary. December 2nd, 1990. Manila. Coquia, J. R. (1955). The Philippine Presidential Election of 1953. Manila: University Publishing Co. Cornejo, M. R. (1939). Cornejo's Pre War Encyclopedic Directory of the Philippines. Manila: Miguel R. Cornejo Publ. Fernando, E. M., and Quisumbing-Fernando, E. (1953). ‘The Revised Election Code’. Philippine Law Journal 28: 738–804. Forbes, W. C. (1928). The Philippine Islands, Vol. II. Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. de Guzman, R. P., and Associates (1977). ‘Citizen Participation and Decision-Making under Martial Law: A Search for a Viable Political System’. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 21/1: 1–17. Hayden, J. R. (1947). The Philippines. A Study in National Development. New York: Macmillan. Jernegan, P. F. (1907). The Philippine Citizen. Manila: Philippine Education Publishers. Kalaw-Tirol, L., and Coronel, S. S. (eds.) (1992). 1992 and Beyond: Forces and Issues in Philippine Elections. Manila: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and the Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs. Kerkvliet, B. J. T. (1996). ‘Contested Meanings of Elections in the Philippines’, in R. H. Taylor (ed.), The Politics of Elections in South East Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 136–163. Landé, C. H. (1965). Leaders, Factions, and Parties. The Structure of Philippine Politics. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. —— (1996). Post-Marcos Politics: A Geographical and Statistical Analysis of the 1992 Presidential Elections. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. —— and Cigler, A. J. (1979). ‘Competition and Turnover in Philippine Congressional Elections, 1907–1969’. Asian Survey, 19/10: 977–1007.

238

SINGAPORE

Laurel, J. P. (1940). Philippine Law on Elections. Manila. Liang, Dapen (1939). The Development of Philippine Political Parties. Hong Kong: South China Morning Post. Macuja, J. P. (1992). Issues in Politics, Governance and Electoral Reform. Quezon City: Center For Social Policy and Public Affairs, Ateneo de Manila University. Manlapaz, R. L. (1986). The Mathematics of Deception: A Study of the 1986 Presidential Election Tallies. Quezon City: Third World Studies Center, Univ. of Philippines. Monsod, C. S. (1998). ‘The Commission on Elections. A Self-Assessment’, in J. V. Abueva and E. R. Roman (eds.), The Post-EDSA Constitutional Commissions. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 37–57. National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (1991). Reforming the Philippine Electoral Process: Developments 1986–1988. Washington, D.C.: National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. Our Delegates to the Constitutional Assembly. Manila: Benipayo Press, 1935. Pinpin, F. D. (ed.) (1973). The First 107 Presidential Decrees Consequent to Proclamation Nos. 1981/1104. Rizal: Cacho Hermanos, Inc. Rodrigues, R. B. (1998). The Laws and Regulations Governing the 1998 National and Local Elections. Manila: Rex Book Store. Rodriguez, A. M. G., and Velasco, D. (1998). Democracy Rising? The Trials and Triumphs of the 1998 Party-List Elections. Quezon City: Institute of Politics and Governance. Santos, S. M. Jr. (1997). ‘The Philippines Tries the Party-List System (A Progressive Approach)’. Kasarinlan, 13/2: 5–17. Tanada, L. M., and Fernando, E. M. (1952). Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 1. Manila: Citizens Publishing Company. Tancangco, L. G. (1988). ‘The Electoral System and Political Parties in the Philippines’, in R. P. de Guzman and M. A. Reforma (eds.), Government and Politics of the Philippines. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 77–112. Tancangco, L. G. (1992). The Anatomy of Electoral Fraud. Concrete Bases for Electoral Reforms. Manila: Matrix. United States Observer Delegation, and Center for Democracy (1986). ‘Report to the President of the United States of America on the February 7, 1986 Philippine Presidential Elections’, cited in A. Javate-de Dios, P. Bn. Daroy, and L. Kalaw-Tirol (eds.), Dictatorship and Revolution. Roots of People's Power. Metro Manila: Conspectus 1988, 728–732. Wurfel, D. (1988). Filipino Politics. Development and Decay. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Zaide, G. F. (1949). Philippine Political and Cultural History Vol II: The Philippines Since the British Invasion. Manila: Philippine Education Co.

Singapore by Hans Christoph Rieger71

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview In 1963, Singapore merged with Malaya to form Malaysia. When two years later, in 1965, Singapore separated from the federation, the country achieved its final independence. Ever since, domestic politics have been under the dominion of the People's Action Party (PAP), which has gained overwhelming victories in all parliamentary elections. Since the mid1980s the electoral system has undergone significant changes, considered by many critics as maneuvers of the PAP to cling to power. Singapore's favorable location at the southernmost tip of continental Asia led the British East India Company to establish a trading station on the island in 1819. In 1851 the control of Singapore was transferred to the GovernorGeneral of India, and in 1867 to the Colonial Office in London. From 1942 to 1945 the island was occupied by the Japanese. After World War II, Britain wanted to retain Singapore as a commercial and military base, so it became a separate crown colony. The constitutional powers remained in the hands of a governor and an Advisory Council until separate executive and legislative councils were created, in July 1947. According to the relevant legal provisions, six out of the 22 members of the Legislative Council had to be elected by popular vote. Singapore's first election was held on 20 March 1948. At the polls, the Progressive Party (SPP)—comprised mainly of European and English-educated men of the commercial and professional branches—won three seats, and the other three seats went to independent candidates. For the next election on 10 April 1951 the number of elected seats was raised to nine (out of 25): the SPP gained six, the rest went to independents. Both elections were characterized by limited franchise, little voter interest and poor turnouts. At this time the Communist Party of Malaya was trying to

71

The Elections Department, Government of Singapore, was extremely helpful in verifying data on election results contained in the tables presented. The responsibility for the remaining errors rests with the author.

240

THAILAND

take over political power in Malaya (including Singapore) by force, and in 1948 the colonial government declared the state of emergency, which lasted until 1960. In 1953 the British government appointed a commission headed by Sir George Rendel to prepare Singapore for greater autonomy. Its proposals became the basis of the so-called Rendel Constitution of 1955, which replaced the Executive and Legislative Councils by a unicameral Legislative Assembly of 32 members, 25 of whom were elected. The leader of the largest party in the Assembly was to become the Chief Minister, who nominated six deputies of the Legislative Assembly, including himself, for appointment by the Governor to a Council of Ministers that also included the Governor, the Financial Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Chief Secretary. The Governor would preside over the Council of Ministers, but had to consult the Chief Minister on important matters. This new institutional framework led to an intensification of political activity and to the formation of new parties. The two most important were the Singapore Labour Front (SLF), under David Marshall, and the People's Action Party (PAP)—a left-wing nationalist alliance of English-educated socialists and Chinese-educated procommunists—under Lee Kuan Yew. In addition, the automatic registration of voters augmented the electorate from 76,000 to more than 300,000 voters, most of them working-class Chinese. In April 1955 the first elections under universal suffrage were held, in which the SLF won a plurality of seats. David Marshall became Chief Minister in a coalition government formed by the SLF and the Alliance Party. The new government lobbied for independence. In May 1958 a Constitutional Agreement was signed in London whereby the state of Singapore would be set up with full internal self-government. In May 1959 parliamentary polls were held to the first fully elected Legislative Assembly, with the PAP winning 43 out of 51 seats. Lee Kuan Yew became Prime Minister, and in December 1959 the Parliament elected Yusof bin Ishak to become Singapore's Governor (Yang di-Pertuan Negara). In 1961, a proposal by Malaya's Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman to form the Federation of Malaysia—comprising Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, North Borneo (now: Sabah), and Brunei—provoked intense political conflicts in Singapore. On 1 September 1962, the unification with Malaya was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Singaporeans in a referendum, and the Federation of Malaysia (Brunei excluded) came into existence on 16 September 1963. Less than a week later the PAP government called a snap election in Singapore, in which it clearly defeated

SINGAPORE

241

its main rival, the Barisan Sosialis, formed in 1961 by a radical PAP-faction opposing the merger with Malaya. However, the subsequent participation of the PAP in the 1964 Malaysian federal elections and the success of its candidates in Malaysian constituencies was seen as an advance of Chinese dominance and caused disquiet among the political forces in Kuala Lumpur. The 1964 riots between Malayan and Chinese youths in Singapore worsened the situation even further, and irritation rose among Singaporean leaders regarding their participation in the Federation of Malaysia. But it was the Malaysian leaders who finally decided that the expulsion of Singapore was inevitable. On 9 August 1965, it was announced simultaneously in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur that Singapore would cease to be a part of Malaysia. Singapore proclaimed its independence on that same day. At first, many questioned the chances of survival of the new state, which faced formidable economic problems. Labor unrest was fuelled by the trade unions and by the Barisan Sosialis, who now opposed the separation from Malaysia vehemently. In the general elections of 1968—the first to be held in independent Singapore—the Barisan Sosialis first called upon their supporters to boycott the polls, and later, as such behavior contravened the Elections (Amendment) Act of 1967, to submit blank ballot papers. As a consequence, the PAP-nominees stood unopposed in 51 out of 58 constituencies and were thus declared elected on nomination day without the polls being held; the PAP also won all the seven contested seats. Since then the PAP has won all elections with overwhelming parliamentary majorities. In the general elections of 1972, 1976 and 1980 the party won all seats. The first time an opposition candidate entered Parliament since independence was in October 1981, through a by-election held in Anson constituency. Nevertheless, even in subsequent elections the opposition has never held more than three seats. The absence of an effective opposition has often been reflected in lacklustre parliamentary debates. In order to provide a voice for opposition voters and provide sparring partners for its own members, the PAP has amended the Constitution from time to time to allow for the inclusion of non-elected Members of Parliament—so-called Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) in 1984 and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) in 1990 (for details see 1.3). In addition, the multi-racial composition of Singapore—roughly 75 percent of the population are Chinese, 15 percent Malay and 10 percent Indian—has now and then raised the question of an adequate representation of minority groups in Parliament. It was in this context that in 1988 the Government introduced a

242

THAILAND

series of constitutional amendments to create so-called Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), with provisions for the inclusion of candidates from ethnic minorities. These institutional modifications have in effect strengthened the position of the PAP and made it more difficult for opposition parties to win seats at the polls. Since the PAP's election victory in 1959, Lee Kuan Yew held the reins of power and was instrumental in the day-to-day governing of the country, in the shaping of economic development and in moulding the political system and the constitution of Singapore. In November 1990 Lee Kuan Yew stepped down as Prime Minister in the interests of a smooth transition of power to younger leaders, whom he had personally selected and groomed for this purpose. Lee Kuan Yew continues as Senior Minister in the cabinet of his successor, Goh Chok Tong. The most recent major constitutional amendment was made in 1991, when the Government introduced direct presidential elections. The main reason was the fear of ‘freak election results’, which could lead to an irresponsible government that would squander Singapore's reserves. Thus, the popularly elected President was granted additional powers, including the control of the expenditure of national reserves accumulated by a previous government and the appointment of high-ranking civil servants.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The parliamentary system of Singapore evolved out of the colonial system of government. This was based at first on a powerful Governor and appointed public servants and, as time went by, also on elected councilors. At the beginning, elections were restricted to 6 out of 22 members (1948), and later to 9 out of 25 members (1951). Only British subjects were allowed to vote, so the China-born population (approx. 300,000) was excluded. In the mid-1950s automatic registration of voters and universal suffrage were introduced within the framework of the Rendel Constitution. The 1958 Constitution expanded voting rights to all immigrants who could prove that they had lived in Singapore for the past ten years or more and swore allegiance to Singapore. It also made voting compulsory. For all parliamentary elections held since independence, the principles of universal, direct, equal, and secret suffrage have been applied. All Singaporean citizens who are ordinary residents of the country and not less than 21 years old on 1 July of the year of the elections have had

SINGAPORE

243

the right to vote at the corresponding polls. Despite the heated discussion regarding the non-eligibility to vote of Singaporeans residing abroad, the Government has until recently refused to introduce the necessary changes of the election laws to make external voting possible. Singapore's Parliament is unicameral. The legal term of office is five years from its first sitting. The government may call for the dissolution of Parliament at any time before the end of its term, and elections have to be held within three months thereafter. Candidates have to be citizens of Singapore, 21 years old or over, and resident in Singapore. In addition, they must have resided in Singapore for a total of at least ten years. Nominees also have to be able to speak, read, and write at least one of the languages authorized in Parliament (for the detailed provisions see 1.3). Singapore's electoral system was modeled on the British plurality system with single-member constituencies (SMCs). In the first parliamentary election after independence (1968) there were 58 SMCs. With the growth and spread of population the number of seats rose gradually to 65 (1972), 69 (1976), 75 (1980) 79 (1984), 81 (1988), and 83 (1997). In mid-1988 Parliament adopted a bill to create 13 three-member constituencies, and the number of SMCs was reduced to 40. In these Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) the voters select among closed and blocked team lists, and the winning list retains all seats. Teams, i.e. parties or groups of independents, are required to include at least one member of minority communities each (Malays, Indians and other minorities). Before the 1991 election the number of GRCs rose to 15 with four members each, while the number of SMCs was lowered to 21. By 1997 the Parliamentary Elections Act was amended once more in favour of the number and size of GRCs (for the detailed provisions see 1.3). The official purpose of the Government introducing the GRCs was to provide an adequate representation of the minority communities in Parliament; its critics, however, regarded the measure as a stratagem to reduce the chances of the opposition of winning at the polls. The absence of an effective opposition and the desire to improve the quality of parliamentary debates led to the idea of including a number of defeated opposition candidates with the highest voting support in their respective constituencies as Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs), although with restricted voting rights on specific issues (for details see 1.3). In late 1988 two defeated members of the Workers' Party (WP) were initially nominated in this way, one of whom was disqualified soon afterwards. In 1990 another constitutional amendment allowed for the nomination of personalities from various walks of life

244

THAILAND

who were deemed capable of contributing positively to legislative deliberations as non-elected Members of Parliament. These Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs), are intended to reflect non-partisan views. The President appoints them for a term of two years on the recommendation of a Special Select Committee of Parliament. In 1992 six NMPs were included in Parliament. In 1997 their number increased to nine. During the colonial era, Singapore's chief executive was the Governor, referred to after 1959 as the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. In 1965, when Singapore became independent, the post of Yang di-Pertuan Negara was abolished and replaced by the office of a non-executive President, elected by an absolute majority vote of Parliament every four years. A constitutional amendment in November 1991 provided for the direct election of the President; the legal term of office was extended to six years and presidential powers were substantially widened; the purpose was to create an institutional check over the expenditure of Singapore's international reserves. The first direct presidential election was held in 1993 (for the detailed provisions see 1.3).

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (incorporating all amendments in force on 20 March 1992); Parliamentary Elections Act (revised edition 1995); Presidential Elections Act (revised edition 1992); Republic of Singapore Government Gazette, Acts Supplement, No. 8, 26 February 1999.

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. All Singapore citizens who are ordinary residents in the country and not less than 21 years of age are entitled to vote. Citizens living abroad cannot vote. Voting is compulsory. The names of non-voters are expunged from the voting register and can be restored only upon a written application. If the registration officer does not consider the reason for not voting good and sufficient, a fine of S$ 5 (equals approx. US$ 2.90 in 2001) has to be paid for re-registration.

Elected national institutions: Both the President of the Republic and the unicameral Parliament are directly elected. The President is elected for a six-year term; there are no legal limitations of re-election.

SINGAPORE

245

The term of office of Parliament is five years from the date of its first sitting. The President may however dissolve it before the end of its term on the advice of the Prime Minister, as long as such advice commands the confidence of a majority of the MPs. In that case, parliamentary polls must be held within three months after the dissolution. Parliament is made up of 83 elected members returned at a general election, up to six Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) to ensure a minimum representation of political parties opposed to the government and up to nine Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) appointed by the President upon the advice of a select parliamentary committee. In addition, if the Speaker selected is not already a MP, s/he becomes a member of parliament automatically. NCMPs and NMPs are excluded from voting on any motion pertaining to constitutional amendments, supply bills, money bills/revenue laws or votes of no-confidence in the Government. The actual number of NCMPs and NMPs is not legally fixed; it depends rather on the number of opposition candidates elected for Parliament and the discretion of the Government. For the directly elected seats, apart from the single-member constituencies (SMCs) there are also multi-member constituencies, the Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), which were introduced in order to ensure the parliamentary representation of the Malay, Indian, and other minority communities (see below). Vacancies in SMCs caused by death, resignation or otherwise are filled through by-elections. Regarding GRCs, by-elections are only held if all the seats of the constituency fall vacant. Single vacant GRC-seats remain unfilled until the next general election.

Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: Presidential candidates have to be citizens of Singapore, at least 45 years of age, and of good character and reputation. Furthermore, they must have held office for at least three years as Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker of Parliament, Attorney General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Auditor General, Accountant-General, or Permanent Secretary; as chairman or chief executive officer of a statutory board; as chairman of the board of directors or chief executive officer of a company incorporated or registered under the Companies Act with a paid-up capital of at least S$ 100 million (equals approx. US$ 58 million in 2001); or in any other similar or comparable position of seniority and responsibility in any other organization or department of equivalent size or complexity in the public or private sector.

246

THAILAND

Every candidate has to be nominated with a nomination paper signed by two registered voters, as proposer and seconder, and by at least four other registered voters. Furthermore, s/he must pay a deposit equal to three times the amount required for candidature for Parliament.

- parliamentary elections: Candidates must be citizens of Singapore, be at least 21 years old, named in a current register of electors and residents in the country for a total of at least ten years. Furthermore, they must be able to take part in the proceedings of Parliament, and hence to speak, read and write at least one of the official languages (i.e. English, Malay, Mandarin, or Tamil). Every Group Representation Constituency (GRC) is designated either as an electoral division where at least one of the candidates of each group (i.e. list of parties or independents) has to belong to the Malay community, or, alternatively, as an electoral division where at least one of the candidates of each group has to belong to the Indian or other minority communities. All the members of a group must belong to the same party or be independents standing as a group. Both SMC- and GRC-candidates have to submit nomination papers signed by a proposer and seconder, as well as by not less than four other electors registered in the respective constituency. The nomination paper must also contain the written consent of the candidate and, in the case of GRC, of all the candidates in the group. Every nominee in a group must also submit a statutory declaration of his/her qualifications and the political party for which s/he stands (if any); in addition, if s/he belongs either to the Malay or to the Indian or other minority community, s/he has to submit a certificate issued by the relevant Community Committee established for that purpose. Furthermore, each candidate must deposit an amount equal to 8% of the allowances paid to a MP in the preceding calendar year (in 1997: S$ 8,000, i.e. approx. US$ 4,700). This sum is forfeited if the candidate or group is not elected and does not poll more than 12.5% of the valid votes cast in the constituency.

Electoral system - presidential elections: Plurality system. In the event of a tie for the first place, lots are drawn to decide the outcome. If there is only one candidate on nomination day, the candidate is declared elected without the polls being held.

- parliamentary elections: Plurality system in single-member constituencies (SMCs) and multi-member constituencies—the Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs). In the 1997 elections, there were 9 SMCs and 5 four-member, 6 five-member, and 4 sixmember GRCs. There are no hard and fast rules for the formation of GRCs, but the government

SINGAPORE

247

decides upon the advice of an Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, which generally takes into account the population growth in the existing constituencies. Each elector is entitled to one vote. The lists in the GRCs are closed and blocked, i.e. the winning list gets all constituency seats. Unopposed candidates/lists are declared elected without the polls being held. In the event of a tie for the first place lots are drawn.

Organizational context of elections: The Government appoints a Registration Officer and Assistant Registration Officers to maintain the register of electors both for parliamentary and presidential elections. A Revising Officer may be appointed to deal with appeals against decisions of the Registration Officer. For each election the Government appoints a Returning Officer and, if necessary, Assistant Returning Officers; these are responsible for the conduct of elections as provided by a writ under the public seal of the President, as well as for overseeing the counting and recording of votes according to the Parliamentary Elections Act. A Malay Community Committee and a Committee for Indian and Other Minority Communities are established in order to determine the eligibility of candidates in Group Representation Constituencies. For presidential elections, the Government appoints a Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officers. The Presidential Elections Committee, whose function is to ensure that presidential candidates have the prescribed qualifications, consists of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, the Chairman of the Public Accountants Board and a member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights nominated by the Chairman of the Council.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The official data on elections in Singapore are published in the Government Gazette and in the main Singapore daily newspaper, the Straits Times and its Sunday edition, the Sunday Times, generally on the day after the elections. For the tables presented below, constituency-wise data were compiled to calculate totals for the relevant elections on the basis of the following sources: The Sunday Times, 14/04/1968 (for the 1968 elections); The Sunday Times, 03/09/1972 (for the 1972 elections); The Straits Times, 24/12/1976 (for the 1972 elections); The Straits Times, 24/12/1980 (for the 1980 elections); The Sunday Times, 23/12/1984 (for the 1984 elections); The Sunday Times, 04/09/1988 (for

248

THAILAND

the 1988 elections); The Sunday Times, 01/09/1991 (for the 1991 elections); and The Straits Times, 03/01/1997 (for the 1997 elections). Due to the need to publish election results quickly, counting and calculation errors creep into the press reports, and are generally corrected in subsequent issues of the relevant newspapers. The Elections Department, Government of Singapore has corrected such errors in the tables below. The reporting of elections in Singapore in the press is not always consistent and systematic. Thus, figures for the total electorate are only given for some elections, and not for others. Additional information was found for the 1972 general election in Josey (1973), for the 1991 general election in Singh (1992) and for the 1997 general election in Da Cunha (1997). A further source in this respect are the various reports of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The data regarding the wording and results of the 1962 referendum were taken from Pugalenthi (1996); the Elections Department, Government of Singapore, provided the correction of the total electorate. The list of parties and their acronyms was compiled from various issues of Singapore Facts and Pictures published by the Information Division, Ministry of Communications and Information, various issues of Singapore published by the Psychological Defence and Publicity Division of the Ministry of Communications and Information, and the Internet. Concerning the numbers of registered voters, the following tables give two different figures for each parliamentary election held after independence: the total numbers of registered voters—including those electors registered in uncontested constituencies where the polls did not take place—are presented in table 2.2 in order to show the evolution of the total electorate in relation to the population size. On the other hand, the numbers of voters registered in the contested constituencies—i.e. the actual electorate—are documented in the tables under 2.7. Finally, one special feature of Singaporean press reports on parliamentary elections should be mentioned: in the relevant newspapers there is a persistent confusion with regard to votes that are cast but invalid because of unclear or multiple markings, lack of anonymity, and like reasons. Such votes are rejected by the Returning Officer during the counting of votes. In the local press such votes are commonly referred to as ‘spoilt votes’. However, according to the Parliamentary Elections Act, spoilt ballot papers are those which cannot be conveniently used as ballot papers due to inadvertent misuse on the part of the voter. The presiding officer of the polling station will issue a replacement, and the spoilt ballot paper will be cancelled immediately. Spoilt ballot papers

249

SINGAPORE

therefore do not enter the ballot box and are hence not included in the number of votes cast.

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups D'etat Year 1955 1959 1962 1963 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1991 1993 1997 1999 a

b

c d e

f g h i j

Presidential elec- Parliamentary tionsa electionsb

Elections for Constituent Assembly

Referendums

Coups d'état

02/04c 30/05d 01/09 21/09 13/04f 02/09 23/12g 23/12h 22/12 03/09 31/08i e

28/08 02/01 18/08

j

Since national independence in 1965 the President was indirectly elected by Parliament. This was so until 1993, when a constitutional amendment introduced direct presidential elections. The elections from 1955 to 1963 were held before national independence. The relevant results are documented in the tables 2.2–2.4. Tables 2.7 and 2.8 start with the first post-independence elections of 1968. By-elections were held on 29/06/1957. By-elections were held on 29/04 and 15/07/1961. By-elections were held on 10/07/1965 and 18/01/1966. In the by-elections of March and November 1966 all seats (three in each election) were uncontested and the nominated candidates were declared elected on nomination day. In the by-elections of 07/03/1967 only one out of five constituencies was contested, by three candidates. The rest were uncontested. This election was boycotted by the main opposition party, Barisan Sosialis. By-elections were held on 18/04/1970. By-elections were held on 14/05 and 23/07/1977, and on 10/02/1979. By-elections were held on 31/10/1981. By-elections were held on 19/12/1992. The presidential elections scheduled for August 1999 were not held because there was only one candidate (S. R. Nathan), who was nominated unopposed. He presented his nomination papers and statutory declaration on 18/08/1999 (Nomination Day) and was declared winner in a walkover. He was sworn in as President on 01/09/1999.

250

THAILAND


1955 1959 1962 1963 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1991 1993 1997 a b

c

d

Type of electiona

Pa Pa Ref Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pr Pa

Populationb

Registered votersc

Votes cast

1,318,400 1,578,300 1,750,200 1,795,000 2,012,000 2,152,400 2,293,300 2,282,100 2,443,700 2,598,500 2,762,700 2,873,800 3,103,500

Total number 300,299 586,098 619,867 617,650 759,367 908,382 1,095,817 1,290,426 1,495,389 1,660,583 1,692,384 1,756,517 1,881,011

Total number 158,154 527,921 561,559 587,448 77,952 760,458 815,130 654,195 902,980 1,373,064 805,573 1,659,482 734,000

% pop. 22.8 37.1 35.4 34.4 37.7 42.2 47.8 56.5 61.2 63.9 61.3 61.1 60.6

% reg. votersd 52.7 90.1 90.6 95.1 91.8 93.5 95.1 95.5 95.6 94.7 95.0 94.5 95.9

% pop. 12.0 33.4 32.1 32.7 3.9 35.3 35.5 28.7 37.0 52.8 29.2 57.7 23.7

Pa = Parliament; Ref = Referendum; Pr = President. The population data were obtained from various issues of the Singapore Demographic Bulletin, National Registration Department, as well as of the Yearbook of Statistics, published by the Singapore Department of Statistics. The figures provided refer to mid-year estimates. For some years data have been interpolated from census data, as annual figures were not available. From 1980 onwards the figures refer to Singapore residents (citizens and permanent residents), while in earlier years they refer to the total population. For all parliamentary elections held after independence (1965), the figures refer to the voters registered in all constituencies (and not only to those registered in the contested constituencies where the polls were actually held). The numbers of contested district voters are given in the relevant tables in 2.7. The percentages refer only to voters in contested constituencies.

SINGAPORE

251

2.3 Abbreviations AIS APS BS DP DPP NSP PAP PF PKMS SDP SJP SLF SPA SPP (1) SPP (2) SUF UNF UPF UPP WP a

b c d

Angkatan Islam [Islamic Group] (06/08/1958)a (Malay Union) Alliance Party Singapura (17/02/1966) Barisan Sosialis [Socialist Front] (15/08/1961) Democratic Partyb Democratic Progressive Party (16/03/1973) National Solidarity Party (06/03/1987) People's Action Party (18/02/1961)c The People's Front (21/05/1971) Pertubohan Kebangsaan Melayu Singapura [Singapore Malay National Organization] (20/02/1961) Singapore Democratic Party (08/09/1980) Singapore Justice Party (10/08/1972) Singapore Labour Front (xx/07/1954) Singapore People's Alliance Singapore Progressive Partyd Singapore People's Party (21/11/1994) Singapore United Front [Barisan Bersatu Singapura] (16/ 03/1973) United National Front (06/03/1970) United People's Front (20/03/1975) United People's Party (14/07/1961) The Workers' Party (30/01/1961)

The official registration date of the relevant party is given in brackets. Sources: various issues of Singapore Facts and Pictures, published by the Information Division, Ministry of Communications and Information, Government of Singapore; Singh (1992); Turnbull (1977). Formed shortly before the 1955 general election. Formed on 21/11/1954. Formed on 25/08/1947.

252

THAILAND

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1955–1997 Party / Alliance APS DP PAP SLF SPP (1) SPA BS UPP WP PF PKMS UNF SJP SUF UPF SDP AIS NSP DPP SPP (2) a

Years 1955–1959 1955 1955–1997 1955–1959 1955 1959–1963 1963–1984 1963 1959–1997 1972 1972–1991 1972 1976–1991 1976–1984 1976–1988 1980–1997 1984–1988 1988–1997 1997 1997

Elections contesteda 2 1 11 2 1 2 5 1 10 1 6 1 5 3 4 5 2 3 1 1

Only parliamentary elections. From 1955 to 1963 there were three general elections to the Legislative Assembly, and thereafter eight general elections to Parliament; total number: 11.

253

SINGAPORE

2.5 Referendums Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C a

1962a Total number 619,867 561,559 146,600b 414,959 397,626 9,422 7,911

% – 90.6 26.1 73.9 95.8 2.3 1.9

Referendum on the merger with Malaya into the Federation of Malaysia. The Alternatives were as follows:

A: Singapore will be a state within the Federation but with special conditions and with a large measure of local autonomy. Singapore will continue to have a Prime Minister and a cabinet system. B: Singapore will be a state within the Federation (A ‘Penang-type merger’) there will be a Chief Minister. Educational, Health and Commercial policies will largely be a Federation matter. [Note: The island of Penang, originally one of the Straits Settlements under British rule, had already become a federal state within the Federation of Malaysia.] C: Merger on terms no less favorable than the Borneo territories. There will only be a Chief Minister. b

Includes 144,077 blank votes, 2,370 ‘uncertain’ votes, and 153 rejected votes.

254

THAILAND

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly There was no Constitutional Assembly. The Constitution was debated and passed by Parliament.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1968–1997 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PAP WP UNF BS PF PKMS Independents a b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PAP WP SUF BS UPF PKMS SJP SDP Independents b

% – 91.8 2.6 97.4 86.7 4.0 – – – – 9.3

1972 Total number 812,926b 760,468 15,229 745,239 524,892 90,885 55,001 34,483 22,462 10,054 7,462

% – 93.5 2.0 98.0 70.4 12.2 7.4 4.6 3.0 1.3 1.0

Registered voters in the 7 contested constituencies. The total number of registered voters (in 58 constituencies) was 759,367. Registered voters in the 57 contested constituencies. The total number of registered voters (in 65 constituencies) was 908,382.

Year

a

1968 Total number 84,883a 77,952 2,058 75,894 65,812 3,049 – – – – 7,033 1976 Total number 857,297a 815,130 18,558 796,572 590,169 91,966 56,191 25,411 14,233 9,230 5,199 – 4,173

% – 95.1 2.3 97.7 74.1 11.5 7.1 3.2 1.8 1.2 0.7 – 0.5

1980 Total number 685,141b 654,195 17,743 636,452 494,268 39,590 27,522 16,488 28,586 13,435 5,271 11,292 –

% – 95.5 2.7 97.3 77.7 6.2 4.3 2.6 4.5 2.1 0.8 1.8 –

Registered voters in the 53 contested constituencies. The total number of registered voters was 1,095,817. Registered voters in the 38 contested constituencies. The total number of registered voters was 1,290,426.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes

1984 Total number 944,624a 902,980 26,384 876,596

% – 95.6 2.9 97.1

1988 Total number 1,449,838b 1,373,064 30,629 1,342,435

% – 94.7 2.2 97.8

255

SINGAPORE

PAP WP SUF SDP UPF BS SJP PKMS AIS NSP Independents a b

b

64.8 12.7 9.9 3.7 3.1 2.8 1.2 0.5 0.0 – 1.2

848,029 224,473 – 158,341 17,282 – 14,660 13,526 280 50,432 15,412

63.2 16.7 – 11.8 1.3 – 1.1 1.0 0.0 3.8 1.1

Registered voters in the 49 contested constituencies. The total number of registered voters was 1,495,389. Registered voters in the 50 contested constituencies (40 SMCs and 10 GRCs). The total number of registered voters was 1,660,583.

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PAP WP SDP NSP SJP PKMS SPP DPP Independent a

568,310 110,939 87,197 32,102 27,217 24,212 10,906 4,768 359 – 10,586 1991 Total number 847,716a 805,573 21,961 783,612 477,760 112,010 93,856 57,306 15,222 12,862 – – 14,596

% – 95.0 2.7 97.3 61.0 14.3 12.0 7.3 1.9 1.6 – – 1.9

1997 Total number 765,332b 734,000 17,255 716,745 465,751 101,544 76,129 48,322 – – 16,746 5,043 3,210

% – 95.9 2.4 97.6 65.0 14.2 10.6 6.7 – – 2.3 0.7 0.4

Registered voters in the 25 contested constituencies (20 SMCs and 5 GRCs). The total number of registered voters was 1,756,517. Registered voters in the 15 contested constituencies (9 SMCs and 6 GRCs). The total number of registered voters was 1,881,011.

256

THAILAND


1968 Seats 58 58a

PAP a b c d

PAP SDP WP SPP b c d

1972 Seats 65 65b

% 100 100.0

1976 Seats 69 69c

% 100 100.0

1980 Seats 75 75d

% 100 100.0

51 of these seats were uncontested. 8 of these seats were uncontested. 16 of these seats were uncontested. 37 of these seats were uncontested. On 31/10/1981 a candidate of the WP won a by-election in Anson constituency, thus reducing the PAP percentage of seats by 1.3 percent.

Year

a

% 100 100.0

30 11 41 47

of of of of

these these these these

1984 Seats 79 77a 1 1 – seats seats seats seats

were were were were

% 100 97.5 1.3 1.3 –

1988 Seats 81 80b 1 0 –

% 100 98.8 1.2 0.0 –

1991 Seats 81 77c 3 1 –

% 100 95.1 3.7 1.2 –

1997 Seats 83 81d 0 1 1

% 100 97.6 0.0 1.2 1.2

uncontested. uncontested. uncontested. uncontested.

2.9 Presidential Elections 1965–1999 Until 1993 the President was elected by Parliament. A constitutional amendment in 1991 introduced direct elections to presidency. Presidential candidates may not belong to any political party. 1993 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Ong Teng Cheong Chua Kim Yeow

Total number 1,756,517 1,659,482 36,611 1,622,871 952,513 670,358

% – 94.5 2.2 97.8 58.7 41.3

In 1999, S. R. Nathan was the only presidential nominee, since all other potential candidates were unable to meet the stringent conditions for candidature. In accordance with the legal provisions Nathan was thus declared elected on nomination day. The total number of registered voters was 1,967,984.

SINGAPORE

257

2.10 List of Power Holders 1965–2001 Head of State Benjamin Yusof

Years 1965–1970

Benjamin H. Sheares

1970–1981

C. V. Devan Nair

1981–1985

Wee Kim Wee

1985–1993

One Teng Cheong

1993–1999

S. R. Nathan

1999–

Head of Government Lee Kuan Yew

Years 1959–1990

Goh Chok Tong

1990–

Remarks Assumed office upon Singapore's independence from the Federation of Malaysia on 09/08/1965 and died in office on 23/11/1970. Sworn in on 02/01/1971; died in office on 12/05/1981. Sworn in on 24/10/1981; resigned from office in controversy on 28/ 03/1985. Sworn in on 02/09/1985; retired upon completion of his second term of office on 01/09/1993. Assumed office as Singapore's first directly elected President on 02/09/ 1993. Did not stand for a second term. Nominated unopposed as candidate for the presidential race on 18/08/ 1999 and sworn in as elected President on 01/09/1999. Remarks First sworn in on 05/06/1959 after Singapore attained self-government; stepped down on 28/11/1990 in order to ensure a smooth transfer of power to younger leaders, thereafter continuing as Senior Minister. Sworn in on 28/11/1990 as Singapore's second Prime Minister.

258

THAILAND

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Monthly Digest of Statistics. Singapore: Department of Statistics (various issues). Parliamentary Elections Act, Revised Edition 1995. Singapore, 1995: Government Printer. Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 1999. Republic of Singapore Government Gazette Acts Supplement, Published by Authority, No. 8, Friday, February 26, Singapore 1999. Presidential Elections Act, Revised Edition 1992. Singapore, 1992: Government Printer. Reprint of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, Incorporating all Amendments in Force on 20th March 1992. Singapore, 1992: Government Printer. Singapore 199X, published by the Psychological Defence and Publicity Division of the Ministry of Communications and Information, Government of Singapore (various issues). Singapore Demographic Bulletin. Singapore: Registry of Births and Deaths, National Registration Department (various issues). Singapore Facts and Pictures. Singapore: Information Division, Ministry of Communications and Information (various issues). The Report of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, 1991. Singapore, 1991. The Report of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, 1996. Singapore, 1996. White Paper on the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee 1976. Singapore, 1976. Yearbook of Statistics. Singapore: Singapore Department of Statistics (various issues).

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Champion, M., and Moreira, J. (1995). History of Malaya and Southeast Asia. Singapore: EPB Publishers. Chan, H. C. (1991). ‘Political Developments, 1965–1979’, in E. Chew and E. Lee (eds.), A History of Singapore. Southeast Asian Studies Program. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 157–181. Chew, E. C. T., and Lee, E. (eds.) (1991). A History of Singapore. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

SINGAPORE

259

Da Cunha, D. (1997). The Price of Victory. The 1997 Singapore General Election and Beyond. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Inter-Parliamentary Union (1968). ‘Singapore’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections July 1, 1967–June 30, 1968. Geneva: IPU, 97–99. —— (1973). ‘Singapore’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections July 1, 1972–June 30, 1973. Geneva: IPU, 121–123. —— (1977). ‘Singapore’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections July 1, 1976–June 30, 1977. Geneva: IPU, 139–142. —— (1981). ‘Singapore’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections July 1, 1980–June 30, 1981. Geneva: IPU, 113–115. —— (1985). ‘Singapore’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections July 1, 1984–June 30, 1985. Geneva: IPU, 95–98. —— (1989). ‘Singapore’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections July 1, 1988–June 30, 1989. Geneva: IPU, 99–101. Josey, A. (1973). The Singapore General Elections 1972. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Li, J., and Elklit, J. (1999). ‘The Singapore General Election 1997: Campaigning Strategy, Results, and Analysis’. Electoral Studies, 18/2: 199–216. Pillai, P. N., and Tan, K. (1989). ‘Constitutional Development’, in K. Singh Sandhu and P. Wheatley (eds.), Management of Success. The Moulding of Modern Singapore, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Pugalenthi Sr. (1996). Elections in Singapore. Singapore: VJ Times. Rodan, G. (1996). ‘Elections without Representation: The Singapore Experience under the PAP’, in R. Taylor (ed.), The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, Mass.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 61–89. Seng, O. C. (1998). ‘Singapore’, in W. Sachsenröder and U. E. Frings (eds.), Political Party Systems and Democratic Development in East and Southeast Asia. Vol. 1 (Southeast Asia). Aldershot: Ashgate, 343–402. Singh, B. (1992). Whither PAP's Dominance? An Analysis of Singapore's 1991 General Elections. Malaysia: Pelanduk Publications. Tan, K. (1997). ‘The Presidency in Singapore: Constitutional Developments’, in K. Tan and L. P. Er (eds.), Managing Political Change in Singapore. The Elected Presidency. London/ New York: Routledge, 52–87. —— and Er, L. P. (eds.) (1997). Managing Political Change in Singapore. The Elected Presidency. London/ New York: Routledge. The Straits Times, Singapore (various issues). The Sunday Times, Singapore (various issues). Turnbull, C. M. (1977). A History of Singapore, 1819–1975. Kuala Lumpur: OUP.


Thailand by Michael H. Nelson72

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview With the ‘revolution’ in 1932, the political system of Thailand (until 1939 and between 1946–49: Siam) was switched from an absolute monarchy to a ‘democracy with the King as Head of State’. Since then there have been 17 military coups (most of them successful), 21 parliamentary elections, 23 Prime Ministers (PM) presiding over 54 cabinets and 16 Constitutions. It is hoped that the large number of new structures introduced by the People's Constitution of 1997 will lead to more political stability and accountability, and will help reduce bureaucratic and political corruption and vote-buying in elections. Thailand has never been a colony. The most important turning point in its political history was the overthrow of the absolute monarchy, in 1932. It was achieved by a small group of commoners with positions in the civil service and in the military. In the official discourse of the state, this event is regarded as the introduction of democracy in Thailand. However, the population at large played hardly any role in the coup and in the processes that followed. Rather, the ensuing period was marked by a perennial power-struggle among civilian, military, and partly royalist factions, press censorship and the prohibition of forming political parties. In 1938, Phibul Songkhram assumed the offices of Commander-in-Chief and PM and established a nationalistic military dictatorship. In 1944 he was forced to resign because of his alliance with the Japanese, whose troops had entered Thailand. In the following four years Thailand was governed by five different PMs who presided over ten cabinets. In

72

I would like to thank Achan Vipawan Tuvayanond for her patient linguistic advice. I am grateful for the help of Khun Kritchaya Ratthanaprateep, librarian at the Puey Ungpakorn Library (Faculty of Economics/ Thammasat University), for providing much of the Thai-language information needed for this article. Staffs of the libraries of the National Assembly and the Interior Ministry's Local Administration Department were also helpful on my repeated visits. Finally, thanks are due to Allen Hicken who pointed out some errors in my statistics.

262

VIETNAM

1946, political parties gained institutional recognition (in 1955, they were accepted as legal entities). After general parliamentary elections Pridi Banomyong—the most important civilian in the 1932-coup group and head of the People's Party—became PM. His political fate was sealed, however, when he was blamed for the death of young King Ananda Mahidol (found shot dead on 9 June 1946). On 4 April 1948, Phibul assumed power again. He easily survived a coup attempt led by Pridi in February 1949. The rise of anti-communism during the Cold War, a significant amount of US military and economic aid and a considerable economic success helped Phibul stabilize his government. However, he only narrowly escaped from the so-called Manhatten Coup attempted by the navy in June 1951. Thereafter, Phibul consolidated his power by repealing the 1949 Constitution and dissolving Parliament in the so-called Silent Coup of 29 November 1951. In 1952 the half-appointed Assembly was restored. When the domestic situation relaxed in the following years, Phibul took some steps toward political liberalization, sanctioned political parties and promised elections. These took place in February 1957, but were massively rigged by the major force behind the government party, Police Director-General Phao Sriyanon. Under these circumstances, on 16 September 1957, the army Commander-in-Chief Sarit Thanarat conducted a coup d'état and forced both Phibul and Phao into exile. Yet, there was still a Parliament, and a critical press. General Thanom Kittikachorn, having taken the post of PM on behalf of Sarit, who was ill, could not tackle the unruly Assembly. In the end, Sarit staged another coup on 20 October 1958 and initiated an authoritarian regime that allowed neither Parliament nor political parties. At the same time, he led the King to assume a greater representative role country-wide so as to increase his own legitimacy. On the other hand, the civil war in Laos, the fear of communism, and huge US military aid brought about an increase in the institutional weight of the military. When Sarit died in 1963, he was succeeded by Thanom, who teamed up with General Praphas Charusathian. They led the military government for 10 years. The year 1968 was witness to the promulgation of a new Constitution, followed by a parliamentary election in 1969. Although the government party won a majority of seats, Parliament was rather restive and governing was not as easy as it had been so far. On 17 November 1971, Thanom conducted a coup d'état against his own government to re-impose Martial Law. The Constitution was abrogated, Parliament was dissolved and political parties were banned. The opposition to the regime, however, continued. By mid-1973 the strong student

THAILAND

263

movement for democracy organized demonstrations of 200,000 to 500,000 people. After Thanom and Praphas had lost the support of the military, and even the King had sided with the moderates, they went into exile on 14 October 1973. The following three years are known as the ‘democratic period’, a term which indicates the opening of political activities, which even included extreme leftist groups. Nevertheless, governments were unstable and the communist victories in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos intensified the fear of the élites that the communists might soon take over the country (the Communist Party of Thailand had started its insurgency in 1964/ 1965). The right wing welcomed Thanom's and Praphas' return from exile. The students, on their part, interpreted this gesture as a blatant and calculated provocation and organized a series of demonstrations. On 6 October 1976, the police, the military, and a right-wing mob put an end to the ‘democratic period’ in an orgy of hatred and blood-shed. Thousands of students fled Bangkok and joined the communist insurgency in the jungle. After a period of Martial Law, a new constitution was promulgated in 1978. The 1979 elections resulted in an unstable government that was dominated by bureaucrats and excluded elected politicians. When PM General Kriangsak Chomanan lost the support of the military, he resigned in February 1980 to make room for respected Defense Minister and army Commander-in-Chief Prem Tinsulanonda. He included parliamentarians from the bigger political parties in his cabinet. Prem's government was confirmed by elections in 1983 and 1986, but he first had to overcome two coup attempts in 1981 and 1985 on the part of the so-called young turk officers. Moreover, already after the 1986 election, there was a public discussion about whether a non-elected person should become PM. Prem managed to keep his office this time, but after the 1988 elections he stepped down, enabling Chatichai Choonhavan, the leader of the Chart Thai Party, to head a fully elected government. The government's continual provocation of the military led to another coup on 23 February 1991. Soon after, Anand Panyarachun was appointed PM by the National Peace Keeping Council (NPKC). Anand, a former career diplomat and respected businessman, chose mainly highly qualified technocrats and businessmen to form his cabinet. Many considered it to be the best and most diligent cabinet Thailand ever had, but also regretted that it was impossible to have such a government resulting from elections. At the same time, a group of frontmen established a political party, Samakhi Tham (SKT), which was obviously designed to help coup-leader

264

VIETNAM

General Suchinda Kraprayoon assume the premiership after elections had been held. Accordingly, in the new draft Constitution there were no clauses banning non-parliamentarians to become PM. Elections took place in March 1992, and Suchinda was appointed PM by the parliamentarian majority centered around the SKT. Under Suchinda's rule broadly-based mass demonstrations took place in Bangkok, in which dozens of unarmed protesters were killed by military gunfire. On the intervention of the King, Suchinda stepped down, followed by the second term of Anand Panyarachun as caretaker-PM until the early elections of September 1992. Since the mid-1990s, the project known as political reform has become very significant in Thai politics. It began in 1994 when a coalition of the Senate, the opposition and a government party (the NAP of Chavalit Yongchaiyuth) defeated the attempts to amend the Constitution in Parliament. Among other things, the amendment constituted an attempt to reduce the size and importance of the Senate and establish an independent election commission. Turmoil in Parliament, NGO-organized demonstrations, persistent criticism among the public and a hunger fast of a well-known activist finally led the House of Representatives to establish a Constitution Drafting Assembly in September 1996. The constitutional draft was passed by Parliament one year later. One core element of this new Constitution was the complete re-organization of both parliamentary chambers and of the election procedures (for details see below 1.2 and 1.3). Among the most important changes was the introduction of direct elections to a supposedly ‘apolitical’ Senate, i.e. its candidates could neither be members of political parties nor engage in an election campaign. The first Senate elections of March 2000 in fact lasted until July, when the last Senator was determined, in the fifth round of voting. In the previous rounds, the newly established Election Commission (ECT) had refused to endorse dozens of winners, who it suspected of having cheated. Consequently, it called for new elections; although neither the Constitution nor the election law had actually granted it this power, the public supported its actions almost completely. Contrary to the constitutional design of the Senate, the great majority of its members have connections to political parties and/ or used the canvassing networks of provincial politicians or political groups to be elected. The first House elections under the new Constitution were held in January 2001. Again, the ECT disqualified the polls in 62 constituencies due to electoral wrongdoing and ordered new elections. Some observers criticized the ECT for its inefficiency in administering elections of this

THAILAND

265

scale and suggested that the electoral organization be returned to the Ministry of the Interior. Others, however, saw this suggestion as an attempt of conservative forces to stop the march of political reform. For the first time in Thai history, electors could vote for national party lists. As a result, national-level parties and their leaders could not merely rely on constituency-level candidates to generate a high number of seats in the House. This situation was best understood by Thaksin Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai (TRT) Party, which put it into professional campaign action and was rewarded with a landslide victory and Thailand's 23rd prime-ministership. Amongst the lessons to be learned by the political parties are: very few will succeed in future elections; professional campaign management increases the chances of success tremendously; and policy promises and party leaders as prime ministerial candidates have an important impact on the number of MPs a party will have in the House. Yet, Thailand's party system is still characterized by a low degree of institutionalization. Political parties are normally centered around individual leaders who try to recruit candidates with strong voters' bases in their constituencies. The vast majority of voters are connected to a variety of local leaders who, at election time, work as canvassers (hua khanaen) for an individual candidate. This unspecific pre-existing political relationship between local leaders and voters also provides the social basis of vote-buying, which is rampant in Thailand at all levels of electoral activity. To this context one should add the former activities of the candidate, such as patronage, and the fact that he is an important member of a local political group (phuak). In fact, parliamentary elections are often competitions for supremacy among various phuaks. Parliamentarians thus can switch political parties and still get elected. Accordingly, electoral volatility at the aggregate party-level cannot be interpreted as a shift in the voters' preferences for a party; normally it merely reflects a shift in local political (including financial) structures or a shift in the candidates' preferences. Thai political parties have hardly any paying membership and lack significant organizational structures (perhaps with the exception of the Democratic Party). They do not reach down to the provinces or localities, and their programs are of little importance, if they exist at all.

266

VIETNAM

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions In Thailand legislative elections were held for the first time in 1933, after the absolute monarchy had been overthrown in 1932. However, the newly created Parliament (National Assembly, ratthasapha) did not consist exclusively of elected representatives until many decades afterwards. The 70 members of the first House of Representatives (sapha phuthaenratsadorn) were appointed by the Caretaker Force on 28 June 1932. According to the Second Constitution of 10 December 1932, the unicameral House consisted of 78 elected and 78 royally-appointed members. Simultaneously, suffrage was extended to women, whereby it became universal. According to the first Election Law of 21 December 1932, voters had to be of Thai nationality and at least 20 years of age. Other qualifications included not being of ‘unsound mind or mental infirmity’, not being a Buddhist monk or novice (they are excluded until today), or having had one's election right revoked by court order. Voters also had to have their place of residence in the subdistrict (tambon) where they wanted to cast their ballot. Elections were still indirect, i.e. people in the provinces first elected sub-district representatives (one per tambon between 10 October 1933 and 15 November 1933) who then elected their MPs at the provincial level (on 15 November 1933) for a four-year term. Both the tambon and the MP candidates had to be at least 23 years old and fulfill certain educational requirements. Either their residency or their birth had to be registered in that tambon or province. Paid civil servants could not stand for election in the province where they were posted. If they were elected in a different province they had to resign from their position, but they had the right to return after leaving their position as an MP (until today, civil servants aspiring to be MPs have to resign before they register their candidacy). Upon registration of their candidacy, sub-district candidates had to pay four baht and submit four pictures; MP candidates had to pay 50 baht. The provinces served as constituencies, with one MP per 100,000 citizens (increased to 200,000 with the amendment of the Election Law of 14 June 1933). In the elections, the sub-district representatives would write as many names of registered candidates on the ballot paper as MPs were in their province. At this time, 64 provinces had one MP, four provinces had two MPs, and two provinces had three (i.e. Phranakorn, later joined with Thonburi and called Bangkok, and Ubon Ratchathani in the Northeast). Political parties did not exist yet.

THAILAND

267

On 7 November 1937, one half of the 182 deputies were directly elected for the first time, while the other 91 MPs were appointed by the King. Provinces were divided into single-member constituencies (SMCs), with the same electoral ratio. This gave 55 provinces with one SMC, 19 with two, 4 with three, and 1 (Ubon Ratchathani) with four SMCs respectively. In the next Parliament, inaugurated on 12 November 1938, the 91 appointed members kept their seats. The four-year term of the newly elected members was extended twice, by two years each time. However, the term of this House lasted only about seven years because it was dissolved on 15 October 1945. The voting and candidature provisions remained largely unchanged. In the 1946 elections, 96 MPs were directly elected; five new appointments brought the number of their non-elected colleagues to the same level. However, this category of appointed MPs was—temporarily—suspended with the promulgation of the 1946 Constitution. Moreover, the number of elected MPs rose to 178. Elections for the additional 82 members in SMCs were held in 47 provinces in August 1946. Political parties were formally recognized and for the first time allowed to contest these supplementary elections. However, the list of MPs consulted by the author did not report party affiliations yet. Although eight parties existed before the political party law of 1955 came into effect, it was only with the passing of this law that a great number of political parties registered (nine in 1955, 11 in 1956, six in 1957, and two in 1958). The newly introduced Senate (wutthisapha) comprised 80 members selected by the House on 24 May 1946 for a six-year term. Candidature provisions did not change. This Parliament was abolished by a military coup in November 1947. Based on an interim Constitution, 100 senators were appointed (with a term of six years). The House was reduced to 99 members who were directly elected in January 1948. Provinces served as either SMCs (54 provinces) or as multi-member constituencies (12 provinces with two, 3 with three, and 3 with four seats). Voters had as many votes as the constituency had MPs. To comply with the new ratio of one representative every 150,000 citizens, the number of deputies was increased again by 21 MPs, elected in 19 provinces on 5 June 1949. Both Houses served until the next coup in November 1951. The new power holders—the so-called Interim Country Administration—returned to a Parliament made up of an equal number of appointed and elected MPs. The appointed deputies were supposed to disappear as soon as the voters were considered politically mature enough to select their representatives responsibly.

268

VIETNAM

In February 1952, 123 MPs were elected in provinces that, again, were either SMCs (43) or MMCs (28). Of the MMC provinces, 15 had two seats, seven had three, three had four, one had five, and two had six seats. Deputies served for five-year terms until the parliamentary polls of February 1957, for which the elected membership was increased to 160. Basically, the election system remained unchanged. To the category of civil servants excluded from being candidates were now added the officials of the newly established municipalities and sanitary districts (i.e. forms of local government). Candidates had to pay a deposit of 3,000 baht that was returned to winning candidates or those who gained at least 20% of the votes cast. Political parties were not mentioned in the context of candidate registration. However, they and the candidates were given the right to appoint one representative per polling station to observe whether the procedure was in accordance with the law. For the first time election results listed the party affiliation of the candidates, and the number of independent deputies was much smaller than that of MPs with a party affiliation. Much later (see below), the possibility of independent candidatures was abolished in order to strengthen political parties and make parliamentary politics more stable. The appointed members retained their seats. Yet, after only seven months, another coup put an end to this Parliament. The next Parliament—elected on 15 December 1957—combined also elected and appointed members, and was abolished by another coup in October 1958. For more than a decade the country was governed without a Parliament. However, in February 1959, the power holders appointed a Constitution Drafting Assembly of 240 members. No further elections were held until 10 February 1969, when a new House of Representatives was elected for a four-year term. It was made up of 219 MPs to be elected again in provinces that served as SMCs or as MMCs. Nineteen provinces were SMCs, whereas 18 provinces had two MPs, 12 had three, eight had four, five had five MPs, four provinces had six MPs, two provinces had seven, and two had nine MPs. Bangkok had the largest number of representatives (15). Electors could vote for as many candidates as their province had MPs (multiple vote). The 1968 Constitution re-established a government-selected and royally appointed Senate of 164 members serving for a six-year term. It also opened the doors to government officials, i.e. civil servants and soldiers, to become Senators. Not surprisingly, the Senate came to be gradually dominated by civil and military officials until the 1990s. Yet, another military coup in November 1971 put an early end to this Parliament. On 16 December 1972 the coup leaders appointed a strong 299-member

THAILAND

269

National Legislative Assembly. Most of its members resigned when a student revolt brought down the military regime on 14 October 1973. A National Forum of 2,347 people was created by Royal Order on 10 December 1973. This Forum selected 299 of its members to form the National Legislative Assembly. The Assembly disappeared with the promulgation of a new Constitution, and elections were held on 26 January 1975. The new House of Representatives had 269 members serving a four-year term. The MPs were elected by plurality in MMCs (multiple vote), with a ratio of 150,000 citizens to one representative. If according to this proportion a province was entitled to more than three MPs, it was divided into constituencies of two or three members of the House. Of the 71 provinces at that time, 12 were too small to be divided and became SMCs. The government-appointed Senate (formally, of course, the King appointed the Senate) comprised 100 members. The relevant voting and candidature provisions remained basically unchanged. On 12 January 1976, the House was dissolved, whereas the Senate remained in place. In the new elections of April 1976 the number of MPs rose to 279. After six months, a coup put an end to this Parliament. Neither in the 1975 nor in the 1976 elections were independent candidates allowed. After the interlude of a so-called Government Reform Council and a National Legislative Assembly, parliamentary polls were held in April 1979 for 301 MPs elected from MMCs, as had been the case before. Voters still had to be 20 years of age, whereas candidates had to be at least 25 years old. Art. 94 of the 1978 Constitution stipulated that every candidate had to belong to a political party. However, the transitory provisions of the same Constitution (Art. 204 [1]) stated that this particular clause would not be applied in the time immediately previous to the enactment of the Constitution. Therefore, independent candidates still contested the elections of 1979 and 1983 and became MPs. It was only with the elections of 1986 that this kind of representatives disappeared. The Upper House consisted of 225 appointed Senators. Basically the same electoral provisions applied to the following Parliaments, but the number of MPs increased first to 324 and then to 357 whereas the number of Senators rose to 243 and to 260. In February 1991 the—for the time being—last putsch replaced Parliament by a 292-member National Legislative Assembly appointed by the coup plotters. The following Parliaments came into being by using the previously applied model (concerning electoral arrangements and an appointed Senate). However, the number of elected MPs increased (until 1996) to 393 and that of Senators to 262 (in 1992, their term was reduced to four years). In the 1996 elections there were 156 constituencies altogether (seven SMCs,

270

VIETNAM

61 two-member and 88 three-member constituencies), in which the plurality system with multiple vote was applied. The voting age was lowered from 20 to 18 years. The 1997 Constitution marked a significant break in the evolution of the electoral provisions by introducing compulsory voting, a segmented electoral system for the House of Representatives, direct elections to the Senate and an independent election commission (for details see 1.3).

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (1997); Organic Law on the Election Commission of 1998; Organic Law on the Election of Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the Senate of 1998; Organic Law on Political Parties of 1998; Regulation of the Election Commission of Thailand regarding the Provincial Election Commissions and the Provincial Election Directors of 1998 (this regulation is available only in Thai).

Suffrage: Suffrage is universal, equal, direct, and secret. Thai nationals who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote. Persons of un-sound mind or detained by a warrant, and the Buddhist clergy are disenfranchised. Voting is compulsory. Not participating in an election without an appropriate reason is penalized with the withdrawal of some electoral rights. For example, some applicants for the House elections were rejected because they did not vote at the Senate elections. Similarly, non-voters cannot stand for local offices. However, once they perform their duty, e.g. in the elections of 6 January 2001, they will have their rights back. Citizens living abroad can vote in Thai diplomatic missions in their country of residence.

Elected national institutions: Bicameral Parliament (National Assembly), consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House consists of 500 members directly elected for a four-year term. Vacancies arising between general elections are filled either through by-elections (for the 400 deputies elected in single-member constituencies) or by succession according to party-list ranking (for the 100 deputies elected on party lists). The 200 members of the Senate are directly elected for a six-year term. Senate vacancies are also filled through by-elections. If the remainder of the parliamentary term is less than 180 days, no by-elections take place (this applies to both chambers).

THAILAND

271

Nomination of candidates - House of Representatives: Every Thai by birth who is not less than 25 years old, has at least a Bachelor's degree, and has been member of one political party for not less than 90 days at the time of applying for candidacy can stand for elections. Independent candidatures are not allowed. Constituency candidates must also fulfill any of five further conditions designed to make sure that they have some connections with the province they are supposed to represent (Art. 107 V of the Constitution). Civil servants, local assemblymen and administrators, Senators, employees of state agencies and state enterprises as well as members of the six independent state institutions (Election Commission, Constitution Court, etc.) and of the administrative court cannot stand in elections. Political parties may nominate only one candidate per single-member constituency (SMC). Upon registration, candidates must submit a certificate signed by the leader of their party and pay a fee of 10,000 baht (approx. US$ 233, as of 30 December 2000) that will be given to a fund supporting the development of political parties as stipulated in the political party law (Art. 31 and 33 of the Election Law). There are no signature requirements. Constituency candidates cannot be put on the national party lists. A party list may not include more than 100 names in numerical order. Each person may be included in only one list. Thailand's regions must be equitably represented on those lists (Art. 99 of the Constitution and Art. 35 of the Election Law). At the time of registration, the leaders of political parties or their representatives have to pay a fee of 10,000 baht per candidate.

- Senate: Thai citizens by birth who are not less than 40 years old and have at least a Bachelor's degree can be Senators. Art. 107 V of the Constitution applies as well. In addition to the exclusionary reasons listed in Art. 109, candidates to the Senate may neither be members of a political party nor hold any position in it. Members of the House of Representatives and those who have left this position for less than one year cannot become Senators either. Sitting Senators and those who have resigned from their position during the term of the Senate preceding a new senatorial election cannot candidate. Candidates to the Senate cannot campaign for votes. They are only allowed to introduce themselves to prospective voters, and even this has to be done according to very restrictive conditions. Instead, the State and the Election Commission have the duty to secure that each candidate is equally introduced to the voters (Art. 129 of the Constitution and Art.

272

VIETNAM

91–92 of the Election Law). Each candidate has to pay an application fee of 10,000 baht. Some of the conditions listed here are not applicable during the first elections to the Senate (2000) and to the House of Representatives (2001) as stipulated in transitory provision Art. 315 par. IV of the 1997 Constitution. The most important are: sitting Senators and sitting or previous MPs who want to run for the new-style Senate or House do not have to fulfill the educational conditions, the deadlines regarding party membership, and (for Senate candidates) the condition of not having been a member of the previous Senate.

Electoral system - House of Representatives: Segmented system. Of the 500 seats, 400 are elected according to the plurality system in single-member constituencies (SMCs). To this end, Thailand's 76 provinces (including the capital city of Bangkok) are divided into 400 constituencies of approx. 150,000 inhabitants each. Every elector has two votes: one for a party list and one for a candidate in the SMC where the voter's residency is registered. However, the voters' actual places of residence are often in a different province. In previous elections, therefore, they had to spend some days travelling back and forth if they wanted to cast their ballot. Since the present Constitution has introduced compulsory voting, it was deemed necessary to facilitate casting the ballot outside one's constituency (Art. 105 II of the Constitution, and Art. 79ff. of the Election Law). Electors have also the explicit option not to vote for any of the given candidates/ parties (negative vote). Uncontested candidates have to receive at least 20 percent of the total number of electors in the respective SMC; otherwise, the election must be repeated. The 100 national seats are distributed proportionally among closed and blocked party lists that have received at least five percent of the total number of votes. Seats are assigned according to Hare quota and largest remainder.

- Senate: Plurality system in 22 SMCs and single non-transferable vote (SNTV) in 54 multi-member constituencies. Bangkok has the highest number with 18 Senators. Of the remaining 53 provinces, 26 have two Senators, 13 have three, six have four Senators, five provinces have five seats, two have six, one has eight and 22 have one representative each in the Senate. The area of an entire province forms one constituency. The number of Senators per province is determined by a proportional allocation based on the number of inhabitants (by application of the Hare method). Every province receives at least one seat. Electors can vote for

THAILAND

273

only one candidate. The candidates who receive the highest number of votes, up to the number of senators of the respective province, are elected.

Organizational context of elections: Previously, the Ministry of the Interior was responsible for organizing general elections. The 1997 Constitution, however, established a number of independent state institutions whose members are appointed by the King on the advice of the Senate. These institutions must have independent administrations, and the State is obliged to provide them with sufficient budget. One of those institutions is the Election Commission of Thailand (ECT), which consists of a chairman and four other commissioners. These must be Thai citizens by birth, be at least 40 years old and hold at least a Bachelor degree. Parliamentarians, Senators, political officials, and local councilors cannot be appointed to the ECT. Commissioners shall not have been members of political parties, or have hold any office in them, for at least five years before their appointment. Finally, they may not be permanent civil servants or employees of state agencies, state enterprises, or local government units. Commissioners serve a single term of seven years (since, according to the transitory provisions in Art. 322 of the Constitution, the initial period is only half the normal term, commissioners can be reelected; the first ECT was appointed on 27 November 1997). The ECT is responsible for organizing national and local elections as well as referendums (Art. 144). Below the national level there is a second permanent level in the form of 76 Provincial Election Commissions (PEC). They are appointed by the ECT and consist of five, seven, or nine members, depending on the number of MPs a province has. Altogether, there are 434 provincial commissioners. Their single term of office is six years (according to the transitory provision, the PECs' first term will last only three years without the possibility of extension, as in the case of the ECT). The two permanent levels are complemented by temporary levels that exist only during election times. If an election to the House of Representatives is announced, the ECT, on suggestions of the PECs, will appoint both constituency election committees and constituency election directors. Among others things, they have to accept the candidates' applications and organize and perform the vote counting. Previously, the counting took place in the polling stations immediately after the time of voting had ended. However, Art. 104 IV of the new Constitution stipulates that the votes of all polling stations have to be counted together at one place in the constituency (the votes in Senate elections will be

274

VIETNAM

counted at the polling stations). For this stipulation, it is estimated that approx. one million people will be needed to conduct an election to the House of Representatives. Finally, Art. 145 III of the Constitution empowers the Election Commission to entrust representatives of private organizations with the fulfillment of duties. And Art. 327 (7) provides for the acknowledgement and appointment of representatives of private organizations to help with the supervision of elections. These constitutional provisions led to the Art. 10 (9) and 20 in the ECT Law. The first concerns the ECT's support of private organizations to conduct activities of political education for the people. The second regulates the application process if a private organization (that is a non-governmental organization) intends to observe the elections. The practical value of these opportunities for participation has been rather limited, though. Before the House elections of 6 January 2001 the election law was amended in order to increase the ECT's power in controlling the behavior of the politicians. For example, the ECT can now, if it has ‘convincing evidence’ of electoral wrongdoing by a candidate, revoke his/ her election rights for one year. Since this is done before announcing the election results and calling new elections in the constituency where the irregularities occurred, the effect is that this candidate is excluded from the second round of voting. However, this activity, which has become known as issuing a ‘red card’, is subject to scrutiny by the Council of State, the government's legal advisory body. Moreover, candidates or political parties whose behavior makes new elections necessary in constituencies or in polling stations have to pay for the cost of the repeat elections. Similarly, if the PM or any minister is not appointed from the party lists, as implicitly envisaged by the 1997 Constitution, but from amongst the constituency MPs, they will have to pay for the ECT's cost of holding the by-elections.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Most data presented below have been calculated by the author, on the basis of official election reports to suit the needs of this handbook. The statistics that were taken from Manut (1986, 1988) are based on official sources. The electoral statistics are based on the following publications: Khomun sathiti (1995, 1996), Manut (1986, 1988), Phonkanluaktang (1992, 1992), Rainganphon Kanluaktang (1975, 1976, 1992), Rainganwichai kanluaktang (1986), Rainganwikhro (1969). The source for the

THAILAND

275

data on the Senate elections of 4 March 2000 and the MP elections of 6 January 2001 is the website of the Election Commission of Thailand (http://www.ect.go.th). For the latter elections, the web site of the Ministry of the Interior was also used (http://www.khonthai.com). Where figures differed, the ECT's statistics were considered relevant except in cases of apparently obvious errors. For the Senate elections only the results from the first round of voting on 4 March 2000 are given (http://202.183.254.190/reports/show002.asp as of 23 March 2000). The main source for the power holders is http://www.cabinet.thaigov.go.th/cab_his.htm (in Thai). The numbers of registered voters and ballots cast are given since the first general election of 1933. Political parties became relevant only with the 1957 elections. From then on, reliable sources for the calculation of nationally aggregated party votes are in principle available; however, due to time constraints of the author, the detailed statistics of party votes in this chapter start with the 1975 elections. The official report for the 1975 elections contains two tables on registered voters etc. with slightly different figures for some provinces. For the present article the table was chosen that does not have the remark that the totals are not yet official. However, even that table contains some mistakes. For example, the total for registered voters is given as 20,243,791 when adding up the provincial-level figures yields 1,000 registered voters less. In the reports on the 1976 elections, figures regarding the votes cast for candidates are missing for the provinces of Phuket and Buriram. Apparently, a fire destroyed the figures for Phuket, whereas the reasons in the case of Buriram cannot be given. However, the election report does include the number of registered voters, ballots cast, and invalid ballots for these two provinces. The statistics as presented in the official reports (except for the elections of February 1957, which is known to have been heavily rigged) can be considered largely reliable. In spring 2001, consistent official figures for the House elections of 2001 were not available yet. The provisional statistics provided by the ECT on its web site contain many mistakes. The differences range from only a few votes to a few hundred or even a few thousand votes. In the case of constituency votes there are less errors. Nevertheless, we included these preliminary figures on the 2001 elections because we do not expect any substantial changes when the official statistical report comes out. Corrected summary tables as used in this chapter will also be posted on the KPI's web site (http://www.kpi.ac.th).

276

VIETNAM

The picture regarding the correctness of election figures changes if one takes into account what has been called cheating on the part of the candidates. First, the committee of the polling station may have been bribed by a candidate to allow people without ID cards to cast a ballot, to allow people to vote repeatedly (perhaps by presenting different ID cards each time they turn up at the station), the committee may count the ballots incorrectly, or they may insert premarked ballots into the ballot box. Second, the first use of central vote counting stations in each constituency during the 2001 elections (instead of counting the votes at the polling unit) has led to numerous problems, mostly of organization. Third, a phenomenon called vote-buying is widespread in Thai elections. Although this is morally condemned as cheating, it has rather to do with the existence of particular social-political structures at the local level, which make it necessary for candidates to adopt certain campaign methods if they want to get elected (see above 1.1). The regional breakdowns of parliamentary elections given below follow the division of the country into Bangkok and four major regions, i.e. Central, North, Northeast, and South. These divisions are used in many different contexts, not merely for reporting election results. For comparative reasons, the regional structure given below represents the currently (2001) existing provinces (the number of provinces used to be slightly smaller). These regions are: Central: Kanchanaburi, Chanthaburi, Chachoengsao, Chonburi, Chai Nat, Trat, Nakhon Nayok, Nakhon Pathom, Nonthaburi, Pathum Thani, Prachuap Khiri Khan, Prachin Buri, Phra Nakhon Sri Ayutthaya, Phetchaburi, Rayong, Ratchaburi, Lop Buri, Samut Prakan, Samut Songkhram, Samut Sakhon, Sakaew, Saraburi, Sing Buri, Suphan Buri, Angthong, Uthai Thani. North: Kamphaeng Phet, Chiang Rai, Chiang Mai, Tak, Nakhon Sawan, Nan, Phayao, Phichit, Phitsanulok, Phetchabun, Phrae, Mae Hong Son, Lampang, Lamphun, Sukhothai, Uttaradit. Northeast: Kalasin, Khon Kaen, Chaiyaphum, Nakhon Phanom, Nakhon Ratchasima, Buriram, Maha Sarakham, Mukdahan, Yasothon, Roi Et, Loei, Sri Sa Ket, Sakon Nakhon, Surin, Nong Khai, Nong Bualamphu, Amnat Charoen, Udon Thani, Ubon Ratchathani. South: Krabi, Chumphon, Trang, Nakhon Sri Thammarat, Narathiwat, Pattani, Phangnga, Phatthalung, Phuket, Yala, Ranong, Songkhla, Satun, Surat Thani.

277

THAILAND



Parliamentary elections House of Representatives

1932 1933 1937 1938 1946 1947 1948 1949 1951 1952 1957 1958 1969 1971 1975 1976 1977 1979 1983 1986 1988 1991 1992 1995 1996 2000 2001 a

b

c

Senatea

Elections for Constit. Assembly

Referendums

Coups d'état

24/06 20/06

15/11 07/11 12/11 06/01 (I) 05/08b

08/11 29/01 05/06 29/11 26/02 26/02 (I) 12/12 (II)

16/09 20/10

10/02 17/11 26/01 04/04

06/10 20/10

22/04 18/04 27/07 24/07 23/02 22/03 (I) 13/09 (II) 02/07 17/11 c

04/03a

06/01

The Senate was first installed in May 1946. Its members were either indirectly elected or appointed until March 2000. In these first direct elections only 122 seats out of 200 could be filled. 62 other seats were elected in repeat elections in 35 provinces on 29/04/2000. The 3rd round was held in nine provinces on 04/06/2000, followed by 12 endorsed winners. The 4th round took place in four provinces on 24/ 06/2000, three seats were approved. The last remaining seat was filled in the 5th round, held in the province of Ubon Ratchathani on 22/ 07/2000. On 13/03/2001, the ECT ordered new elections to be held on 21/04/2001 in eight provinces where Senators were found to have ‘cheated’ during their campaigns. These Senators, however, were permitted to run again. The ECT found that dishonest election practices had occurred again in Sri Sa Ket province and ordered another new election to be held on 26/05/2001 for the last vacant seat in the Senate. A transitory provision in the Constitution ordered for a supplementary election to be held in 47 provinces to bring the total number of MPs up to the number stipulated by that Constitution. On 29/01/2001 repeat elections were held in 62 single-member constituencies of 29 provinces. On 28/04/2001 a by-election had to be held in constituency No. 6 of Phitsanulok province because the MP had died. The detection of dishonest election practices during the repeat elections led the ECT to order new elections to be held on 30/06/2001 in 7 constituencies of 6 provinces.

278

VIETNAM


1933 1937 1938 1946 1948 1952 1957 1957 1969 1975 1976 1979 1983 1986 1988 1992 1992 1995 1996 2000 2001 a b

c d e

f

Type of electiona

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R S R

(I) (II)

(I) (II)

Populationb

Registered voters

Ballots cast

10,875,069 14,467,105 15,243,931 14,464,105 17,310,371 19,785,819 21,275,000 21,275,000 34,523,122 42,391,454 43,213,711 46,113,756 49,515,074 52,969,204 54,960,917 57,788,965 57,788,965 59,095,419 59,460,382 61,466,178 61,661,701

Total Number 4,278,231 6,123,239 6,310,172 6,431,827 7,176,891 7,602,591 9,859,039 9,917,417 14,820,180 20,243,791 20,623,430 21,283,790 24,224,470 26,160,100 26,658,638 32,436,170 31,860,156 37,817,983 38,564,593 42,567,111d 42,875,036d

Total number 1,773,532 2,462,535 2,210,332 2,091,788 2,117,464 2,961,291 5,668,566 4,370,589 7,285,832 9,549,924 9,072,629 9,344,145 12,295,339 16,070,957 16,944,931 19,216,670 19,622,332 23,462,746 24,070,750 30,684,040 29,925,432e

% pop. 39.3 42.3 44.5 44.5 41.5 38.4 43.2 43.5 44.2 47.8 47.7 46.2 48.9 49.4 48.5 56.1 55.9 64.0 64.9 69.3 69.5

% reg. voters 41.5 40.2 35.0 32.5 29.5 39.0 57.5c 44.1 49.2 47.2 44.0 43.9 50.8 61.4 63.6 59.2 61.6 62.0 62.4 72.1f 69.8f

% pop. 16.3 17.0 14.5 12.1 12.2 15.0 24.9 19.2 21.7 22.5 21.0 20.3 24.8 30.3 30.8 33.3 34.0 39.7 40.5 49.9 48.5

R = House of Representatives (Lower Chamber of Parliament); S = Senate. The population data are given according to official statistical yearbooks and abridged annual statistical reports. Figures are based on censuses, demographic surveys or data provided by the Ministry of the Interior. For some years, Sunantha/ Siriwan/ Wichien (1997: 30) list slightly different population figures. Population data for the 2000 and 2001 elections are taken from publications of the Election Commission of Thailand. This unusually high turnout is an indicator of the heavy fraud that plagued this election. The numbers of registered voters and ballots cast refer to the original polls only. Repeat elections are not included. This figure is only provisional. The preliminary statistics for this election are not consistent. By the time of writing, the official statistical report of the Election Commission has not been published. Voting was compulsory at both elections.

THAILAND

2.3 Abbreviations

a

Agri AmnatP CA ChartP CP CPC CPP CTP DEM Demo DF Dham DT Econ EF FDP FF FP GC HPM INP Kaona KasetS KP Kriangsak KS LD LP MC NAP NF NP NR NT PC PCCT PCP PDP PJ PP PPP PS PT

Kasetrakorn (Agriculturalist) Amnat Prachachon (People's Power) Kit Prachakhom (Community Action) Chart Prachathippatai (National Democrat) Prachachon (Citizen) Chart Prachachon (People's Nation) Chart Pattana (National Development) Chart Thai Party (Thai Nation) Prachathipat (Democrat Party) Prachathippatai (Democracy) Naew Prachathippatai (Democratic Front) Thammathibat (Dharmacrat) Damrong Thai (Safeguard Thai) Sethakorn (Economist) Naewruam Sethakorn (Economist Front) Seri Prachathippatai (Free Democracy) Palang Seri (Free Force) Serichon (Free People's) Laemthong (Golden Cape) Khabuankan Hydepark (Hyde Park Movement) Phak Issara (Independent Party) Kaona (Progress) Kaset Seri (Free Agriculture) Kit Prachathipattai (Democratic Action) Sanapsanun Nayobai Kriangsak (Supporting Kriangsak's

Policy)

Kaset Sangkhom (Social Agrarian) Raengngan Prachathippatai (Labor Democrat) Raengngan (Labor) Muanchon (Mass) Khwamwang Mai (New Aspiration Party) Palang Mai (New Force) Chartniyom (Nationalist) Fuenfu Chart Thai (National Reconstruction) Nam Thai (Leading Thai) Pattana Changwat (Provincial Development) Puangchonchaothai (Thai People) Prachachon (People Party) Palang Dharma (Force of Virtue) Prachatham (People's Justice) Palang Prachachon (People's Force) Santichon (Peaceful People's Party) Pracha Seri (Free People) Pracha Thai (Thai People)

279

280

a

VIETNAM

PU RakT Rassad. RPM RT Saha SAP SCC SCN SD SDF SeriMK Serin. SeriPT Serith. SF SiamD SiamP SK SKT SM Solid. Sov. Spracha SPT

Sahaphum (United Land) Rak Thai (Love Thai) Rassadorn (People) Ruam Palang Mai (United New Force) Ruam Thai (United Thai) Sahachart (United Nation) Kit Sangkhom (Social Action) Sammachip Chuay Chaona (Good Occupation for Farmers) Sangkhom Chartniyom (Social Nationalist) Sangkhom Prachathippatai (Social Democrat) Palang Sangkhom Prachathippatai (Social Democratic Force) Seri Manangkasila (cannot be translated directly) Seriniyom (Liberalism) Seri Prachathippatai (Liberal Democracy) Seritham (Liberal) Naewruam Sangkhomniyom (Socialist Front) Sayam Prachathippatai (Siam Democrat) Siam Pattirup (Siam Reform) Sangkhom Kaona (Social Progress) Samakkhi Tham (Justice Unity) Sayam Mai (New Siam) Ekaphap (Solidarity) Athibat (Sovereign) Saha Prachathippatai (United Democracy) Sangkhomniyom Haeng Prathet Thai (Socialist Party of

ST TAI TCP TCT TEP ThaiP ThT TP TPP TRT TS TTKN TTP UDF UDP UTP

Thai Sangkhom (Social Thai) Kaset Utsahakam Thai (Thai Agro-industry) Prachakorn Thai (Thai Citizen) Thai Chuai Thai (Thais Help Thais) Phaendin Thai (Thai Earth) Phak Thai (Thai Party) Thammathippatai (Dharmacracy) Phitak Thai (Thai Protection) Thai Prachathippatai (Thai Democracy) Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais) Thamma Sangkhom (Social Justice) Thongthin Kaona (Local Progress) Thin Thai (Thai Motherland) Naewruam Prachathippatai (United Democratic Front) Saha Prachathippatai (United Democrat) Saha Prachathai (United Thai)

Thailand)

The full Thai names include the word ‘phak’ (party), which is not always given in this list.

281

THAILAND

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1957–2001 Party / Alliance DEM Dham Econ FDP HPM INP NP PU SeriMKb CP DF EF SCC UTPc Agri CTP Demo FP GC KS LP NF NR PC PJ PP PPP Rassad. SAP SCN SF Sov. SPT TEP Thai TS FF SK SM ST ThT TP UDF CPC KP Kriangsak RT

Years 1957–2001 1957 (I) 1957 (I), 1957 (II), 1975 1957 (I)–1969 1957 (I)–1957 (II) 1957 (I)–1957 (II) 1957 (I)–1957 (II) 1957 (II) 1957 (I)–1957 (II) 1969 1969 1969 1969 1969 1975–1976 1975–2001 1975–1976 1975 1975 1975–1979 1975–1976 1975–1986 1975–1976 1975–1976 1975 1975–1976 1975–1976 1975–1976, 1986–1992 (II), 2001 1975–2001 1975–1976 1975–1976 1975 1975–1976 1975 1975–1976 1975–1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1979 1979 1979 1979, 1986–1988

Elections contesteda 14 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 2 1 1 3 2 5 2 2 1 2 2 7 11 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

282 SD Serith. SiamP TCP ChartP Kaona LD PCCT PS PT Saha SiamD CA MC RakTd SDFe Serin. UDP PCPe PDP TAI CPP KasetS NAP RPM SKTf Solid. Spracha TTKN DT NT SeriPT ThaiPf AmnatP TCT TPP TRT TTP a

b c d e f

e f

VIETNAM

1979–1983 1979, 1992 (II)–2001 1979 1979–2001 1983–1986, 2001 1983–1988 1983–1986 1983–1992 (I) 1983 1983 1983 1983 1986–1988 1986–1996 1986–1988 1986–1988 1986–1988 1986–1988 1988 1988–2001 1988 1992 (II)–2001 1992 (I) 1992 (I)–2001 1992 (I) 1992 (I) 1992 (I)–1996 1992 (I) 1992 (I) 1995 1995 1996 1996–2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001

2 5 1 9 3 3 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 6 2 2 2 2 1 6 1 4 1 5 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

Only the parliamentary elections held since 1957 are included, when political parties contested the polls for the first time. Total number: 14. After 1957, independent candidatures were allowed only in the elections of February 1957, December 1957, 1969, 1979, and 1983. In the first ever direct Senate elections (2000) party candidates were not allowed. This was the party of military strongman Phibun. This was the party of military strongman Thanom. In 1988, this party was called People. In 1986, this party had the name New Force and Social Democrat. This party was what Thais call an ad-hoc party or a special (purpose) party, i.e. it was established in order to make it possible for the leader of the 1991-coup group, Suchinda Kraprayoon, to assume the premiership after the necessary constitutional amendment had been pushed through and elections had been held. By the time he was forced to step down, the party had fulfilled its purpose and had disappeared. The SKT was reminiscent of two earlier military-led parties, i.e. Seri Manangkasila (SeriMK) and Saha Prachathai (United Thai or UTP). This party was a break-away faction of the Democrat Party (DEM). ‘ThaiP’ was chosen in order to distinguish it from ‘Thai’ that stood in the elections of 1975 and 1976.

THAILAND

283


2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly Elections to a Constituent Assembly have never been held. Since 1933 there were two appointed Constitution Drafting Assemblies (CDA): the first was established by the authoritarian power holders on 3 February 1959 and comprised 240 members. It existed for almost 10 years until it was dissolved with the promulgation of the 8th Constitution on 20 June 1968. In September 1996 the second CDA was appointed by the House of Representatives. It consisted of eight experts in public law, eight experts in political science/ public administration, seven people with experience in politics, administration, and constitution-drafting, and 76 representatives from the provinces. This body submitted a constitutional draft which was passed by Parliament on 27 September 1997. Parliament could only pass or reject the draft in its entirety; in case of rejection, a referendum would have been held.

284

VIETNAM

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 Elections to the House of Representatives 1975–2001 As political parties contested parliamentary elections in 1957 for the first time, party votes cannot be documented for the polls between 1933 and 1952. Party votes for the 1957 and 1969 elections could not be aggregated in due time before this handbook was published. Numbers of registered voters and votes cast for the elections prior to 1975 are reported in 2.2. Invalid and valid votes for this period have not been available. Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballots DEM TS CTP SAP KS SCN NF SPT SF PPP NR Thai PJ Demo Sov. LP GC Rassad. Agri TE FP PP ThT TP UDF ST PC FF Others

1975a Total number 20,242,791 9,549,924 1,137,291 8,412,633 3,176,398 2,669,736 2,220,897 1,982,168 1,387,451 1,299,613 1,113,653 819,489 672,313 509,718 369,244 313,904 297,102 283,990 141,607 136,783 123,948 122,033 116,062 92,957 84,599 67,127 – – – – 30,103 – 404,126b

1976a % – 47.2 11.9 88.1 17.2 14.5 12.1 10.8 7.5 7.0 6.0 4.4 3.7 2.8 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 – – – – 0.2 – 2.2

Total number 20,623,430 9,072,629 453,327 8,619,302 4,745,990 1,725,568 3,280,134 3,272,170 672,259 642,078 1,276,208 357,385 174,432 104,084 79,894 98,487 – 59,472 – 161,031 – 11,919 24,987 – – 746,985 264,526 223,048 196,998 125,037 100,162 95,056 312,901c

% – 44.0 5.0 95.0 25.3 9.2 17.5 17.5 3.6 3.4 6.8 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 – 0.3 – 0.9 – 0.1 0.1 – – 4.0 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.7

285

THAILAND a

b c

The 1975 election was contested by 45 political parties, the 1976 election by 39 parties. The percentages refer to the total number of votes cast, i.e. 18,435,021 (1975) and 18,750,811 (1976). This figure includes Econ 60,962 (0.3%), PP 66,370 (0,4%), and PC 30,103 (0.2%). This figure includes SM 72,664 (0.4%) and SK 25,028 (0.1%).

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballots SAP DEM CTP Serith. CPC NF TCP KP KS SD RT SiamP Kriangsak PS PCCT ChartP SiamD Kaona Others Independents a

b

1979a Total number 21,284,790 9,344,045 406,971 8,937,074 4,179,174 2,865,248 2,213,299 979,398 759,302 544,733 528,210 274,591 239,122 162,240 119,046 106,916 94,425 – – – – – 397,533 6,197,082

% – 43.9 4.4 95.6 21.3 14.6 11.3 5.0 3.9 2.8 2.7 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 – – – – – 2.0 31.5

1983a Total number 24,224,470 12,295,339 498,127 11,797,212 7,103,177 4,144,414 6,315,568 – – 195,340 2,395,795 – – 297,332 – – – 474,402 180,364 2,137,780 839,915 338,140 98,204b 2,000,290

% – 50.8 4.0 96.0 26.8 15.6 23.8 – – 0.7 9.0 – – 1.1 – – – 1.8 0.7 8.1 3.2 1.3 0.4 7.5

The percentages refer to the total number of votes cast, i.e. 19,660,319 (1979) and 26,520,721 (1983). As for the 1983 election, the number of votes cast for independent candidates was originally 2,955,534; the figure provided refers to the situation after independents had joined political parties. The changes affected the following parties: SAP 6,667,855; CTP 4,982,326; DEM 4,118,782; SiamD 1,553,869; PT 241,442 (here included in ‘Others’ with 81,845 votes); PCCT 145,765; Others 15,359. This figure includes 14,866 votes cast for Saha and 1,493 for LD.

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballots DEMa CTP SAP UDP

1986a Total number 26,160,100 16,070,957 564,060 15,506,897 8,477,701 6,496,370 4,560,615 3,814,651

% – 61.4 3.5 96.5 22.5 17.3 12.1 10.1

1988a Total number 26,658,638 16,944,931 594,788 16,350,143 4,456,077 7,612,148 4,651,161 810,547

% – 63.6 3.5 96.5 11.3 19.3 11.8 2.1

286 Rassad. TCP CA Kaona RT ChartP MC Serin. LD NF PCCT RakT PDP SDF TAI a

Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballots NAP SKT CPP CTP PDP DEM SAP Serith. TCP Solid. MC Rassad. RPM PP Othersb b

2,786,105 2,612,717 2,268,346 1,998,721 1,658,812 1,078,128 723,758 404,960 246,512 232,027 196,527 85,241 – – –

7.4 6.9 6.0 5.3 4.4 2.9 1.9 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 – – –

2,336,962 2,413,520 1,127,418 1,114,468 3,988,941 – 622,933 690,486 – – 3,143,851 2,454,870 3,586,878 273,932 179,563

5.9 6.1 2.9 2.8 10.1 – 1.6 1.7 – – 8.0 6.2 9.1 0.7 0.5

The percentages refer to the total number of votes cast, i.e. 37,641,191 (1986) and 39,463,755 (1988).

Year

a

VIETNAM

1992 (I)a Total number 32,436,283 19,216,466 547,726 18,668,740 9,980,150 8,578,529 – 7,305,674 5,104,849 4,705,376 3,586,714 – 2,280,887 1,315,075 443,568 376,580 337,361 – 502,188

% – 59.2 2.9 97.2 22.4 19.3 – 16.4 11.5 10.6 8.1 – 5.1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 – 1.1

1992 (II)a Total number 31,860,156 19,622,332 503,534 19,118,798 6,576,092 – 7,332,388 7,274,474 8,293,457 9,703,672 1,863,360 1,645,776 1,413,032 1,067,237 681,718 242,221 – 73,460 –

% – 61.6 2.6 97.4 14.2 – 15.9 15.8 18.0 21.0 4.0 3.6 3.1 2.3 1.5 0.5 – 0.2 –

The percentages refer to the total number of votes cast, i.e. 44,516,951 (1992/I) and 46,166,887 (1992/II). The figure for 1992 (I) includes: PCCT 158,037 (0.4%), TTKN 156,808 (0.4%), KasetS 152,692 (0.3%), and Spracha 34,651 (0.1%).

Year Registered voters Ballots cast

1995a Total number 37,817,983 23,462,746

% – 62.0

1996a Total number 38,564,593 24,070,750

% – 62.4

287

THAILAND

Invalid ballots Valid ballots CTPa DEM NAP CPP PDP NT TCP SAP Serith. Solid. MC DT Othersb a b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes TRT DEM NAP CPP CTP Serith. Rassad. TCP TTP TPP ChartPP APP TCT Otherse

b

c

2.9 97.1 22.8 22.3 12.3 12.0 7.6 6.3 4.5 4.0 3.1 2.5 2.4 0.4 –

632,502 23,438,248 5,621,890 18,087,006 16,585,528 7,044,304 1,550,170 – 2,330,135 3,036,544 708,430 1,011,299 680,204 – 262,066

2.6 97.4 9.9 31.8 29.1 12.4 2.7 – 4.1 5.3 1.2 1.8 1.2 – 0.5

The percentages refer to the total number of votes cast, i.e. 55,319,056 (1995) and 56,917,576 (1996). The figure for 1996 includes: ThaiP 164,464 (0.3%), SeriPT 56,804 (0.1%), and LP 40,798 (0.1%).

Year

a

678,716 22,784,030 12,630,074 12,325,423 6,806,621 6,612,504 4,209,135 3,474,142 2,476,218 2,201,218 1,716,786 1,361,719 1,309,381 195,835 – 2001a Total number 42,825,018b 29,925,432 2,984,784 26,940,648 9,616,204 6,721,220 2,433,892 2,307,281 2,223,320 1,029,940 849,724 366,952 278,384 347 935 2,013 0,000 114,101f

% – 69.9 10.0 90.0 37.1 25.9 9.4 8.9 8.6 4.0 3.3 1.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4

Total number 42,875,036 29,925,432 789,950 29,135,482 11,565,103c 7,494,738 1,996,227 1,752,981 1,516,192 821,736 358,127 339,199 606,679 198,233 196,351 147,957 129,769 1,308,706f

% – 69.8 2.6 97.4 40.7d 26.4 7.0 6.2 5.3 2.9 1.3 1.2 2.1 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 4.6

Under the framework of the newly introduced segmented electoral system, the figures in the first two columns refer to the first votes cast in the 400 single-member constituencies (SMCs), the third and fourth column refer to the second votes cast for national party lists (37 in total). Repeat elections were held on 29/01/2001 in 62 SMCs. The relevant figures were: 6,564,433 registered voters; 3,727,041 (56.8%) votes cast; 306,613 (8.2%) invalid votes (these are the highest of the three different figures for votes cast and of the two figures for invalid ballots provided by the ECT's web site). The difference in registered voters seems to be due in large part to a mistake regarding the figures for Samut Prakan province where 50,000 more voters are listed as registered than there should be. The figures are based on the author's aggregation of the sub-national results as published on the ECT's web site. The official figures

288

d e

f

VIETNAM

available at the time of writing were not consistent. For example, the ECT gives the TRT 11,634,495 votes while the Local Administration Department of the Ministry of the Interior lists 11,530,216 on its web site. Similar differences occur with the votes of other political parties. The basis for these percentages is the total number of votes cast for political parties in all 400 SMCs (28,431,998). Apart from the considerable difference of invalid ballots, it is also noteworthy that many more voters marked the ‘no vote’ box on the constituency ballot (1,010,236 or 3.4%) than on the party list ballot (544,731 or 1.8%). These figures include 5,724 and 68,662 votes, respectively, for the once popular PDP, and 817 and 57,200 for ThaiP. The figure for ‘Others’ in the party-list column contains votes for altogether 24 parties.

289

THAILAND

2.7.1 a) Elections to the House of Representatives 1975–2001: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) 1975 Region

Registered voters 1,913,971 4,713,459 6,790,088 4,368,037 2,457,236 20,242,791

Ballots cast

Invalid ballots Valid ballots

DEM

TS

644,086 2,090,662 3,387,059 2,203,667 1,224,450 9,549,924

69,658 247,681 371,998 295,138 152,816 1,137,291

574,428 1,842,981 3,015,061 1,908,529 1,071,634 8,412,633

546,693 652,844 463,695 820,509 692,657 3,176,398

62,844 732,157 1,108,504 487,833 278,398 2,669,736

1975 (cont.) Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total

CTP

SAP

KS

SCN

NF

Others

243,616 518,411 798,781 410,010 250,079 2,220,897

222,085 277,519 532,993 691,029 258,542 1,982,168

5,054 225,781 525,188 482,173 149,255 1,387,451

30,813 396,012 498,886 337,088 36,814 1,299,613

220,587 164,143 463,993 180,682 84,248 1,113,653

202,244 608,765 2,605,790 798,703 369,603 4,585,105

1976 Region


Ballots cast


DEM

CTP

596,336 2,103,377 3,303,773 2,005,565 1,063,578 9,072,629

19,001 96,443 165,812 113,272 58,799 453,327

577,335 2,006,934 3,137,961 1,892,293 1,004,779 8,619,302

766,833 897,999 1,204,885 966,481 909,792 4,745,990

215,045 906,078 1,197,081 800,538 161,392 3,280,134


SAP

NF

TS

PP

KS

Others

267,680 647,211 1,160,807 851,673 344,799 3,272,170

255,545 214,573 446,002 193,531 166,557 1,276,208

14,866 486,130 791,210 326,485 106,877 1,725,568

5,231 64,276 427,300 161,900 88,278 746,985

0 136,328 263,696 271,087 1,148 672,259

44,961 500,402 1,497,224 704,769 284,141 3,031,497

1979 Region

Registered voters 2,245,448 5,002,028 6,824,160 4,604,200 2,608,954

Ballots cast


SAP

DEM

436,596 1,976,561 3,621,166 2,226,403 1,083,319

17,806 81,498 149,840 107,174 50,653

164,855 724,695 1,609,532 972,682 707,410

226,574 403,684 939,035 573,212 722,743

Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total


Bangkoka Central Northeast North South

418,790 1,895,063 3,471,326 2,119,229 1,032,666

290 Total a

VIETNAM

21,284,790

9,344,045

406,971

8,937,074

4,179,174

2,865,248

Prachakorn Thai (Thai Citizens-TCP) Party received the highest number of votes in Bangkok, i.e. 420,808 (37.4%). This party is not listed here because it gained only 107,402 more votes in the remaining four regions.


CTP

Serith.

CPC

NF

Others

Independents

90,287 508,494 905,910 626,389 82,219 2,213,299

20,098 149,153 581,354 161,174 67,619 979,398

0 118,687 261,964 186,163 192,488 759,302

51,279 75,038 340,168 54,971 23,277 544,733

493,029 248,331 697,283 426,896 56,544 1,922,083

77,942 1,335,698 2,654,202 1,758,755 370,485 6,197,082

1983 Region


Ballots cast


SAP

CTP

867,901 2,764,780 4,583,796 2,574,033 1,504,829 12,295,339

20,810 104,031 184,715 127,599 60,972 498,127

847,091 2,660,749 4,399,081 2,446,434 1,443,857 11,797,212

528,152 1,096,248 2,848,496 1,790,769 839,512 7,103,177

54,431 2,101,645 2,427,046 1,294,124 438,322 6,315,568


DEM

TCP

ChartP

SiamD

Others

Independents

658,623 238,970 1,205,850 730,552 1,310,419 4,144,414

967,765 890,579 311,538 170,585 55,328 2,395,795

30,821 326,967 1,190,321 374,804 214,867 2,137,780

4,736 122,803 406,819 196,440 109,117 839,915

88,335 309,474 808,632 222,935 154,406 1,583,782

64,135 332,381 763,568 684,363 155,843 2,000,290

1986 Region


Ballots cast


DEM

CTP

1,097,506 3,680,437 5,805,410 3,610,249 1,877,355 16,070,957

21,640 122,882 192,282 158,028 69,228 564,060

1,075,866 3,557,555 5,613,128 3,452,221 1,808,127 15,506,897

1,112,954 972,434 2,786,753 1,404,238 2,171,322 8,447,701

107,295 2,603,081 2,240,243 1,275,577 270,174 6,496,370

SAP

UDP

Rassad.

TCP

CA

Others

282,883 595,274 2,612,378 671,291 398,789

25,052 509,180 1,268,311 1,674,485 337,623

66,581 1,021,729 995,719 608,749 93,327

1,172,301 708,766 296,533 319,876 115,241

40,624 405,691 1,019,025 583,952 219,054

355,573 1,003,304 2,887,316 1,819,268 559,270


Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total 1986 (cont.) Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South

291

THAILAND

Total

4,560,615

3,814,651

2,786,105

1988 Region


Ballots cast

2,268,346

6,624,731


CTP

SAP

1,159,814 3,843,683 6,138,687 3,855,996 1,946,751 16,944,931

27,530 138,355 196,886 163,841 68,176 594,788

1,132,284 3,705,328 5,941,801 3,692,155 1,878,575 16,350,143

5,941 3,120,264 2,625,540 1,539,936 320,467 7,612,148

85,381 800,103 2,382,732 1,011,847 371,098 4,651,161


DEM

RT

PCCT

PDP

RakT

Others

432,281 197,170 1,900,708 726,547 1,199,371 4,456,077

2,514 94,988 1,056,491 2,768,081 66,867 3,988,941

254,308 380,382 1,995,835 489,938 23,388 3,143,851

1,024,318 825,988 682,109 603,615 450,848 3,586,878

66,862 230,601 1,013,304 55,283 1,088,820 2,454,870

1,312,803 2,732,004 3,047,141 1,737,628 740,253 9,569,829

1992 (I) Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total


Ballots cast


NAP

SKT

1,422,611 4,545,227 6,727,916 4,205,986 2,314,726 19,216,466

19,880 131,339 178,654 155,639 62,214 547,726

1,402,731 4,413,888 6,549,262 4,050,347 2,252,512 18,668,740

262,046 1,887,663 4,213,800 2,265,199 1,351,442 9,980,150

6,689 1,463,153 3,892,037 2,829,952 386,698 8,578,529

1992 (I) (cont.) Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total

CTP

PDP

DEM

SAP

TCP

Others

1,696 3,578,245 2,178,498 1,318,404 228,831 7,305,674

1,894,909 951,207 860,183 885,742 512,808 5,104,849

444,710 232,935 1,331,817 627,048 2,068,866 4,705,376

0 410,801 2,348,525 705,687 121,701 3,586,714

1,262,615 689,782 177,560 143,192 7,738 2,280,887

121,233 586,425 1,336,605 532,609 397,900 2,974,772

1992 (II) Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total


Ballots cast


DEM

PDP

1,578,959 4,642,907 6,894,125 4,195,755 2,310,586 19,622,332

19,851 121,596 162,684 145,241 54,162 503,534

1,436,546 1,550,221 2,125,237 1,697,161 2,894,507 9,703,672

1,830,725 1,336,543 1,779,477 2,114,993 1,231,719 8,293,457


2,612,717

1,559,108 4,521,311 6,731,441 4,050,514 2,256,424 19,118,798

292 1992 (II) (cont.) Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total a

VIETNAM

CPP

CTP

NAP

SAP

Serith.

Others

19,162 1,481,342 3,780,473 1,919,858 131,553 7,332,388

0 3,252,186 2,375,398 1,639,197 7,693 7,274,474

33,720 928,006 3,487,768 1,232,550 894,048 6,576,092

4,167 264,922 1,333,896 260,375 0 1,863,360

55,959 449,803 872,207 231,315 36,492 1,645,776

1,112,936a 915,336 1,008,780 393,955 46,661 3,477,668

This figure includes 950,346 votes of the TCP and 151,329 votes that were cast for the MC.

1995 Region


Ballots cast


CTP

DEM

1,803,440 5,742,507 8,113,940 4,852,324 2,950,535 23,462,746

27,884 163,015 223,626 191,076 73,115 678,716

1,775,556 5,579,492 7,890,314 4,661,248 2,877,420 22,784,030

15,707 6,023,897 3,690,688 2,641,966 257,816 12,630,074

1,244,757 1,714,405 1,969,603 2,300,257 5,096,401 12,325,423


NAP

CPP

PDP

NT

TCP

Others

46,078 907,180 3,889,419 1,300,944 663,000 6,806,621

57,661 875,637 3,506,054 2,138,385 34,767 6,612,504

1,664,287 984,618 540,527 964,535 55,168 4,209,135

314,452 594,600 1,655,943 648,299 260,848 3,474,142

1,410,159 721,452 49,031 285,700 9,876 2,476,218

259,441 1,606,356 3,648,655 1,043,288 227,199 6,784,939

1996 Region


Ballots cast


DEM

NAP

1,777,438 6,029,696 8,370,883 4,986,663 2,906,070 24,070,750

28,660 173,366 191,840 178,933 59,703 632,502

1,748,778 5,856,330 8,179,043 4,807,730 2,846,367 23,438,248

2,296,168 3,802,914 2,806,098 3,613,226 5,568,600 18,087,006

91,030 3,461,488 8,933,854 3,025,485 1,073,671 16,585,528

CPP

CTP

SAP

TCP

PDP

Others

225,407 1,170,039 3,176,501 2,465,205 7,512 7,044,304

4,842 3,137,828 1,227,881 1,250,687 652 5,621,890

969 777,337 1,726,763 531,475 0 3,036,544

967,616 810,365 36,217 508,182 7,755 2,330,135

1,056,345 304,304 26,338 147,150 16,033 1,550,170

222,007 561,343 1,715,188 149,597 13,864 2,661,999


Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total 1996 (cont.) Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total

293

THAILAND

2001a Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total a

b

c

Invalid votes

Valid Votes

TRT

DEM

2,600,291 7,246,270 10,093,520 5,919,133 4,066,218 29,925,432

93,566 765,447 986,823 762,012 376,936 2,984,784

2,506,725 6,480,823 9,106,697 5,157,121 3,689,282 26,940,648

1,029,384 2,431,151 3,394,697 2,342,516 418,456 9,616,204

758,884 1,617,728 755,029 1,430,031 2,159,548 6,721,220


NAP

CPP

CTP

Serith.

TTP

Others

76,125 278,112 1,494,390 188,198 397,067 2,433,892

141,020 470,078 1,147,913 402,043 146,227 2,307,281

27,951 966,124 823,133 303,434 102,678 2,223,320

3,685 11,889 874,723 72,233 67,410 1,029,940

123,754 67,026 37,947 38,574 11,083 278,384

182,856 283,572 404,520 183,905 279,219 1,334,072

2001a Region

Registered voters 3,901,108 10,452,631c 14,857,979 8,227,650 5,435,668 42,875,036

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votesb

TRT

DEM

2,600,291 7,246,270 10,093,520 5,919,133 4,066,218 29,925,432

25,352 224,482 269,773 156,714 113,629 789,950

2,574,939 7,021,788 9,823,747 5,762,419 3,952,589 29,135,482

1,131,050 2,835,431 4,462,031 2,834,543 302,048 11,565,103

717,990 1,877,073 700,733 1,609,284 2,589,658 7,494,738

The figures refer to the second votes cast for the national party lists. The preliminary official figures are inconsistent. When summing up the 544,731 ‘no vote’ votes, all valid votes add up to only 28,976,729; when adding the number of invalid votes of 789,950, the total number of votes cast only amounts to 29,766,679. It seems that in Samut Prakan province the statistics show 50,000 more registered voters than there should be.

2001 (cont.) Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total a

Votes cast

The figures refer to the first votes cast for the constituency candidates.

Bangkok Central Northeast North South Total a


NAP

CPP

CTP

Serith.

TTP

Others

59,708 127,589 1,347,994 69,969 390,967 1,996,227

139,968 350,501 988,420 224,493 49,599 1,752,981

30,776 760,665 522,752 169,957 32,042 1,516,192

6,606 27,433 693,795 57,401 36,501 821,736

164,828 191,601 113,447 92,565 44,238 606,679

228,318a 701,154 846,217 614,922 287,731 2,678,342

This figure includes 158,563 votes that were cast for the party of Bangkok's governor, the TCP.


295

THAILAND

2.7.1 b) Elections to the House of Representatives 1975–2001: Regional Level (% Of Valid Votes) 1975 Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Nation-wide a b c d e f

b c d e

a b

TS 4.1 20.5 15.8 11.6 13.1 14.5

CTP 15.9 14.5 11.4 9.7 11.8 12.1

SAP 14.5 7.8 7.6 16.4 12.2 10.8

Others 29.9b 39.0c 58.5d 42.7e 30.2f 45.5

Totala 8.3 19.4 38.0 22.8 11.5 100.0

Others 4.1 30.8b 42.7c 34.3d 23.3e 32.9

Totala 8.4 20.5 37.3 22.8 11.0 100.0

Indep. & Others 55.4b 49.9 49.5 51.0 28.9 47.9

Totala

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. This figure includes 14.4% of NF. This figure includes 11.1% of SCN, 6.3% of KS, 6.3% of PPP, and 4.6% of NF. This figure includes 8.1% of SPT, 7.7% of SF, 7.5% of KS, 7.1% of SCN, and 6.6% of NF. This figure includes 11.5% of KS, 8.0% of SCN, 4.3% of NF, and 3.1% of PPP. This figure includes 7.0% of KS, 6.5% of SPT, and 4.0% of NF.

1976 Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Nation-wide a

DEM 35.6 18.3 6.6 19.5 32.7 17.2

DEM 48.8 23.3 17.2 22.6 44.1 25.3

CTP 13.7 23.5 17.1 18.7 7.8 17.5

SAP 17.1 16.8 16.6 19.9 16.7 17.5

NF 16.3 5.6 6.4 4.5 8.1 6.8

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. This figure includes 12.6% of TS, 5% of SCN, and 3.5% of KS. This figure includes 11.3% of TS, 6.1% of PP, 4% of SCN, 3.8% of KS, and 3% of SPT. This figure includes 7.6% of TS, 6.3% of KS, 3.8% of PP, and 3.6% of SCN. This figure includes 5.25 of TS, 5% of SPT, and 4.3% of PP.

1979 Region

SAP

DEM

CTP

Serith.

Bangkok Central Northeast North South Nation-wide

14.7 20.3 20.1 20.4 31.8 21.3

20.2 11.3 11.8 12.0 32.5 14.6

8.0 14.3 11.3 13.2 3.7 11.3

1.9 4.2 7.3 3.4 3.0 5.0

5.7 18.2 40.6 24.2 11.3 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. This figure includes 37.4% of the TCP. The respective shares of independent candidates are 6.9% (Bangkok), 37.5% (Central), 33.2% (Northeast), 36.9% (North), and 16.7% (South).

1983 Region

SAP

CTP

DEM

TCP

Bangkok Central Northeast North South

22.0 20.2 28.6 32.8 25.6

2.3 38.8 24.4 23.7 13.4

27.5 4.4 12.1 13.4 40.0

40.4 16.4 3.1 3.1 1.7

Indep. & Others 7.8 20.1 31.8b 27.0c 19.3

Totala 9.0 20.4 37.6 20.6 12.4

296 Nation-wide a b c

b c d

b c d e f

b c d

15.6

9.0

24.7

100.0

DEM 35.2 12.4 19.7 16.8 52.1 22.5

CTP 3.4 33.3 15.9 15.3 6.5 17.3

SAP 8.9 7.6 18.5 8.0 9.6 12.1

UNP 0.8 6.5 9.0 20.0 8.1 10.1

Others 51.7b 40.1c 36.9 39.9d 23.7 38.0

Totala 8.4 20.8 37.5 22.2 11.1 100.0

CTP 0.2 37.2 17.9 17.2 7.5 19.3

SAP 2.7 9.6 16.2 11.3 8.7 11.8

RT 0.1 1.1 7.2 31.0 1.6 10.1

Others 83.5b 49.7c 45.8d 32.3e 54.0f 47.5

Totala 8.0 21.2 37.3 22.6 10.8 100.0

DEM 13.6 2.4 12.9 8.1 28.2 11.3

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. This figure includes 35.9% of TCP and 32.2% of PDP. This figure includes 9.9% of PDP, 9.5% of Rassad., 9.4% of TCP, and 6.2% of Kaona. This figure includes 13.6% of PCCT and 6.9% of PCP. This figure includes 7.1% of Rassad., 6.8% of PDP, and 5.5% of PCCT. This figure includes 25.5% of PCP, a break-away faction of DEM, and 10.6% of PDP.

1992 (I) Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Nation-wide a

23.8

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. This figure includes 37% of the TCP. This figure includes 13% of Rassad. and 9% of TCP. This figure includes 12.7% of RT, 7.2% of Rassad., and 7% of CA.


26.8

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. Includes ChartP (11.9%) and Independents (7.6%) Includes Independents (12.5%).


VIETNAM

NAP

SKT

CTP

PDP

Others

Totala

6.6 19.3 25.8 24.3 26.6 22.4

0.2 14.9 23.8 30.4 7.6 19.3

0.0 36.5 13.3 14.2 4.5 16.4

47.4 9.7 5.3 9.5 10.1 11.5

45.9b 19.6 31.8d 21.6 51.1c 30.4

9.0 22.0 36.7 20.9 11.4 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. This figure includes 31.6% for TCP. 40.8% of the vote for DEM. This figure includes 14.8% of SAP and 8.2% of DEM.

1992 (II) Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South

DEM

PDP

CTP

NAP

Othersa

Totalb

32.0 15.2 12.7 17.9 55.2

40.7 13.1 10.6 22.3 23.5

0.0 32.0 14.2 17.3 0.1

0.8 9.1 20.8 13.0 17.1

26.5c 30.6 41.7 29.6 4.1

9.7 22.0 36.3 20.6 11.4

297

THAILAND

Nation-wide a

b c

b c d e

b

b

c d e f g

14.2

31.0

100.0

CTP 0.3 44.9 19.5 23.3 3.9 22.8

DEM 24.8 12.8 10.4 20.3 77.2 22.3

NAP 0.9 6.8 20.5 11.5 10.0 12.3

CPP 1.2 6.5 18.5 18.9 0.5 12.0

Others 72.8b 29.1c 31.1d 26.0e 8.4 30.6

Totala 9.1 24.3 34.3 20.5 11.9 100.0

DEM 47.2 27.1 14.3 30.9 83.3 31.8

NAP 1.9 24.7 45.5 25.9 16.1 29.1

CPP 4.6 8.3 16.2 21.1 0.1 12.4

CTP 0.1 22.4 6.3 10.7 0 9.9

Others 46.2b 17.5 17.8 11.4 0.6 16.8

Totala 8.6 24.6 34.5 20.5 11.8 100.0

CPP 6.0 7.7 12.9 8.1 4.1 8.9

Others 14.4c 21.7d 24.0e 12.1f 12.9g 18.8

Totalb 9.0 23.6 34.4 19.1 13.8 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. This figure includes 21.7% for the PDP, 19.9% for TCP, and 4.3% for MC.

2001a Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Nation-wide a

15.8

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. This percentage includes the PDP (33.2%) and the TCP (28.1%). This percentage includes the PDP (7.3%), TCP (5.4%), and NT (4.4%). This percentage includes NT (8.7%), SAP (7.5%), and Serith. (6.3%) This percentage includes the PDP (8.5%) and NT (5.7%).


18.0

This includes the newly established CPP, which won 15.9 per cent of the national vote total. The CPP's regional shares were 0.4% in Bangkok, 14.6% in the central region, 22.6% in the Northeast, 20.2% in the North, and 2.5% in the South. Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. This includes 21.2% for TCP.


21.0

TRT 43.9 39.7 38.0 47.2 11.7 37.1

DEM 32.4 26.4 8.5 28.8 60.3 25.9

NAP 3.3 4.5 16.7 3.8 11.1 9.4

Percentages refer to total votes cast for constituency candidates in the respective regions, i.e. Bangkok (2,343,659), Central (6,125,680), Northeast (8,932,352), North (4,960,934), and South (3,581,688). Percentages of valid votes cast for constituency candidates nation-wide, i.e. 25,944,313. This figure is derived from the author's aggregation of constituency results provided by the Election Commission on its web site. The ECT's own total is 25,961,356. This includes 6.8% for TCP and 5.3% for TTP. This includes 15.8% for CTP and 3.2% for Rassad. This includes 9.8% for Serith., 9.2% for CTP, and 2.8 for Rassad. This includes 6.1% for CTP and 2.6% for Rassad. This includes 7.2% for Rassad. and 2.9% for CTP.

2001a Region Bangkok Central Northeast North

TRT 45.6 41.3 46.1 50.0

DEM 29.0 27.3 7.2 28.4

NAP 2.4 1.9 13.9 1.2

CPP 5.6 5.1 10.2 4.0

Others 17.4c 24.4d 22.6e 16.4

Totalb 8.7 24.2 34.0 20.0

298 South Nation-wide a

b

c d e

VIETNAM

8.1 40.7

69.4 26.4

10.5 7.0

1.3 6.2

10.7 19.7

13.1 100.0

Percentages refer to total votes cast for party lists in the respective regions, i.e. Bangkok (2,479,244), Central (6,871,447), Northeast (9,675,389), North (5,673,134), and South (3,732,784). Percentages of valid votes cast for political parties nation-wide, i.e. 28,431,998. This figure is derived from the author's aggregation of constituency results on the Election Commission's web site. The ECT's own total is 28,629,202. This includes 6.6% for TTP and 6.4% for TCP. This includes 11.1% for CTP. This includes 7.2% for Serith. and 5.4% for CTP.

299

THAILAND

2.7.2 Elections to the Senate (2000) Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballots a

2000a Total number 42,567,111 30,684,040 1,932,560 28,751,480

% – 72.1 6.3 93.7

In the first-ever direct Senate elections of 2000 party candidates were not allowed. The total number of votes ‘against all’-votes was 1,075,903.

300

VIETNAM

2.7.2 a) Elections to the Senate: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) 2000 Region

Registered voters Ballots cast

Invalid ballots

Valid ballots


3,847,743 10,324,509 14,820,460 8,198,497 5,375,902 42,567,111

59,640 523,228 617,403 512,689 219,600 1,932,560

2,701,037 7,153,677 9,429,223 5,578,843 3,888,700 28,751,480

2,760,677 7,676,905 10,046,626 6,091,532 4,108,300 30,684,040

Against all candidates 91,676 374,705 264,620 241,400 103,502 1,075,903

2.7.2 b) Elections to the Senate: Regional Level (In %) 2000 Region Bangkok Central Northeast North South Nation-wide a b c d

Percentages of In percentages In percentages Percentages of

Turnouta 71.8 74.4 67.8 74.3 76.4 72.1

Invalid votesb 2.2 6.8 6.2 8.4 5.4 6.3

Against allc 3.3 4.7 2.6 4.0 2.5 3.5

Totald 9.4 24.9 32.8 19.4 13.5 100.0

votes cast. of votes cast. of valid votes. valid votes cast nation-wide.

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 Composition of the House of Representatives 1957–2001 Candidates with explicit party affiliations exist only since the elections of 26 February 1957. Therefore, a party-oriented political composition of the Parliaments between 1933 and 1952 cannot be given.

301

THAILAND

Year

1957 (I)a Seats 160a SeriMK 86 DEM 30 FDP 11 Dham 9 Econ 9 NP 3 HPM 2 INP 2 PU – UTP – DF – EF – CP – SCC – TS – CTP – KS – SAP – SCN – SPT – NF – SF – PPP – PJ – Thai – NR – Demo – PP – Sov. – TEP – Agri – FP – LP – PC – Independ- 8 ents a b

% 100.0 53.8 18.8 6.9 5.6 5.6 1.9 1.3 1.3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 5.0

1957 (II)b Seats 160b 4 39 5 – 6 1 1 1 44 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 59

% 100.0 2.5 24.4 3.1 – 3.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 27.5 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 36.9

1969 Seats 219 – 57 1 – – – – – – 76 7 4 2 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 71

% 100.0 – 26.0 0.5 – – – – – – 34.7 3.2 1.8 0.9 0.5 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 32.4

1975 Seats 269 – 72 – – 1 – – – – – – – – – 45 28 19 18 16 15 12 10 8 6 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 –

% 100.0 – 26.8 – – 0.4 – – – – – – – – – 16.7 10.4 7.1 6.7 6.0 5.6 4.5 3.7 3.0 2.2 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 –

1986 Seats 347 100

% 100.0 28.8

The 123 appointed members from the preceding House term continued their duties. 121 additional members were appointed on 18/09/1957; 26 of them were withdrawn on 08/02/1958.

Year DEM

1976 Seats 279 114

% 100.0 40.9

1979 Seats 301 33

% 100.0 11.0

1983 Seats 324 56

% 100.0 17.2

302

VIETNAM

CTP SAP TS KS SCN NF PP PC SPT Demo LP SF SK SM ST ThT TP UDF TCP Serith. CPC KP KS SiamD ChartP PT Progress SD PS LD PCCT UDP RT Rassad. CA MC Serin. Others Independents

56 45 28 9 8 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Year

1988 Seats 357 87

CTP

20.1 16.1 10.0 3.2 2.9 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

38 82 – – – 8 – – – – – – – – – – – – 32 20 13 3 3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 6 63

% 100.0 24.4

1992 (I) Seats 360 74

12.6 27.2 – – – 2.7 – – – – – – – – – – – – 10.6 6.6 4.3 1.0 1.0 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2.0 20.9

73 92 – – – 0 – – – – – – – – – – – – 36 – – – – 18 15 4 3 2 1 0 0 – – – – – – – 24

% 100.0 20.6

1992 (II) Seats 360 77

22.5 28.3 – – – 0.0 – – – – – – – – – – – – 11.1 – – – – 5.5 4.6 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 – – – – – – – 7.4

63 51 – – – 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – 24 – – – – – 3 – 9 – – 1 1 38 19 18 15 3 1 – –

18.1 14.6 – – – 0.2 – – – – – – – – – – – – 6.9 – – – – – 0.8 – 2.5 – – 0.2 0.2 10.9 5.4 5.1 4.3 0.8 0.2 – –

% 100.0 21.4

1995 Seats 391 92

% 100.0 23.5

303

THAILAND

SAP DEM RT TCP Rassad. RakT (People) PCCT PDP CA Kaona MC UDP Serin. SDF SKT NAP Solid. CPP Serith. Nam Thai Year NAP DEM CPP CTP SAP TCP Solid. MC Serith.a PDP Thai Party TRTa Rassad. TTP a

54 48 35 31 21 19

15.1 13.4 9.8 8.7 5.9 5.3

31 44 – 7 4 –

8.6 12.2 – 1.9 1.1 –

22 79 – 3 1 –

6.1 21.9 – 0.8 0.3 –

22 86 – 18 – –

5.6 22.0 – 4.6 – –

17 14 9 8 5 5 3 1 – – – – – –

4.8 3.9 2.5 2.2 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.3 – – – – – –

1 41 – – 1 – – – 79 72 6 – – –

0.3 11.4 – – 0.3 – – – 21.9 20.0 1.6 – – –

– 47 – – 4 – – – – 51 8 60 8 –

– 13.0 – – 1.1 – – – – 14.2 2.2 16.7 2.2 –

– 23 – – 3 – – – – 57 8 53 11 18

– 5.9 – – 0.8 – – – – 14.6 2.0 13.6 2.8 4.6

1996 Seats 393 125 123 52 39 20 18 8 2 4 1 1 – – –

2001 % 100.0 31.8 31.3 13.2 9.9 5.1 4.6 2.0 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 – – –

Seats 500 36 128 29 41 1 0 – – 14 0 0 248 2 1

% 100.0 7.2 25.6 5.8 8.2 0.2 0.0 – – 2.8 0.0 0.0 49.6 0.4 0.2

Shortly after the 2001 elections TRT and Serith. announced they would merge. This would increase TRT's number of seats to 262 (52.4%). If followed through, it would be the first time in Thai electoral history that a party achieves the absolute majority in the House.

304

VIETNAM

2.8.1 a) House of Representatives: Regional Distribution of Seats, 1975–2001 1975 Region DEM TS CTP KS SAP SCN SPT NF SF PPP PJ Thai NR Demo PP Sovereign TEP Agri Econ LP FP PC Total

Bangkok 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23

Central 11 14 11 4 3 7 0 2 0 5 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 62

North-east 5 18 11 4 5 6 11 7 10 0 6 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 91

North 16 6 3 10 7 2 2 3 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 57

South 17 7 3 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 36

Nation-wide 72 45 28 19 18 16 15 12 10 8 6 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 269

1976 Region DEM CTP SAP TS KS SCN NF PP PC SPT Demo LP SF SK SM ST

Bangkok 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Central 17 16 10 10 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

North-east 24 27 19 12 4 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

North 15 12 14 5 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

South 30 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nation-wide 114 56 45 28 9 8 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

305

THAILAND

a

ThT TP UDF Total

0 0 0 28

0 1 0 62

1 0 0 97

0 0 1 56

0 0 0 36

1 1 1 279

1979 Region SAP CTP DEM TCP Serith. CPC NF KP KS Others Independents Total

Bangkok 2 0 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32

Central 20 11 3 2 5 2 1 1 0 0 21 66

North-east 30 16 9 0 12 4 6 1 0 3 23 104

North 13 11 7 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 15 61

South 17 0 13 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 38

Nation-wide 82 38 33 32 20 13 8 3 3 6 63 301

1983a Region SAP CTP DEM TCP SiamD ND PT Kaona SD PS Independents Total

Bangkok 4 0 8 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36

Central 14 29 2 10 3 2 2 2 0 1 8 73

North-east 39 31 13 1 6 9 1 0 2 0 8 110

North 26 12 8 1 4 3 1 1 0 0 8 64

South 9 1 25 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 41

Nation-wide 92 73 56 36 18 15 4 3 2 1 24 324

These figures refer to the situation after the general elections. Independents joining parties and other practices led to the following number of MPs before the dissolution of the House on 1 May 1986: CTP 109, SAP 100, DEM 60, TCP 33, ND 15, Progress 3, SD 2, PS 1, PCCT 1, SiamD 0, PT 0.

1986 Region DEM CTP SAP UDP TCP RT Rassad. CA Kaona

Bangkok 16 1 2 0 16 0 0 0 0

Central 10 32 7 6 6 1 8 1 5

North-east 28 19 35 11 1 7 6 6 2

North 10 11 6 19 1 11 4 6 1

South 36 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1

Nation-wide 100 63 51 38 24 19 18 15 9

306

VIETNAM

ND MC LD NF PCCT Serin. Total

0 1 0 0 0 0 36

1 0 0 0 0 1 78

2 2 1 0 1 0 121

0 0 0 0 0 0 69

0 0 0 1 0 0 43

3 3 1 1 1 1 347

1988 Region CTP SAP DEM RT TCP Rassad. RakT PCCT PD CA Kaona DU MC Liberal SDF Total

Bangkok 0 1 5 0 20 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 37

Central 39 9 4 0 8 7 2 1 3 2 4 1 1 1 0 82

North-east 31 29 17 8 0 8 6 15 0 3 1 2 3 2 1 126

North 14 9 6 26 3 6 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 69

South 3 6 16 1 0 0 11 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 43

Nation-wide 87 54 48 35 31 21 19 17 14 9 8 5 5 3 1 357

1992 (I) Region SKT CTP NAP DEM PDP SAP PT Solid. Rassad. MC PCCT Total

Bangkok

Central

North-east

North

South

Nation-wide

0 0 0 1 32 0 2 0 0 0 0 35

15 42 8 0 6 5 4 2 0 0 1 83

33 18 40 12 0 22 0 1 2 0 0 128

29 12 12 5 2 4 1 2 2 0 0 69

2 2 12 26 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 45

79 74 72 44 41 31 7 6 4 1 1 360

1992 (II) Region DEM CTP

Bangkok

Central

North-east

North

South

Nation-wide

9 0

9 38

17 21

8 18

36 0

79 77

307

THAILAND

CPP NAP PDP SAP Serith. Solid. MC TCP Rassad. Total

0 0 23 0 0 0 1 2 0 35

12 6 6 4 2 6 0 0 0 83

27 31 9 15 4 2 2 0 0 128

21 8 6 3 2 0 1 1 1 69

0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 45

60 51 47 22 8 8 4 3 1 360

1995 Region CTP DEM NAP CPP PDP SAP NT TCP Serith. Solid. MC Total

Bangkok 0 7 0 0 16 0 0 12 0 0 2 37

Central 44 7 7 8 4 6 5 4 3 2 1 91

North-east 29 14 36 27 0 14 8 0 8 1 0 137

North 19 12 9 18 3 2 5 2 0 5 0 75

South 0 46 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51

Nation-wide 92 86 57 53 23 22 18 18 11 8 3 391

1996 Region NAP DEM CPP CTP SAP TCP Solid. Serith. MC PDP Thai Party Total

Bangkok 1 29 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 37

Central 21 14 10 28 5 10 3 0 0 0 1 92

North-East 78 12 21 5 12 0 5 4 0 0 0 137

North 20 21 20 6 3 4 0 0 1 0 0 75

South 5 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52

Nationwide 125 123 52 39 20 18 8 4 2 1 1 393

2001 Region TRT DEM CTP NAP CPP

Bangkok 29 8 0 0 0

Central 47 19 21 3 4

North-East 69 6 11 19 16

North 54 16 3 1 2

South 1 48 0 5 0

Nationwide 200 97 35 28 22

308 Serith. Rassad. SAP TTP Total

VIETNAM

0 0 0 0 37

0 1 0 0 95

14 1 1 1 138

0 0 0 0 76

0 0 0 0 54

14 2 1 1 400

309

THAILAND

2.8.1 b) House of Representatives (2001): Distribution of Seats According to the Parts of the Segmented Electoral System 2001 TRT DEM CTP NAP CPP Serith. Rassad. SAP TTP Total a

SMCSeatsa 200 97 35 28 22 14 2 1 1 400

% 50.0 24.3 8.8 7.0 5.5 3.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 100.0

PRSeats 48 31 6 8 7 0 0 0 0 100

% 48.0 31.0 6.0 8.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

The first two columns refer to the seats won in the single-member constituencies (SMC) according to the first votes; the third and fourth columns refer to the seats distributed by proportional representation (PR) according to the second votes. Percentages are calculated separately for each part of the segmented electoral system.

310

VIETNAM

2.8.2 Composition of the Senate (2000) As in the direct upper house elections of 2000 party candidates were not allowed, the political composition of the 200 seats cannot be given.

2.9 Presidential Elections Presidential elections have not been held since the King is Head of State.

2.10 List of Power Holders 1932–2001 Head of State King Prajadhipok (Rama VII)

Years 1932–1935

King Ananda Mahidol (Rama VIII)

1935–1946

King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX)

1946-

Remarks Absolute monarch since 1925. His power was reduced by a coup d'état in

1932 that established the constitutional monarchy. In January 1934 he left Thailand for England.

After abdication of Prajadhipok in March 1935, Ananda Mahidol became King. On 09/06/1946, he was found shot dead in his bed. King Bhumipol is the world's longestreigning monarch. He is held in the highest esteem by the Thais, not the least generated by his decades-long devotion to rural development. From time to time he intervenes to suggest solutions to various political problems. After the financial crisis in 1997, his idea of a self-sufficient economy or a sufficiency economy won broad support.

The monarchy or members of the royal family cannot be criticized or commented on in public. Thus, the question of who will succeed King Bhumipol is not openly discussed.

Head of Government Phraya Manopakonnitithada

Years 1932–1933

Phraya Phahonyothin

1933–1938

Luang Phibunsongkhram

1938–1944

Remarks Assumed office on 28/06/1932. Presided over three cabinets under the Provisional Constitution (1932; Thailand's First Constitution) and the Second Constitution (1932).a Assumed office on 21/06/1933. He presided over five consecutive cabinets. Longest-serving Prime Minister in Thai history. In office since 16/12/1938, he led eight cabinets. His reign has been termed nationalist military dictatorship.

311

THAILAND

Khuang Aphaiwong

1944–1945

Thawi Bunyaket

1945

Seni Pramoj

1945–1946

Khuang Aphaiwong

1946

Pridi Phanomyong

1946

Luang Thamrongnawasawat

1946–1947

Khuang Aphaiwong

1947–1948

Luang Phibunsongkhram

1948–1957

Pote Sarasin

1957–1958

Thanom Kittikachorn

1958–1958

Sarit Thanarat

1959–1963

Assumed office on 01/08/1944. Civilian, founding member and chairman of the Democrat Party (DEM), which exists still today. Head of four shortlived cabinets. Prime Minister since 31/08/1945. His cabinet lasted less than one month. First deputy chairman of DEM, assumed office on 17/09/1945; four cabinets. Prime Minister since 31/01/1946 (the second time after 1944/45). Civilian leader of the coup group that overthrew the absolute monarchy in 1932; drafter of various constitutions (amongst them the first Thailand ever had). Led two cabinets from 24/03/ 1946 on. Under his government the Third Constitution (1946) was adopted. When his 1949 coup d'état was crushed

he went into exile, and died in France in 1983.

Assumed office on 23/08/1946, led two cabinets. Two days after the dismissal of Thamrong on 08/11/1947, Aphaiwong began his third period as Prime Minister. During his term of office the Forth Constitution (1947) went into effect. Prime Minister since 08/04/1948. Under his government the Fifth Constitution (1949; abolished by a coup in 1951) and the Sixth Constitution (1952; abolished in 1958 as a consequence of Sarit's coup d'état in 1957) were

promulgated.

Prime Minister since 21/09/1957. His cabinet lasted less than four months. Prime Minister since 01/01/1958 to stand in for Sarit Thanarat. Prime Minister since 09/02/1959. His rule was aptly called despotic paternalism (Thak). In 1959 the Seventh Constitution (actually an Executive Charter consisting of 20 articles) was counter-signed by Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat.

312

VIETNAM

Thanom Kittikachorn

1963–1973

Sanya Thammasak

1973–1975

Seni Pramoj

1975

Kukrit Pramoj

1975–1976

Seni Pramoj

1976

Thanin Kraivichien

1976–1977

Sangad Chaloyu

1977

Kriangsak Chomanan

1977–1980

After Sarit's death on 08/12/1963, his deputy Thanom became Head of Government, under which the Eighth Constitution was approved in 1968. From November 1971 (when he ousted his own government by a coup) to December 1972 he presided over the country not as Prime Minister (there was none), but as leader of the coup group. In 1972 the Ninth Constitution went into force. Member of what came to be known as the infamous Three Tyrants. The so-called democratic period began on 14/10/1973, when Thanom's regime was brought down by a popular uprising. Sanya, rector of Thammasat University and a respected public figure, headed an interim government tasked with producing a new Constitution (the 10th; 1974) and preparing general elections. Became Prime Minister on 15/02/1975 after parliamentary elections (his second time of office after 1945/46). Although his party, Social Action, received only 18 parliamentary seats, he was able to put together a coalition government on 14/03/1975; brother of Seni. Took office on 20/04/1976. Third time as Prime Minister. Installed as Prime Minister on 08/10/ 1976 by the military after the bloody crackdown on students. Under his government the 11th Constitution (1976) came into force. The right-wing cabinet he headed turned out to be intolerable both for the public and the military, who ended up toppling the government. Navy General, after coup d'état (20/10/

1977) leader of the National Administrative Reform Council. Under his rule, the 12th Constitution (1977) was adopted.

Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, since 11/11/1977 head of the next two cabinets. He eased the political climate considerably. In 1978 the 13th Constitution was passed.

THAILAND

Prem Tinsulanonda

1980–1988

Chartchai Choonhavan

1988–1991

Sunthon Khongsomphong

1991

Anand Panyarachun

1991–1992

Suchinda Kraprayoon

1992

Anand Panyarachun

1992

Chuan Leekpai

1992–1995

313 As respected Army Commander-inChief, and politically neutral person, he was invited by the parliamentary parties on 03/03/1980 to head three governments. He survived two coup attempts in 1981 and 1985. Elected Prime Minister on 04/04/ 1988. The enthusiasm of having a fully elected government again soon turned into dismay about the rampant corruption of the so-called buffet cabinet. On 23/02/1991 a coup d'état disposed

of the Chartchai government with the air force arresting the Prime Minister and his entourage at the airport. General Sunthon, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, formally headed the group of coup plotters who called themselves National Peace Keeping Council (NPKC). Under his rule the 14th Constitution (1991) came into force.

On 02/03/1991, Anand, a highly respected businessman and former diplomat, became head of the most qualified cabinet Thailand ever had. This government enacted scores of laws (without having to care about an elected Assembly), but had to share power with the NPKC. The 15th Constitution (1991) was drafted and a new political party set up, both intended to pave the way for army chief and core-member of the NPKC, General Suchinda Kraprayoon, to assume premiership after parliamentary elections. On 07/04/1992 the non-MP Suchinda became Prime Minister after parliamentary elections. As expected, this was deemed illegitimate by the public at large. Mass protests and the killing of dozens of unarmed demonstrators led the King to intervene, so Suchinda disgracefully had to leave office. Again, Anand Panyarachun took over as interim-Prime Minister on 10/06/ 1992. On 23/09/1992 DEM-leader Chuan was chosen Prime Minister after parliamentary elections. His government collapsed mainly over a scandal regarding the land reform program.

314

a

VIETNAM

Banharn Silpa-archa

1995–1996

Chavalit Yongchaiyut

1996–1997

Chuan Leekpai

1997–2001

Thaksin Shinawatra

2001–

Took office on 13/07/1995. After the elections in July 1995, his cabinet was prone to inter-party as well as intraparty factional strive; in the end, Banharn, pressured to step down by his coalition partners, chose to dissolve Parliament and announced elections for November 1996. Chairman of the New Aspiration Party and former Army Commander-inChief, formed a coalition government on 25/11/1996. Was pushed out for mishandling the attacks on the Baht,

leaving the country basically bankrupt and forcing it to call the International Monetary Fond to the rescue. In 1997 the (16th) so-called People's Constitution came into force.

Prime Minister since 09/11/1997. The two major issues of Chuan's second term have been the enactment of organic laws mandated by the Constitution, and the attempt to solve the financial-economic crisis of 1997. After having set up the Thai Rak Thai

Party about two years ago, Thaksin (who became the richest man of Thailand via telecommunication monopolies based on government concessions) embarked on the most professional and expensive election campaign of Thai history. This included buying scores of established MPs from other parties, recruiting local politicians with promising personal voter bases, and recruiting more than 11 million party members in the Thai countryside. These factors, coupled with the public's boredom with the Chuan government, enabled Thaksin to produce a landslide victory at the 2001 elections. Elected Prime Minister on 09/02/2001.

The usual pattern of constitutional development in the next decades was as follows: (1) as part of a coup, the Constitution was abolished; (2) the coup-plotters issued a temporary (and very short) Constitution; (3) a new Constitution was drafted and promulgated; (4) another coup abolished this Constitution. Adding elections to this picture one gets what observers have called the vicious cycle of Thai Politics.

THAILAND

315

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2540 (1997). Bangkok: Office of the Council of State. The Thai Parliament (1997). Bangkok: The Secretariat of The House of Representatives. Khomun sathiti lae phonkanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn 2 karakatakhom 2538 (Data, Statistics, and Results of the Elections of the Members of the House of Representatives, 2 July 1995). Bangkok: Local Administration Department, Ministry of the Interior. Khomun sathiti lae phonkanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn 17 prutsachikayon 2539 (1996) (Data, Statistics, and Results of the Elections of the Members of the House of Representatives, 17 November 1996). Bangkok: Local Administration Department, Ministry of the Interior. Kotmai kanluaktang. Chabap phasa thai-angrit. [Krungthep]: Mahawitthayalai Thammasat, [phim: 2484]. (Election Law. Bangkok: Thammasat University Printing Press, 1941.) Kotmai lae rabiap kanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn Pho.So. 2529. Krungthep: Kromkanpokkhrong Krasuangmahatthai. (Laws and Regulations [concerning the] Elections to the House of Representatives of 1996. Bangkok: Local Administration Department, Ministry of the Interior.) Phonkanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn 13 Kanyayon 2535. Krungthep: Kongkanluaktang, Kromkanpokkhrong, Krasuanmahatthai. (Results of the Election of Members of the House of Representatives, 13 September 1992. Bangkok: Election Division, Local Administration Department, Ministry of the Interior.) Phonkanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn 13 Kanyayon 2535 (Results of the Election of Members of the House of Representatives, 13 September 1992). Bangkok: Data Center, Poll Watch Organization. Phraratchabanyat prakop ratthathammanun waduai kanluaktang samachik saphaphuthaenratsadon lae samachik wuthisapha Pho.So. 2541 (Organic Law on the Election of Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the Senate, 1998; English translation prepared by the Office of the Council of State). Phraratchabanyat prakop ratthathammanun waduai khanakammakankanluaktang Pho.So. 2541 (Organic Law on the Election Commission, 1998; English translation prepared by the Office of the Council of State).

316

VIETNAM

Phraratchabanyat prakop ratthathammanun waduai phakkanmuang Pho.So. 2541 (Organic Law on Political Parties, 1998; English translation prepared by the Office of the Council of State). Rabiap khanakammakankanluaktang waduai khanakammakankanluaktang pracham changwat lae phuamnuaikankanluaktang pracham changwat Pho.So. 2541 (Regulation of the Election Commission of Thailand Regarding the Provincial Election Commissions and the Provincial Election Directors of 1998). Bangkok: Election Commission of Thailand. Raingan kanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn, lem 2. (Report on the Elections of Members of the House of Representatives [of December 1957]. Bangkok: Ministry of the Interior. Rainganphon kanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn 26 Mokarakhom 2518 (Report on the Results of the Elections of Members of the House of Representatives, 26 January 1975). Bangkok: Local Administration Department, Ministry of the Interior. Rainganphon kanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn 4 Mesayon 2519 (Report on the Results of the Elections of Members of the House of Representatives, 4 April 1976). Bangkok: Local Administration Department, Ministry of the Interior. Rainganphon kanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn 22 Minakhom 2535 (Report on the Results of the Elections of Members of the House of Representatives, 22 March 1992). Bangkok: Local Administration Department, Ministry of the Interior. Rainganwichai kanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn po. so. 2529 (Research Report on the Elections of Members of the House of Representatives 1986). Bangkok: Local Administration Department, Ministry of the Interior. Rainganwichai kanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn po. so. 2531 (Research Report on the Elections of Members of the House of Representatives 1988). Bangkok: Local Administration Department, Ministry of the Interior. Rainganwikhro phonkanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn Pho.So. 2512. Krungthep: Kromkanpokkhrong Krasuangmahatthai. (Report on the analysis of the elections of members of the House of Representatives 1969. Bangkok: Local Administration Department, Ministry of the Interior.) Ruam kotmai kanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn. Krungthep: Sunborikanthangwichakan lae kotmai, Samnakngan Lekhathikan Ratthasapha, n.d. (Collection of Laws on the Elections to the House of Representatives [1932–1968]. Bangkok: Academic and Legal Service Center, Office of the Secretary General of the National Assembly.)

THAILAND

317

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Albritton, R. B. (1996). ‘Political Parties and Elections in Thailand in an Era of Globalization: No Longer a SemiDemocracy’, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Thai Studies. Theme I—Globalization: Impact on and Coping Strategies in Thai Society. Chiang Mai, Thailand, 14–17 October 1996. [Chiang Mai]: [Chiang Mai University], 1–17. —— et al. (1996). ‘Electoral Participation by Southern Thai Buddhists and Muslims’. South East Asia Research, 4/2: 127–156. Anek Laothamatas (1996). ‘A Tale of Two Democracies: Conflicting Perceptions of Elections and Democracy in Thailand’, in R. H. Taylor (ed.), The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, Mass.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 201–223. Anusorn Limmanee (1995). Political Business Cycle in Thailand 1979–1992: General Election and Currency in Circulation. Bangkok: Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University. Arghiros, D. (1995). Political Structures and Strategies: A Study of Electoral Politics in Contemporary Rural Thailand. Hull: The University of Hull, Centre for South-East Asian Studies. Callahan, W. A., and McCargo, D. (1996). ‘Vote-buying in Thailand's Northeast: The July 1995 General Election’. Asian Survey, 36/4: 376–392. Chai-anan Samudavanija (1981). Kanluaktang phakkanmuang ratthasapha lae khanathahan (Elections, Political Parties, Parliament, and the Military). Bangkok: Bannakit Publishers. Chan Ansuchote (1970). The 1969 General Elections in Thailand. DeKalb, Illinois: Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University. Chaowana Traimat (1998) Khomunphunthan 66 pi prachathipattai Thai. (Basic Data on 66 Years of Thai Democracy) (4th edn.). Bangkok: Institute of Public Policy Studies. Chaowat Sutlaphorn. (2517/1974). Poetphanuek khwamlilap sathiti kanluaktang 5 samai. Krungthep: Sunprasan Kananlaengankhien Suanakson. (Unsealing Concealed Election Statistics of Five [Election] Periods.) Farouk Bajunid, O. [Shaeik Ahmad Bajunid] (1989). The 1986 General Election in Thailand. Kuala Lumpur: Pustaka Antara. Girling, J. L. S. (1981). Thailand: Society and Politics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Hewison, K., and Surin Maisrikod (1997). ‘Thailand's 1996 Election: A Cheer for Democracy?’. Australian Quarterly, 69/1: 30–39.

318

VIETNAM

Hicken, A. D. (forthcoming). ‘From Phitsanulok to Parliament: Multiple Parties in Pre-1997 Thailand’, in M. H. Nelson (ed.), KPI Yearbook 2000. Bangkok: White Lotus. King, D. E. (1992). ‘The Thai Parliamentary Elections of 1992: Return to Democracy in an Atypical Year’. Asian Survey, 32/12: 1109–1123. —— (1993). ‘The Thai Parliamentary Elections of 1992’. Electoral Studies, 12/3: 268–274. Kramol Tongdhamachart (1977). ‘The April Elections and Prospects for Democracy in Thailand’. Southeast Asian Affairs 1977. Singapore: ISEAS, 265–274. —— (1979). ‘The April 1979 Elections and Post-election Politics in Thailand’. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 1/3: 211–231. Manut Watthanakomen (1986). Khomunphunthan phakkanmuang patchuban lae phakkanmuang kap kanluaktang pi 2522–2529 (Basic Data on Contemporary Political Parties and on Political Parties in the Elections of 1979–1986). Bangkok: Social Science Association of Thailand. —— et al. (1988). Khomunphunthan phakkanmuang patchuban lae phakkanmuang kap kanluaktang pi 2531 (Basic Data on Contemporary Political Parties and on Political Parties in the Elections of 1988). Bangkok: Policy Studies Institute, Social Science Association of Thailand. Murashima Eiji (1991). ‘Democracy and the Development of Political Parties in Thailand 1932–1945’, in Murashima Eiji, Nakharin Mektrairat, and Somkiat Wanthana, The Making of Modern Thai Political Parties. Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economies, 1–54. Murray, D. (1996). ‘The 1995 National Elections in Thailand: A Step Backward for Democracy?’. Asian Survey, 36/4: 361–375. —— (1997). ‘The Thai Parliamentary Elections of 1995 and 1996’. Electoral Studies, 16/3: 379–386. —— (1998). ‘Thailand's Recent Electoral Reforms’. Electoral Studies, 17/4: 525–536. Nakon Photchanaworaphong and Ukrit Photchanaworaphong (1999). Khomun prawattisat kanmuang Thai (Data on Thai Political History). Bangkok: Thai Watthana Phanit. Neher, C. D. (1979). ‘Constitutionalism and Elections in Thailand’, in C. D. Neher (ed.), Modern Thai Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Company, 317–336. Nelson, M. H. (1998). Central Authority and Local Democratization in Thailand: A Case Study from Chachoengsao Province. Bangkok: White Lotus. —— (forthcoming). ‘The Thai Parliamentary Elections of 6 January 2001’, in M. H. Nelson (ed.), KPI Yearbook 2000. Bangkok: White Lotus. Ockey, J. (1997). ‘Thailand: The Crafting of Democracy’. Southeast Asian Affairs 1997, Singapore: ISEAS, 301–316.

THAILAND

319

Pinai Nanakorn (1997). ‘History and Evolution of Constitutions in Thailand: From the Abrogation of the Absolute Monarchy to the “Political Reform” ’. Administrative Law Journal, special issue, 16: 253–290. Prizzia, R. (1976). ‘Thailand—Elections and Coalition Government 2’. Asia Quarterly, 6/3: 281–295. —— (1980). ‘Thailand: Elections 1979 and the New Government’. Asian Quarterly, 10/2: 111–126. Prudhisan Jumbala (1992). Nation-building and Democratization in Thailand: A Political History. Bangkok: CUSRI. —— (1998). ‘Thailand: Constitutional Reform Amidst Economic Crisis’, in Southeast Asian Affairs 1998. Singapore: ISEAS, 265–291. Race, J. (1975). ‘The January 1975 Thai Election: Preliminary Data and Inferences’. Asian Survey, 15/4: 375–381. Ratthasapha Thai Nai Rob Sisipsong Pi (2475-2517). (2526/1983). Krungthep: Mulanithi Thanakhan Krungthep. (The Thai National Assembly in the Period of 42 Years [1932–1974]). Bangkok: Bangkok Bank Foundation. Sangchai Somporn (1976). Some Observations on Elections and Coalition Formation in Thailand. Singapore: ISEAS. Somrüdee Nicro (1993). ‘Thailand's NIC Democracy: Studying from General Elections’. Pacific Affairs, 66/2: 167–182. Suchit Bunbongkarn (1996). ‘Elections and Democratization in Thailand’, in R. H. Taylor (ed.), The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, Mass.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 184–200. —— (1997). ‘Thailand's November 1996 Election and Its Impact on Democratic Consolidation’. Democratization, 4/2: 154–165. Sunantha Suwannodom, Siriwan Siribun, Wichien Piyawarakon (1997). Pramuansathiti lae kanwikhrothangprachakorn kanluaktang samachiksaphaphuthaenratsadorn priaptiap rawang Po.So. 2538 lae Po.So. 2539 (Demographic Statistics and Analysis of the Elections to the House of Representatives: Comparison between 1995 and 1996). Bangkok: Institute of Population Studies, Chulalongkorn University. Supanee Chalothorn (1986). Greater Bangkok: An Analysis in Electoral Geography, 1957–1976. Bangkok: Public Policy Study Program, The Social Science Association of Thailand. Surin Maisrikrod (1992). Thailand's Two General Elections in 1992: Democracy Sustained. Singapore: ISEAS. —— and McCargo, D. (1997). ‘Electoral Politics: Commercialisation and Exclusion’, in K. Hewison (ed.), Political Change in Thailand: Democracy and Participation. London and New York: Routledge, 132–148. Tanun Anuman-Rajadhon (1994). Campaign Techniques of the Thai Members of Parliament in the 1988 General Elections. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northern Illinois University.

320

VIETNAM

Thak Chaloemtiarana (1979). Thailand: The Politics of Despotic Paternalism. Bangkok: Social Science Association of Thailand, Thai Khadi Institute, Thammasat University. Thomson, C. N. (1996). ‘Electoral Geography of the Sino-Thai in Thailand's National Elections, 1979–1995’. Professional Geographer, 48/4: 392–404. Weber, K. E. (1975). ‘Serendipity Missed: Report on Parliamentary Elections in Thailand 1975’. Internationales Asienforum, 6/3: 302–322. Wilson, D. A., and Phillips, H. P. (1958). ‘Elections and Parties in Thailand’. Far Eastern Survey 27: 113–119. Wyatt, D. K. (1984). Thailand: A Short History. London: Yale University Press/Bangkok: Thai Watana Panich.

Vietnam by Christof Hartmann

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Vietnam, formally divided into a northern and a southern part between 1954 and 1976, was involved in military conflict for most of its history as an independent state. Although the constant warfare did not prevent the regular holding of elections since the mid-1950s, it did shape and limit the meaning of popular elections. The specific electoral provisions changed considerably over the years, but elections served always the main purpose of legitimizing the political regimes of the day. The popular approval of national offices and the claims of free and fair elections were part of the ideological competition between the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and the Republic of (South) Vietnam. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV), established with the re-unification in 1976, has maintained the leading role of the Communist Party and holds single-party elections regularly. Since the late 19th century Vietnam had been a French colony (in its southern part) and a protectorate (in its northern section). In 1941 it was occupied by the Japanese, who re-established Emperor Bao Dai as legitimate ruler. After the removal of French administration in the North, the Vietnamese section of the Indochinese Communist Party (ICP), led by Ho Chi Minh,—united with non-communist forces—emerged as the leading political force under the name League for the Independence of Vietnam (Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh, or simply Viet minh). On 2 September 1945 Bao Dai abdicated and Ho Chi Minh became President of the new provisional government, simultaneously declaring the independence of the DRV. The new government tried to gain some democratic legitimacy by organizing elections in January 1946. In the aftermath of World War II, Nationalist Chinese and British troops took control of the territory, and the British eventually allowed France to recover her territories. Whereas in the North the Viet minh began what became a protracted guerilla war, the French met little resistance in the

322

CHINA

South, where they granted self-government to the Associated State of Vietnam established in 1949. In 1950, the new state won the international recognition of the Western powers, at the same time as China and the Soviet Union recognized the DRV. The conflict thus assumed a cold-war dimension. Viet minh government in the North of Vietnam was de facto reestablished in May 1954, following the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. In the same month an international conference on Indochina was convened in Geneva. In it, all parties agreed to consider Vietnam as a single country, but until a definite political settlement had been reached, the country was to remain divided in two temporary zones, administered by the two existing Vietnamese governments, the DRV's and the State of Vietnam's, with the 17th parallel as boundary. One further agreement reached in Geneva had been the organization of nation-wide polls within two years to settle the political future of the country; it had been generally taken for granted that the entire area would then fall to Ho Chi Minh and the Communists. But it was not to be so: in South Vietnam Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem had assumed power and declared a Republic. Strongly supported by the United States, Diem resisted the international pressure to hold nation-wide elections and created instead South Vietnamese republican institutions. To that end he held a referendum in 1955 and elections to Constitutional Assembly in 1956, and passed a Constitution that provided for a presidential system with a unicameral National Assembly. When it became clear that the South Vietnamese Republic was not going to accept national polls, the North also embarked on a process of regime formation with the Constitution of January 1960. It dropped the façade of a broad nationalist front and established a formally semi-presidential type of government within an explicit communist framework. The President of the DRV, Ho Chi Minh, was to be elected by the National Assembly and preside over the meetings of the Council of Ministers. Elections were thus held in both Vietnamese states, but they did not live up to the expectations created by the democratic constitutions. In the North, the Vietnamese Fatherland Front (VFF), which brought together the Vietnamese Workers Party (VWP) and several bloc parties and satellite organizations, held the electoral process under a tight control. On its part, the Diem regime only allowed the existence of pro-government political parties. Elections were blatantly rigged and all communist and nationalist political opposition was suppressed.

VIETNAM

323

Since the late 1950s the communist leadership authorized a political and military campaign in the South by creating the National Front for the Liberation of South Viet Nam (NFL), which included many non-communist opponents to the Diem regime. In the face of the increasing guerilla attacks by NFL forces, Diem was overthrown and killed in a military coup on 1 November 1963. However, it proved difficult to create a new more stable regime. Various military governments concentrated on the conflict with the NFL rebellion, which escalated into a war of major proportions: the communists had to deploy regular troops in the South, and more than 500,000 US forces were sent to Vietnam until 1968. In June 1965 General Nguyen Van Thieu assumed power and, under his government, a new civilian regime with elected national offices was re-established in 1967. The new Constitution provided for a semi-presidential system with a bicameral Parliament. The institutionalization of the new regime was hindered both by the war going on in the territory (although elections could be regularly held), and by the lack of meaningful political parties. All deputies were elected as independents, who clustered around parliamentary blocs once elected. These blocs, however, failed to exercise control over the House deputies affiliated to them and could not broaden their organizational base. Religious cleavages (Buddhist vs. Catholic) and political prestige were the factors that carried most weight with Vietnamese voters. Thieu made some efforts to create a viable political movement to support him in Parliament, and a new party law was enacted, whereby 23 parties were legalized in 1969 and 1970. In 1973, however, all existing parties were dissolved by decree. The Paris Agreement of 1973 ordered the complete withdrawal of all US troops and a cease-fire, but made no reference to the withdrawal of North Vietnamese forces from the South. North Vietnam started the decisive offensive in late 1974, and on 30 April 1975 the communists entered Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, which they renamed Ho Chi Minh City. Initial plans to maintain separate administration were soon dropped, and, after the National Assembly elections on the unified national territory, the new Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) was declared, on 2 July 1976. The remaining Southern NLF forces merged with the VFF and some leaders became high-ranking officials in the SRV. In December 1980, the SRV regime adopted a new socialist Constitution that provided for a State Council as collective presidency and a Council of Ministers with a Prime Minister as Head of Government, both elected by the National Assembly. Major reform

324

CHINA

initiatives were taken in the wake of the Sixth Party Congress in 1986, but eventually restricted to the economic sphere (‘renovation’ or doi moi). Although the National Assembly had been conceived as a forum for the expression of popular views, and elections to Prime Minister had seen competition among several candidates since 1988, both the legislative agenda and leadership selection continued to be decided within the inner circles of the single party. The constitutional amendments of 1992—debated since 1989—albeit still emphasizing the central role of the Communist Party (VCP), relegated it from the category of ‘the only’ to that of ‘the leading’ force of the state and society. The Council of State was replaced by a single President as Head of State who would appoint the Prime Minister (subject to approval of the National Assembly) as head of the central policy-making body, the Council of Ministers. In the first elections held under that constitution in July 1992, two independent candidates were allowed to run, but failed to be elected. During the 1990s the political institutions remained fairly stable. The VCP continued to exercise its influence by appointing senior party officials to all posts in the executive and the National Assembly. Political dissent was not tolerated, but in the 1997 elections some three independents were elected to Parliament. Major social changes caused by the process of economic reform have further accentuated the contradictions between the orthodox political assumptions and the social reality, but have so far not debilitated the VCP's dominance of the state apparatus.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions French colonial rule established an elective council in the directly administered colony of Cochinchina (South Vietnam). The Colonial Council was composed of ten French and six Vietnamese representatives, and chosen by an electorate of approximately 12,000 people. Direct national elections were first held in 1946 on the territory controlled by the DRV. Voting rights were granted to all citizens aged 18 or over, and the principles of universal and equal elections were applied. The secret vote was also officially introduced, but polling was actually not secret. Ballots were written out in full review of all persons in the polling station, with aides standing ready ‘to help comrades who had difficulty in making out their ballot’, as the Electoral Law expressed

VIETNAM

325

it. The viet minh, however, by introducing universal and direct suffrage, had set standards that no South Vietnamese regime was able to ignore. The first poll to be held in the Southern Republic of Vietnam (1955 referendum) saw the introduction of universal suffrage with a voting age of 18 years. The principle of secret vote was formally recognized, but actually not applied, as the ballot paper showed pictures of both candidates, and voters had to tear off the half of the ballot paper with the picture of the preferred candidate and throw away the other half. All subsequent elections in the Republic of Vietnam held under the 1956 and 1966 Constitutions applied the principles of universal, secret, equal, and direct elections for all Vietnamese citizens of 18 and older. Voting was not compulsory. Whereas in the DRV/ SRV the National Assembly has remained the only national institution to be directly elected, in both South Vietnamese Republics there were popular elections to Presidency (and Vice-Presidency), the National Assembly (under the First Republic), and the bicameral Congress (under the Second Republic). The National Assembly of the DRV had 302 elected seats in 1946 with numerous seat contingents reserved for the nationalist opposition and loyal parties, later to be regrouped in the VFF. During the war against the French the term of office was extended to eight years, but the National Assembly was actually convened once only, in December 1953. The number of seats was raised to 362 elected seats in 1960. There were 69 appointed seats, among which 18 seats were reserved to communist deputies elected in 1946 from Vietnam south of the 17th parallel and now living in the DRV. Their mandate was renewed without contest. The term was four years, and elections were held again in 1964, 1971 (the elections scheduled for 1968 were postponed due to civil war), and 1975. The number of seats was raised to 366 elected seats in 1964, 420 seats in 1971, and 425 seats in 1975. Upon reunification the National Assemblies of the SRV had 429 members (1976), 249 elected from the North, and 243 from the South. The parliamentary term was five years. The number of seats was raised to 496 for the 1981 and 1987 elections. On the basis of a new Electoral Law that modified seat apportionment, the number of seats stood at 395 seats in 1992 and was raised again to 450 seats in 1997. All three National Assemblies of the South Vietnamese First Republic had 123 fully elected seats. The term of the assembly was three years, but could be extended in case of war or internal disturbances, and the President could extend the term of particular representatives whose district were in state of emergency or of siege. The House of

326

CHINA

Representatives of the Second Republic had a term of four years, and 137 (1967) and 159 (1971) seats. Both Assemblies reserved 16 seats for representatives of minority groups in constituencies where they were most numerous. By-elections were held. The Senate had 60 members, which were elected first in 1967. Senators were elected for six years, with one half of the Senate being renewed every three years. In December 1969 the Senators elected in 1967 drew lots to determine who would serve six-year initial terms, and who had to stand immediately for fresh elections. In 1970 and 1973, 30 new Senators were elected. Under the 1956 Constitution the President was elected to a five-year term with two possible consecutive re-elections. The 1967 Constitution allowed one re-election and also reduced the term to four years. For every election held in the DRV/ SRV provisions formally allowed all citizens of 21 years or above to stand for candidature. In reality, the Fatherland Front/ Communist Party prepared the lists and approved the candidature. The DRV, however, did never abandon its claim to have a multi-party system, and candidates of the Vietnamese Socialist Party (VSP) and Democratic Party (VDP) nominated some candidates and won seats in the capital Hanoi. Whereas in the 1946 elections some urban constituencies had more than ten candidates per seat, since 1960 candidature was carefully controlled and voters' choice was restricted to not electing approximately one-fifth of the candidates proposed (458 candidates for 362 seats in 1960, 448 candidates for 366 seats in 1964, 529 candidates for 420 seats in 1971). According to the 1956 South Vietnamese Constitution in force for the elections held between 1959 and 1963, candidates could run either as independents or under party labels, but political parties required authorization from the Ministry of Interior in order to be legalized. In 1956 candidates that failed to obtain five percent of the votes cast in their constituency lost their deposit. For the 1959 elections the deposit was dropped. Under the 1967 Constitution candidates had to be at least 25 years old (Senate: 30 years) and had to have maintained their Vietnamese nationality since birth, or have acquired it at least seven years before the date of elections, or recovered it five years before. They had to be residents in Vietnam for three years. All candidates for the House of Representatives contested the elections as individuals. They had to deposit 10,000 piasters (about US$ 85, raised to 50,000 piasters in 1971) returned if the candidate received 5 percent (10 percent in 1971) of the vote. For the Senate elections the electoral law required candidates to group themselves into lists of ten members (until 1970) and 15 members (in 1973). Each slate was required to deposit 180,000

VIETNAM

327

piasters (about US$ 1,500), which were forfeited if the slate received less than 3 percent of the vote. For the 1973 Senate elections a deposit of 2 million piasters (equaled US$ 4,234 at the then current rate of exchange) was introduced. These lists were no party lists, although they sometimes combined candidates that belonged to political parties. The attempts by President Diem to introduce obligatory nomination of candidates by political parties were blocked in Parliament in early 1973, and the requirement was not supposed to take effect until the 1976 elections. In both South and North Vietnam there were a number of political qualifications attached to candidature for political office. In the South, people having given direct or indirect support to Communist or pro-Communist neutral forces, or having supported activities profitable to Communists were disqualified. In the parliamentary elections of the DRV, a plurality system was applied in 42 multi-member constituencies (MMCs). In addition, candidates had to obtain the votes of at least 50 percent of registered voters in that constituency. The apportionment of constituencies favored heavily the new industrial centers and urban areas against the less developed peasant districts. Under the 1960 Electoral Law, applied until 1975, the urban areas were thus allotted one deputy for each 10,000 inhabitants, whereas the country average stood at 30,000. For the 1976 re-unification elections, seats were re-allotted on the basis of 100,000 inhabitants per seat, and distributed among 79 constituencies (average size 6.2). On this basis, 249 seats represented the North, and 243 the South. At the same time the term was raised to five years and the absolute majority system was introduced as a decision rule, with each voter having as many votes as there were seats to be filled. If necessary, a second ballot was held within 15 days; and such was the case in 1987, when a second round had to be organized in 11 constituencies. Voters had to cross out the names of those candidates listed on the ballot paper who they did not want to vote for. The number of MMCs was raised to 93 (496 seats) in 1981, and to 167 in 1987 and 1992. Interestingly, South Vietnam had a very similar parliamentary electoral system starting with the Second Republic. During the First Republic (1956–1963) plurality system had been applied in SMCs with one deputy for every 50,000 eligible voters. In stark contrast to the North, the capital of Saigon, where about 14 percent of the population lived, was allotted only seven seats in 1956 (6 percent) and nine seats in 1959. In the Second Republic the rate of 50,000 voters per seat was still applied, but now only the provinces and autonomous cities formed

328

CHINA

constituencies. In the CA elections, a proportional representation system was applied in small MMCs (up to six members) with a threshold of five percent. Provisions concerning the electoral formula were not available. For the 1967 NA elections the 137 seats were distributed in 53 SMCs and MMCs (maximum district magnitude of six seats; average size: 2.6). The plurality system was re-introduced. The number of seats was raised to 159 for the 1971 elections (average size: 3.0). Voters could cast as many votes as there were seats allotted to the constituency. As there were more than a thousand candidates, in some multi-candidate races winners garnered less than 15 percent of the votes cast. There were 16 seats reserved for representatives of minority groups in those constituencies where they were most numerous. In these constituencies voters of all ethnic backgrounds voted for both Vietnamese and for minority representatives. The Senate elections held between 1967 and 1973 employed a particular type of plurality system with list-voting in a national constituency. In 1967, as there were 60 seats to be distributed, the electoral law required candidates to group themselves into lists of ten members; the six highest-ranking lists were elected in their entirety, and the seventh took no seat at all. Voters were allowed to cast ballots for as many as six lists. 48 lists (480 candidates) were certified to run. Electors had thus 48 different ballot papers in the polling booth. For the 1970 elections, with 30 seats to be re-elected, a total of 16 slates of 10 candidates each were allowed to run. Three slates were to be elected. Slates had now to field 16 candidates (15 plus one alternate). In all the presidential elections the plurality system was applied. All native-born citizens of 40 (1956) and 35 (1967) years and over were eligible to Presidency. In 1967 the law required that each presidential slate deposit 200,000 piasters (about US$ 1,700) with the treasury. If it received fewer than 10 percent of the vote, the deposit was forfeited, and the candidates had to reimburse the government the sum of money expended on their behalf by the Electoral Campaign Committee for printing leaflets and posters. The deposit was raised to 2 million piasters for the 1971 elections (then US$ 7,300). In these elections all candidates (President and Vice-President) had to obtain the endorsement of either 40 National Assembly members (out of a possible 137) or of 100 Provincial/ Municipal councilors (of a possible 552 endorsements). No endorser could sign more than one petition.

VIETNAM

329

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of 1992, Electoral Law of 1997.

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret elections are applied. All citizens being 18 years old or over and holding Vietnamese citizenship have the right to vote. Voting is not compulsory. There are no provisions for external voting.

Elected National Institutions: The 450-member National Assembly is directly elected for a five-year term. Under special circumstances, and with a two-thirds vote, the term may be extended or shortened. A number of social interests and ethnic groups have their representation in the Assembly guaranteed. By-elections may be held during the first three years of the parliamentary term. The President of the Republic is elected by members of the National Assembly for a congruent term of office.

Nomination of Candidates: All resident citizens, if 21 years or over, have the right to run for election. Candidates have to fulfill a number of political qualifications (loyalty to fatherland, fight against authoritarianism and corruption, maintaining close contacts with people). The Vietnamese Fatherland Front (VFF) has an institutionalized role in selecting and recommending candidates running for election. The central government recommends about one hundred candidates to run in various constituencies throughout the country. All other candidates are nominated at the constituency level. Independent candidature (‘candidates that run on their own initiative’) is allowed upon approval by the Electoral Council and the VFF Central Committee. All candidates have to participate in voters' conferences at the local and constituency level.

Electoral System: Absolute majority system in 158 MMCs (of two or three deputies, average size: 2.8). The number of candidates must be larger than the number of seats to be distributed in the constituency. Voters have to cross out all names of candidates who they do not wish to elect. If necessary, a second round is organized within 20 days among all the candidates who have not been elected in the first round, applying the absolute majority system. If the second round does not result in the election of all seats no additional round will be held. If the number of votes cast is less than 50 percent of registered voters, a new election will

330

CHINA

be organized (with the original list of candidates). There are separate constituencies for the military.

Organisational Context of Elections: The National Assembly Standing Committee proclaims and supervises the election of the Assembly. The VFF takes part in the electoral supervision. The polls are organized by an Electoral Council (consisting of 15–21 members drawn from the National Assembly, the VFF Central Committee and Government) at the central level, election committees in the provinces and municipalities, and election boards in the constituencies.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Two have been the main problems regarding the presentation of data on Vietnamese elections: First, there has never been any official and comprehensive publication of electoral data, and second, there have not been any fully competitive polls since the country started to hold elections in 1946. National figures of registered voters, votes cast, and valid votes have been published in semi-official sources for some elections, both in North and South Vietnam. Electoral data in South Vietnam were well elaborated during the period of strongest US influence on the administration, i.e. between 1967 and 1970. They are given here according to Tull (1975) and Penniman (1972), who cite unpublished government sources. The presentation of electoral data for presidential elections omits the names of the candidates for Vice-Presidency that were elected on the same ticket. As parties had no official role in the elections, it was impossible to attribute candidates to parties, and thus to provide national totals of valid votes or seats of political parties. Electoral results in the Democratic and then Socialist Republic of Vietnam were given at press conferences by the Central Committee of the Fatherland Front (VFF) and are documented here according to transcription by Summary of World Broadcasts/ Inter-Parliamentary Union. These sources give absolute numbers, if any, only at the national level.

331

VIETNAM

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups D'etat 2.1.1 Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) 1946–1976 Year


1946 1960 1964 1971 1975


Referendums

Coups d'état

06/01 08/05 26/04 11/04 06/04

2.1.2 Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) 1954–1976 Year


Parliamentary elections Lower Chamber

1955 1956 1959 1961 1963 1965 1966 1967 1970 1971 1973


Referendums

Coups d'état

Upper Chamber

23/10 04/03 30/08 09/04 27/09

01/11 xx/02 11/09

03/09

22/10

02/10

29/08

03/09 30/08 26/08

2.1.3 Socialist Republic of Vietnam 1976– Year 1976 1981 1987 1992 1997

Presidential elec- Parliamentary tions elections 25/04 26/04 19/04 (1st) 03/05 (2nd) 19/07 20/07


Referendums

Coups d’état

332

CHINA

2.2 Electoral Body 1946–1997 2.2.1 Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) Year

1960 1964 1971 1975 a b c

Type of electiona

NA NA NA NA

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

15,903,000 18,400,000 21,595,000 23,787,000

Total number — 8,755,002 — —

Total number — 8,580,002 — —

% pop. — 47.6 — —

% reg. votersc 99.9 97.8 98.9 —

% pop. — 46.6 — —

NA = National Assembly Census in 1960: 15,903,000. All data are official estimates. All figures are official turnout rates as given by Radio Hanoi.

2.2.2 Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) Year

1966 1967 1967 1967 1970 1971 1971 1973 a

b c

Type of electiona

CA Pr S R S R Pr S

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

16,543,000 16,973,000 16,973,000 16,973,000 18,332,000 18,809,000 18,809,000 19,367,000

Total number 5,288,572 5,853,251 5,853,251 5,853,251 6,578,082 7,085,943 7,192,660 7,060,027

Total number 4,274,872 4,902,748 4,902,748c 4,270,794 4,301,139c 5,567,446 6,327,631 6,544,645c

% pop. 31.2 34.5 34.5 34.5 35.9 37.7 38.2 36.5

% reg. Vot- % pop. ers 80.8 25.8 83.8 28.9 83.8 28.9 72.9 25.2 65.4 22.4 78.5 29.6 87.9 33.2 92.7 33.8

Pr = President, R = House of Representatives (Lower Chamber), S = Senate (Upper Chamber), CA = Constitutional Assembly. For the referendum and the elections held under the Diem regime (1955–1963) no data were available. Official estimates. Number of voters. Each elector was entitled to six votes in 1967 and three in 1970.

333

VIETNAM

2.2.3 Socialist Republic of Vietnam Year

1976 1981 1987 1992 1997 a b

Type of electiona

NA NA NA NA NA

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

46,523,000 54,928,000 60,919,000 69,405,000 76,715,000

Total number 23,387,940 — — 37,524,453 43,672,683

Total number 23,099,655 — — 37,195,592 43,493,624

% pop. 50.3 — — 54.1 56.9

% reg. voters 98.8 98.0 98.8 99.1 99.6

% pop. 49.7 — — 53.6 56.7

NA = National Assembly. All data are official government estimates.

2.3 Abbreviations

a

DP DMH DSA DVPP ICP NRM NSDF VANDPF VCP VDP VFF VSP VNQDD VWP a

Democratic Party (Dong Dan Chu) Dong Minh Hoi (Vietnamese Revolutionary League) Democratic Socialist Alliance Dai-Viet Progressive Party (Dai-Viet Cap-Tien) Indochinese Communist Party (Dong Duong Cong Son Dang) National Revolutionary Movement (Phong Trao Cach Mang Quoc Gia) National Social Democratic Front (Mat Tran Dan Chu Xa Hoi Quoc Gia) Vietnam Alliance of National, Democratic, and Peaceful Forces Vietnam Communist Party Vietnam Democratic Party Vietnamese Fatherland Front Vietnam Socialist Party Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang (Vietnam Nationalist Party) Vietnam Workers' Party

For lack of reliable data it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of parties and alliances that participated in the South Vietnamese elections between 1956 and 1973. An overview is provided by Thayer (1995).

334

CHINA

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1946–1997 Party / Alliance DMH ICP VDP VSP VNQDD DVPP NRM VFF VWP DP VANDPF VCP a

b c

Years 1946 1946 1946–1987 1946–1987 1946, 1966–1973 1956, 1966 1956–1963 1960–1997 1960–1975 1973 1976 1976–1997

Elections contesteda 1 1 7b 7b 6 2 3 8b 4b,c 1 1 5b,c

Only parliamentary elections. Total number: 13 (North and South Vietnam). There were three presidential elections in South Vietnam contested by candidates running as individuals. VDP and VSP as parties of the Communist Bloc, renamed VFF since 1955. The vietminh was first organized as part of ICP, and since 1946 as VWP. Upon unification the party was called VCP.

2.5 Referendums A presidential referendum was held in October 1955. For results see table 2.9.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly Elections to Constitutional Assembly were held in 1956 and 1966. No detailed data are available. The 1956 CA was transformed into a National Assembly on 26 October 1956, when the Constitution took effect. A total of 431 candidates competed for the 131 seats. The seat composition is thus reported in table 2.8. Registered voters and turnout for the 1966 elections are reported in table 2.2. In 1966 there were 532 candidates for 117 seats. 21 of the elected delegates were associated with political parties, 12 were members of VNQDD, nine belonged to various factions of the DVPP.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) No data were published for the elections held between 1946 and 1975. The data of registered voters and votes cast are reported in table 2.2.

335

VIETNAM

2.7.2 Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam): House of Representatives Political parties participated in all the four elections held between 1959 and 1971. Candidature was independent, and no detailed information was available on the party affiliation of candidates. The available figures for registered voters and votes cast in these elections are recorded in table 2.2.

2.7.3 Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam): Senate Year Registered voters Voters Invalid ballot papers Valid votes a

b

1967 Total number 5,853,384 4,902,748 212,060 21,884,602a

% – 83.8 – –

1970 Total number 6,578,082 4,299,516 — 9,817,738b

% – 65.1 – –

48 lists. Six lists to be elected. Each voter had six votes. The winning list got 980,474 valid votes (4.5%), the sixth-placed (and last one to be elected) 553,632 votes (2.5%). 16 lists. Three lists to be elected. Each voter had three votes. The winning list got 1,149,597 valid votes (11.7%), the third-placed list 882,274 votes (9.0%).

For the 1973 Senate no detailed information was available. Each voter had two votes. There were four contending candidate lists. The figures corresponding to registered voters and turn-out are reported in table 2.2.

2.7.4 Socialist Republic of Vietnam 1976–1997 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes VFF Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes VFF Independents a

1976 Total number 23,387,940 23,099,655 204,054 22,895,611 22,895,611 1987 Total number — — — — — –

% – 98.7 0.9 99.1 100.0

1981 Total number — — — — —

% — 98.0 2.2 97.8 100.0

% – 98.8a 2.4 97.6 100.0 –

1992 Total number 37,524,453 37,195,592 358,165 36,837,427 — —

% – 99.1 1.0 99.0 — —

The official figure refers to the first round of elections. In 11 constituencies, out of 167, a second round had to be held. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes VFF Independents

1997 Total number 43,672,683 43,493,624 307,868 43,185,756 — —

% – 99.6 0.7 99.3 — —

336

CHINA

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) 1946–1971 Year

1946 Seats 302a ICP/VWP 182 VNQDD 26 VDP 45 VSP 27 DMH 22 VFF – a b

c

1960 % 100.0 60.3 8.6 14.9 8.9 7.3 –

1964 Seats 362b –c – –c –c – 362

1971 % 100.0 – – – – – 100.0

Seats 366 –c – –c –c – 366

% 100.0 – – – – – 100.0

Seats 420 –c – –c –c – 420

% 100.0 – – – – – 100.0

Seat distribution was not a result of the elections, but agreed upon before the polls were held. There were additionally 59 seats reserved for deputies elected in 1946 from Vietnam South of the 17th parallel and now living in the DRV. The total was 421 seats. Members of the VFF.

VIETNAM

337

2.8.2 Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam): National Assembly/ House of Representatives Both the National Assemblies of the First Republic (1956, 1959, and 1963) and the House of Representatives of the Second Republic (1967, 1971) were characterized by the absence of political parties. Candidature in the SMCs was formally independent, and even those deputies that belonged to parties clustered around competing blocs once elected. These blocs (People's Bloc, Unification Bloc, Society Bloc) were never formalized, and had a varying number of deputies. President Diem had formed a political party (NRP) that was dominant in the Assemblies of the First Republic (each had 123 members). Of the 137 (1967) and 159 (1971) members of the House of Representatives, only a handful were affiliated to political parties; in 1969 President Thieu's attempt to create a presidential alliance (NSDF) failed.

2.8.3 Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam): Senate 1967–1970 The electoral system provided for six winning lists (with 10 seats each) in 1967, three winning lists (with 10 seats each) in 1970, and two winning lists (with 15 seats each) for the 1973 Senate elections. Some lists were proposed by political parties or combined prominent candidates from different parties. It is hence impossible to provide the distribution of seats according to political parties.

2.8.4 Socialist Republic of Vietnam All seats to be distributed in the National Assembly elections held in 1976, 1981, 1987, and 1992 were won by candidates running for the VFF (in 1976 VFF/ VANDPF). There were 492 seats in 1976, 496 seats in 1981 and 1987, 395 seats in 1992, and 450 seats in 1997. The independents that ran since the 1992 elections gained three seats in 1997.

338

CHINA

2.9 Presidential Elections 1955–1971 A so-called national referendum was held in October 1955. Actually, the referendum was formally a presidential election between two candidates, Head of Government Diem and Emperor Bao Dai, although the latter was absent from the country and had not been asked to stand as candidate. The ballot consisted of two pictures—a smiling Diem in civilian dress and a serious Bao Dai in court attire—that were to be torn apart, one then being discarded and the other deposited in the voting box. The result announced was 98.2 percent for Diem, 1.1 percent for Bao Dai, and 0.7 percent invalid votes. For the elections of 9 April 1961 no detailed data were available. Diem obtained 89 percent of the votes cast, Nguyen Dinh Quat got 7 and No Nhat Tan and 4 percent of the votes cast.

a

1967 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Nguyen Van Thieu Truong Dinh Dzu Phan Khac Suu Tran Van Huong Ha Thuc Ky Nguyen Dinh Quat Nguyen Hoa Hiep Vu Hong Khanh Hoang Co Binh Pham Huy Co Tran Van Ly

Total number 5,853,251 4,868,266 132,817 4,735,449 1,649,561 817,120 513,374 474,100 349,473 291,718 160,790 149,276 131,071 106,317 92,604

% – 83.2 2.7 97.3 34.8 17.2 10.8 10.0 7.3 6.2 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.2 1.9

1971a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Nguyen Van Thieu

Total number 7,192,660 6,327,631 356,517 5,971,114 5,971,114

% – 87.9 5.7 94.3 100.0

Boycotted by the two opposition candidates.

339

VIETNAM

2.10 List of Power Holders 1945–2001 2.10.1 Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) 1945–1976 Head of State Ho Chi Minh

Years 1945–1969

Ton Duc Thang

1969–1976

Head of Government Ho Chi Minh

Years 1945–1955

Pham Van Dong

1955–1976

Remarks President of the Republic since 02/09/1945. Died in office on 03/09/1969. Former Vice-President. Assumed office on 03/ 09/1969. Remarks Head of State and Government since 02/09/ 1945. Appointed following the Geneva conference on 20/09/1955.

2.10.2 Republic of South Vietnam 1949–1976 Head of State Bao Dai

Years 1949–1955

Remarks Emperor (Hoang De) since 1926. Head of French Associated State of Vietnam since 14/06/1949. Declared President of the Republic following the referendum on 26/10/1955. Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Committee since 02/11/1963. Head of State and Government since 30/01/1964. Military Ruler since 08/02/1964. Declared Head of State on 04/09/1964. Elected by the High National Council on 26/10/1964. Following another coup Thieu became Chairman of National Leadership Committee since 14/06/1965. Elected President in 1967 and 1971. First President of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam since 30/04/1975 until unification with DRV on 02/07/1976.

Ngo Dinh Diem

1955–1963

Duong Van Minh

1963–1964

Nguyen Khanh Duong Van Minh

1964 1964

Phan Khac Suu Nguyen Van Thieu

1964–1965 1965–1975

Huynh Tat Phat

1975–1976

Head of Government Nguyen Van Long Tran Van Huu

Years 1950 1950–1952

Remarks Appointed on 05/01/1950. Former Governor of French Cochinchina.

Nguyen Van Tam

1952–1953

Buu Loc Ngo Dinh Diem

1953–1954 1954–1955

Nguyen Ngoc Tho

1963–1964

Tran Van Huong Phan Huy Quat Nguyen Cao Ky Nguyen Van Loc Tran Van Huong Tran Thiem Khiem Nguyen Ba Can

1964–1965 1965 1965–1967 1967–1968 1968–1969 1969–1975 1975

Nguyen Huu Tho

1975–1976

Former Minister of Interior. Appointed on 06/06/ 1952. Stepped back on 16/12/1953. Appointed on 17/12/1953. Ngo was appointed on 16/06/1954. On 26/10/1955 the office of Prime Minister was abolished. Former Vice-President of Diem. Appointed by Military Council on 04/11/1963. Appointed on 20/10/1964 by military junta. Appointed on 16/02/1965 by military junta. Appointed following the Thieu coup on 19/06/1965. Appointed on 31/10/1967. Appointed on 28/05/1968. Appointed on 01/09/1969. Speaker of the House of Representatives. Appointed on 04/04/1975. Prime Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam since 30/04/1975 until unification with DRV on 02/07/1976.

pointed on 27/04/1950.

Ap-

340

CHINA

2.10.3 Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1976–2001) Head of State Ton Duc Thang

Years 1976–1980

Nguyen Huu Tho

1980–1981

Truong Chinh

1981–1987

Vo Chi Cong

1987–1992

Le Duc Anh

1992–1997

Tran Duc Luong

1997–

Head of Government Pham Van Dong

Years 1976–1987

Pham Hung Vo Van Kiet

1987–1988 1988

Do Muoi Vo Van Kiet Phan Van Khai

1988–1991 1991–1997 1997

Remarks In office since 1969. Confirmed by new National Assembly on 02/07/ 1976. Acting Head of State since 30/03/ 1980. Chairman of the Council of State. Elected on 04/07/1981. Chairman of the Council of State. Elected on 18/06/1987. President of the Republic. Elected on 23/09/1992. Elected on 24/09/1997 by the National Assembly. Remarks Appointed on 20/09/1955. Confirmed by new National Assembly in 1976. Appointed on 18/06/1987. Leading reformer. Appointed on 10/03/1988. Appointed on 22/06/1988. Appointed on 08/08/1991. Elected on 25/09/1997 by the National Assembly.

VIETNAM

341

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources ‘The Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam of 9 November 1946’, in B. B. Fall (1954), The Viet-Minh Regime. Government and Administration in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University, 122–129. ‘The South Vietnamese Constitution of 1956’, in B. B. Fall (1963), The Two Viet-Nams. A Political and Military Analysis. London: Pall Mall Press, 417–431. Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1992). The 1992 Constitution. Available at http://home.vnn.vn/english.html. Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1997). Law on Election of National Assembly Deputies of 17 April 1997. Available at http:// coombs.anu.edu.au.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Beresford, M. (1988). Vietnam. Politics, Economy and Society. London: Pinter. Buttinger, J. (1958). The Smaller Dragon. A Political History of Vietnam. New York: Praeger Donnell, J. C., and Joiner, C. A. (1974) (ed.). Electoral Politics in South Vietnam. Lexington, Mass.: Heath. Fall, B. B. (1954). The Viet-Minh Regime. Government and Administration in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University. —— (1960). Le Viet-Minh. La République Démocratique du Viet-Nam. Paris: Colin —— (1960). ‘North Viet-Nam's Constitution and Government’. Pacific Affairs, 33/4: 329–346. —— (1963). The Two Viet-Nams. A Political and Military Analysis. London: Pall Mall Press.

342

CHINA

Grant, J. A. C. (1958). ‘The Viet Nam Constitution of 1956’. American Political Science Review, 52/2: 439–441. International Parliamentary Union (1977). ‘Socialist Republic of Viet Nam’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections. 1 July 1975–30 June 1976. Geneva: IPU, 69–71. Kamen, H. (1996). Dragon Ascending. Vietnam and the Vietnamese. New York: Arcade. McTurnan Kahin, G., and Lewis, J. W. (1969). The United States in Vietnam (2nd. edn.). New York: Dial Press. Nguyen, P.-K. (1977). Vietnamese Legal Documents 1954–75. Washington, D. C. Penniman, H. R. (1972). Elections in South Vietnam. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Porter, G. (1993). Vietnam: The Politics of Bureaucratic Socialism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Scigliano, R. G. (1960). ‘Political Parties in South Vietnam under the Republic’. Pacific Affairs, 33/4: 327–346. —— (1960). ‘The Electoral Process in South Vietnam. Politics in an Underdeveloped State’. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 4/2: 138–161. —— (1963). South Vietnam: Nation under Stress. Boston: Houghton Miffin. Sembdner, F. (1978). Das kommunistische Regierungssystem in Vietnam. Köln: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik. Tai, T. V., and Silverman, J. M. (1975). ‘Elections and Political Party Constraints Following the 1972 Offensive’, in J. C. Donnell, and C. A. Joiner (eds.), Electoral Politics in South Vietnam. Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 125–149. Thayer, C. (1985). ‘Vietnam’, in H. Fukui (ed.), Political Parties of Asia and the Pacific, Vol. 2, Westport and London: Greenwood, 1091–1195. —— (1993). Political Democratization in Vietnam. Candidate Selection for the 9th National Assembly. Paper presented to International Conference on the Developmental Prospects of East Asian Socialism, Melbourne, ANU, 13–15 January 1993. Tull, T. A. (1974). ‘Broadening the Base: South Vietnamese Elections, 1967–1971’, in J. C. Donnell, and C. A. Joiner (eds.), Electoral Politics in South Vietnam. Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 35–52. Turley, W. S., and Selden, M. (eds.) (1993). Reinventing Vietnamese Socialism: Doi Moi in Comparative Perspective. Boulder, Col. : Westview Press Weinstein, F. B. (1966). Vietnam's Unheld Elections. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Williams, M. C. (1992). Vietnam at the Crossroads. London: Pinter.

East Asia


China (People's Republic) by Xuewu Gu

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Since the People's Republic of China (PRC) was established on 1 October 1949, political power has been monopolized by the Communist Party of China (CCP). Although there have been remarkable changes in the structure of the communist regime from PRC founder Mao Zedong to the current President Jiang Zemin, citizens have only been allowed to participate in elections at the local level. To date, the world's biggest population remains totally excluded from the political process at the national level. The foundation of the PRC was the logical result of the Chinese Civil War (1946–1949), in which the CCP under Mao Zedong defeated the Nationalist Party Kuomintang (KMT) of Marshal Chiang Kai-Shek. The Nationalists were forced to give up their regime and fled to Taiwan in autumn 1949. This marked the beginning of the Chinese division. In the aftermath the CCP consolidated its regime quickly. By the early 1950s it already controlled all provinces in Mainland China. In general terms, the political development of the PRC can be divided into three main phases: (i) the totalitarian phase under the leadership of Mao Zedong (1949–1976); (ii) the revolutionary-authoritarian phase under Deng Xiaoping (1977–1992); and (iii) the current technocratic-authoritarian phase under Jiang Zemin, beginning with his election to the presidency of the PRC in 1993. Mao Zedong's totalitarian rule was marked by ideological penetration and mass mobilization. Although the military still played an important role in domestic politics (the Central Committee of the CCP was strongly dominated by the generals), the stability of the regime owed largely to the Maoist ideology, which created a high degree of spiritual identification of most Chinese people with the CCP and its political ambitions. This, in turn, led to a voluntary subjugation of the citizens to the party leadership. In 1954 the first representative body, called National People's Congress (NPC), was formed by the CCP on the basis of a consultation

346

JAPAN

with eight satellite organizations. Together they also monopolized the nomination of parliamentary candidates. Since 1954, elections to the NPC have been held indirectly, as the Electoral Law stipulated that the People's Congresses of each administrative level had to be formed by their counterparts directly below them. Only the people's representatives at local level have been directly elected. On 20 September 1954, the NPC passed the first Constitution of the PRC. According to this Constitution, the NPC was the highest organ of the Chinese state and, among others, it had the right to legislate, to elect the Head of State and to appoint the Prime Minister of the State Council (i.e. the Central Government) on nomination through the Head of State, as well as to appoint the President of the Supreme People's Court. The NPC has convened only one session per year (usually in March), transferring the power to its Standing Committee led by the President of the NPC. Although the Constitution constructed a system of state institutions with different legislative (NPC), judicial (Supreme People's Court), executive (State Council), and representative (Head of State) functions, the actual political power has been vested in the CPP and its leading organ, the Politburo. So far, there was no Head of State, NPC-President or Prime Minister who was not a member of the Politburo. As many Chinese pointed out ironically, the NPC was nothing but a political display window without any substantial power. The next phase of Chinese politics (1977–1992) was characterized by the leadership of Deng Xiaoping. After the death of Mao Zedong on 9 September 1976 Deng became an important figure that attracted most political fractions, particularly the generals and the old revolutionary veterans who held the actual control over the country. In 1977 they forced Premier Hua Guofeng—designated by Mao Zedong as his successor—to rehabilitate Deng Xiaoping as Permanent Member of the Politburo and Deputy Prime Minister, offices which he had lost in the last year of Mao's life. Although Hua's formal position as Head of the Party and the Government was not challenged during this time, it was Deng who actually governed after Mao's death. In 1982, Deng Xiaoping carried out a vast amendment of the Constitution. His main objectives were to free the CCP governance from the Maoist ideology and to liberalize the economic system. The ideological penetration—the first pillar of Mao's dictatorship—was abolished, especially by the campaign against dogmatism in 1978. Although never explicitly articulated, the CCP actually abandoned its former claims to have exclusive access to the truth. Since this campaign the influence of the Marxist ideology on the people has weakened rapidly. The second

CHINA

347

pillar of Mao's regime—the total politicization of society—collapsed when Deng Xiaoping officially ended the doctrine of the primacy of politics in the 1980s. This political opening subsequently changed the Chinese society, which was now more open to new values and more independent from the Party and the state. Since 1978 the third pillar of Mao's rule—the total blocking of information—was also eroded, this time by Deng's policy to open up China to the world. As a consequence, it was no longer possible for the Party to control the information flow. Moreover, the CCP leadership had to face an ever stronger popular demand to justify its policy, which in turn led to a growing transparency of national politics. Nevertheless, the political system remained strictly authoritarian. It was still dominated by the generation of revolutionaries who had struggled under the leadership of Mao Zedong against Chiang Kai-Shek and the Japanese. Their regime contained no institutional pluralism and, therefore, was still very arbitrary when making political decisions. There were no noteworthy political-institutional reforms during this period besides the reintroduction of the office of the Head of State in 1982. The technocratic-authoritarian phase under Jiang Zemin began in 1993, although Deng Xiaoping still had some political influence until his death in 1997. This transfer of power was a gradual process. In June 1989, thanks to Deng's arrangement, Jiang became the General Secretary of the CCP, replacing Zhao Ziyang who was purged because of his support of the student movement on the Tiananmen Square. In April 1990, Deng resigned as Chairman of the Central Military Committee and nominated Jiang to his successor. After Jiang had stabilized his position within the CCP and the army, Deng persuaded Yang Shangkun to resign from his office as Head of State. In March 1993, Jiang was elected President of the PRC, thereby holding all three power resources in China: the Party, the military, and the state. A quite significant constitutional amendment was completed in 1993 whereby Jiang Zemin further consolidated his power within the Party, the military, and the government. In contrast to Deng's generation, Jiang and his allies in the new Politburo are civilian politicians; they have had no experience with the military. Additionally, the current leadership has been less loaded with revolutionary debts and has ruled the country in a more rational manner. Therefore, the new Politburo has made vigorous efforts to reduce the arbitrariness of the government and to enhance the effectiveness of political decisions. Their endeavor focused on three issues: streamlining the government, strengthening the rule of law as well as facilitating an institutional pluralism. In this last regard, the NPC was

348

JAPAN

encouraged to exercise influence on political decision-making and on monitoring the performance of the bureaucracy. Among others, the CCP cut off almost one third of the ministries of the Central Government, improved the examination system to select civil servants and reshaped China's criminal, civil, and administrative laws. In these reform processes the NPC has become an important player. During the annual NPC session in 1998, for example, more than 45 percent of the deputies voted against the report on the judicial system submitted by the Procurator-General. In the 1999 session, the NPC refused to endorse the bill of tax at source, although it was considered a priority program by the government. It was only under the extreme pressure exercised by the Party that the CCP member deputies gave way to the passing of the act. In spite of the increasing rule of law and the subsequent formalization of political decision-making, China remains a political system without national elections and referendums. The CCP still refuses to open up the political process to the whole of the population. The anxiety over a soviet-like collapse of the Chinese state has prevented the political elite in Beijing from starting substantial reforms. Therefore, China's political system cannot be regarded as an open and competitive one. The only exception is the former British colony Hong Kong, which has become a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the PRC after the handing over of sovereignty in July 1997. Although the SAR's most important official, the Chief Executive, is not directly elected, but chosen by a local Election Committee appointed by the Central Government, SAR citizens enjoy more voting rights than those in Mainland China, as they directly elect 24 of the 60 members of the Legco (Legislative Council). Other 30 legislators are chosen by professional groups, while the remaining six are to be designated by the local Election Committee of 800 members. Furthermore, Hong Kong's Basic Law stipulates that one-half of the Legco will be directly elected in 2004, as a step towards a legislature completely elected by universal suffrage. With regard to the Chief Executive, the Basic Law outlines the year 2007 as ‘the earliest occasion’ for a direct election of this office by universal suffrage. To which extent the Hong Kong electoral system will influence the political development in Mainland China remains to be seen. In any case, as a relatively open political system Hong Kong will be unable to transform China as strongly as its economic system has done: Beijing welcomes Hong Kong's economic pattern, but dislikes its political model. Therefore the CCP will go on with the market reforms and will

CHINA

349

simultaneously continue to suppress demands for a more competitive polity.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The CCP elaborated the first Electoral Law in 1953 when a uniform system of representative bodies (People's Congresses) was established at all administrative levels including township, county, province, and nation. Until 1975, the term of office for deputies to the People's Congress at the national and provincial levels was limited to four years. A constitutional amendment of 1975 extended this term to five years. However, the original three-year term of the People's Congresses at the town and county level has remained unchanged. The age of voting was set at 18 years. Apart from the disenfranchisement of so-called landlord elements and counterrevolutionaries (which was abolished by the Election Law of 1979), suffrage was by law universal, equal, and secret. Yet, only the People's Congresses at the lowest level (township) were to be directly elected; the People's Congresses at higher levels—among them the National People's Congress—were chosen by the parliamentary bodies of the respective lower levels. Although there was no explicit regulation on that respect only the Party had the right to nominate candidates and the CCP monopolized the candidature. By law, nominated candidates had to gain an absolute majority in order to get elected. In practice, the Party usually provided for a much higher quota for the candidates by mobilizing its political resources. Apart from the modifications of some provisions listed below, these basic features of the electoral rules have remained unchanged since then. In 1979 a new Electoral Law was completed. Compared with its predecessor, it slightly expanded the voting rights in four respects. First, the principle of direct elections was extended from the town and township level to the county level. The second advance was the provision allowing individual voters to propose candidates, with only three signatures being required for a candidate. Third, the 1979 Law introduced a competitive element by the so-called differential voting (cha'e xuanju) stating that the number of candidates should be higher than the number of seats to be filled. This minimum surplus of candidates was set at 50 to 100 percent for the direct elections at the county level and at 20 to 50 percent for the indirect elections at higher levels. The fourth advance consisted in the provision that candidates and voters were allowed to conduct electoral campaigns in whatever fashion they wished. Indeed,

350

JAPAN

those campaigns were at times held in Beijing, Shanghai and other large cities at the beginning of the 1980s. Particularly, stump speeches were used by some intellectuals and students who tried to get elected as independent candidates. In 1982 the Electoral Law was modified again. It improved the techniques of elections by making the voter registration and the division of the constituencies more systematic. However, the 1982 Law also abolished the stipulation allowing for electoral campaigns. Another amendment made in 1986 raised the number of signatures for individual candidates from three to ten. Moreover, this amendment narrowed the range of differential voting by reducing the minimum surplus of candidates in the basic-level elections from the previous 50 to 100 percent to 30 to 100 percent. In November 1998, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) passed the Organic Law of Village Committee, which introduced direct elections at the village level in the whole country. Within the Chinese political system, however, the Village Committee does not belong to the administrative institutions. In other words, this organ does not work on behalf of the state, but on behalf of residents of the village. It is a so-called self-administration institution that deals autonomously with village issues (for example village budget or use of land) in the legally established framework. The Law defines the relationship between the town authorities and the Village Committee explicitly as one of advising rather than of leading nature. Therefore, the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, and the members of Village Committees can be regarded as a self-governed organ of the village. The 1998 Organic Law of Village Committee explicitly provided for competitive elections, meaning that there are to be more candidates than seats. According to this law, all village residents over 18 years have the right to candidate and to be elected to the Committee. Although there are some different stipulations about the term of office of the Committee members and procedures of nomination in individual provinces, the law rules out a nomination monopolized by the Party. Indeed, voters have ousted thousands of incumbent CCP village leaders from office since the law was put into place. In several provinces more than 50 percent of the newly elected deputies are not CCP members. The introduction of competitive village elections can be considered an important step towards a further expansion of political participation in China. However, China's citizens can still vote only at local level, and not at regional, provincial, or even national level. Voters in Hong Kong have more substantial voting rights than those of other Chinese provinces,

CHINA

351

since they directly choose 24 of the 60 members of their Legislative Council (Legco). These mandates have been allocated in five (four-to six-member) constituencies by proportional representation according to Hare quota and largest remainder. In the last polls of September 2000, the Democrats, in opposition to the government both in Hong Kong and Beijing, won 18 seats.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions According to the Constitution of 1982 (last amended in 1999), the Quanguo Renmin Daibiao Dahui (National People's Congress, NPC) is the highest organ of state power. It elects the State President for a legal term of five years, and appoints the Prime Minister with the consent of the President. The NPC is also indirectly elected every five years by the Parliaments (People's Congresses) of the sub-national territorial entities (23 provinces, five autonomous regions, four municipalities under control of the Central Government, the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macao) and by the People's Liberation Army (PLA). The membership of the NPC—the Constitution provides for a maximum of 3,000 deputies—is currently at 2,984. This number is determined by its Standing Committee according to the principle that urban deputies represent four times more people than rural deputies (880,000/ 220,000 people). The minimum number of deputies per province/ region is set at 15. Furthermore, the Constitution states that members of national minorities have to be represented in Parliament according to their respective share of population, with each minority being allocated at least one seat. In the last elections held between 1 October 1997 and 31 January 1998, the number of minority representatives was 428 (14.3%). Casual vacancies in the NPC are filled through by-elections. Candidates for the NPC have to be at least 18 years old. Although the nomination has actually been monopolized by the CCP and its satellite parties, the voters are formally allowed to propose candidates. To be nominated by the voters, non-party candidates need to be supported by at least ten voters. Usually, there are more candidates than NPC seats to be filled. By law the number of candidates can exceed the number of seats by 30%. Secret ballots are stipulated by law. Elections are held under an absolute majority system with multiple vote (i.e. each elector has as many votes as there are deputies to be elected). If not all seats can be filled in accordance with the majority requirement, a second election with plurality decision rule is held.

352

JAPAN

2. Tables No direct national elections or referendums have been held. List of Power Holders 1949–2001 Head of State Mao Zedong

Years 1949–1959

Liu Shauqi

1959–1969

Dong Biwu

1970–1975

No formal Head of State

1975–1982

Li Xiannian

1983–1988

Yang Shangkun

1988–1993

Jiang Zemin

1993–

Head of Government Zhou Enlai

Years 1949–1976

Hua Guofeng

1976–1980

Zhao Ziyang

1980–1987

Li Peng

1987–1998

Zhu Rongji

1998–

Remarks From October 1949 to September 1954, Chairman of the Central Governing Committee, from September 1954 to April 1959 Chairman of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Justified his resignation by arguing that he needed more time for dealing with strategic issues at the domestic and international level. Remained Chairman of the CCP until his death on 09/09/1976. Took office as Chairman of the PRC in April 1959. During the Cultural Revolution, in which he lost the power struggle against Mao, Liu was arrested from July 1966 to November 1969 without any legal procedure. Died in prison on 12/11/1969. From 1970 to 1975 the post of the Chairman was vacant. During this period, Dong was VicePresident acting as formal Head of State. The 1975 Constitutional Amendment abolished the office of Chairman of the PRC, since it was not considered necessary any more. On 04/12/ 1982, the NPC passed a new Constitution reinstating the presidency. The real power holder from 1977 to 1993, however, was Deng Xiaoping, although he refused to take the posts of President and Chairman of the CCP. Was elected President after the re-introduction of this office in June 1983; resigned in April 1988 as a result of the CCP-arrangement to nominate him to the office of Chairman of the CPPCC (Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference). Became President in April 1988; resigned in March 1993, giving way to Jiang Zeming. General Secretary of the CCP since June 1989, Chairman of the Central Military Committee of the PRC since April 1990; President since March 1993. Remarks Became Prime Minister of the State Council (Central Government) of the PRC on 1 October 1949. Died on 08/01/1976. Was appointed acting Prime Minister in February 1976; became Prime Minister in April 1976; resigned in September 1980 after losing a power struggle within the CCP. Became Prime Minister in September 1980. Stepped down in November 1987 to take up the office of General Secretary of the CCP. Appointed acting Prime Minister in November 1987; became Prime Minister in April 1988. Resigned in March 1998. Became Prime Minister in March 1998.

CHINA

353

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Xianfa (Constitution of the People's Republic of China), Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (People's Publishing House), 1993. Zhonghua Remin Gongheguo Xuanjufa (Electoral Law of the People's Republic of China), Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (People's Publishing House), 1998. Zhongguo falü nianjian (China Law Yearbook), Beijing 1995–1998. Beijing: Zhongguo Zhengfa Chubanshe (Chinese Publishing House), 1998. Zhonghua Remin Gongheguo Zhiguanzhi (Annals of the Post Holders of the People's Republic of China), Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Chubanshe (Chinese Social Publishing House), 1993.

3.2 Books and Articles Cohen, J. A. (2000). Hong Kong's Basic Law: An American Perspective. http://www.chinaonline.com. He, B. (1996). ‘Legitimation and Democratization in a Transitional China’. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 12/3: 315–342.

354

JAPAN

Inter-Parliamentary Union (2000). China (http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/2065_B.htm). Kelliher, D. (1997). ‘The Chinese Debate over Village Self-Government’. The China Journal, 37/1: 63–86. Li, J. (1998). ‘The NPC System and Its Evolution: From Nomenklatura to Selectorate’. Issues & Studies, 34/3: 1–23. Lubman, S. (ed.) (1996). China's Legal Reforms. New York: Oxford University Press. Ma, Ngok, Choy, and Chi-Keung (1999). ‘The Evolution of the Electoral System and Party Politics in Hong Kong’. Issues & Studies, 35/1: 167–194. MacFarhar, R., and Goldman, M. (1999). The Paradox of China's Reform. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Manion, M. (1996). ‘The Electoral Connection in the Chinese Countryside’. American Political Science Review, 90/4: 736–748. Pei, M. (1997). ‘Citizens vs. Mandarins: Administrative Litigation in China’. The China Quarterly, 152: 832–862. —— (1998). ‘Is China Democratizing?’. Foreign Affairs, 77/1: 69–82. Research Center of the NPC Standing Committee Office (1991). Renmin daibiao zhidu luncong (On the People's Representative System). Beijing: Minzhu yu fazhi chubanshe. Shi, T. (1999). ‘Village Committee Elections in China. Institutionalist Tactics for Democracy’. World Politics, 51/4: 385–412. Townsend, J. R. (1967). Political Participation in Communist China. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Cal.: University of California Press.

Japan by Axel Klein73

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Japan is Asia's oldest and most stable democracy. In the early stages, given the restrictions on suffrage and parliamentary powers, elections could hardly fulfil their democratic function. Their contribution to the country's political development began after 1945. Several reforms have been introduced so far into the electoral systems of both parliamentary chambers, with the aim of enhancing the voters' choices and cutting down the influence of clientelistic networks in politics. The national diet was constituted in 1889, yet universal suffrage and the current parliamentary system were not introduced until after World War II, under American occupation. In the course of these post-war reforms the military, bureaucracy and nobility were stripped off the wide powers they had enjoyed in the pre-war period, and the Emperor (Tennô) was given a merely formal role in the parliamentary and legislative processes. The Constitution, promulgated in November 1946 and in force since May 1947, stipulates that the bicameral diet is to consist of the House of Representatives, with more political power and influence, and the House of Councilors, a directly elected chamber similar to the Senate of the United States of America. Bills need the approval of both houses to be passed, but a two-third majority of the House of Representatives can override a rejection of the House of Councilors. Decisions regarding the State budget, however, need only the approval of the House of Representatives. During the first months after the war, many old political parties were re-established and new parties grounded. Thus, before December 1945 the Japan Socialist Party (JSP, Nihon Shakai Tô), the Japan Liberal Party (JLP, Nihon Jiyû Tô ), the Japan Progressive Party (JPP, Nihon Shinpo

73

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Mr Andreas Goebel of the Japanese Embassy in Bonn for his help in collecting electoral data for this article.

356

NORTH KOREA

Tô) and the Japan Communist Party (JCP, Nihon Kyôsan Tô) had already entered the political arena. This formation process was however disturbed by the purges of war criminals conducted by the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers (SCAP), which led to an influx of former bureaucrats into political parties. In the period up to 1955 ten new parties were formed, and three others split temporarily. Only after this first post-war decade did the Japanese party system finally stabilize. In October 1955 the JSP, split in 1951, reunified; in November, several conservative parties, mainly the Liberal and the Japan Democratic Party, merged to form the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP, Jiyû Minshu Tô). This laid the basis for the so called system of 55, which can be described as a one-and-a-half party system. From 1955 until 1993 the LDP held the majority in the House of Representatives, and until 1989 also in the House of Councilors. Except for a short period in the 1980s, the LDP was the only ruling party; hence its description as a predominant party. During these 38 years, the JSP had never a chance to come to power. In contrast to the LDP, which contributed to the so-called economic miracle and was widely regarded as the guarantor of the rising standards of living, the JSP's platform remained heavily influenced by Socialist ideology and was widely considered to be out of touch with reality. In most elections to the House of Representatives the party gained at best about half the seats of the LDP. In 1960 the JSP split again, as moderate members left to form the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP, Minshu Shakai Tô). Although the DSP intended to become a Social-Democratic party of Western-European kind, it never succeeded in establishing itself as an alternative to LDP and SPJ, but remained a small opposition party. In 1967 a fourth party managed to obtain seats in the House of Representatives. The Clean Government Party (CGP, Kômei Tô) attracted especially low-income workers of small and medium-size businesses and members of the Buddhist lay organization Sôka Gakkai. The CGP declared human socialism to be the primary aim of its policy, but due to the somewhat dubious image of the Sôka Gakkai its potential of voters saw itself very restricted. The JCP is the fifth and last relevant party of the system of 55. Except for two general elections in the 1970s, the Communist Party never achieved more than 29 seats in the House of Representatives. In the mid-1970s the party started to distance itself from pure Communist teachings and acknowledged the Japanese Constitution. It increasingly turned into a single-issue party which attracted many protest voters, but hardly ever

JAPAN

357

co-operated in any form with other opposition parties, remaining therefore isolated. The 1990s marked the beginning of a period of reform and changes. These derived from the growing public frustration with political corruption (several authors have even spoken of structural corruption in Japanese politics) and the lack of countermeasures from the government, frustration with the government's general incapability to tackle political problems, and dissatisfaction with politicians as such. These changes bore consequences upon the party system, insofar as a number of politicians finally left the LDP. The general elections of 1993 sent the LDP to the benches of the opposition for the first time in its history and brought into power a coalition formed by seven parties (many of them newly formed) and an independent group of members of the House of Councilors. The new government was extremely heterogeneous, and remained together only due to the high public pressure and the expectation of political reform. After protracted negotiations with the LDP a reform package was enacted with a new electoral system, and brought hopes of lasting changes in Japanese politics. The coalition government, however, broke up soon after fulfilling its task, and allowed the LDP to return to power. At first the party needed the help of a partner, which it soon found in the JSP. But short after the 1996 general elections the strange bedfellows parted their ways again. In 1997 the Liberal Democrats convinced enough members of the House of Representatives to join their ranks and ensure the attainment of a majority in this chamber. For its part, the Socialist Party, renamed Social Democratic Party (SDP, Shakai Minshu Tô), vanished into political insignificance. In the year 2000 the Japanese party system presented itself in a sharpened profile. Many of the new parties which began life in the period 1992–1997 have now disappeared. Survivors, apart from the LDP and the JCP, are the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ, Minshu Tô)—by now the biggest opposition party—, the Liberal Party (LP, Jiyû Tô)—an indirect offspring of the LDP and later temporary coalition partner of the ruling party—and the re-founded CGP, now under the label New Clean Government Party (Shin Kômei Tô). The party composition in the Lower House after the 2000 elections sees the LDP just short of a majority and in coalition with the CGP and a new, small New Conservative Party (NewCP). This government coalition is confronted with a major opposition party which has got about half the seats of the LDP in the House of Representatives. In spite of its continuing rule, however, the future of the LDP and the Japanese party system itself does not appear stable.

358

NORTH KOREA

Even though changes like in the mid-1990s seem rather unlikely, the birth and/ or death of parties is conceivable and renders serious predictions impossible.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Since 1946 all Japanese—both men and women—aged 20 or over are entitled to vote. General suffrage is equal, direct, and secret. For most of the period after 1945, only Japanese living in Japan enjoyed the right to vote. Overseas Japanese have been granted this right in April 2000. The regular term of the House of Representatives has been four years, but only once in Japan's post-war history has a government really dispensed with the possibility of dissolving the lower chamber before the conclusion of its term. The number of lawmakers in the House of Representatives has changed over the years. It increased from 464 in 1946 to 512 in 1986. The cause of such increase was mainly migration, which made the ratio of voters per seat drop in rural constituencies and grow in urban areas. The LDP-government was eventually forced to correct this uneven distribution, mainly through verdicts issued by Japanese courts. But even the simple redistribution of the existing seats encountered resistance on the part of party politicians, who were not keen on the idea of leaving their constituency; in the search for a consensus the number of seats was augmented five times. Finally, a new electoral system introduced in 1994 fixed the number of elected members at 500, after the 1996 election reduced to 480. As to the House of Councilors, the number of its seats has varied only slightly, from 248 to 252. Its regular term has been six years, with a renewal of half the seats every three years. In contrast to the lower chamber, the House of Councilors cannot be dissolved. Since the first parliamentary elections after World War II, the basic provisions regulating candidacy have remained unchanged. The legal age for candidates to the House of Representatives was 25, and 30 for the House of Councilors. Independent candidacy has always been possible; however, elected independents have often joined a party shortly after the election day (but before the first session of the new parliament). Some exceptions aside, public servants have not been allowed to stand for candidacy. The replacement of lawmakers has been conducted either through by-elections or through succession according to the respective party list.

JAPAN

359

The first elections to the House of Representatives followed the non-transferable vote system, with one to three votes in districts of varying size from two to 14 (average size: 8.6) and plurality decision rule. Otherwise, the Japanese Lower House has always been elected via a system of single non-transferable vote (SNTV) in multi-member districts (most of them three to five seats). By 1992 there were also eight two-member and two six-member constituencies, but the average size of multi-member constituencies remained at four almost all along. At constituency level, candidates needed a threshold of at least 25 percent of the quotient obtained from dividing the total number of valid votes by the number of seats contested. The electoral system of the House of Representatives was reformed in 1994. Since the 1996 elections, a segmented system has replaced the SNTV system in multi-member constituencies (see 1.3 below). With regard to the House of Councilors, a two-tier plurality system was applied until 1982. One hundred of the seats were elected in one nation-wide constituency with each voter casting his or her first (non-transferable) vote for an individual candidate, not a party list. Those 100 candidates with the highest numbers of votes received a seat; there were no legal thresholds. The remaining candidates stood for election in the 47 prefectures which served as constituencies with two to eight man-dates. Since only half the seats were contested in each election, voters could send from one to four individual candidates to the upper chamber with their second (non-transferable) vote. In order for the result to acquire legal force the winners needed at least one sixth of the quotient obtained from dividing the number of valid votes by the number of seats in the constituency. In 1982, this two-tier plurality system was replaced by a segmented system, substituting the plurality decision rule in the nation-wide constituency by proportional representation (see 1.3). Several suits have been filed by citizens against the introduction of the new segmented electoral system for the elections to lower-chamber, arguing that the plurality decision rule in single-member constituencies is not in accord with the Constitution. Yet, the chances that Japanese Courts will agree seem low.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: The Public Office Election Law (1950) contains the legal foundations and the electoral provisions for all the elections to public offices in Japan. The Law has been reformed on several occasions, among others

360

NORTH KOREA

in 1982 and 1994. The Constitution deals with the elections in Articles 15, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 but the detailed questions are included in the respective laws.

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage are applied. Voters have to be Japanese citizens, and not younger than 20 years old. Voting is not compulsory.

Elected National Institutions: House of Representatives with 480 members, with a regular four-year term. House of Councilors with 252 members, with half of its seats renewed every three years. Replacement of lawmakers takes place either via by-elections or by succession according to the respective party list.

Nomination of Candidates: Candidates to the lower house need to be aged 25, for the upper house 30. Independents can only run in the singlemember constituencies of the House of Representatives and in the 47 multi-member constituencies of the House of Councilors. Candidates to both houses have to deposit a security to guarantee the seriousness of their candidacy. This amount was set at ¥ 3,000,000 (equals app. US$ 29,000 in 2001) for the single-member constituencies and the 47 multi-member constituencies and at ¥ 6,000,000 (app. US$ 58,000) for each candidate on a party list. Since the money is not returned unless the candidate receives 10 percent (House of Representatives) of the valid votes, this restriction has undoubtedly prevented a considerable number of citizens from entering the electoral race. The rather complicated details of the reimbursement of the deposit are regulated in Art. 93 of the Election Law.

Electoral System -House of Representatives: Segmented system. Every voter is entitled to two votes. 300 seats are distributed in single-member constituencies (SMCs) by plurality, the remaining 180 seats by proportional representation in 11 multi-member constituencies with closed party lists. In order for an election result in a SMC to take legal force the winner needs at least one sixth of the number of valid votes. The Election Law does not contemplate what shall happen in case the candidate fails to achieve this amount, but the only conceivable measure would be to repeat the election. The size of the 11 proportional representation constituencies, comprising one or more prefectures, ranges from 6 to 30 seats

JAPAN

361

(average size: 16.4). The modus of seat allocation in this part of the electoral system is the d'Hondt formula.

- House of Councilors: Segmented system. Each voter is entitled to two votes. Among them, 152 seats are distributed according to the first vote in 47 multi-member constituencies (corresponding to the prefectures) of two to eight mandates (average size: 3.9); decision rule is plurality (SNTV). In order for the elections to be valid the winner must have received a minimum of one sixth of the quotient of the division of the number of valid votes by the number of seats in the constituency. The other 100 seats are distributed on the basis of the second vote by proportional representation in one nation-wide constituency with open party list; the d'Hondt formula is applied; there are no legal thresholds. Every three years, one half of the 100 seats of the nation-wide constituency and one half of the 152 seats allocated in the 47 multi-member constituencies are up for re-election.

Organizational context of elections: The Central Election Administration Council (chûô senkyo kanri iin kai) is responsible for supervising and organizing national elections. It is sited in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Its five members are appointed by the Prime Minister for three years but elect their chairman independently. The Council supervises the regional election administration councils; of which there is one (with four members) in each of the 47 prefectures. In contrast to the Central Council, which organizes the proportional part of elections to both Houses of Parliament, the regional councils are directly responsible for elections in the 300 SMCs of the lower and the 47 constituencies of the upper chamber.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Electoral data are easily available in Japan, even though very detailed statistics are seldom found outside official publications. There is a fairly large number and variety of both official and secondary sources, and their reliability is high. For the elaboration of these tables, the source was mainly the material provided to the author by the Ministry of Home Affairs via the Japanese Embassy in Germany. Additional secondary sources—Miyagawa (1996), Reed (1992), Kishimoto (1988), and Yomiuri (1996)—have been used as well. The 14 elections to the House of Representatives held between 1902 and 1937 under limited suffrage are not covered here, as they are already documented in detail by Mackie/Rose (1991).

362

NORTH KOREA

Data on the 2000 elections for the House of Representatives were taken from the internet homepage of the Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs (http://www.mha.go.jp/senkyo/index.html) in November of the same year.

363

JAPAN


1946 1947 1949 1950 1952 1953 1955 1956 1958 1959 1960 1962 1963 1965 1967 1968 1969 1971 1972 1974 1976 1977 1979 1980 1983 1986 1989 1990 1992 1993 1995 1996 1998 2000


Parliamentary elections Lower Chamber 10/04 25/04 23/01

Upper Chamber 20/04 04/06

01/10 19/04 27/02

24/04 08/07

22/05 02/06 20/11 01/07 21/11 04/07 29/01 07/07 27/12 27/06 10/12 07/07 05/12 10/07 07/10 22/06 18/12 06/07

22/06 26/06 06/07 23/07

18/02 26/07 18/07 23/07 20/10 12/07 25/06


Referendums

Coups d'état

364

NORTH KOREA


Type of electiona

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes castc

48.7 55.9 56.0

Total number 26,582,175d 27,796,840 24,539,869e 24,942,685e 31,174,957 31,373,096 31,369,593 35,749,709 34,946,130 29,715,697 29,710,421 37,334,338 31,162,522 31,157,309 40,042,489 31,437,466 31,432,020 39,920,119 38,291,278 38,282,899 41,458,946 39,899,713 39,891,024 46,599,456 45,415,878 45,409,361 47,442,400 42,159,559 42,154,248 52,929,059 55,159,402 55,148,729 57,231,992 53,638,928 53,628,177 54,518,515 60,338,439 60,312,856

1946 1947 1947

R R S

75,750,000 73,114,136 73,114,136

Total number 36,878,417 40,907,493 40,958,588

% pop.

1949 1950

R S

81,773,000 84,114,574

42,105,300 43,461,371

51.5 51.7

1952 1953 1953

R R S

85,808,000 86,981,000 86,981,000

46,772,584 47,090,167 47,036,554

54.5 54.1 54.1

1955 1956

R S

90,076,594 90,172,000

49,235,375 50,177,888

54.7 55.6

1958 1959

R S

91,767,000 92,641,000

52,013,529 53,516,473

56.7 57.8

1960 1962

R S

94,301,623 95,181,000

54,312,993 56,137,295

57.6 59.0

1963 1965

R S

96,156,000 99,209,133

58,281,678 59,544,407

60.6 60.0

1967 1968

R S

100,196,000 62,992,796 101,331,000 65,886,145

62.9 65.0

1969 1971

R S

102,536,000 69,260,424 105,145,000 71,177,667

67.5 67.7

1972 1974

R S

107,595,000 73,769,636 110,573,000 75,356,068

68.6 68.1

1976 1977

R S

113,094,000 77,926,585 114,165,000 78,321,715

68.9 68.6

1979 1980 1980

R R S

116,155,000 80,169,924 117,060,395 80,925,034 117,060,395 80,925,034

69.0 69.1 69.1

% reg. voters 72.1 67.9 61.1

% pop. 35.1 38.0 34.2

74.0 72.2

38.1 37.3

76.4 74.2 63.2

41.7 40.2 34.2

75.8 62.1

41.4 34.6

77.0 58.7

43.6 33.9

73.5 68.2

42.3 40.2

71.1 67.0

43.1 40.2

74.0 68.9

46.5 44.8

68.5 59.2

46.3 40.1

71.8 73.2

49.2 49.9

73.4 68.5

50.6 47.0

68.0 74.6 74.5

46.9 51.5 51.5

365

JAPAN

1983 1983

R S

119,536,000 84,252,608 119,536,000 83,682,416

70.5 70.0

1986 1986

R S

121,660,000 86,426,845 121,660,000 86,426,845

71.0 71.0

1989

S

123,205,000 89,891,358

73.0

1990 1992

R S

123,611,167 90,322,908 124,567,000 93,254,025

73.0 74.9

1993 1995

R S

124,938,000 94,477,816 125,570,246 96,759,025

75.6 77.1

1996

R

125,864,000 97,680,719

77.6

1998

S

126,486,000 99,048,700

78.3

2000

R

126,770,000 100,492,32- 79.3 8h

60,288,712 57,238,897 47,698,487f 47,693,162f 61,703,791 61,667,543 61,633,236 58,443,691 58,428,431 66,213,175 47,294,678 47,278,359 63,544,823 43,073,099 43,056,619 58,259,844g 58,233,449g 58,280,396 58,268,960 62,764,239g 62,757,828g

a b

c

d e

f

g h

67.9 57.0

47.9 39.9

71.4 71.4

50.7 50.7

65.0

47.4

73.3 50.7

53.6 37.9

67.3 44.5

50.9 34.3

59.6 59.6 58.8

46.3 46.1

62.5

49.5

62.5

R = House of Representatives (Lower Chamber), S = Senate (Upper Chamber). For most years population is given in thousands, as a national census provides exact figures only every five years. Round numbers, however, seem sufficient for these tables. In electoral systems with two votes (the 1996 and 2000 elections for the House of Representatives and all the elections for the House of Councilors) the number of first and second votes are never exactly equal, because some voters may cast only one vote, or cast two but only one of them valid. For the calculation of the respective percentages the highest number was used. The figure provided for 1946 does not correspond to the number of votes cast but to the number of voters who went to the polls. The first line refers always to the vote cast for the candidates in the nation-wide constituency (1st votes; see above 1.2), the second line to the votes cast for candidates in the sub-national constituencies (2nd votes) [S 1947–1980]. Since the 1982 reform of the electoral system, one vote (first line) has been distributed in multimember constituencies by SNTV, and the second vote in one national constituency by proportional representation (second line). The first line refers to the vote for the single-member constituencies; the second line to the party vote in the multi-member constituencies. The number given here for registered voters for the HR elections in the year 2000 refers to the proportional part. As Japanese citizens living abroad were granted the right to vote for the first time (but only for the party lists) the number of registered voters in the SMC differs and is smaller (100,433,798).

366

NORTH KOREA

2.3 Abbreviations CGPa DLP DPb DPJ DSP JcoP JCP JDP JLPc JNP JPP JSPd LDP LP (1) LP (2) LWSP NC NCPe NDP NewCP NHP NLC NPP RefP Rengô RP RWSP SDP SESB USDP a

b

c

d

e

Clean Government Party (Kômei Tô) Democratic Liberal Party (Minshu Jiyû Tô) Democratic Party (Minshu Tô) Democratic Party of Japan (Minshu Tô) [1996–] Democratic Socialist Party (Minshu Shakai Tô) Japan Cooperative Party (Nihon Kyôdô Tô) Japan Communist Party (Nihon Kyôsan Tô) Japan Democratic Party (Nihon Minshu Tô) [1954–1955] Japan Liberal Party (Nihon Jiyû Tô) Japan New Party (Nihon Shintô) Japan Progressive Party (Nihon Shinpo Tô) Japan Socialist Party (Nihon Shakai Tô) Liberal Democratic Party (Jiyû Minshu Tô) Liberal Party (Jiyû Tô) [1950–1955] Liberal Party (Jiyû Tô) [1996–] Left Wing Socialist Party (Saha Shakai Tô) Club of the Second Chamber (Niin Kurabu) National Cooperative Party (Kokumin Kyôdô Tô) National Democratic Party (Kokumin Minshu Tô) New Conservative Party (Hoshu Tô) New Harbinger Party (Shintô Sakigake) New Liberal Club (Shin Jiyû Tô) New Progressive Party (Shinshin Tô) Reform Party (Kaishin Tô) Union (Rengô) Renewal Party (Shinsei Tô) Right Wing Socialist Party (Uha Shakai Tô) Social Democratic Party (Shakai Minshu Tô) Society of the Early Summer Breeze (Ryokufû Kai) United Social Democratic Party (Shakai Minshu Rengô)

Before its official foundation in 1964 predecessors of the CGP participated in elections for the House of Councilors. In preparation for the 1996 elections for the House of Representatives parts of the CGP joined the New Frontier Party. After the latter's dissolution in December 1997 the CGP was on its own again. However, it called itself now New Clean Government Party. Before being renamed Democratic Party in 1947 the DP had carried the label Japan Progressive Party (Nihon Shinpo Tô). In 1950 the party split into the Liberal Party (previously Democratic Liberal Party) and the National Democratic Party (Kokumin Minshu Tô). The latter became the Reform Party (Kaishin Tô) in 1952, in 1954 the Japan Democratic Party (Nihon Minshu Tô) and it finally became a member of the LDP in 1955. This Party changed its name to Democratic Liberal Party (Minshu Jiyû Tô) in 1948, and to Liberal Party (Jiyû Tô) in 1950. After a split in 1953 a new group emerged, the so called Separatists' Liberal Party (Jiyû Tô Buntô Ha), some members of which returned to the Liberal Party later that year. The rest renamed their party Japan Liberal Party (Nihon Jiyû Tô); when the Reform Party joined them the following year, the party adopted the label Japan Democratic Party. In 1955 they merged with the Liberal Party and became the LDP. Between 1951 and 1955 the JSP split into a Left Wing Socialist Party (Saha Shakai Tô) and a Right Wing Socialist Party (Uha Shakai Tô). In 1948 a splinter group had founded the Worker-Peasant Party (Rôdôsha Nomin Tô), but helped reconstruct the JSP in 1955. The JSP renamed itself Social Democratic Party (Shakai Minshu Tô) in 1995. This name it took in 1947; the initial one had been Japan Cooperative Party (Nihon Kyôdô Tô) (since 1945). In 1950 it joined some members of the then Democratic Party (Minshu Tô) to become the National Democratic Party (Kokumin Minshu Tô). In 1952 it changed its name to the Reform Party (Kaishin Tô).

367

JAPAN

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1946–2000 Party / Alliance JCoP JCP JLP JPP JSP DP NCP SESB DLP LP (1) NDP LWSP RefP RWSP JDP CGP LDP DSP NC NLC USDP Rengô JNP NHP RP NPP DPJ DRL SDP LP (2) NewCP a

Years 1946 1946–2000 1946–1947 1946 1946–1950, 1956–1993 1947–1949 1947–1949 1947, 1950, 1953, 1956, 1959 1949 1950–1955 1950 1952–1955 1952–1953 1952–1955 1955 1956, 1959, 1962, 1965–1995, 1998–2000 1956–2000 1960–1993 1968, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1983–1989, 1992, 1995, 1998 1976–1986 1979–1993 1989, 1992 1992–1993 1993–1998 1993 1995–1996 1996–2000 1996 1996–2000 1998–2000 2000

Elections contesteda HoR 1 21 2 1 17 2 2 0

HoC 0 18 1 0 17 1 1 5

1 3 0 3 2 3 1 11

0 2 1 1 1 1 0 14

15 12 0

15 8 9

5 6 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1

2 2 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

Total number (House of Representatives, HoR): 21; Total number (House of Councilors, HoC): 18.

368

NORTH KOREA

2.5 /2.6 Referendums/elections for Constitutional Assembly Referendums and Elections for Constitutional Assembly have not been held.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 House of Representatives 1946–2000 Year

1946 Total number 36,878,417 26,582,175 482,000 26,100,175 55,448,879 14,082,575 11,232,610 10,069,907 3,484,889 2,135,757 6,692,357 7,750,784

Registered voters Ballots casta Invalid ballots Valid ballots Valid votes JLP JPP JSP JcoP JCP Others Independents a

b

% – 72.1 1.3 98.7 –b 25.4 20.3 18.2 6.3 3.8 12.0 14.0

In this election voters were entitled to one, two or three votes, depending on the size of their constituency. The percentages for valid ballots, invalid ballots, and ballots cast refer to the number of voters. Percentages of party votes refer to the total number of valid votes, not to the number of ballots cast.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes JLP JSP DP NCP JCP DLP Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast

1947 Total number 40,907,493 27,796,840 435,180 27,361,660 7,263,343 7,203,050 7,198,292 1,915,948 1,002,883 – 958,963 1,829,161 1952 Total number 46,772,584 35,749,709

% – 67.9 1.1 98.9 26.5 26.3 26.3 7.0 3.7 – 3.5 6.6

1949 Total number 42,105,300 31,174,957 582,438 30,592,519 – 4,129,794 4,828,189 1,041,879 2,984,780 13,583,289 2,125,591 1,898,997

% – 74.0 1.4 98.6 – 13.5 15.8 3.4 9.8 44.4 6.9 6.2

1953 % – 76.4

Total number 47,090,167 34,946,130

% – 74.2

369

JAPAN

Invalid votes Valid votes LP (1) LP (1) (separatists) RefP RWSP LWSP JCP Others Independents

412,349 35,337,360 16,956,134 – 6,630,070 4,537,703 3,464,042 896,765 602,647 2,249,999

Year

1955 Total number 49,235,375 37,334,338 319,499 37,014,839 13,536,044 9,925,477 5,683,312 5,129,594 733,121 – – 813,784 1,193,507

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes JDP LP (1) LWSP RWSP JCP LDP JSP Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP DSP JCP Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes

1960 Total number 54,312,993 39,920,119 410,993 39,509,126 22,950,404 10,839,130 3,464,147 1,156,723 141,941 956,781 1967 Total number 62,992,796 46,599,456 602,882

0.9 99.1 48.0 – 18.8 12.8 9.8 2.5 1.7 6.4

342,675 34,602,455 13,653,466 3,054,688 6,231,111 4,677,833 4,516,715 655,990 510,823 1,301,829

0.7 99.3 39.5 8.8 18.0 13.5 13.0 1.9 1.5 3.8

% – 75.8 0.6 99.4 36.6 26.8 15.3 13.9 2.0 – – 2.2 3.2

1958 Total number 52,013,529 40,042,489 290,824 39,751,665 – – – – 1,012,035 23,480,170 13,155,715 159,707 1,944,038

% – 77.0 0.6 99.4 – – – – 2.5 59.0 33.1 0.4 4.9

% – 73.5 0.8 99.2 58.1 27.4 8.8 2.9 0.4 2.4

1963 Total number 58,281,678 41,458,946 442,405 41,016,541 22,972,892 11,906,766 3,023,302 1,646,477 59,765 1,407,339

% – 71.1 0.8 99.2 56.0 29.0 7.4 4.0 0.1 3.4

% – 74.0 1.0

1969 Total number 69,260,424 47,442,400 452,507

% – 68.5 0.6

370

NORTH KOREA

Valid votes LDP JSP DSP CGP JCP Others Independents

45,996,574 22,613,191 12,899,132 3,404,463 2,472,371 2,190,563 90,462 2,326,392

Year

1972 Total number 73,769,636 52,929,059 503,980 52,425,079 25,366,689 11,478,742 5,702,170 4,436,755 3,718,156 – 21,383 1,701,184

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP CGP DSP NLC Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP CGP DSP NLC USDP Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes

1979 Total number 80,169,924 54,518,515 508,394 54,010,121 24,754,776 10,643,450 5,767,435 5,376,316 3,752,833 1,631,811 368,660 69,101 1,645,739 1983 Total number 84,252,608 57,238,897 459,196

99.0 49.2 28.0 7.4 5.4 4.8 0.2 5.0

46,989,893 23,056,391 10,074,100 3,695,555 5,124,666 3,199,031 81,373 1,758,777

99.4 49.1 21.4 7.9 10.9 6.8 0.2 3.7

% – 71.7 0.7 71.1 48.4 21.9 10.9 8.5 7.1 – 0.0 3.2

1976 Total number 77,926,585 57,231,992 619,227 56,612,765 24,458,312 11,713,008 6,032,887 6,290,829 3,554,075 2,436,270 34,411 2,092,973

% – 73.4 0.8 72.6 43.2 20.7 10.7 11.1 6.3 4.3 0.1 3.7

% – 68.0 0.6 99.4 45.8 19.7 10.7 9.9 6.9 3.0 0.7 0.1 3.0

1980 Total number 80,925,034 60,338,439 1,309,602 59,028,837 28,553,714 11,400,747 5,943,810 5,427,616 3,982,071 1,766,396 402,832 109,168 1,442,483

% – 74.6 1.6 98.4 48.4 19.3 10.0 9.2 6.7 3.0 0.7 0.2 2.4

% – 67.9 0.5

1986 Total number 86,426,845 61,703,791 1,255,181

% – 71.4 1.4

371

JAPAN

Valid votes LDP JSP CGP JCP DSP NLC USDP Others Independents

56,779,701 26,677,081 11,289,594 5,860,053 5,439,480 4,203,407 1,341,584 381,045 62,323 1,525,134

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP CGP JCP DSP USDP RP JNP NHP Others Independents Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP NPP JCP DPJ SDP NHP Others Independents a

99.5 47.0 19.9 10.3 9.6 7.4 2.4 0.7 0.1 2.7

60,448,610 30,239,569 10,732,219 5,803,012 5,426,968 3,979,757 1,114,800 499,670 120,627 2,531,988

98.6 50.0 17.7 9.6 9.0 6.6 1.8 0.8 0.2 4.2

1990 Total number 90,322,908 66,213,175 508,864 65,704,311 31,041,258 16,276,154 5,360,400 5,226,986 3,178,949 566,957 – – – 58,535 3,995,072

% – 73.3 0.6 99.4 47.2 24.8 8.2 8.0 4.8 0.9 – – – 0.1 6.1

1993 Total number 94,477,816 63,544,823 740,678 62,804,145 23,504,024 10,265,622 5,265,611 4,834,587 2,564,018 – 6,747,748 5,053,981 1,658,097 143,486 2,766,971

% – 67.3 0.8 99.2 37.4 16.3 8.4 7.7 4.1 – 10.7 8.0 2.6 0.2 4.4

1996 Total no.a 97,680,719 58,259,844 1,731,422 56,528,422 21,836,091 15,812,320 7,096,765 6,001,666 1,240,649 727,644 1,304,464 2,508,823

Total no.a 97,680,719 58,233,449 2,664,254 55,569,195 18,205,955 15,580,053 7,268,743 8,949,190 3,547,240 582,093 1,435,921 –

% – 59.6 1.8 98.2 38.6 28.0 12.5 10.6 2.2 1.3 2.3 4.4

% – 59.6 2.7 97.3 32.8 28.0 13.1 16.1 6.4 1.0 2.6 –

The first and third columns of figures refer to the votes cast for the direct candidate (1st votes), the second and fourth columns of figures to the votes cast for a party list (2nd votes).

372 Year Registered Voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP DPJ CGP JCP LP (2) SDP NewCP Others Independents a

NORTH KOREA

2000 Total no.a 100,433,798 62,764,239 1,881,771 60,882,468 24,945,806 16,811,732 1,231,753 7,352,843 2,053,736 2,315,234 1,230,464 1,926,886 3,014,014

Total no.a 100,492,328 62,757,828 2,913,227 59,844,601 16,943,425 15,067,990 7,762,032 6,719,016 6,589,490 5,603,680 247,334 911,634 –

% – 62.5 3.0 97.0 41.0 27.6 2.0 12.1 3.4 3.8 2.0 3.2 5.0

% – 62.5 4.6 95.4 28.3 25.2 13.0 11.2 11.0 9.4 0.4 1.5 –

The first and third columns of figures refer to the votes cast for the direct candidate (1st votes), the second and fourth columns of figures to the votes cast for a party list (2nd votes).

373

JAPAN

2.7.2 House of Councilors 1947–1998 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes SESB JSP JLP DP JCP NCP Others Independents a

1947 Total numbera 40,958,588 24,539,869 2,490,643 22,049,226 5,097,904 4,901,341 4,239,606 4,020,251 825,304 278,401 391,404 2,295,015

40,958,588 24,942,685 3,671,503 21,271,182 8,555,388 3,479,814 1,593,478 1,861,771 610,948 136,351 408,843 4,624,589

% – 59.9 6.1 93.9 23.1 22.2 19.2 18.2 3.7 1.3 1.8 10.4

% – 60.9 9.0 91.0 40.2 16.4 7.5 8.7 2.9 0.6 1.9 21.7

The first and third columns refer always to the vote cast for the candidates in the nation-wide constituency (1st votes; see above 1.2), the second and fourth columns to the votes cast for candidates in the sub-national constituencies (2nd votes).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LP (1) JSP NDP SESB JCP Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LP (1) LP (1) (separatists) LWSP SESB RWSP RefP

1950 Total number 43,461,371 31,373,096 2,368,157 29,004,939 10,414,995 7,497,698 2,966,011 2,415,131 1,637,451 1,113,312 2,960,341 1953 Total number 47,036,554 29,715,697 1,704,449 28,011,248 8,803,131 522,540 4,415,940 3,279,611 2,952,803 2,840,345

43,461,371 31,369,593 3,376,200 27,993,393 8,476,493 4,854,629 1,517,037 5,928,393 1,333,872 591,097 5,291,872

% – 72.2 5.4 94.6 35.9 25.8 10.2 8.3 5.6 3.8 10.2

% – 72.2 7.8 92.2 30.3 17.3 5.4 21.2 4.8 2.1 18.9

47,036,554 29,710,421 2,618,640 27,091,781 6,457,316 110,889 4,220,845 5,679,534 1,740,423 1,630,507

% – 63.2 3.6 96.4 31.4 1.9 15.8 11.7 10.5 10.1

% – 63.2 5.6 94.4 23.9 0.4 15.6 21.0 6.4 6.0

374

NORTH KOREA

JCP Others Independents

264,729 344,057 4,588,092

Year

1956 Total number 50,177,888 31,162,522 1,506,233 29,656,289 14,649,666 11,156,060 1,149,009 653,843 422,538 236,276 1,388,897

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP SESB CGP Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP SESB CGP Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP DSP JCP CGP Others Independents

1959 Total number 53,516,473 31,437,466 1,308,111 30,129,355 15,815,722 10,265,393 999,255 731,383 471,472 155,189 1,690,941 1962 Total number 56,137,295 38,291,278 1,879,355 36,411,923 17,284,922 11,917,674 2,649,422 1,760,257 958,176 569,773 1,271,699

293,877 445,433 6,512,957

0.9 1.2 16.4

1.1 1.6 24.0

50,177,888 31,157,309 2,539,957 28,617,352 11,356,874 8,549,939 599,253 2,877,101 991,547 418,967 3,823,671

% – 62.1 3.0 97.0 49.3 37.6 3.9 2.2 1.4 0.8 4.7

% – 62.1 5.1 94.9 39.7 29.9 2.0 10.0 3.5 1.5 13.4

53,516,473 31,432,020 2,011,150 29,420,870 12,748,859 7,794,753 551,915 2,382,703 2,486,801 311,536 3,144,303

% – 58.7 2.4 97.6 52.5 34.1 3.3 2.4 1.6 0.5 5.6

% – 58.7 3.7 96.3 43.3 26.5 1.9 8.1 8.4 1.1 10.7

56,137,295 38,282,899 2,525,812 35,757,087 16,581,636 8,666,909 1,899,756 1,123,946 4,124,269 2,474,862 885,709

% – 68.2 3.3 96.7 47.6 32.8 7.3 4.8 2.6 1.6 3.4

% – 68.2 4.5 95.5 46.4 24.2 5.3 3.1 11.5 6.9 2.5

375

JAPAN

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP DSP CGP Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP DSP CGP NC Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP DSP CGP Others Independents Year

1965 Total number 59,544,407 39,899,713 2,227,542 37,672,171 16,651,284 12,346,650 2,608,771 2,303,860 1,910,975 185,990 1,664,641 1968 Total number 65,886,145 45,415,878 2,155,898 43,259,980 19,405,545 12,617,680 3,577,179 3,010,089 2,632,528 – 106,587 1,910,372 1971 Total number 71,177,667 42,159,559 1,828,643 40,330,916 18,073,242 12,597,644 4,878,570 1,919,643 1,391,855 77,376 1,392,586 1974 Total number

59,544,407 39,891,024 2,614,067 37,276,957 17,583,490 8,729,655 1,652,363 2,214,375 5,097,682 298,400 1,700,992

% – 67.0 3.7 96.3 44.2 32.8 6.9 6.1 5.1 0.5 4.4

% – 67.0 4.4 95.6 47.2 23.4 4.4 5.9 13.7 0.8 4.6

65,886,145 45,409,361 2,334,967 43,074,394 20,120,089 8,542,199 2,146,878 2,578,580 6,656,771 1,870,596 157,500 1,001,781

% – 76.3 3.6 96.4 44.9 29.2 8.3 7.0 6.1 – 0.2 4.4

% – 76.3 3.9 96.1 46.7 19.8 5.0 6.0 15.4 4.3 0.4 2.3

71,177,667 42,154,248 2,222,569 39,931,679 17,759,395 8,494,264 3,219,306 2,441,508 5,626,292 48,299 2,342,615

% – 59.2 2.6 97.4 44.8 31.2 12.1 4.7 3.4 0.2 3.4

% – 59.2 3.1 96.9 44.5 21.3 8.1 6.1 14.1 0.1 5.9

%

%

376

NORTH KOREA

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP CGP DSP NC Others Independents

75,356,068 55,159,402 1,662,001 53,497,401 21,314,735 13,907,864 6,846,468 6,732,937 2,353,397 261,396 38,511 2,042,093

Year

1977 Total number 78,321,715 53,638,928 1,839,748 51,799,180 21,038,845 13,403,215 5,159,141 3,206,719 2,951,975 2,318,386 – 1,508,030 2,212,869

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP CGP NLC DSP NC Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP DSP CGP NLC NC USDP Others Independents

1980 Total number 80,925,034 60,312,856 3,612,299 56,700,557 25,848,665 12,715,880 6,652,310 3,860,428 3,434,524 349,989 282,926 – 345,129 3,210,706

75,356,068 55,148,729 2,523,672 52,625,057 23,332,773 7,990,456 4,931,649 6,360,419 3,114,895 3,771,787 74,345 3,048,733

– 73.2 2.2 97.8 39.8 26.0 12.8 12.6 4.4 0.5 0.1 3.8

– 73.2 3.3 96.7 44.3 15.2 9.4 12.1 5.9 7.2 0.1 5.8

78,321,715 53,628,177 2,945,394 50,682,783 18,901,706 8,805,617 4,260,049 7,174,458 2,902,177 3,387,540 758,911 2,410,390 2,081,935

% – 68.5 2.3 97.7 40.6 25.9 10.0 6.2 5.7 4.5 – 2.9 4.3

% – 68.5 3.8 96.2 37.3 17.4 8.4 14.2 5.7 6.7 1.5 4.7 4.1

80,925,034 60,288,712 4,330,766 55,957,946 23,778,189 7,341,827 4,072,019 3,364,478 6,669,386 351,291 5,032,155 627,272 55,864 4,665,465

% – 74.5 4.5 96.5 45.6 22.4 11.7 6.8 6.1 0.6 0.5 – 0.6 5.7

% – 74.5 5.3 94.7 42.5 13.1 7.3 6.0 11.9 0.6 9.0 1.1 0.1 8.3

377

JAPAN

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP CGP DSP NC Others Independents a

1983 Total numbera 83,682,416 47,698,487 1,498,162 46,200,325 19,975,033 11,217,515 4,859,333 3,615,994 3,506,088 – 2,125,646 900,716

83,682,416 47,693,162 1,156,234 46,536,928 16,441,437 7,590,331 4,163,877 7,314,465 3,888,429 1,142,349 5,996,040 –

% – 57.0 1.8 98.2 43.2 24.3 10.5 7.8 7.6 – 4.6 1.9

% – 57.0 1.4 98.6 35.3 16.3 8.9 15.7 8.4 2.4 12.9 –

After the 1982 reform of the electoral system, one vote (first and third columns) was distributed in multi-member constituencies by SNTV, and the second vote in one national constituency by proportional representation (second and fourth columns).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP DSP CGP NC NCL Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP Rengô CGP DSP

1986 Total number 86,426,845 61,667,543 3,729,306 57,938,237 27,724,108 13,286,376 6,617,486 3,192,878 3,178,530 – – 1,520,238 2,418,621 1989 Total number 89,891,358 58,443,691 1,544,057 56,899,634 19,836,714 18,197,727 5,363,208 3,878,783 2,900,947 2,871,159

86,426,845 61,633,236 4,270,494 57,362,742 22,132,573 9,869,088 5,430,838 3,940,325 7,438,501 1,455,532 1,367,291 5,728,594 –

% – 71.3 4.3 95.7 47.8 22.9 11.4 5.5 5.5 – – 2.6 4.2

% – 71.3 4.9 95.1 38.6 17.2 9.5 6.9 13.0 2.5 2.4 10.0 –

89,891,358 58,428,431 2,257,103 56,171,328 15,343,455 19,688,252 3,954,408 – 6,097,971 2,726,419

% – 65.0 1.7 98.3 34.9 32.0 9.4 6.8 5.1 5.0

% – 65.0 2.5 97.5 27.3 35.0 7.0 – 10.9 4.8

378

NORTH KOREA

NC Others Independents

337,250 2,865,116 648,729

Year

1992 Total number 93,254,025 47,294,678 1,911,470 45,383,208 20,528,293 7,147,140 4,817,001 4,399,684 3,550,060 1,896,986 1,220,752 – – 729,587 1,093,705

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP JSP JCP Rengô CGP DSP NC JNP USDP Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes NPP (Heisei Kai) LDP JSP JCP NHP NC Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LDP DPJ

1995 Total number 96,759,025 43,073,099 1,500,026 41,573,073 11,003,681 10,557,547 4,926,003 4,314,830 1,059,353 – 3,591,560 6,120,099 1998 Total number 99,048,700 58,280,396 2,344,311 55,936,065 17,033,851 9,063,939

1,250,022 7,110,801 –

0.6 5.0 1.1

2.2 12.7 –

93,254,025 47,278,359 2,329,658 44,948,701 14,961,199 7,981,726 3,532,956 – 6,415,503 2,255,423 1,321,639 3,617,246 671,594 4,191,415 –

% – 50.7 2.0 98.0 45.2 15.7 10.6 9.7 7.8 4.2 2.7 – – 1.6 2.4

% – 50.7 2.5 97.5 33.3 17.8 7.9 – 14.3 5.0 2.9 8.0 1.5 9.3 –

96,759,025 43,056,619 2,388,359 40,668,260 12,506,322 11,096,972 6,882,919 3,873,955 1,455,886 1,282,596 3,569,610 –

% – 44.5 1.5 98.5 26.5 25.4 11.8 10.4 2.5 – 8.6 14.7

% – 44.5 2.5 97.5 30.7 27.3 16.9 9.5 3.6 3.1 8.8 –

99,048,700 58,268,960 2,131,937 56,137,023 14,128,719 12,209,685

% – 58.8 2.4 56.5 30.5 16.2

% – 58.8 2.1 56.7 25.2 21.7

379

JAPAN

JCP SDP CGP LP (2) NHP NC Others Independents

8,758,759 2,403,649 1,843,479 980,249 – – 2,967,553 12,884,586

8,195,078 4,370,763 7,748,301 5,207,813 784,591 579,714 2,912,359 –

15.6 4.3 3.3 1.7 – – 5.3 23.0

14.6 7.8 13.8 9.3 1.4 1.0 5.2 –


381

JAPAN

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 House of Representatives 1946–2000 Year

1946 Seats 464 JLP 148 JPP 110 JSP 96 JcoP 45 JCP 6 DP – NCP – DLP – LP (1) – RefP – RWSP – LWSP – Others 33 Independ- 26 ents Year LP (1) LP (1) (separat.) RefP LWSP RWSP JCP JDP LDP JSP DSP Others Independents Year LDP JSP DSP JCP

% 100.0 31.8 23.6 20.6 9.7 1.3 – – – – – – – 7.1 5.6

1947 Seats 466 129 – 144 – 4 132 31 – – – – – 8 18

1953 Seats 466 202 35 77 72 66 1 – – – – 6 7 1963 Seats 467 294 144 23 5

% 100.0 27.7 – 30.9 – 0.9 28.3 6.7 – – – – – 1.7 3.9

1949 Seats 466 – – 48 – 35 70 14 269 – – – – 22 8

% 100.0 – – 10.3 – 7.5 15.0 3.0 57.7 – – – – 4.7 1.7

1952 Seats 466 – – – – 0 – – – 242 89 60 56 4 15

% 100.0 – – – – 0.0 – – – 51.9 19.1 12.9 12.0 0.9 3.2

% 100.0 43.3 7.5

1955 Seats 467 114 –

% 100.0 24.4 –

1958 Seats 467 – –

% 100.0 – –

1960 Seats 467 – –

% 100.0 – –

16.5 15.5 14.2 0.2 – – – – 1.3 1.5

– 89 67 2 185 – – – 5 5

– 19.1 14.3 0.4 39.6 – – – 1.1 1.1

– – – 1 – 298 167 – 0 1

– – – 0.2 – 63.8 35.8 – 0.0 0.2

– – – 3 – 300 144 17 1 2

– – – 0.6 – 64.2 30.8 3.6 0.2 0.4

% 100.0 63.0 30.8 4.9 1.1

1967 Seats 486 280 141 30 5

% 100.0 57.6 29.0 6.2 1.0

1969 Seats 486 300 90 32 14

% 100.0 61.7 18.5 6.6 2.9

1972 Seats 491 284 118 20 40

% 100.0 57.8 24.0 4.1 8.1

382 CGP – Independ- 1 ents 1976 Seats 511 LDP 260 JSP 124 CGP 56 DSP 29 JCP 19 NLC 18 USDP – Independ- 5 ents

NORTH KOREA

– 0.2

25 5

% 100.0 50.9 24.3 11.0 5.7 3.7 3.5 – 1.0

1979 Seats 511 258 107 58 36 41 4 2 5

% 100.0 59.3 16.8 11.1 5.3 5.1 1.2 0.8 – – – – – – 0.0 0.4

1990 Seats 512 286 139 46 16 14 – 4 – – – – – – 1 2

Year

Year

1986 Seats 512 LDP 304 JSP 86 CGP 57 JCP 27 DSP 26 NLC 6 USDP 4 RP – JNP – NHP – NPP – DPJ – SDP – Others 0 Independ- 2 ents Year LDP DPJ CGP LP (2) JCP SDP NewCP Others Independents

2000 Seats 480 233 127 31 22 20 19 7 6 15

5.1 1.0

47 3

% 100.0 50.5 20.9 11.4 7.0 8.0 0.8 0.4 1.0

1980 Seats 511 287 107 34 33 29 12 3 6

% 100.0 56.0 27.2 9.0 3.1 2.7 – 0.8 – – – – – – 0.2 0.4

1993 Seats 511 228 77 52 15 19 – 0 60 35 13 – – – 0 12

9.7 0.6

29 0

5.9 0.0

% 100.0 56.2 20.9 6.7 6.5 5.7 2.3 0.6 1.2

1983 Seats 511 259 113 59 39 27 8 3 3

% 100.0 50.7 22.3 11.5 7.6 5.3 1.6 0.6 0.6

% 100.0 44.6 15.1 10.2 2.9 3.7 – 0.0 11.7 6.8 2.5 – – – 0.0 2.3

1996 Seats 500 239 – – 26 – – – – – 2 156 52 15 1 9

% 100.0 47.8 – – 5.2 – – – – – 0.4 31.2 10.4 3.0 0.2 1.8

% 100.0 48.5 26.6 6.5 4.6 4.2 3.9 1.5 1.2 3.1

383

JAPAN

2.8.1 a) House of Representatives: Distribution of Seats According to the Parts of the Segmented Electoral System (1996–2000) Year

LDP NPP DPJ SDP JCP NHP CGP NewCP LP (2) Others Total a

1996 SMC-Seatsa 169 96 17 4 2 2 – – – 10 300

%

PR-Seats

%

56.3 32.0 5.7 1.3 0.7 0.7 – – – 3.3 100.0

70 60 35 11 24 0 – – – 0 200

35.0 30.0 17.5 5.5 12.0 0.0 – – – 0.0 100.0

2000 SMC-Seatsa 177 – 80 4 0 – 7 7 4 21 300

%

PR-Seats

%

59.0 – 26.7 1.3 0.0 – 2.3 2.3 1.3 7.0 100.0

56 – 47 15 20 – 24 0 18 0 180

31.1 – 26.1 8.3 11.1 – 13.3 0.0 10.0 0.0 100.0

The first two columns give the seats won in the single-member constituencies (SMC) according to the 1st votes; the third and fourth columns refer to the mandates distributed by proportional representation (PR) according to the 2nd votes. Percentages are calculated separately for each part of the segmented electoral system.

384

NORTH KOREA

2.8.2 House of Councilors 1947–1998 Year SESB JSP JLP DP JCP NCP LP (1) LP (1) (separat.) LWSP RWSP RefP LDP CGPb Others Independents a

b

1947 Seats 250a 92 47 44 41 4 0 – – – – – – – 1 21

% 100.0 36.8 18.8 17.6 16.4 1.6 0.0 – –

1950 Seats 250 57 62 – – 4 30 77 –

1953 % 100.0 22.8 24.8 – – 1.6 12.0 30.8 –

– – – – – 0.4 8.4

– – – – – 5 15

– – – – – 2.0 6.0

Seats 250 47 – – – 1 – 94 2

1956 % 100.0 18.8 – – – 0.4 – 37.6 0.8

Seats 248 29 81 – – 2 – – –

% 100.0 11.7 32.7 – – 0.8 – – –

43 26 15 – – 2 20

17.2 10.4 6.0 – – 0.8 8.0

– – – 124 3 0 9

– – – 50.0 1.2 0.0 3.6

As explained in 1.3, 50 percent of the members of the House of Councilors have been elected every three years. The figures provided by this table refer to parties' total force in the Chamber after the election and not to the seats gained at that particular election. The CGP started contesting elections as a party officially in 1964, but members of the Sôoka Gakkai had previously won seats. As these members are the predecessor of the CGP, they appear in the tables as CGP.

Year

1959 Seats 249 LDP 135 JSP 84 SESB 11 CGP 9 JCP 3 DSP – NC – Others 0 Independ- 7 ents Year LDP JSP CGP DSP JCP

1971 Seats 252 137 65 23 13 10

% 100.0 54.2 33.7 4.4 3.6 1.2 – – 0.0 2.8

1962 Seats 250 143 66 – 15 4 11 – 11 0

% 100.0 54.4 25.8 9.1 5.2 4.0

1974 Seats 252 127 62 24 10 20

% 100.0 57.2 26.4 – 6.0 1.6 4.4 – 4.4 0.0

1965 Seats 249 140 73 – 20 4 7 – 0 5

% 100.0 50.4 24.6 9.5 4.0 7.9

1977 Seats 249 125 56 28 11 16

% 100.0 56.2 29.3 – 8.0 1.6 2.8 – 0.0 2.0

1968 Seats 250 137 65 – 24 7 10 4 0 3

% 100.0 54.8 26.0 – 9.6 2.8 4.0 1.6 0.0 1.2

% 100.0 50.2 22.5 11.2 4.4 6.4

1980 Seats 251 137 47 27 12 12

% 100.0 54.6 18.7 10.8 4.8 4.8

385

JAPAN

NC NLC USDP Others Independents

– – – 0 4

1983 Seats 249 LDP 137 JSP 44 CGP 27 JCP 14 DSP 13 NC 2 NLC 0 USDP – Rengô – JNP – Others 9 Independ- 3 ents

– – – 0.0 1.6

4 – – 0 5

% 100.0 55.0 17.7 10.8 5.6 5.2 0.8 0.0 – – – 3.6 1.2

1986 Seats 252 145 42 25 16 12 3 1 1 – – 5 2

Year

Year LDP NPPa JSP JCP NC NHP DPJ CGP SDP LP (2) Others Independents a

1995 Seats 252 112 69 38 14 4 3 – – – – 7 5

1.6 – – 0.0 2.0

5 5 – 1 2

% 100.0 57.5 16.7 9.9 6.3 4.8 1.2 0.4 0.4 – – 2.0 0.8

1989 Seats 252 111 74 21 14 9 3 – – 12 – 6 2

% 100.0 44.4 27.4 15.1 5.5 1.6 1.2 – – – – 2.8 2.0

2.0 2.0 – 0.4 0.8

4 2 3 0 7

1.6 0.8 1.2 0.0 2.8

% 100.0 44.0 29.4 8.3 5.6 3.6 1.2 – – 4.8 – 2.4 0.8

1992 Seats 252 109 73 24 11 10 5 – 1 12 4 2 1

% 100.0 43.3 29.0 9.5 4.4 4.0 2.0 – 0.4 4.8 1.6 0.8 0.4

1998 Seats 252 102 – – 23 1 3 47 22 13 12 3 26

For internal reasons the NPP bore the name Heisei Kai in the House of Councilors.

% 100.0 40.5 – – 9.1 0.4 1.2 18.7 8.7 5.1 4.8 1.2 10.3

386

NORTH KOREA

2.8.1 a) House of Councilors: Distribution of Seats According to the Two Parts of the Electoral System Year

1947 Seats (nat. % )a SESB 48 48.0 JSP 17 17.0 DP 10 10.0 JLP 10 10.0 JCP 3 3.0 LP (1) – – NDP – – Others 0 0.0 Independ- 12 12.0 ents Total 100 100.0 a

Seats (subn.) 44 30 31 34 1 – – 1 9

%

1950 Seats (nat.) %

29.3 20.0 20.7 22.7 0.7 – – 0.7 6.0

10 15 – – 2 19 2 1 7

150

100.1

56

17.9 26.8 – – 3.6 33.9 3.6 1.8 12.5

Seats (subn.) 6 22 – – 0 34 8 0 5

% 8.0 29.3 – – 0.0 45.3 10.7 0.0 6.7

100.1

75

100.0

The following tables present the distribution of seats according to the two tiers of the plurality electoral system. The first two columns refer to the 1st votes cast in the nation-wide constituency (nat.); the third and fourth columns provide the seats won in the sub-national constituencies (subn.) according to the second votes. Percentages are calculated separately for the two tiers of the electoral system.

Year

1953 Seats (nat.) %

LP (1) SESB LWSP RefP RWSP JCP JSP LDP CGP Independents Total

17 16 9 3 3 0 – – – 5

32.1 30.2 17.0 5.7 5.7 0.0 – – – 9.4

Seats (subn.) 30 13 12 5 7 0 – – – 8

53

100.1

75

Year

1959 Seats (nat.) %

LDP JSP CGP SESB JCP DSP

23 17 5 4 1 –

44.2 32.7 9.6 7.7 1.9 –

Seats (subn.) 50 21 1 2 0 –

%

1956 Seats (nat.) %

40.0 17.3 16.0 6.7 9.3 0.0 – – – 10.7

– 5 – – – 1 21 18 2 4

100.0

51

%

1962 Seats (nat.) %

66.7 28.0 1.3 2.7 0.0 –

21 15 7 – 2 3

– 9.8 – – – 2.0 41.2 35.3 3.9 7.8

Seats (subn.) – 0 – – – 1 28 43 1 1

– 0 – – – 1.4 37.8 58.1 1.4 1.4

100.0

74

100.1

Seats (subn.) 49 22 2 – 1 1

%

41.2 29.4 13.7 – 3.9 5.9

%

64.5 28.9 2.6 – 1.3 1.3

387

JAPAN

Others 0 Independ- 2 ents Total 52 Year

0.0 3.8

0 1

0.0 1.3

3 0

5.9 0.0

1 0

1.3 0.0

99.9

75

100.0

51

100.0

76

99.9 % 64.0 21.3 5.3 4.0 1.3 0.0 4.0

1965 Seats (nat.) %

LDP JSP CGP DSP JCP NC Independents Total

25 12 9 2 2 – 2

48.1 23.1 17.3 3.8 3.8 – 3.8

Seats (subn.) 46 24 2 1 1 – 1

52

99.9

75

Year

1971 Seats (nat.) %

LDP JSP CGP JCP DSP NC Independents Total

22 10 8 5 4 – 1

44.0 20.0 16.0 10.0 8.0 – 2.0

Seats (subn.) 43 28 2 1 2 – 0

50

100.0

76

Year

1977 Seats (nat.) %

LDP JSP CGP DSP JCP NLC NC USDP Others Independents Total

19 10 9 4 3 2 1 – 1 1

38.0 20.0 18.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 – 2.0 2.0

Seats (subn.) 47 17 5 2 2 2 0 – 0 1

50

100.0

76

%

1968 Seats (nat.) %

61.3 32.0 2.7 1.3 1.3 – 1.3

21 12 9 4 3 2 0

41.2 23.5 17.6 7.8 5.9 3.9 0.0

Seats (subn.) 48 16 4 3 1 0 3

99.9

51

99.9

75

99.9 % 57.9 23.7 6.6 6.6 1.3 1.3 2.6

%

1974 Seats (nat.) %

56.6 36.8 2.6 1.3 2.6 – 0.0

19 10 9 8 4 2 2

35.2 18.5 16.7 14.8 7.4 3.7 3.7

Seats (subn.) 44 18 5 5 1 1 2

99.9

54

100.0

76

100.0 % 64.5 17.1 5.3 3.9 5.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.6 100.0

%

1980 Seats (nat.) %

61.8 22.4 6.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 0.0 – 0.0 1.3

21 9 9 3 3 0 2 1 0 2

42.0 18.0 18.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 4.0

Seats (subn.) 49 13 4 3 4 0 1 0 0 2

99.9

50

100.0

76

388 Year

LDP JSP CGP DSP JCP NC NCL Others Total a

NORTH KOREA

1983 SNTV-Seatsa 49 13 6 3 2 0 – 3 76

%

PR-Seats

%

64.5 17.1 7.9 3.9 2.6 0.0 – 3.9 99.9

19 9 8 4 5 1 – 4 50

38.0 18.0 16.0 8.0 10.0 2.0 – 8.0 100.0

a

1986 SNTV-Seats 52 12 4 2 4 0 0 2 76

%

PR-Seats

%

68.4 15.8 5.3 2.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 2.6 100.0

22 9 7 3 5 1 1 2 50

44.0 18.0 14.0 6.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 100.0

Due to the 1982 reform of the electoral system, the following tables present the distribution of seats according to the two parts of the segmented electoral system. The first two columns refer to the 1st votes allocated according to plurality (SNTV); the third and fourth columns provide the seats won in the national constituency distributed by proportional representation (PR). Percentages are calculated separately for the two parts of the electoral system.

Year

1989 SNTV-Seats JSP 32 LDP 23 Rengô 11 CGP 4 DSP 2 JCP 1 NC 1 JNP – Others 1 Independ- 1 ents Total 76 Year

LDP NPP JSP JCP NHP DPJ CGP LP(2) Others

1995 SNTV-Seats 35 24 7 3 1 – – – 0

%

PR-Seats

%

42.1 30.3 14.5 5.3 2.6 1.3 1.3 – 1.3 1.3

20 15 0 6 2 4 1 – 2 –

40.0 30.0 0.0 12.0 4.0 8.0 2.0 – 4.0 –

1992 SNTV-Seats 14 51 0 6 2 2 2 0 0 0

100.0

50

100.0

77

%

PR-Seats

%

46.1 31.6 9.2 3.9 1.3 – – – 0.0

15 18 9 5 2 – – – 1

30.0 36.0 18.0 10.0 4.0 – – – 2.0

1998 SNTV-Seats 31 – 1 7 0 15 2 1 0

%

PR-Seats

%

18.2 66.2 0.0 7.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

10 19 0 8 3 4 1 4 1 –

20.0 38.0 0.0 16.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 –

100.0

50

100.0

%

PR-Seats

%

40.8 – 1.3 9.2 0.0 19.7 2.6 1.3 0.0

14 – 4 8 0 12 7 5 0

28.0 – 8.0 16.0 0.0 24.0 14.0 10.0 0.0

389

JAPAN

Independ- 6 ents Total 76

7.9

–

–

19

25.0

–

–

100.0

50

100.0

76

99.9

50

100.0

2.9 Presidential Elections Presidential Elections have not been held because the Emperor is the Head of State.

390

NORTH KOREA

2.10 List of Power Holders 1946–2001 Head of State Emperor Hirohito

Years 1926–1989

Emperor Akihito

1989–

Head of Government Higashikuni Naruhikoa

Years 1945

Shidehara Kijûrô

1945–1946

Yoshida Shigeru

1946–1947

Katayama Tetsu

1947–1948

Ashida Hitoshi

1948

Yoshida Shigeru

1948–1954

Hatoyama Ichirô

1954–1956

Ishibashi Tanzan

1956–1957

Remarks Emperor during World War II. The 1947 Constitution reduced his role to a mere ‘symbol of the State’. After the death of his father, Akihito succeeded to the throne on 07/01/ 1989. Has never had a powerful position and has no political profile whatsoever. Remarks Member of the Imperial Family; head of an emergency cabinet since 17/08/ 1945. Resigned on 09/10/1945 as a sign of protest against American occupational policy. Former Minister of Foreign Affairs; succeeded Higashikuni. After the leading conservative candidate Hatoyama Ichirô had been purged by the occupation forces, Yoshida succeeded him as head of the JLP and became Prime Minister on 22/05/ 1946. Elected on 24/05/1947. First Prime Minister to be elected by the diet; also first and only Socialist Prime Minister until 1994; resigned under pressure from his own party. Elected on 10/03/1948. Head of the DP, continued the coalition with JSP and DP. Elected on 15/10/1948 to resume the office of Prime Minister; during his government Japan saw the end of the occupation era and the beginning of its recovery; headed five cabinets altogether. Elected on 10/12/1954 after returning to politics, yet not as a member of Yoshida's party but heading the JDP. Played a relevant role in the establishment of the LDP in 1955. Elected on 23/12/1956. Soon forced to resign because of health problems.

JAPAN

Kishi Nobusuke

1957–1960

Ikeda Hayato Satô Eisaku

1960–1964 1964–1972

Tanaka Kakuei

1972–1974

Miki Takeo

1974–1976

Fukuda Takeo

1976–1978

Ôhira Masayoshi

1978–1980

Suzuki Zenkô

1980–1982

Nakasone Yasuhiro

1982–1987

Takeshita Noburo

1987–1989

391 Elected on 25/02/1957; a convicted war criminal, he succeeded in reforming the US-Japan Security Treaty in 1960, but resigned when public protest grew too strong. Elected on 19/07/1960. Elected on 09/11/1964. Head of Government for the longest period in Japanese constitutional history. Elected on 07/07/1972. Finally fell due to the so-called Lockheed corruption case. Elected on 09/12/1974 as a ‘clean’ Prime Minister but without as strong a power base within the LDP as his predecessors. Nevertheless, he managed to have political reform bills passed by the diet. Elected on 24/12/1976. Governed with the ever-smallest majority of the LDP in the lower house. His election on 07/12/1978 augmented the conflicts between powerful politicians within the LDP; after the general election in 1979 party infightings were so strong that the LDP presented two candidates to Prime-Ministership to the diet; Ôhira won by a small margin. In 1980 two factions of the LDP absented themselves, thus allowing the passage of a JSP resolution of non-confidence by the diet. Ôhira died while campaigning for the necessary general election. Elected on 17/07/1980 as a result of intra-party consent. Elected on 26/11/1982 with strong support of the Tanaka faction. When Tanaka was found guilty of corruption in 1983, Nakasone called new elections which deprived the LDP of its majority in the lower house. In order to form his next cabinet, Nakasone saw himself obliged to build a coalition with the NLC. Elected on 06/11/1987 as the new leader of the former Tanaka faction; resigned when his involvement in a major corruption case (‘Recruit scandal’) became known.

392

a

NORTH KOREA

Uno Sosuke

1989

Kaifu Toshiki

1989–1991

Miyazawa Kiichi

1991–1993

Hosokawa Morihiro

1993–1994

Hata Tsutomu

1994

Murayama Tomoichi

1994–1996

Hashimoto Ryûichi

1996–1998

Obuchi Keizô

1998–2000

Mori Yoshiro

2000–

Japanese family names given first.

Elected on 03/06/1989. Uno was hardly known to the Japanese public and only chosen by the party leaders because all of them had been involved in the Recruit case as well; had to resign because of poor election results and a ‘woman-scandal’. Elected on 10/08/1989, also unknown to most of the public, tried to push through political reform. Intra-party struggles thwarted his attempt to run for a second term as LDP head. Elected on 05/11/1991. His passive stand on political reform contributed to the split of the LDP. Faced a vote of no-confidence, after which general elections were held and the LDP lost its majority. Elected on 09/08/1993. Head of a coalition government made up of seven parties and one group of members of the upper house; resigned after pushing through political reforms, and after it became known that he had accepted money from a scandal-tainted company. Elected on 28/04/1994. Tried to prolong the coalition but failed and soon found himself head of a minority government without the JSP. Elected on 30/06/1994. Built a coalition with LDP and NHP. Elected on 11/01/1996 as third Prime Minister in a row without general elections. Head of the LDP, maintained the coalition with JSP and NHP. Took responsibility for a poor result of his party in the 1998 upper house elections and resigned. Elected on 30/07/1998. Under his leadership the LDP became the sole governing party again, but formed a coalition later on with the LP (2) and the NCGP. He died in office in May 2000. After Obuchi's death party heads decided behind closed doors on Mori to become the next prime minister. Popularity of his administration, however, fell constantly. Announced his resignation in spring 2001.

JAPAN

393

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Kôshoku Senkyo Hô (Public Office Election Law). Tôkyô: Office of the Cabinet Secretary. Nihon Koku Kenpo (Constitution of Japan). Tôkyô: Prime Minister's Office.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Asahi Shinbun, daily newspaper, Tôkyô (various issues, also available online). Christensen, R. V. (1992). The Significance of the Opposition in Japanese Politics: The Case of Electoral Coalitions in Japan. Ph.D. thesis, Ann Arbor, Mich.: Michigan University. —— and Johnson, P. E. (1995). ‘Toward a Context-Rich Analysis of Electoral Systems: The Japanese Example’. American Journal of Political Studies, 39/3: 575–598. Cox, G. W. (1994). ‘Strategic Voting Equilibria Under the Single Nontransferable Vote’. American Political Science Review, 88/3: 608–621. —— and Niou, E. (1994). ‘Seat Bonuses under the Single Nontransferable Vote System—Evidence from Japan and Taiwan’. Comparative Politics, 26/2: 221–236. Flanagan, S. C. et al. (eds.) (1991). The Japanese Voter. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Jichi Shô Senkyo Bu (1990). Senkyo hô hyaku nen shi (Hundred Years of Electoral Laws). Tôkyô: Daiichi Hôki. Iwanaga, K. (1995). Democracy and Electoral System in Japan—A Comparative Perspective. Occasional Paper 26 (11/95). University of Stockholm. Katô, S. (1993). ‘Auswirkungen des japanischen Wahlsystems auf das gesamtpolitische System’. Kyôto sangyô daigaku ronshû, 23/1. Kyôto. Kishimoto, K. (1997). Politics in Modern Japan (4th edn.) Tôkyô: Japan Echo. Klein, A. (1998). Das Wahlsystem als Reformobjekt—Eine Untersuchung zu Entstehung und Auswirkung politischer Erneuerungsversuche am Beispiel Japan. Bonn: Bier'sche Verlagsanstalt. Lijphart, A., López Pintor, R., and Sone Y. (1986). ‘The Limited Vote and the Single Nontransferable Vote: Lessons from the Japanese and Spanish Examples’, in B. Grofman and A. Lijphart (eds.), Electoral Laws and their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press, 154–169.

394

NORTH KOREA

Mackie, T., and Rose, R. (1991). International Almanac of Elections (3rd. edn.). London: Macmillan. Matsuo, T. (1996). Shû giin giin senkyo yôran (Overview of the Elections to the House of Representatives). Tôkyô: Kokusei Jôhô Sentâ. Miyagawa, S. (ed.) (1996). Shô senkyo ku handobukku No. 2 (Handbook on Single-Member Constituencies No.2). Tôkyô: Seiji Hôkoku Sentâ. —— (ed.) (1997). Seiji handobukku No. 33 (Handbook on Politics No. 33). Tôkyô: Seiji Kôhô Sentâ. Reed, S. (1990). ‘Structure and Behaviour: Extending Duverger's Law to the Japanese Case’. British Journal of Political Science, 20/3: 335–356. —— (1992). Japan Election Data. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan. —— (1996). ‘Seats and Votes: Testing Taagepera in Japan’. Electoral Studies, 15/1: 71–81. Soma, M. (1986). Nihon senkyo seido shi (The History of Japanese Electoral Systems). Fukuoka: Kyûshû Daigaku Shuppan Kai. Tsujita, Y. (1988). Sengô no senkyo sôran (Overview of Post-War Elections). Tôkyô: Gyôsei. Yomiuri Shinbun Sha (ed.) (1996). Dai henkaku e no joshô (The First Chapter of the Great Reform). Tôkyô: Yomiuri Shinbun Sha. Yoshida, Y. (1995). Kôshoku senkyo hô no kaisetsu (Commentary on the Public Office Election Law). Tôkyô: Hitotsubashi Shuppan.

Korea (Democratic People's Republic / North Korea) by Mark B. Suh

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Since its proclamation in 1948 the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, hereafter North Korea) has been under communist rule. From the beginning, regular parliamentary elections were held. Yet, non-competitive, their major aim—with an average of 99.9% turnout and a 100% yes-vote—was to provide the totalitarian regime of the ‘Great Leader’ Kim Il-Sung with an aura of legitimacy. Not even after Kim's death in 1994 and the formal transfer of power to his son Kim Jong-Il in 1998 has there been any move toward political liberalization until today. The DPRK was established in 1948 in the Soviet Occupation Zone in the northern part of the Korean peninsula. After entering into Korea in August 1945 the Soviet forces had launched a so-called People's Democratic Revolution intending to create a replica of the Stalinist communist system. They installed a young Korean nationalist, Kim Il-Sung, as head of the main executive organ, the Provisional People's Committee. In February 1946, the agrarian sector was reshaped, and the industries and infrastructure were nationalized. In November of that year elections were held to the local and provincial People's Committees. Before, Kim Il-Sung had organized the Democratic National Unity Front, a coalition of various political parties and social organizations intended to fabricate an appearance of political unity among the populace. In truth, however, the United Front was—like in other communist countries—under the strict control of the Korean Workers' Party (KWP). Hence, there were no contesting parties or programs in these elections, in which the turnout was allegedly 99.6% of the registered voters. The first country-wide election to the national Parliament (Supreme People's Assembly, SPA; Choe Ko In Min Hoe Ui), held in August 1948, was also non-competitive. Purportedly, 98.5 percent of the votes were cast in favor of the candidates selected by the KWP. There were a few other parties, but they existed only for cosmetic purposes and were

396

SOUTH KOREA

dictated by the KWP. On 9 September 1948 the first SPA was constituted. It adopted the Constitution drafted by the Constitutional Assembly, proclaimed the DPRK, and elected Kim Il-Sung as Prime Minister, Head of Government. Since there was no formal Head of State at this stage, he became the most powerful man in North Korea. From the beginning the Soviet occupation authorities helped Kim Il-Sung to neutralize opposition factions. This enabled Kim to complete a series of maneuvers and place himself at the helm of the regime, despite the stern resistance of some senior party leaders to his rapid rise. In the process he brutally purged his erstwhile followers, as well as others who challenged his power. He even postponed the parliamentary elections until 1957, using the Korean War as the main argument. Consequently, Kim's rule became increasingly based on the unflinching loyalty of a small circle of his former guerrilla comrades and on his family members. By 1961, Kim Il-Sung's absolute power position was consolidated, and by 1970 all the politburo members were identified as belonging to his faction or family. Facts and fictions about Kim Il-Sung were strategically mixed to legitimate his total control of the country. The population was forced to believe a newly forged history of the nation, and in the Great Leader as the world's foremost revolutionary, theoretician, and statesman. An unprecedented personal cult of Kim Il-Sung was fostered, which turned North Korea into a personal state. In the height of the Sino-Soviet confrontation of the late 1950s, Kim Il-Sung also designed a special ideology known as Juche (self-reliance). This doctrine—officially in use since 6 December 1967—was a creative application of Marxism and Leninism that set the elected bodies, the party decisions and the military command in political affairs under the Leader's guidance and his direct instructions. In the same line, citizens were strictly compelled to subordinate their individual view to the monolithic unity of their group (Danche) and of the nation, following the guidance of the Juche. Within this framework, national elections have constituted a central instrument to express the national unity and the loyalty to the Great Leader. Regular parliamentary polls since 1957 finished with an average of 99.9% turnout of eligible voters (with the exception of overseas travelers and fishermen engaged in deep-sea operations) and a 100% support of the candidates on the ballot. This almost unanimous consent to uncontested candidates is not the result of statistical falsification, but mainly of psycho-political manipulation, ideological education, and repressive control. The increased personalization of the North Korean regime was also reflected in the constitutional amendments of 27 December 1972. According

NORTH KOREA

397

to these provisions, the SPA unanimously elected Kim Il-Sung to the newly created presidency (Chusuk), whereby he became the official Head of State and, in his capacity as Chairman of the Central People's Committee (CPC), also Head of Government. The Constitution included no provisions regarding the removal, recall, or impeachment of the President, let alone the limitation of his terms. Although presidential powers were only broadly stated, the President's prior assent was required for all laws, decrees, decisions, and directives. Also the judiciary was made accountable to him. The centralization of power in the President deviated significantly from the usual practices of other communist regimes, founded on the hegemonic role of the Party. Furthermore, Kim Il-Sung was the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and Chairman of the National Defense Commission. All political activities were declared to be under the guidance of the Great Leader. He had the highest decision-making power, and the KWP monopolized the execution of his ideas and instructions. Already by the mid-1970s, Kim Il-Sung started to prepare a dynastic succession—the first ever of a socialist regime—to his eldest son, Kim Jong-Il. At the 6th (and last) KWP Congress held in 1980, Kim Jong-Il was officially designated as successor to his father. Subsequently the junior Kim took over other posts of responsibility in the Party and the Government. In 1991, Kim Il-Sung appointed his son Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. After the significant expansion of the power of the National Defense Commission—one of the five main state organs—through a constitutional revision in 1992, the junior Kim became chairman of this institution in April 1993, thus becoming the most powerful man next to his father. With the death of Kim Il-Sung in July 1994, Kim Jong-Il became the de facto Great Leader of the country. Yet, he did not formally take over all his father's posts immediately because a three-year period of national mourning was declared. During this time North Korea had no formal Head of State. The parliamentary elections scheduled for April 1995 were postponed until 1998. Kim Jong-Il continued to rule as Chairman of the National Defense Commission. On 29 September 1998 the newly elected SPA carried out a constitutional revision without any parliamentary dispute. The office of ‘Living’ President was abolished, and Kim Il-Sung was declared ‘Eternal’ President. The SPA, in its first session, elected a Premier and a Minister of Defense (both posts had remained vacant for more than a year), as well as other cabinet members.

398

SOUTH KOREA

The CPC was also abolished, and the National Defense Commission became the highest organ of state authority with the power to issue decrees and orders. As its chairman, Kim Jong-Il still holds the supreme power. Hence, even after the death of its founder, North Korea remains the personal state of Kim Il-Sung and his family, very much in the tradition of an old Korean dynasty. There is no sign of opposition whatsoever to the system or to the Leader, although the economic situation is growing worse.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Since the first country-wide elections in North Korea (held in August 1948) the principles of universal, direct, equal, and secret suffrage have been legally guaranteed. The relevant electoral provisions were laid down in the Constitution of 1948 and its eight subsequent revised, extended or amended versions. From 1948 on there have been almost no formal restrictions to universal suffrage, apart from the disenfranchisement of people of unsound mind and—until 1972—of so-called pro-Japanese elements. Members of the Armed Forces have always had the right to vote and to be elected. Voting age was gradually lowered from 20 years (1948) to 18 (1962), and finally to 17 (1972). Although voting has never been compulsory by law, there is a whole system of political-psychological constraints to prevent citizens from non-voting. These highly effective informal rules explain the permanent 100%-rates of electoral turnout and of yes-votes (see also 1.3). The only national institution elected directly has been the unicameral Parliament, the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA). According to the 1948 Constitution, every 50,000 citizens were to be represented by one deputy. Originally the SPA had 572 members, 360 of whom should represent the South Korean population. In 1948 these seats were filled in underground polls in South Korea where—according to official reports—77.8% of the electorate chose 1,000 deputies, who in turn elected the 360 southern SPA-members in the North Korean city of Haeju. At the next elections held in 1957, however, no attempt was made any more to organize underground elections in the South, and thus the total SPA-membership dropped to 215. In 1962 the number of seats rose to 383 (mainly due to the new constitutionally fixed ratio of 1 deputy per 30,000 citizens), and from then on it grew steadily to 457 (1967), 541 (1972), 579 (1977), 615 (1982), 655 (1986) and 687 (1990, 1998). The legal term of the SPA also changed several times: initially it was three

NORTH KOREA

399

years, but due to the Korean War elections were held in 1957 (not in 1951 and 1954); after the constitutional amendment of 1954 it was changed to four years, but elections were not held until 1957, and thereafter it was held every five years until 1972; between 1972 and 1990 elections were held on average every four years; although elections were scheduled for 1994, they were postponed until 1998 due to Kim Il-Sung's sudden death. From the beginning, elections to the SPA have been held in a strictly non-competitive manner, i.e. only one candidate per single-member constituency (SMC) was nominated under the aegis of the KWP. These candidacy procedures have remained the same from the first election under the guidance of the Great Leader until today (for details see 1.3). Formally, elections have been held according to the absolute majority system in SMCs. For the elections to be valid, candidates have had to be confirmed by at least 50% of the registered voters. Before 1962, electors had the formal option to vote against the official candidates by choosing a different ballot and casting it in a different box. Under these circumstances a secret vote was not possible, especially since the two boxes were often at the two opposite ends of the polling room. In 1962 a one-ballot system was introduced, but the freedom to vote no still exists only in theory (for details see organizational context in 1.3). The President (Chusuk) as Head of State—first introduced in the 1972 Constitution—was elected by Parliament every four years until Kim Il-Sung's death in 1994. Thereafter the office remained vacant until 1998 when the SPA introduced constitutional changes and proclaimed Kim Il-Sung as Eternal President, simultaneously abolishing the post of Living President.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as of 5 September 1998 (with the extended amendments and supplements) and the election-bylaw from 1967. Suffrage: According to Art. 6 of the Constitution, the principles of universal, direct, equal, and secret suffrage are applied. All North Korean citizens who are at least 17 years old have the right to vote. People of unsound mind and those declared unqualified by a court decision are excluded from the right to vote. Although voting is not compulsory by law, the political prescriptions laid down in the party catechism prescribe it as

400

SOUTH KOREA

the correct behavior of every citizen. A simple negligence, let alone a denial to take part in the polls, would be followed by harsh discrimination in the living and working sphere of the person concerned. Citizens living abroad cannot participate in elections. Elected national institutions: Unicameral Parliament (Supreme People's Assembly, SPA) whose 687 members are directly elected for a five-year term. Art. 90 of the Constitution states that new elections are held before the expiration of the regular term according to the decision of the SPA Presidium. The term is extended if an election ‘is not due to unavoidable circumstances’. Vacancies between general elections are filled through by-elections. Nomination of candidates: Every qualified registered voter is formally eligible for Parliament. Once the Standing Committee of the SPA publicly announces the holding of elections (60 days prior to election day), the nominees are chosen in various places, such as factories, enterprises, and co-operative farms. Then, recommendation committees are convened in the single-member constituencies (SMCs) to screen out candidates, who are later registered as official nominees and made publicly known through leaflets and street signboards. In practice only one candidate is nominated per SMC, who is always considered a KWP nominee disregarding whether he/ she is a party member or not. A person can be nominated only if he/ she belongs to the core class i.e. loyal supporters of the Leader and members of the party or the second stable class, i.e. not dangerous to the system. People who belong to the unstable class, i.e. potential opponents of the regime, can never be nominated as candidate. This triple classification has a huge importance since it embraces the whole population of North Korea. Even the candidates of the block parties are decided by the KWP. The Party characterizes the SPA candidates as trusted for their loyalty to the regime and as outstanding persons in their respective work duties. For this reason, they are considered incontestable. Although in theory it is possible for an independent group of citizens to nominate its own candidate, it is actually unconceivable to nominate someone other than the party nominee. No one would dare to nominate herself/ himself. In 1998, only the Great Leader Kim Jong-Il nominated himself for the Constituency No. 666, created by military units who wished to have the honor of electing their highest commander. Candidates cannot be expected to have a position deviating from the official doctrine either, as they are meant to strengthen all political paroles of the Leader and the Party.

NORTH KOREA

401

In this highly centralized process of candidacy selection, the socio-structural composition of the SPA is also of crucial importance: One large portion of seats belongs to the active nomenclature, a smaller one to the veterans, some deputies are to be distinguished workers, exemplary active women, successful scientists, or brave soldiers. Moreover, a great number of seats stem from the armed forces (Korean People's Army, KPA). Since the 1960s the KPA has held an average share of 40% in the SPA. In the current 10th SPA (1998–2003) there are 111 officers above major general ranks. The average number of women in Parliament has been about 20 percent; female deputies stem from all political organizations, including the KPA. Electoral system: Absolute majority system in 687 single-member constituencies (SMCs). Each SMC has about 30,000 people. For the elections to be valid, more than 50% of the registered voters in a given SMC have to participate. Yet, in practice almost 100% take part in the election. Organizational context of elections: Elections are held under the supervision of the Central Election Committee, made up of 13 members of the SPA's Standing Committee. On election day people are organized to join their respective collective, i.e. the family group (an almost integrated unit, even sharing a kitchen), the urban house community, the farm brigade, or the military unit. The group has the responsibility to prevent any abstention by creating an immense political-psychological constraint, since the official goal of the polls is not only to get every possible vote but also to do so as early as possible, by noon the latest. The media usually announce, since morning, how early voters of a certain district have finished voting that day, after standing in a queue to vote as soon as possible and perform their duty as citizens. The KWP also creates a public opinion, enforced through control of the respective collective, never to cast a no-vote. In the first two elections, there were two ballot boxes: white for ‘yes’, and black for ‘no’. However, since the third election in 1962 there is only one ballot box. In the usual procedure people pick up their ballot at the register and put the ballot demonstratively into the ballot box, made of glass or plastic. Voters are obviously not expected to mark the ballot at all; if anyone wanted to mark a tick for ‘no’, he/ she would have to walk across the room for a pen; so the guards can easily notice who marks the ‘no’ on the ballots. At the end of the voting procedure electors are to show their respect by bowing to the pictures of the Great Leaders in the polling room.

402

SOUTH KOREA

Elections in North Korea are always held as political-cultural festivals. They are accompanied by folk dances, school children performances, poetry readings in praise of the Leader, and public commitments to harder work. There are also intensive campaigns with posters encouraging the people to vote for the regime's policy, to refresh the readiness to fight against the enemies, to mobilize their commitment to work harder and to glorify the Great Leader as ‘the most able politician in the world’.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics North Korea is one of the worst-known and least accessible states in the world. Official statistics on elections including absolute numbers of registered voters, votes cast and yes/ no-votes have never been published. The only statistical information obtained were the election dates, the names of the (uncontested) candidates, the number of electoral districts as well as the percentages of turnout and yes-votes. Furthermore, the composition of Parliament could be documented according to the main organizational affiliation of the candidates. The materials used in this study are primarily from South Korean and US intelligence sources. Some detailed information such as the actual election procedures have been acquired through interviews with firsthand experts, including some escapees or diplomats who lived in North Korea for some time but cannot be identified here.

403

NORTH KOREA


Presidential elec- Parliamentary tionsa elections

1948 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1986 1990 1998 a

b

13/12 25/12 05/05 29/12 24/05 05/09

25/08 27/08 08/10 25/11 12/12 11/11 28/02 02/11 22/04 26/07

Elections for Constitutional Assembly 12/03b

Referendums

Coups d'état

Since its installation in 1972, the President was elected by Parliament (with 100% yes-votes). The presidency was abolished by constitutional changes on 05/09/1998, when the dead Kim Il-Sung was proclaimed Eternal President. The Basic Constitutional Assembly (Hunbupgichowiwonwhe) was indirectly elected.


1948 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1986 1990 1998 a b

Type of electiona

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

Populationb

6,700,000 8,300,000 11,200,000 12,900,000 14,700,000 16,500,000 18,100,000 20,300,000 21,700,000 22,400,000

Pa = Parliament (Supreme People's Assembly). The population data are taken from Yang (1994).

Registered voters Total number — — — — — — — — — —

Votes cast % pop. — — — — — — — — — —

Total number — — — — — — — — — —

% reg. voters 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8

% yes-votes 98.5 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

404

SOUTH KOREA

2.3 Abbreviations BAa CYJb DIPc DPPc GMHc IRPc KCPd KDSPe KSPe KWPf a

b

c d e

f

Buddhist Alliance (Bulkyodo Yonmaeng) Chochongryon (Association of Overseas Koreans in Japan) Democratic Independent Party (Minju Dongrip Dang) Dongro People's Party (Dongro Inmin Dang) Gonmin People's Alliance (Gonmin Hoe) People's Republic Party (Inmin Gonghwa Dang) Korea Chondogyo Party (Chondogyo Chongu Dang) Korea Democratic Socialist Party (Chosun Minju Sahoe Dang) Korean Socialist Party (Chosun Sahoe Dang) Korean Workers' Party (Chosun Nodong Dang)

The BA is a pseudo-party with Buddhist background. It is one of the so-called allied parties within the hegemonic party system. It disappeared in 1965 and re-emerged in 1972. The CYJ is not a political party but the General Association for Koreans in Japan (pro-North Korean group). Since 1967 it has been represented in the SPA. Representatives are not directly elected, but delegated by the Association in Japan. DIP, DPP, GMH and IRP were allied parties and participated in the elections until 1967. The KCP is also an allied party with a religious background. The KSP changed its name to KDSP in 1980, but its main functions within the hegemonic party system (anti-South Korean propaganda) have remained the same. The North Korean Workers' Party originated from the North Korean Communist Party on 28/08/1946 and was named KWP on 30/06/ 1949. It has been the hegemonic force in the non-competitive party system.

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1948–1998 Since 1948 the KWP has monopolized the process of candidacy selection, always nominating only one candidate per constituency. However, besides the KWP-candidates members of some other block parties and state organizations were nominated in order to provide a democratic appearance. These were (with first and last electoral participation): DIP (1948–1998), DPP (1948–1998), KCP (1948–1998), IRP (1948–1998), KSP (1948–1977), BA (1962–1998), GMH (1962–1998), CYJ (1967–1998), KDSP (1982–1998).


405

NORTH KOREA

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly In March 1948 the 651-member Basic Constitutional Assembly (Hunbupgichowiwonwhe) was indirectly elected. The KWP gained 102 seats, the KCP and KSP 35 respectively, and the DIP 20. 171 seats were filled by other organizations and 144 by Independents.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1948–1998 For the non-competitive parliamentary elections between 1948 and 1998 no reliable data are available. The percentages of voter turnout and yes-votes are reported in 2.2.

2.8 Composition of Parliament Since parliamentary elections have been held in a non-competitive manner, the composition of the SPA given below reflects the distribution of seats predetermined by the KWP's candidacy selection. Year KWP KCP KDP DIP DPP IRP BA GMH CYJ Others Nonaffiliated Unidentified a

b c

% 100.0 27.4 6.1 6.1 3.5 3.5 3.5 – – – 29.9 19.9 –

1957 Seats 215 178 11 11 1 3 3 2 1 – 5 – –

% 100.0 82.8 5.1 5.1 0.5 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.5 – 2.3 – –

1962 Seats 383 371 4 4 1 1 – 1 1 – – – –

% 100.0 96.9 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 – 0.3 0.3 – – – –

1967 Seats 457 288 4 1 – – – 1 – 7 – – 156c

% 100.0 63.0 0.9 0.2 – – – 0.2 – 1.5 – – 34.1

Since the first SPA was meant to represent the whole Korean population, 360 of the 572 seats were reserved for the southern part of the country. According to the North Korean leadership, 77.8% of the South Korean electorate had participated in underground elections to choose 1,000 delegates, who in turn elected the 360 SPA-members. Of the overall 177 KWP-deputies, 55 were representatives of the South. Independent delegates. The group affiliation of these deputies could not be identified. Year KWP CYJ KCP BA KDSP DPP DIP GMH IRP Others Nonaffiliated Unidentified

a

1948a Seats 572 157 35 35 20 20 20 – – – 171 114b –

1972 Seats 541 127 7 4 1 1 – – – – – – 401a

The group affiliation of these deputies could not be identified.

% 100.0 23.5 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 – – – – – – 74.1

406

SOUTH KOREA

For the Parliaments elected in 1977 (579 deputies), 1982 (615 deputies), and 1986 (655 deputies) no distribution of seats could be obtained. Year KWP KDSP KCP CYJ Unidentified

1990 Seats 687 601 51 22 13 –

% 100.0 87.5 7.4 3.2 1.9 –

1998 Seats 687 594 53 23 7 10

% 100.0 86.5 7.6 3.4 1.0 1.5

NORTH KOREA

407

2.9 Presidential Elections From 1972 to 1990 the President of the People's Republic was elected by the Parliament. In 1998 the presidential office was abolished.

2.10 List of Power Holders 1948–2001 Head of State Kim Du-Bong

Years 1948–1957

Choi Yong-Kun

1957–1972

Kim Il-Sung

1972–1994

No formal Head of State

1994–1998

Kim Yong-Nam

1998–

Head of Government Kim Il-Sung

Years 1948–1972

Kim Il

1972–1976

Park Sung-Chol Li Jong-Ok Kang Song-San Li Gun-Mo Yon Hyong-Muk

1976–1977 1977–1984 1984–1986 1986–1988 1988–1992

Kang Sun-San Hong Sung-Nam

1992–1997 1997–

Remarks Became Chairman of the SPA's Standing Committee and thus formal Head of State on 03/09/1948. The effective power holder from the beginning, however, was Kim Il-Sung, Premier and Secretary General of the communist state party (KWP). Became Chairman of the SPA's Standing Committee 20/09/1957. After the presidency had been created by the 1972 Constitution, Kim Il-Sung was firstly elected President on 13/12/1972 and thus became formal Head of State. In addition, he held the titles of Great Leader, Grand Marshal, Supreme Commander and Chairman of the Central People's Committee. Permanently reelected until his death on 08/07/1994. Post mortem he was given the honor title Eternal President in 1998. After the death of Kim Il-Sung the presidential office remained vacant. The actual power was monopolized by his son Kim Jong-Il, who received the titles of Dear Leader and Marshal. The functions of a representative Head of State during this period were performed by four Vice-Presidents: Park Sung-Chol, Li Jong-Ok, Kim Yong-Chu and Kim Pyong-Sik. With the new Constitution of 1998 Kim Yong-Nam was elected to the re-introduced post of the Chairman of the SPA's Standing Committee and was to perform the duties of the formal Head of State. Yet, Kim IlSung has remained the only holder of actual political power with the following posts/ titles: Supreme Leader, Chairman of Military Commission, Marshal, Supreme Commander, and Secretary General of the KWP.

Remarks Secretary General of the KWP. Elected Premier on 09/09/1948. Resigned from office in 1972 in order to become President of the Republic. Became Premier after the resignation of Kim IlSung on 28/12/1972. Elected Prime Minister on 29/04/1976. Became Premier on 16/12/1977. Succeeded Li Jong-Ok in office on 27/01/1984. Elected Prime Minister on 29/12/1986. Succeeded Li Gun-Mo as Premier on 12/12/ 1988. Became Premier on 11/12/1992. Became Acting Head of Government on 21/ 02/1997. Premier since September 1998.

408

SOUTH KOREA

3. Bibliography An, Tai Sung (1983). North Korea in Transition. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Chong, B. (1996). A Handbook on North Korea. Seoul: Naewoe Press. Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 1998 (available online under http://www.korea-np.co.jp/pk). Cumings, B. (1997). Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Henderson, G. (1969). Korea: The Politics of the Vortex. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Joongang Daily (ed.) (1998). North Korea, 1945–97 (in Korean). Seoul: Joongang Daily, CD-ROM edition. Kim, C. (ed.) (1983). North Korea Handbook (in Korean). Seoul: Institute of North Korea Studies. —— (1986). North Korea Handbook, 1983–85 (in Korean). Seoul: Institute of North Korea Studies. —— (1994). North Korea Handbook, 1983–93 (in Korean). Seoul: Institute of North Korea Studies. Kim, J. A. (1975). Divided Korea: The Politics of Development, 1945–1975. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Lee, G. M. (1992). Government Institutions in North Korea (in Korean). Seoul: Daeyoung Munwhasa. Maretzki, H. (1991). Kim-ismus in Nordkorea. Böblingen: Anita Tykve Verlag. Naewoe Press (1996). A Handbook on North Korea. Seoul: Naewoe Press. Oberdorfer, D. (1997). The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

NORTH KOREA

409

Scalapino, R., and Kim, J.-Y. (1972). North Korea Today: Strategic and Domestic Issues. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press. Scalapino, R., and Lee, C.-S. (1972). Communism in Korea. 2 Volumes. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press. Schaller, P. (1994). Nord Korea: Ein Land im Banne der Kims. Böblingen: Anita Tykve Verlag. Suh, D.-S. (1967). The Korean Communist Movement, 1918–1948. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. —— (1981). Korean Communism, 1945–1980. Hawaii: The University Press of Hawaii. —— (1988). Kim Il-Sung: The North Korean Leader. New York: Columbia University Press. Suh, M. B. M. (1993). ‘Von Kim zu Kim: Regimekontinuität in Nordkorea’, in Bundesinstitut für ostwissenschaftliche und internationale Studien (ed.), Aufbruch im Osten Europas. München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 314–321. Yang, S.-C. (1994). The North and South Korean Political Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press. Yonhap News Agency (1998). Korea Annual 1997. Seoul: Yonghap News Agency.


Korea (Republic of Korea / South Korea) by Aurel Croissant1

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Since the independence of the southern part of the Korean peninsula in 1948, the political development of the Republic of Korea has followed a democratic-authoritarian cycle, which has produced six republics to date. The first step in the process of South Korea's independence was the decision of the USAMGIK (United States Military Government in Korea) and the Soviet Union to establish two separate Korean states north and south of the 38th parallel. In the southern region, a draft Constitution was elaborated by a Parliament (National Assembly) which had been directly elected in May 1948. This National Assembly, in turn, elected Syngman Rhee (Yi Syng-man) for the presidential office. The independence of the Republic of Korea came eventually on 15 August 1948. In the new presidential form of government Rhee acted both as Head of State and of Government, with a Vice-President at his side. Yet after the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, Rhee gradually consolidated its one-man-rule. By resorting to the constabulary, the President pressured the re-elected National Assembly into amending the Constitution in his favour. The 1952 parliamentary elections brought the National Assembly under the control of Rhee's supporters. The subsequent parliamentary and presidential elections of the 1950s were subject to extensive vote-buying, abuse of electoral rules and fraud. The opposition parties remained legal and were allowed to contest the polls, but under such semi-competitive conditions they failed to achieve significant electoral support. Due to his government's failure in the economic area, Rhee saw himself increasingly deprived of both domestic and foreign support. By

1

The author would like to thank Yoo Chang-seung (Yonsei University), Dr. Kim Young-il (Library of the National Assembly of the ROK), Kim Young-soo (National Election Commission of the ROK), Prof. Park Byeong-seok (NEC/ ETI), Dr. Peter Mayer (FES/ Seoul) and Il-sook Arnoldi (Korea University) for their help in the collection of information for the present article.

412

MONGOLIA

March 1960 he had to resort to illegal mechanisms to be re-elected. The unearthing of the electoral fraud was followed by large-scale demonstrations on the part of both students and urban residents. Finally, with no support from either the United States or the South Korean military, Rhee went into exile to Hawaii on the 26 April 1960. The short-lived Second Republic followed. In this period a new Constitution was passed (10 June 1960), which provided for a bicameral parliament. The new Parliament was elected three weeks later. Chang Myon, member of the former main opposition party DP (Democratic Party), became Premier on 19 August 1960. However, due to internal turmoil, widespread corruption in the State administration and Chang Myon's announcement that he intended to cut down the defence budget, several sectors of the military were reluctant to tolerate the new democratic regime. Thus, on 16 May 1961, a junta known as the Supreme Council for National Reconstruction (SCNR) led by major-general Park Chung-hee took power. In accordance with Park's pledge that the military would establish only an interim regime, a number of SCNR-members—including Park—dismissed from duty and became politicians. A new Constitution was approved by a referendum on 17 December 1962, and the presidential system was restored. After fairly democratic elections Park became the new President in October 1963. The elections of 1967 gave him a new electoral victory, and the Constitution was amended in 1969 to provide for the possibility of a third presidential term. In the 1971 presidential elections, Park asserted himself against the candidate of the opposition party National Democratic Party (NDP), Kim Dae-jung, albeit only through massive fraud. In October 1972, Park declared martial law. Legitimised by a pseudo-democratic referendum, the notorious Yushin (Revitalisation-) Constitution was enacted. Park was confirmed President twice more (1972 and 1976) by an electoral committee known as the National Conference for Unification. On 26 October 1979 he was assassinated by Kim Jai-kyu, the head of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. The new military regime was led by General Chun Doo-hwan. The new junta (Special Committee for National Security Measures) declared martial law, dissolved the National Assembly and banned all political parties. Finally, with the approval by referendum of a new Constitution in October 1980 the Fifth Republic was institutionalized. Like his predecessor Park, Chun Doo-hwan was elected President by an electoral committee in February 1981. Before the 1981 parliamentary elections the political parties were re-legalized. In January 1985 Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung grounded a new opposition party, the so

SOUTH KOREA

413

called New Korea Democratic Party (NKDP), which fared remarkably well in the parliamentary elections of the following month. The emergence of a powerful opposition force led to a political crisis in 1987. Following demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people in all major cities, Chun's designated successor, Roh Tae-woo, declared the democratization of the regime on 6 June 1987. In bilateral talks held under the formal umbrella of a parliamentary committee, the NKDP and the regime's party DJP (Democratic Justice Party) negotiated the transition to the Sixth Republic. The institutional democratization was completed a few months later, after the approval of a new Constitution by a referendum and the election of the President. In these relatively free and fair elections, the candidate of the old regime, Roh Tae-woo, succeeded in gaining a simple majority, due to the prior split of the alliance formed by the most prominent opposition leaders, Kim Dae-jung and Kim Young-sam. However, the opposition's victory in the 1988 parliamentary elections opened a political stale-mate between Roh and the main opposition parties (Kim Daejung's Party for Peace and Democracy [PPD], Kim Young-sam's Reunification Democratic Party [RDP] and the New Democratic Republican Party [NDRP] of former Prime Minister Kim Jong-pil). Under the so called grand compromise, the parties DJP, RDP, and NDRP merged to create the Democratic Liberal Party (DLP). In the presidential elections of 1992 Kim Young-sam, the candidate of the government party, won a clear victory over Kim Dae-jung, yet in the legislative elections held half a year before, the DLP had already lost its overwhelming parliamentarian majority. When the grand compromise came to an end the NDRP split—at that stage under the new label United Liberal Democrats (ULD). Before the 1997 presidential elections, however, Kim Jong-pil (ULD), and Kim Dae-jung (NCNP) formed a new opposition alliance which paved the way for the first democratic change of government in South Korean history. Kim Dae-jung was the first opposition candidate to win the presidential contest, on 18 December 1997. He was inaugurated new President in February 1998. Different political and social cleavages have shaped the South Korean party system. The conflict between the authoritarian regime and the democratic opposition which structured the political landscape since the 1950s has now lost most of its significance: Today, every relevant political party groups both members of the former dissident camp and of the elite who used to belong to the authoritarian power-block. With the dissolution of the regime-cleavage, the traditional conflict between rural and urban areas ( yochon yado), which strongly influenced the voting behaviour

414

MONGOLIA

in the pre-democratic era, is also vanishing. The current party-cleavage has its roots in regional conflicts which reflect both the socio-economic and regional differences of the political elites. These disparities grew more acute under the authoritarian rule of Park Chun-hee (1963–1979) and Chun Doo Hwan (1980–1988). With the 1987 presidential election, the regional cleavage re-emerged powerfully and has been salient in all the parliamentary elections held ever since. Korean political parties as organisations have been traditionally very weak and short-lived. Moreover, although the party organizations have undergone numerous changes, their founding politicians have remained the same almost all along. Programme-based parties—as they are known in Western democracies—are largely absent. Due to such programmatic vagueness, voters are deprived of a substantial policy-choice. Even with regard to re-unification, which has been one of the major issues of the South Korean political discourse since the late 1980s, strategic differences between parties in government and opposition parties have become marginal. Electoral competition in South Korea thus revolves around personality-dominated, clientelistic parties built on the basis of vast networks of patron-client relations.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions There is universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage since 1948. The minimum age to run as a candidate to the National Assembly has been 25 years. As to presidential elections, the minimum age in each of the 16 presidential elections held so far (1948–1997) was 40 years. From the First to the Fifth Republic (1948–1987) the minimum voting age was 21 years, yet with the ninth constitutional amendment of October 1987 the voting age was reduced to 20 years. Presidential elections followed the plurality system. In the first forty years since independence elections were indirect. The President was elected either by the National Assembly (1948), by the bicameral parliament (8/1960) in a joint session, or by an electoral college (National Conference of Unification 1972–1981). In the intervals 1952–1960, and 1963–1971, the presidential elections were direct. After democratization in 1987 the principle of direct presidential election was re-established. The frequent changes of electoral systems have basically responded to the political interests of the President in office, who feared he might lose the next direct elections due to domestic political pressure and shrinking voters' support. The second constitutional reform (November 1954) limited

SOUTH KOREA

415

the four-year presidential term of office to two terms; the first incumbent, however, being exempted from this requirement. In October 1969 the number of presidential terms was extended to three, and the limitations on the reelection disappeared in November 1972. But with the eighth amendment in October 1980 the President's term of office was limited to one seven-year term. Since 1948, bar the period 1952–1961, the Republic of Korea has had a unicameral parliament (National Assembly). The bicameral legislature was elected for the first time in 1960, and was abolished again with the fifth constitutional amendment in 1962. Independent candidacy was possible from 1948 until 1960, and again since 1973. As to the electoral system, plurality in single-member constituencies (SMC) was applied for the 1948, 1950, 1954, and 1958 elections to the National Assembly. In the Second Republic this system prevailed for the House of Representatives, while the House of Councilors followed proportional representation in one nation-wide constituency. Several types of segmented electoral systems were employed since 1963, most of which with a conspicuous majoritarian effect. In 1963, 1967, and 1971 two-thirds of the representatives were elected via the plurality system in SMCs and one third by proportional representation in one national constituency. In 1973 and 1978 two-thirds of the members of Parliament were elected by the binomial system, whereas one third was appointed by the President. In 1981 and 1985 two-thirds of the representatives were elected according to the binomial system, and one third was allocated proportionally in one national constituency. However, two-thirds of these proportional seats were reserved for the party with the largest number of winning candidates in the two-member constituencies The proportional part of this electoral system thus provided a large majoritarian bonus for the strongest party. The electoral system applied in 1988 and in 1992 was similar: Three-fourths of the seats were elected by plurality in SMCs, while one-fourth was allocated proportionally in one national constituency. If one party won at least half of the directly elected seats, it was automatically entitled to two-thirds of the proportional seats; if it gained less, the strongest party was still awarded half of the national list seats. The National Election Commission (formerly Central Election Management Commission—CEMC), first designated as a constitutional agency in 1963, has been responsible for the organization and supervision of the electoral campaigns, the elections themselves and the vote-counting (Art. 3 Election Commission Act). However, before the arrival of democratization in 1987 the CEMC had failed to perform its functions

416

MONGOLIA

as an independent supervisory organ due to the constant interventions of the authoritarian government.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Republic of Korea (1987); Korean National Assembly Members Election Act (1992); Election for Public Office and Election Malpractice Prevention Act (Election Law, 1994 with amendments, latest development January 1998); Election Commission Act (1987, with amendments, latest development January 1998). Suffrage: There is universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage. Any Korean citizen over 20 who is registered in the electoral roll by the local government is entitled to vote. Elected national institutions: President of the Republic of Korea and National Assembly (Kukhoe). Regular term of office: five years (for the President), four years (for the National Assembly). Presidential reelection is not allowed.

Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: In order to be eligible for presidency citizens must be at least 40 years old, have resided in the country for at least five years and qualify as eligible members of the National Assembly. They may run as a party candidates or as independents. An independent candidate needs the support of 2,500 to 5,000 electors, among whom not more than 500 may live in the same City or province. A public official who wants to register as a candidate must resign from his/ her post 90 days before the date of the elections. A candidate applying for registration has to pay a money deposit of 500 million Won (appr. US$ 415,000 in 2001). The deposit is returned if the candidate receives at least 10% of the total valid vote. - parliamentary elections: Every citizen who has reached the age of 25 years has electoral eligibility. In order for a public official to register as candidate he/ she must resign from his/ her post 90 days before the date of the elections. Candidates may be recommended either by a political party or by electors (independent candidates). Independent candidates need the recommendation of 300 to 500 electors. Candidates in the national constituency can only run as party candidates, on a party's list. Candidates who apply for registration have to pay a money deposit of 10

SOUTH KOREA

417

million Won (app. US$ 8,300 in 2001). The money will be returned if the candidate receives at least half of the quota obtained from dividing the total number of valid votes by the number of candidates (local constituency) or if at least one of the candidates on the list concerned is elected (national constituency).

Electoral system - presidential elections: Plurality system. If there is only one candidate for the presidential elections, he/ she needs one third of the total registered votes in order to be elected. If two or more candidates receive the highest share of votes, the person elected is the one who obtains the majority of votes of all the members of the National Assembly. - parliamentary elections: Segmented system. Since February 2000, there are 227 seats distributed via plurality in single member constituencies, and 46 seats allocated through proportional representation to closed and blocked party lists in one national constituency. The electoral system has a majoritarian character. Each voter is entitled to one vote. The 227 SMCs are distributed among six autonomous, self-governed cities (Seoul, Pusan, Taegu, Inchon, Kwangju, Taejon) and nine provinces (Kyonggido, Chungchong Pukto, Chungchong Namdo, Cholla Pukto, Cholla Namdo, Kyongsang Namdo, Kyongsang Pukto, Kangwondo, Chejudo). The 46 proportional seats are distributed among the parties which have obtained either a minimum of five seats in the SMCs plurality contests or 5% of the total national valid vote in the 227 SMCs. Finally, there is a different threshold for those parties which receive between three and five percent of the national valid vote. Each of these parties is granted one seat before the allocation of the remaining proportional seats begins—according to the Hare quota formula and the method of the largest remainder. For the first time this last provision has been of importance in the 2000 elections. Organizational context of elections: The National Election Commission (NEC) is responsible for the organisation and supervision of the electoral campaigns, the elections themselves, and the vote-counting. The NEC is an independent constitutional agency equal in status with the National Assembly, the Executive Branch of the Government, the Courts of Justice, and the Constitutional Court. It has a four-tier structure consisting in the NEC itself and 16,724 sub-national and Voting District Electoral Commissions. The NEC is made up of nine commissioners, three of whom are appointed by the President, three by the National Assembly

418

MONGOLIA

and three by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The NEC's chairperson and a standing commissioner are chosen from among the nine. By tradition, the Justice of the Supreme Court is elected Chairperson. As to the Electoral Commissions, these are formed by commissioners chosen on the advice of the courts, of political parties with factions in the National Assembly, of a pool of scholars and/ or of other individuals known for their high academic and moral standards. The NEC and the Electoral Commissions are mandated by the Election Law to supervise and manage all national and local elections, as well as the referendums.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The following electoral statistics have been elaborated mainly on the basis of the official data provided by the Central Election Management Commission (since 1996: National Election Commission). The results of the 1997 presidential elections were taken from the Korean newspapers Korea Herald and Korea Times (both from 20 December 1997). The data of the 2000 parliamentary elections were provided by NEC. The data about the national referendums have been taken from secondary sources (Park 1977; Korea Annual; United Nations Official Records; Korea Herald, 27 October 1987). The official statistics include the heading ‘Other parties’ as a residual category to group the results of smaller parties in the parliamentary elections held from 1948 to 1960. Arithmetical errors in the cited electoral reports have been corrected as far as possible. The remaining inconsistencies of some regional results are indicated in the corresponding footnotes. Since independence the administrative structure of the South Korean State has undergone numerous changes due to continuous processes of urbanisation and population growth. The regional division of the electoral results follows these administrative changes. The results of the region of Pusan, formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo, are presented on their own since the 1963 election. This also applies for the post-1981 results of the City of Inchon (formerly part of Kyonggido), and for the post-1981 results of Taegu (formerly part of Kyongsang Pukto). Likewise, the data of Kwangju (formerly part of Cholla Namdo) appear on their own since 1988, and of Taejon (formerly part of Chungchong Namdo) since 1992. With regard to the officially published electoral results, their accuracy is sometimes uncertain. Especially for the parliamentary elections of

SOUTH KOREA

419

1948, 1950, 1958, and 1960 (House of Councilors), the reliability and consistency of the official data is dubious (see the tables' footnotes). However, more reliable information could not be found. Furthermore, irregularities have been reported in the parliamentary elections of 1954, 1958 and 1967 as well as in the presidential elections of 1956 and 1971 (United Nations, 1967ff.; Kim, 1967; Han, 1974; Han, 1974; Rhee, 1984). Although the parliamentary elections held during the Sixth Republic (since 1988) have been considered free and fair, minor violations of these principles did occur in 1987 (Lee 1990).

420

MONGOLIA


1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1961 1962 1963 1967 1969 1971 1972 1973 1975 1978 1979 1980 1981 1985 1987 1988 1992 1996 1997 2000 a b



Elections. for Constit Assembly

Referendums

Coups d'état

Lower Cham- Upper Chamber ber 20/07 10/05a 30/05 05/08 20/05 15/05 15/03 12/08

b

02/05 29/06

29/06 16/05 17/12

15/10 03/05

26/11 08/07 17/10

27/04 23/12

25/05 21/11 27/02 12/02

06/07 06/12 27/08 25/02

12/12 12/12 22/10 25/03 12/02

16/12 18/12

28/10 26/04 25/03 12/04

18/12 13/04

The Constitutional Assembly became the Parliament on 31 May 1948. Elections annulled due to irregularities.

421

SOUTH KOREA

2.2 Electoral Body 1948–2000

a

b

c

Year

Type of electiona

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1960 1960 1962 1963 1963 1967 1967 1969 1971 1971 1972 1973 1975 1978 1980 1981 1985 1987 1987 1988 1992 1992 1996 1997 2000

NA NA Pr NA Pr NA Pr R C Ref NA Pr NA Pr Ref NA Pr Ref NA Ref NA Ref NA NA Ref Pr NA NA Pr NA Pr NA

19,190,877 20,189,000 20,189,000 20,724,000 20,724,000 21,910,000 25,012,000 25,012,000 25,012,000 26,513,000 27,262,000 27,262,000 30,131,000 30,131,000 31,544,000 32,241,000 32,883,000 33,505,000 34,103,000 35,281,000 36,969,000 38,124,000 38,723,000 40,806,000 41,622,000 41,622,000 42,031,000 43,748,000 43,748,000 45,545,000 45,545,000 47,388,015

Total number 7,840,871 8,434,737 8,259,428 8,446,509 9,606,870 10,164,428 11,196,490 11,593,432 11,593,432 12,412,798 13,344,149 12,985,051 14,717,354 13,935,093 15,048,925 15,610,258 15,552,236 15,676,395 15,690,130 16,788,839 19,489,490 20,373,869 21,094,468 23,987,830 25,619,648 25,873,624 26,198,205 29,003,828 29,422,658 31,488,294 32,290,416 33,482,387

Total number 7,487,649 7,752,076 7,275,883 7,698,390 9,067,063 8,923,905 10,862,272 9,778,921 10,682,629c 10,530,908 9,622,183 11,036,175 11,202,317 11,645,215 11,604,038 11,430,202 12,417,824 14,410,714 11,196,484 13,404,245 15,023,370 19,453,926 16,397,845 20,286,672 20,028,672 23,066,419 19,850,815 20,843,482 24,095,170 20,122,799 26,042,633 19,157,124

% pop. 40.9 41.8 40.9 40.8 46.4 46.4 44.8 46.4 46.4 47.0 48.9 47.6 48.8 46.2 47.7 48.4 47.3 46.8 46.0 47.6 52.7 53.4 54.4 58.8 61.6 62.2 62.3 66.3 67.3 69.1 70.9 70.7

% reg. Voters 95.5 91.9 88.0 91.1 94.4 87.8 97.0 84.3 92.1 84.8 72.1 85.0 76.1 83.6 77.1 73.2 79.8 91.9 71.4 79.8 77.1 95.5 77.7 84.6 78.2 89.2 75.8 69.7 81.9 63.9 80.7 57.2

% pop. 39.0 38.4 36.0 37.1 43.8 40.7 43.4 39.1 42.7 39.9 35.3 40.5 37.2 38.6 36.8 35.5 37.8 43.0 32.8 38.0 40.6 51.0 42.3 49.7 48.1 55.4 47.2 47.6 55.1 44.2 57.2 40.4

Pr = President, NA = National Assembly, R = House of Representatives (Lower House), C = House of Councilors (Upper House), CA = Constitutional Assembly, Ref = Referendum. The indirect presidential elections (by National Assembly 1948, 1960, by an Electoral College 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981) are not documented in the table. Population data are estimates of the National Statistical Office. For 1950 and 1952 the estimates used are those of midyear population for 1949, for 1954 those of 1956, for 1997 those of 1996. See Korea Statistical Yearbook 1997. Number of valid votes.

422

MONGOLIA

2.3 Abbreviations AWA CHSP CMD CP CRP (1) CRP (2) DFP DJP DKP DLP DLaP DNP (1) DNP (2) DP (1) DP (2) DPP (1) DPP (2) DRP DUP FaPP FF FNP FPP GNP Hangyore DP HIUKP IC JP KDP KFDP KFTU KIP KIWP KNP (1) KNP (2) KNP (3) KSP KUP KYP LDP LP MP MDP NA NARRKI NCNP

Autumn Wind Association (Ch'up'unghoe) Christian Holy People's Party (Kisuksongmin-dang) Chinmin-dang (Ch'inmin-dang) Conservative Party (Bosu-dang) Civil Rights Party (Jongmin hoe) [1963] Civil Rights Party (Jongmin hoe) [1981–1985] Democratic Fairness Party (Minkwon-dang) Democratic Justice Party (Minjujongui-dang) Democratic Korea Party (Minjuhanguk-dang) Democratic Liberal Party (Minjujayu-dang) Democratic Labor Party Democratic Nationalist Party (Minjukukmin-dang) [1950–1954] Democratic Nationalist Party (Minjukukmin-dang) [1971] Democratic Party (Minju-dang) [1958–1967] Democratic Party (T'onghapminju-dang) [1992–1996] Democratic Peace Party (Anmin-dang) Democratic People's Party Democratic Republican Party (Minjukonghwa-dang) Democratic Unification Party (Minjut'ongil-dang) Fairness People's Party (Kongmyongminju-dang) Farmers Federation (Haehandongripch'oksongnongminch'ongyonmaeng) Free Nation Party (Jayuminjok-dang) Free People's Party (Jayukukmin-dang) Grand National Party (Hanara-dang) Hangyore Democratic Party (Hangyore-minju-dang) Han-Ideology Unification Party (Hanjuuit'ongilhanguk-dang) Ilmin Club (Ilminkurakbu) Justice Party (Jongui-dang) Korea Democratic Party (Hangukminju-dang) Korea Fundamental Democratic Party (Hangukkimin-dang) Korean Federation of Trade Unions (Taehannodong - Ch'ongyonmaeng) Korea Independence Party (Hangukdongrip-dang) Korea Independence Workers Party (Dongripnodong-dang) Korea Nationalist Party (Taehankukmin-dang) [1950–1954] Korea National Party (Hangukkukmin-dang) [1981–1988] Korea National Party [2000] Korea Socialist Party (Hanguksahoe-dang) Korea Unification Party (Hangukt'ongil-dang) Korea Youth Party (Taehanch'ongnyondan) Liberal Democratic Party (Jayuminju-dang) Liberal Party (Jayu-dang) Mass Party (Daejung-dang) Millennium Democratic Party National Association (Kukminhoe) National Alliance for Rapid Realization of Korean Independence (Taehandongripch'oksongkukminhoe) National Congress for New Politics (Shaejongch'ikukminhoe'ui)

SOUTH KOREA

NdeP NDP (1) NDP (2) NDRP NIF NKDP NKP NP NPA NPP (1) NPP (2) NPRP NPUPP NSP NYP ORP PJP PP (1) PP (2) PPD PrP PV 21 RCP RDP SDP SMP SP (1) SP (2) TDP TGP TJP TLF TYP UKP ULD UNP UP UPP USP WDFP WFP

423

New Development Party (Shinhung-dang) New Democratic Party (Shinminju-dang) [1967–1978] New Democratic Party (Shinminju-dang) [1985] New Democratic Republican Party (Shinminjukonghwa-dang) National Independence Federation (Minjokjajuyonmaeng) New Korea Democratic Party (Shinhanminju-dang) New Korea Party (Shinhanguk-dang) National Party (Kukmin-dang) New People's Association (Shinminhoe) New Politics Party (Shinjong-dang) [1981] New Party by the People (Kukminshin-dang) [1997] New Political Reform Party (Shinjong-dang) Non-Party for a Unified People's Party (Mudangp'akukminyonhap) New Socialist Party (Shinjongsahoe-dang) National Youth Party (Chosonminjokch'ongnyondan) Our Rights Party (Urijongui-dang) People's Justice Party People's Party (Kukminui-dang) [1963–1971] People's Party (Minjung-dang) [1992] Party for Peace and Democracy (P'yonghwaminju-dang) Progressive Party (Jinbo-dang) People's Victory 21 (21 Segihandok-dang) Righteous Citizens Party (Minkwon-dang) Reunification Democratic Party (T'ongilminju-dang) Social Democratic Party (Sahoeminju-dang) Socialist Mass Party (Sahoedaejung-dang) Socialist Party (Sahoe-dang) [1950] Socialist Party (Sahoe-dang) [1981] Taehan Democratic Party (Taehanminju-dang) Third Generation Party (Jesamsedae-dang) Taehan Justice Party (Taehanjongui-dang) Taehan Labor Federation (Taehannodong-ch'ongyonmaeng) Taedang Youth Party (Taedongch'ongnyondan) Unification Korea Party (T'ongilhanguk-dang) United Liberal Democrats Unification National Party (T'ongilminjok-dang) Unification Party (T'ongil-dang) United People's Party (T'ongilkukmin-dang) United Socialist Party (T'ongilsahoe-dang) Won-il Democratic Founding Party (Wonilminrip-dang) Workers and Farmers Party (Kunronongmin-dang)

424

MONGOLIA

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1948–2000 Party / Alliance FF KDPd NARRKIc NYP TLF TYP DNP (1)e IC KFTU KIP KIWP KNP (1)d KYP NA NIF SP (1) LPf PrP DP (1)g UP KSP SMP AWA CP CRP (1)h DRPi LDP NdeP NPA PP (1) RCP FPP JP MP NDP (1)j UKP USP DNP (2) NP

Years 1948 1948 1948 1948 1948 1948 1950–1954 1950 1950 1950, 1960–1967 1950 1950, 1954 1950 1950, 1954, 1958 1950 1950 1952–1967 1956 1958–1967 1958–1960 1960 1960 1963 1963 1963 1963–1978 1963, 1971 1963 1963 1963–1971 1963 1967 1967–1971 1967–1971 1967–1978 1967 1967–1971 1971 1971

Elections contested Presidentiala 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0

Parliamentaryb 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 3 1 1 5 0 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 4 1 2 0 1

425

SOUTH KOREA

DUP CRP (2) DFP DJPk DKPl DPP (1) KFDP KNP (2)l NPP (1) SDP SP (2) UNP WDFP FNP NDP (2) NKDPm NSP WFP NDRPn PPDo RDPp CHSP Hangyore DP HIUKP KUP ORP PJP TGP DLPq DP (2)r FaPP NPRP PP (2) TJP UPP Cmd NCNPs NKPt NPUPP ULDu PV 21 TDP GNPv

1973–1978 1981–1985 1981 1981–1988 1981–1985, 1988 1981 1981 1981–1985, 1988 1981 1981, 1988 1981 1981 1981 1985 1985 1985, 1988 1985 1985 1987–1988 1987–1988 1987–1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1992 1992–1996 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1996 1996–1997 1996 1996 1996, 2000 1996–1997 1996 1997–2000

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

2 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

426 NPP (2)w DLaP DPP (2) KNP (3) MDPx a

b

c d e f g

h i j k l m n o p q

r s t u v w x

MONGOLIA

1997 2000 2000 2000 2000

1 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 1

Total number: 15. In 1948, 1979, and 1980 only independent candidates stood for election. The election of 15/03/60 was annulled, therefore the official records include only 15 presidential election. This table follows the official counting. Total number: 15. The direct elections to the House of Representatives and to the House of Councilors, held on the same day (29/06/ 1990) are considered here as one single election. Political Movement, supported by President Syngman Rhee. Main opposition party. Successor party of KDP. Successor party of NARRKI, supported by President Syngman Rhee. Successor party of DNP (1) and KNP (1), supported by presidential candidate Cho P., President Yun Po-sun and Prime Minister Chang Myon. Successor party of DP (1), supported by former President Yun Po-sun, and future Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Kim Young-sam. Government party, supported by President Park Chun-hee and future Prime Minister Kim Jong-pil. Successor party of CrP, supported by former President Yun Po-sun, and future Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Kim Young-sam. Government party, supported by President Chun Doo-hwan, and future President Roh Tae-woo. Successor party of NDP (1). Successor party of NDP (1), supported by future Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Kim Young-sam. Successor party of DRP, supported by former and future Prime Minister Kim Jong-pil. Successor party of NKDP, supported by future President Kim Dae-jung. Successor party of NKDP, supported by future President Kim Young-sam. Successor party of DJP, RDP and NDRP, supported by President Roh Tae-woo, former and future Prime Minister Kim Jong-pil and future President Kim Young-sam. Successor party of PPD, supported by future President Kim Dae-jung. Successor party of DP (2), supported by President Kim Dae-jung. Successor party of DLP, supported by President Kim Young-sam. Successor of DLP, supported by former and future Prime Minister Kim Jong-pil. Successor party of NKP, supported by President Kim Young-sam. Successor party of NKP, supported by presidential candidate Rhee In-jae. Successor party of NCNP.

427

SOUTH KOREA

2.5 Referendums Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a



% – 77.1 3.6 96.4 67.5 32.5

1972a Total number 15,676,395 14,410,714 118,012 14,292,702 13,186,559 1,106,143

% – 91.9 0.8 99.2 92.3 7.7

1975b Total number 16,788,839 13,404,245 239,241 13,165,004 9,800,206 3,364,798

% – 79.8 1.8 98.2 74.4 25.6

1987b Total number 25,619,648 20,028,672 295,345 19,733,327 18,640,625 1,092,702

% – 78.2 1.5 98.5 94.4 5.6

Constitutional referendum. Referendum to confirm the authenticity of the Constitution.

Year

a

% – 85.3 2.2 97.8 80.6 19.4

1969a Total number 15,048,925 11,604,038 414,014 11,190,024 7,553,655 3,636,369

Constitutional referendum.

Year

a

1962a Total number 12,412,798 10,585,998 237,864 10,348,134 8,339,333 2,008,801

Constitutional referendum. Constitutional referendum.

1980a Total number 20,373,869 19,453,926 266,899 19,187,027 17,829,354 1,357,673

% – 95.5 1.4 98.6 91.6 8.4

428

MONGOLIA

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly A Constitutional Assembly was elected in 1948. It was soon renamed and became the National Assembly. The data of the electoral outcome can be found in 2.7, the distribution of seats in 2.8.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 National Assembly 1948–2000 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes NARRKI KDP TYP NYP TLF FF DNP (1) KNP (1) NA KYP KFTU SP (1) IC KIWP NIF KIP Others Independents a

1948 Total number 7,840,871 7,487,649 270,707 7,216,942a 1,755,543 916,322 655,653 151,043 106,629 52,512 – – – – – – – – – – 401,554 2,745,483

% – 95.5 3.6 96.4 26.1 13.5 9.6 2.2 1.6 0.8 – – – – – – – – – – 5.9 40.3

1950 Total number 8,434,737 7,752,076 765,036 6,987,040 – – – – – – 683,910 677,173 473,153 227,539 117,939 89,413 71,239 45,813 33,464 17,745 152,365 4,397,287

% – 91.9 9.9 90.1 – – – – – – 9.8 9.7 6.8 3.3 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 2.2 62.9

The official electoral results are inconsistent. The number of total valid votes provided is 7,216,942. However, the total sum of party votes amounts only to 6,804,739. This latter figure has been used to calculate party percentages.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes LP DNP (1)

1954 Total number 8,446,509 7,698,390 206,082 7,492,308 2,756,061 593,499

% – 91.1 2.7 97.3 36.8 7.9

1958 Total number 10,164,428 8,923,905 347,148 8,576,757a 3,607,092 –

% – 87.8 3.9 96.1 42.1 –

429

SOUTH KOREA

NA KNP (1) DP (1) UP Others Independents a

2.6 1.0 – – 3.8 47.9

50,568 – 2,914,049 53,716 90,160 1,857,707

0.6 – 34.0 0.5 1.1 21.7

1963 Total number 13,344,149 9,622,183 323,353 9,298,830 1,264,285 – 271,820 – 128,162 – 3,112,985 1,870,976 822,000 752,026 278,477 259,960 189,077 183,938 165,124 – –

% – 72.1 3.4 96.6 13.6 – 2.9 – 1.4 – 33.5 20.1 8.8 8.1 3.0 2.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 – –

Inconsistent data. The total sum of party votes is 8,573,292.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes DP (1) SMP LP KSP KIP UP DRP CRP (1) PP (1) LDP CP RCP NdeP AWA NPA Others Independents a

192,109 72,923 – – 286,097 3,591,617 1960a Total number 11,593,432 9,778,921 701,086 9,077,835 3,786,401 541,021 249,960 57,965 26,649 17,293 – – – – – – – – – 149,366 4,249,180

% – 84.3 7.2 92.8 41.7 6.0 2.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 – – – – – – – – – 1.6 46.8

Election to House of Representatives. Due to irregularities elections were repeated in 13 constituencies.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes DRP NDP (1) LP DP (1) MP KIP

1967 Total number 14,717,354 11,203,317 346,309 10,856,008 5,494,922 3,554,224 393,448 323,203 249,561 240,936

% – 76.1 3.1 96.9 50.6 32.7 3.6 3.0 2.3 2.2

1971 Total number 15,610,258 11,430,202 234,280 11,195,922 5,460,581 4,969,050 – – 59,359 –

% – 73.2 2.0 98.0 48.8 44.4 – – 0.5 –

430 PP (1) JP USP FPP UKP NP

180,324 142,670 104,975 88,474 83,271 –

Year

1973 Total number 15,690,130 11,196,484 205,048 10,991,436 4,251,754 3,577,300 1,114,204 2,048,178

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes DRP NDP (1) DUP Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes DJP DKP KNP (2) CRP (2) NPP (1) SDP DFP DPP (1) SP (2) KFDP UNP WDFP NKDP NSP WFP NDP (2) Others Independents a

MONGOLIA

1981 Total number 21,094,468 16,397,845 190,520 16,207,325 5,776,624 3,495,829 2,147,293 1,088,847 676,921 524,361 227,715 144,000 122,778 103,893 87,977 76,863 – – – – – 1,734,224

1.7 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 –

155,277 – 97,398 – – 454,257

1.4 – 0.9 – – 4.0

% – 72.9 1.8 98.2 38.7 32.5 10.2 18.6

1978 Total number 19,489,490 15,023,370 210,927 14,812,443 4,695,995 4,861,204 1,095,057 4,160,187

% – 77.1 1.4 98.6 31.7 32.8 7.4 28.1

% – 77.7 1.2 98.8 35.6 21.6 13.2 6.7 4.2 3.2 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 – – – – – 10.7

1985 Total number 23,987,830 20,286,672 312,029 19,974,643 7,040,811 3,930,966 1,828,744 – – – – – – – – – 5,843,827 288,863 185,859 112,654 92,891a 650,028

% – 84.6 1.5 98.5 35.2 19.7 9.2 – – – – – – – – – 29.3 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.5 3.3

1992 Total number

%

Figure includes: CRP (2): 75,634 votes (0.4%); FNP: 17,257 (0.1%).

Year

1988 Total number

%

431

SOUTH KOREA

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes DJP RDP PPD NDRP Hangyore DP DLP DP (2) UPP NPRP PP (2) Othersa Independents a

– 75.8 1.1 98.9 34.0 23.8 19.3 15.6 1.3 – – – – – 1.3 4.8

29,003,828 20,843,482 259,670 20,583,812 – – – – – 7,923,719 6,004,577 3,574,419 369,044 319,041 21,007 2,372,005

– 71.9 1.2 98.8 – – – – – 38.5 29.2 17.4 1.8 1.5 0.1 11.5

Others include for 1988: PJP: 65,650 votes (0.3%); KNP (2): 65,032 (0.3%); NKDP: 46,877 (0.2%); DKP: 32,799 (0.2%); ORP: 25,433 (0.1%); TGP: 16,148 (0.1%); HIUKP: 3,736; SDP: 3,267; CHSP: 2,247; for 1992: FaPP: 21,007 votes (0.1%).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes NKP NCNP ULD DP (2) NPUPP GNP MDP DPP (2) Othersa Independents a

26,198,205 19,850,815 208,775 19,642,040 6,675,494 4,680,175 3,783,279 3,062,506 251,236 – – – – – 261,189 933,161

1996 Total number 31,488,294 20,122,799 469,726 19,653,073 6,783,730 4,971,961 3,178,474 2,207,695 177,050 – – – 5,378 2,328,785

% – 63.9 2.3 97.7 34.5 25.3 16.2 11.2 0.9 – – – 0.0 11.8

2000 Total number 33,482,387 19,157,124 252,384 18,904,740 – – 1,859,331 – – 7,365,359 6,780,625 695,423 429,791 1,774,211

% – 57.2 1.3 98.7 – – 9.8 – – 39.0 35.9 3.7 2.3 9.4

Others include for 1996: TDP: 3,114 votes (0.0%); PV 21: 1,693; and Cmd: 571; for 2000: DlaP: 223,261 (1.2%); KNP (3): 77,498 (0.4%).

432

MONGOLIA

2.7.1 a) National Assembly: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) 1948 Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Total 1948 Region (continued) Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudoa Total a

Reg. voters 568,291 1,088,515 462,090 794,392 801,988 1,106,397 1,227,597 1,287,007 467,554 37,040 7,840,871

Votes cast 530,325 1,050,382 444,634 760,694 776,833 1,044,171 1,146,791 1,242,709 459,038 32,062 7,487,649

Invalid votes 28,141 20,913 12,029 22,846 27,234 46,127 59,096 44,615 7,844 1,499 270,707

Valid votes 501,911 1,029,479 432,605 737,848 749,599 997,954 1,087,695 1,198,094 451,194 30,563 7,216,942

NARRKI

KDP

TYP

Others

Indep.

60,876 222,512 120,378

111,174 85,059 22,601

66,826 109,190 54,624

124,563 133,590 –

138,472 479,128 235,002

199,870

42,077

76,341

58,880

360,680

195,837 155,631 276,022

182,534 324,178 75,523

63,355 25,120 97,594

130,278 235,107 273,781

177,595 257,918 364,775

297,932

73,176

74,478

65,821

686,687

210,219 36,266 1,755,543

– – 916,322

81,693 6,432 655,653

22,246 7,840 1,052,106

137,036 8,190 2,745,483

The official data have several errors. There are large differences between the number of registered voters and the number of party votes, especially in Chejudo. Likewise, differences generally exist between the number of valid votes and the number of party votes. No accurate information is available.

1950a Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo

Valid votes 527,967 718,978 438,522

KNP (1) 47,936 95,632 68,137

DNP (1) 102,611 66,850 36,910

NA 23,851 33,611 8,683

Others 133,009 57,134 38,096

Indep. 220,560 465,751 286,696

630,049

79,475

43,644

58,178

56,408

392,344

725,877 1,044,279

43,798 105,514

84,459 208,755

42,763 71,611

65,927 77,884

488,930 580,515

433

SOUTH KOREA

Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Total a

1,182,894

74,952

91,499

45,831

191,563

779,049

1,216,106

34,164

37,016

113,354

105,454

926,118

410,382 91,986 6,987,040

123,686 3,879 677,173

– 12,166 683,910

53,805 21,466 473,153

23,655 6,387 755,517

209,236 48,088 4,397,287

No information is available about the number of registered voters, votes cast, and invalid votes at the regional level. The official statistics have several errors: The official number of votes received by the DNP in Seoul is 10,262, but the correct figure is 102,611. The figure provided for the total vote in Kyonggido is 718,978; yet, when the regional results are added the total vote is slightly lower: 718,975 votes. According to the official sources, the independent candidates in Chungchong Pukto received 386,696 votes, but the actual figure is 286,696. Finally, the overall result provided for the latter region is 438,522; but the figure obtained when adding up the numbers is 438,562.

1954 Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Total

Reg. voters 458,735 902,018 493,725 886,133 870,132 1,263,480 1,400,337 1,564,962 468,915 138,072 8,446,509

Votes cast 405,222 815,731 455,446 803,272 808,012 1,168597 1,292,332 1,407,456 435,288 107,034 7,698,390

Invalid votes 10,038 20,504 8,912 18,656 22,691 37,281 34,855 42,538 7,120 3,487 206,082

Valid votes 395,184 795,227 446,534 784,616 785,321 1,131,316 1,257,477 1,364,918 428,168 103,547 7,492,308

1954 Region (continued) Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Total

LP

DNP (1)

Others

Independents

103,801 347,427 177,886 343,938 220,970 334,787 455,767 502,436 237,601 31,468 2,756,061

49,430 41,853 19,075 20,882 91,493 181,527 109,704 79,535 – – 593,499

35,831 165,850 15,775 31,218 49,993 72,233 80,629 49,419 37,168 3,015 551,131

206,122 240,097 233,798 388,578 422,865 542,769 611,377 733,528 153,399 69,064 3,591,617

1958 Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo

Reg. voters 797,389 1,188,695 556,596 1,000,434 978,486 1,411,060

Votes cast 643,282 1,048,722 516,035 919,575 905,569 1,292,775

Invalid votes 17,556 33,925 19,334 32,926 40,160 49,869

Valid votesa 625,726 1,014,797 496,701 886,649 865,409 1,242,906

434 Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Total a

1,352,050 1,492,301 642,049 111,547 8,923,905

65,843 60,578 22,068 4,889 347,148

1,286,207 1,431,723 619,981 106,658 8,576,757

LP

DP (1)

Others

Independents

133,810 443,603 245,009 417,881 354,849 574,617 532,501 595,945 276,393 32,484 3,607,092

366,263 355,179 154,910 338,751 311,830 404,501 387,007 466,776 111,001 17,831 2,914,049

25,852 4,898 – 16,369 6,033 56,451 36,674 38,820 12,812 – 197,909

99,801 211,117a 96,782 113,648 192,697 207,337 330,025 330,182 219,775 56,343 1,857,707

The number has been corrected (the figure given was 21,127, but it must be 211,117).

1960a Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Total a

1,593,091 1,713,354 803,633 121,660 10,164,428

There are several inconsistencies in the official statistics between the number of valid votes and the total votes for all the parties. For Seoul there is a one-vote difference, for Chungchong Namdo the difference is 1,000 votes, 20 votes for Cholla Pukto, for Kyongsang Pukto 2,253 votes and for Kyongsang Namdo 69 votes.

1958 Region (continued) Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Total a

MONGOLIA

Reg. voters 1,109,569 1,297,896 646,631 1,169,383 1,105,114 1,616,626 1,801,826 1,940,109 769,474 136,804 11,593,432

Votes cast 836,419 1,108,052 562,470 987,359 949,687 1,376,319 1,529,573 1,623,682 684,181 121,179 9,778,921

Invalid votes 49,035 90,795 35,378 75,464 76,912 104,914 103,534 117,552 40,035 7,467 701,086

Valid votes 787,384 1,017,257 527,092 911,895 872,775 1,271,405 1,426,039 1,506,130 644,146 113,712 9,077,835

House of Representatives. Because of irregularities, elections were repeated in 13 constituencies. The figures indicate the original results.

1960 Region (continued) Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto

DP (1)

SMP

Others

Independents

475,711 343,092 178,145 406,346 373,566 585,030 585,236

23,417 15,129 13,137 10,500 36,427 103,731 177,163

68,844 81,671 31,414 34,698 63,564 63,617 37,692

219,412 577,365 304,396 460,351 399,218 519,027 625,948

435

SOUTH KOREA

a

Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Total

603,163 217,884 18,228 3,786,401

146,771 14,746 – 541,021

74,662 31,038 14,033 501,233

681,534 380,478 81,451 4,249,180

1963 Region Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusana Chejudo Total

Reg. voters 1,774,155 1,429,892 823,498 694,670 1,306,741 1,146,772 1,798,695 2,036,277 1,494,661 686,993 151,795 13,344,149

Votes cast 1,021,302 985,581 619,829 542,669 978,292 837,663 1,324,142 1,532,947 1,188,320 467,760 123,678 9,622,183

Invalid votes 23,464 31,988 21,346 18,121 34,594 32,137 53,938 52,638 37,988 12,670 4,469 323,353

Valid votes 997,838 953,593 598,483 524,548 943,698 805,526 1,270,204 1,480,309 1,150,332 455,090 119,209 9,298,830

1963 Region (continued) Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusana Chejudo Total

DRP

CRP (1)

DP (1)

Others

223,083 259,324 190,241 164,468 312,665 267,599 410,810 585,703 479,447 169,849 49,796 3,112,985

288,257 208,138 80,393 103,844 212,976 176,509 259,319 212,157 194,813 130,935 3,635 1,870,976

231,033 155,212 107,261 43,599 97,192 118,996 111,376 136,960 165,885 85,313 11,458 1,264,285

255,465 330,919 220,588 212,637 320,865 242,422 488,699 545,489 310,187 68,993 54,320 3,050,584

Invalid votes 28,787 37,910 21,378 16,142 37,189 36,647 60,878 55,640 36,101 11,579

Valid votes 1,271,163 1,153,368 695,942 610,256 1,091,797 947,298 1,476,611 1,690,765 1,263,905 528,272

City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo.

1967 Region Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusan

Reg. voters 2,255,389 1,610659 882,322 722,778 1,389,451 1,240,336 1,948,173 2,175,876 1,546,754 777,538

Votes cast 1,299,950 1,191,278 717,320 626,398 1,128,986 983,945 1,537,489 1,746,405 1,300,006 539,851

436 Chejudo Total

MONGOLIA

168,068 14,717,354

1967 Region (continued) Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusan Chejudo Total 1971 Region Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusan Chejudo Total

1973 Region

DRP 434,134 630,375 341,266 372,536 617,368 525,809 744,452 850,702 684,202 223,171 70,907 5,494,922

Reg. voters 3,022,490 1,697,587 870,649 697,209 1,389,017 1,170,054 1,911,446 2,182,666 1,537,640 950,038 181,462 15,610,258

1971 Region (continued) Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusan Chejudo Total

130,689 11,202,317 NDP (1) 681,574 369,120 187,576 168,154 294,071 283,065 419,820 466,882 398,786 257,436 27,740 3,554,224 Votes cast 1,789,137 1,229,069 684,683 559,235 1,039,784 898,088 1,465,709 1,718,701 1,218,958 684,522 142,316 11,430,202

DRP 698,748 608,693 357,709 278,914 543,015 404,020 755,786 848,840 605,612 275,714 83,530 5,460,581

Reg. voters

4,058 346,309

Others 155,455 153,873 167,100 69,566 180,358 138,424 312,339 373,181 180,917 47,665 27,984 1,806,862 Invalid votes 24,200 23,036 14,260 11,953 22,314 24,163 39,109 34,781 27,152 9,052 4,260 234,280

NDP (1) 1,037,464 489,011 238,296 206,043 393,990 435,825 595,988 649,690 496,063 379,497 47,183 4,969,050 Votes cast

126,631 10,856,008

Valid votes 1,764,937 1,206,033 670,423 547,282 1,017,470 873,925 1,426,600 1,683,920 1,191,806 675,470 138,056 11,195,922 Others 28,725 108,329 74,418 62,325 80,465 34,080 74,826 185,390 90,131 20,259 7,343 766,291

Invalid votes

Valid votes

437

SOUTH KOREA

Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusan Chejudo Total

3,055,496 1,712,695 835,936 701,544 1,388,869 1,149,686 1,888,125 2,225,629 1,548,217 999,611 184,322 15,690,130

1,894,248 1,152,269 674,595 556,561 1,047,616 866,849 1,428,607 1,697,887 1,035,629 702,402 139,821 11,196,484

27,629 16,638 10,491 9,295 21,152 16,310 29,713 39,974 19,734 11,881 2,231 205,048

1,866,619 1,135,631 664,104 547,266 1,026,464 850,539 1,398,894 1,657,913 1,015,895 690,521 137,590 10,991,436

1973 Region (continued) Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusan Chejudo Total

DRP

NDP (1)

DUP

Independents

638,788 492,974 282,188 247,619 363,505 249,813 662,148 574,767 444,239 246,387 49,326 4,251,754

827,251 411,002 216,800 113,007 326,927 236,401 319,521 463,674 309,857 340,361 12,499 3,577,300

271,989 112,533 40,686 63,666 143,026 82,752 183,696 83,261 60,338 66,463 5,794 1,114,204

128,591 119,122 124,430 122,974 193,006 281,573 233,529 536,211 201,461 37,310 69,971 2,048,178

1978 Region Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusan Chejudo Total

Reg. voters 4,574,959 2,403,075 922,254 761,710 1,523,271 1,200,940 1,955,966 2,584,587 1,748,440 1,596,605 217,683 19,489,490

Votes cast 3,113,825 1,827,164 782,147 651,893 1,259,483 988,098 1,556,844 2,057,899 1,411,433 1,187,058 187,526 15,023,370

Invalid votes 35,100 24,264 10,822 10,704 24,535 16,326 23,761 29,304 18,075 15,226 2,810 210,927

Valid votes 3,078,725 1,802,900 771,325 641,189 1,234,948 971,772 1,533,083 2,028,595 1,393,358 1,171,832 184,716 14,812,443

1978 Region (continued) Seoul

NDP (1)

DRP

DUP

Independents

1,578,279

819,137

278,971

402,338

438 Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusan Chejudo Total

594,871 183,340 214,283 286,878 301,349 370,203 478,025 373,143 464,539 16,294 4,861,204

643,850 301,503 233,775 495,342 286,024 525,508 564,171 433,726 348,730 44,229 4,695,995

90,138 22,149 82,179 104,226 80,796 197,160 60,192 33,938 145,308 – 1,095,057

474,041 264,333 110,952 348,502 303,603 440,212 926,207 552,551 213,255 124,193 4,160,187

1981 Region Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusan Chejudo Total

Reg. voters 5,048,348 2,795,272 947,977 788,748 1,613,381 1,237,238 1,996,274 2,772,236 1,857,765 1,803,273 233,956 21,094,468

Votes cast 3,589,167 2,127,704 834,253 683,514 1,296,344 1,001,060 1,617,725 2,258,089 1,550,012 1,240,504 199,473 16,397,845

Invalid votes 45,403 22,106 8,494 7,858 15,368 11,358 26,496 20,533 17013 13,875 2,016 190,520

Valid votes 3,543,764 2,105,598 825,759 675,656 1,280,976 989,702 1,591,229 2,237,556 1,532,999 1,226,629 197,457 16,207,325

1981 Region (continued) Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Pusan Chejudo Total a

MONGOLIA

DJPa

DKP

KNP (2)

Others

Indep.

1,224,521 814,540 378,872 230,332

847,357 485,703 184,790 114,075

423,943 217,978 143,131 161,518

698,571 253,180 431,182 91,661

349,372 155,475 27,305 67,216

454,925

269,200

199,968

102,515

187,570

375,787 493,757 859,279

219,981 351,555 432,275

109,077 241,619 322,083

169,313 211,550 394,586

73,307 109,712 317,447

521,875

227,449

205,466

306,472

198,791

375,495 47,421 5,776,624

325,360 38,084 3,495,829

122,510 – 2,147,293

379,418 14,367 3,053,355

150,264 97,765 1,734,224

The official regional results of the DJP are inconsistent.

439

SOUTH KOREA

1985 Region Seoul Kyonggido Inchona Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Taegub Kyongsang Namdo Pusan Chejudo Total a b

b

Votes cast 4,832,039 2,318,463 656,859 910,284 751,373 1,487,372 1,105,374 1,813,534 1,646,301 941,908 1,834,892 1,752,887 235,386 20,286,672

Invalid votes 68,671 37,025 10,927 15,503 12,888 27,694 19,080 30,805 23,677 12,298 26,965 22,738 3,758 312,029

Valid votes 4,763,368 2,281,438 645,932 894,781 738,485 1,459,678 1,086,294 1,782,729 1,622,624 929,610 1,807,927 1,730149 231,628 19,974,643

City of Inchon was formerly part of Kyonggido. City of Taegu was formerly part of Kyongsang Pukto.

1985 Region (continued) Seoul Kyonggido Inchona Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Taegub Kyongsang Namdo Pusan Chejudo Total a

Reg. voters 5,955,403 2,791,114 813,562 1,017454 831,033 1,720,236 1,297,178 2,132,196 1,865,046 1,148,657 2,096,119 2,055,161 264,671 23,987,830

DJP

NKDP

DKP

Others

Indep.

1,303,114 782,360 239,710 413,958 418,909

2,056,642 640,643 241,802 101,349 135,213

954,454 470,936 142,313 159,816 116,866

273,297 338,451 22,107 176,565 67,497

175,861 49,048 – 43,093 –

577,742

319,222

301,955

201,572

59,187

399,758 637,292 725,326

287,358 452,599 254,760

205,086 322,486 275,253

194,092 316,591 246,835

– 53,761 120,450

263,168 722,169

276,780 423,916

172,771 360,561

193,067 285,564

23,824 15,717

483,507 73,798 7,040,811

639,724 13,819 5,843,827

408,834 39,635 3,930,966

190,581 2,792 2,509,011

7,503 101,584 650,028

City of Inchon was formerly part of Kyonggido. City of Taegu was formerly part of Kyongsang Pukto.

1988 Region Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon

Reg. voters 6,603,354 2,329,238 1,300,079 978,992

Votes cast 4,576,845 1,808,705 998,835 686,710

Invalid votes 36,296 14,416 7,976 6,672

Valid votes 4,540,549 1,794,289 990,859 680,038

440

MONGOLIA

Kwangjua Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total 1988 Region (continued) Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangjua Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total a

609,578 3,413,513 1,041,175 857,153 1,803,621 1,300,208 1,879,574 2,222,547 283,689 26,198,205

475,135 2,435,115 853,804 712,211 1,420,594 1,040,805 1,565,878 1,776,105 234,347 19,850,815

3,506 25,499 11,036 9,998 15,775 13,735 22,065 19,393 3,074 208,775

471,629 2,409,616 842,768 702,213 1,404,819 1,027,070 1,543,813 1,756,712 231,273 19,642,040

DJP

RDP

PPD

NDRP

Indep. & Others

1,191,511 575,970 477,458 255,322 45,690 868,810 367,686 306,551

1,060,623 973,902 280,925 192,728 1,914 552,090 182,111 112,131

1,224,100 34,973 6,536 95,818 417,667 383,106 33,606 9,724

729,664 122,646 130,394 105,504 3,025 437,817 170,332 233,609

334,651 86,798 95,546 30,666 3,333 167,793 89,033 40,198

423,619

210,784

53,873

652,613

63,930

295,511 289,973 787,232

13,449 9,886 378,502

631,545 846,711 13,924

25,396 15,687 246,677

61,169 84,135 117,478

706,846

648,483

17,909

181,298

202,176

83,315 6,675,494

62,647 4,680,175

13,787 3,783,279

7,844 3,062,506

63,680 1,440,586

City of Kwangju was formerly part of Cholla Namdo.

1992 Region Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangju Taejona Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo

Reg. voters 7,346,986 2,552,674 1,472,014 1,298,965 744,894 702,916 4,193,755 1,021,396 908,751 1,228,910

Votes cast 5,082,548 1,763,991 980,765 882,740 522,010 492,847 2,917,219 797,069 690,286 933,693

Invalid votes 52,971 22,361 12,168 11,166 4,860 5,449 36,794 10,116 9,889 13,293

Valid votes 5,029,577 1,741,630 968,597 871,574 517,150 487,398 2,880425 786,953 680,397 920,400

441

SOUTH KOREA

Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total 1992 Region (continued) Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangju Taejona Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total a

1,315,306 1,514,234 1,921,329 2,458,560 323,138 29,003,828

977,441 1,142,034 1,506,736 1,900,166 253,937 20,843,482

13,258 15,992 24,075 23,691 3,587 259,670

964,183 1,126,042 1,482,661 1,876,475 250,350 20,583,812

DLP

DP (2)

UPP

Others

Indep.

1,749,204 902,811 454,359 299,104 47,134 134,598 1,069,423 305,594 303,524

1,872,646 338,324 114,332 267,854 394,872 124,054 916,392 92,177 162,274

960,775 178,058 276,640 177,972 20,231 103,856 563,439 251,056 146,614

238,434 57,375 37,827 61,143 7,797 8,684 106,946 28,198 23,492

208,878 265,062 85,439 65,501 47,116 116,206 224,225 109,928 44,493

399,352

185,165

147,541

27,317

161,025

306,155 283,478 727,204

530,108 693,543 100,138

46,702 56,355 262,828

12,295 9,050 36,333

68,923 83,616 356,158

856,400

162,905

382,352

54,561

420,257

85,379 7,923,719

49,793 6004,577

– 3,574,419

– 709,092

115,178 2,372,005

City of Taejon was formerly part of Chungchong Namdo.

1996 Region Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangju Taejon Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto

Reg. voters 7,393,013 2,672,285 1,685,233 1,578,041 839,092 841,251 5,298,160 1,057,784 988,394 1,289,508 1,374,445 1,507,277 1,946,499

Votes cast 4,510,812 1,617,769 1,025,881 947,967 541,483 529,628 3,259,752 732,973 675,185 885,321 938,059 1,051,904 1,395,950

Invalid votes 66,397 36,251 21,137 18,771 7,819 10,044 63,983 22,170 19,232 32,414 27,569 37,753 43,683

Valid votes 4,444,415 1,581,518 1,004,744 929,196 533,664 519,584 3,195,769 710,803 655,953 852,907 910,490 1,014,151 1,352,267

442

MONGOLIA

Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total 1996 Region (continued) Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangju Taejona Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total

2,664,513 352,799 31,488,294

1,759,108 251,007 20,122,799

56,199 6,304 469,726

1,702,909 244,703 19,653,073

NKP

NCNP

ULD

Others

Indep.

1,620,642 882,583 245,865 355,318 40,021 111,432 1,060,711 264,874 206,855

1,565,582 100,608 13,820 273,804 460,107 59,407 875,705 47,452 58,411

502,851 87,405 359,745 134,585 4,365 258,642 595,566 167,930 258,197

618,481 325,476 86,819 111,103 11,270 68,721 452,947 105,059 60,916

136,859 185,446 298,495 54,386 17,901 21,382 210,840 125,488 71,574

246,410

52,343

436,676

70,191

42,287

213,465 179,374 472,560

580,018 719,614 20,966

4,567 7,857 277,914

60,609 13,198 130,746

51,831 94,108 450,081

792,665

72,082

79,347

269,578

489,237

90,955 6,783,730

72,042 4,971,961

2,827 3,178,474

5,009 2,390,123

73,870 2,328,785

443

SOUTH KOREA

2000 Region Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangju Taejon Ulsan Kyonggi Kangwon Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Cheju Total

Reg. voters 7,505,246 2,741,341 1,763,128 1,721,234 917,761 937,065 681,718 6,151,379 1,113,504 1,051,593 1,374,591 1,422,719 1,540,231 2,026,210 2,159,642 375,025 33,482,387

Votes cast 4,075,524 1,518,045 943,032 918,996 495,824 499,924 403,012 3,375,819 700,087 639,276 826,643 862,541 1,028,130 1,309,834 1,308,502 251,935 19,157,124

Invalid votes 37,235 19,354 11,264 10,494 5,236 5,173 4,478 37,571 10,180 8,912 12,573 13,692 23,541 26,386 22,217 4,078 252,384

Valid votes 4,038,289 1,498,691 931,768 908,502 490,588 494,751 398,534 3,338,248 689,907 630,364 814,070 848,849 1,004,589 1,283,448 1,286,285 247,857 18,904,740

444 2000 Region (continued) Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangju Taejon Ulsan Kyonggi Kangwon Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Cheju Total a

MONGOLIA

GNP

MDP

ULD

Others

Indep.

1,747,482 904,040 585,974 378,903 16,144 115,186 166,186 1,304,676 266,136 193,089

1,819,735 225,160 101,854 368,924 342,888 140,745 38,189 1,365,304 251,571 197,459

189,185 24,356 95,305 110,120 1,503 169,583 12,277 413,362 70,280 185,920

217,289 232,797 63,104 21,711 2,015 20,179 84,484 98,200 46,113 9,370

64,598 112,338 85,531 28,844 128,038 49,058 97,398 156,706 55,807 44,526

141,684

244,128

319,066

69,348

39,844

30,442 41,284 673,537

555,462 666,697 188,063

28,675 16,029 180,031

1,811 4,797 133,512

232,459 275,782 108,305

690,973

151,981

41,948

119,499

281,884

109,623 7,365,359

122,465 6,780,625

1,591 1,859,331a

1,085 1,125,214a

13,093 1,774,211

Official data are arithmetically inconsistent. The sum of the regional votes for ULD is 100 less and for ‘others’ 100 more than the official total.

445

SOUTH KOREA

2.7.1 b) National Assembly: Regional Level (% Of Valid Votes) 1948 Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudob Nation-wide a b

KDP 22.2 8.3 5.2

TYP 13.3 10.6 12.6

Others 24.8 13.0 –

Indep. 27.6 46.5 54.3

Totala 7.0 14.3 6.0

27.1

5.7

10.3

8.0

48.9

10.2

26.1 15.6

24.4 32.5

8.5 2.5

17.4 23.6

23.7 25.8

10.4 13.8

25.4

6.9

9.0

25.2

33.5

15.1

24.9

6.1

6.2

5.5

57.3

16.6

46.6 118.7 24.3

– – 12.7

18.1 21.0 9.1

4.9 25.7 14.6

30.4 26.8 38.0

6.3 0.4 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. The official data have several errors. There are large differences between the number of valid votes and the number of party votes, especially in Chejudo. Likewise, differences generally exist between the number of valid votes and the number of party votes. No accurate information is available.

1950a Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Nation-wide a

NARRKI 12.1 21.6 27.8

KNP (1) 9.1 13.3 15.3

DNP (1) 19.4 9.3 8.4

NA 4.5 4.7 2.0

Others 25.2 7.9 8.9

Indep. 41.8 64.8 65.4

Totala 7.6 10.3 6.3

12.6

6.9

9.2

9.0

62.3

9.0

6.0 10.1

11.6 20.0

5.9 6.9

9.1 7.4

67.4 55.6

10.4 14.9

6.3

7.7

3.9

16.3

65.8

16.9

2.8

3.1

9.2

5.7

79.2

17.4

30.1 4.2 9.7

– 13.2 9.8

13.2 23.3 6.8

5.7 7.2 10.8

51.0 52.1 62.9

5.9 1.3 100.0


1954 Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto

LP 26.3 43.7 39.8

DNP (1) 12.5 5.3 4.3

Others 9.0 20.8 5.8

Indep. 52.2 30.2 50.1

Totala 5.3 10.6 5.9

446 Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Nation-wide a

43.8

2.7

4.0

49.5

10.5

28.1 29.6 36.2

11.7 16.0 8.7

6.4 6.4 6.5

53.8 48.0 48.6

10.5 15.1 16.8

36.8

5.8

3.7

53.7

18.2

55.5 30.4 36.8

– – 7.9

8.7 2.9 7.4

35.8 66.7 47.9

5.7 1.4 100.0

LP 21.4 43.7 49.3

DP (1) 58.5 35.0 31.2

Others 4.2 0.5 –

Indep. 15.9 20.8 19.5

Totala 7.3 11.8 5.8

47.2

38.2

1.8

12.8

10.3

41.0 46.2 41.5

36.0 32.5 30.1

0.7 4.6 2.7

22.3 16.7 25.7

10.1 14.5 15.0

41.6

32.6

2.7

23.1

16.7

44.6 30.5 42.1

17.9 16.7 34.0

2.1 – 2.2

35.4 52.8 21.7

7.2 1.2 100.0

DP (1) 60.4 33.7 33.8

SMP 3.0 1.5 2.5

Others 8.7 8.0 5.9

Independ. 27.9 56.8 57.8

Totala 8.7 11.2 5.8

44.6

1.2

3.7

50.5

10.0

42.8 46.0 41.0

4.2 8.2 12.4

7.3 5.0 2.6

45.7 40.8 44.0

9.6 14.0 15.7

40.0

9.7

5.0

45.3

16.6

33.8 16.0

0.2 –

6.9 12.4b

59.1 71.6

7.1 1.3


1958 Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Nation-wide a

MONGOLIA


1960 Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo

447

SOUTH KOREA

Nation-wide a b

b c d e

6.0

5.5

46.8

100.0

DRP 22.4 37.3 27.2 31.8 31.4

CRP (1) 28.9 28.8 21.8 13.4 19.8

DP (1) 23.2 18.7 16.3 17.9 8.3

Others 25.5 15.2 34.7 36.9c 40.5d

Totala 10.7 4.9 10.3 6.4 5.6

33.1

22.6

10.3

34.0

10.1

33.2 32.3 39.6

21.9 20.4 14.3

14.8 8.8 9.3

30.1 38.5e 36.8

8.7 13.7 15.9

41.7

16.9

14.4

27.0

12.4

41.8 33.5

3.0 20.1

9.6 13.6

45.6 32.8

1.3 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. KSP 11.5%.

1963 Region Seoul Pusanb Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide a

41.7

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo. PP (1) 13.1%. PP (1) 10.0%; LDP 11.3%. LDP 15.0%.

1967 Region Seoul Pusanb Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide a b c d

DRP 34.2 42.2 54.7 49.0 61.0 56.5 55.5 50.4 50.3 54.1 56.0 50.6

NDP (1) 53.6 48.7 32.0 26.9 27.6 26.9 29.9 28.4 27.6 31.6 21.9 32.7

Others 12.2 9.1 13.3 24.1c 11.4 16.6 14.6 21.2 22.1 14.3 22.1d 16.7

Totala 11.7 4.9 10.6 6.4 5.6 10.1 8.7 13.6 15.6 11.6 1.2 100.0

Others 1.6 3.0 9.0

Totala 15.8 6.0 10.8

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo. LP 12.1%. DP (1) 11.0%.

1971 Region Seoul Pusan Kyonggido

DRP 39.6 40.8 50.5

NDP (1) 58.8 56.2 40.5

448

MONGOLIA

Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide a

35.5 37.6 38.7 50.0 41.8 38.6 41.6 34.2 44.4

11.1 11.4 7.9 3.8 5.2 11.0 7.6 5.3 6.8

6.0 4.9 9.1 7.8 12.7 15.0 10.6 1.2 100.0


1973 Region Seoul Pusan Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide a

53.4 51.0 53.4 46.2 53.0 50.4 50.8 60.5 48.8

DRP 34.2 35.7 43.4 42.5 45.2

NDP (1) 44.3 49.3 36.2 32.6 20.6

DUP 14.6 9.6 9.9 6.1 11.6

Independ. 6.9 5.4 10.5 18.7 22.5

Totala 17.0 6.3 10.3 6.0 5.0

35.4

31.8

13.9

18.8

9.3

29.4 47.3 34.7

27.8 22.8 28.0

9.7 13.1 5.0

33.1 16.7 32.3

7.7 12.7 15.1

43.7

30.5

5.9

19.8

9.2

35.8 38.7

9.1 32.5

4.2 10.2

50.9 18.6

1.3 100.0

NDP (1) 51.3 39.6 33.0 23.8 33.4

DRP 26.6 29.8 35.7 39.1 36.5

DUP 9.1 12.4 5.0 2.9 12.8

Independ. 13.1 18.2 26.3 34.3 17.3

Totala 20.8 7.9 12.2 5.2 4.3

23.2

40.1

8.4

28.2

8.3

31.0 24.1 23.6

29.4 34.3 27.8

8.3 12.9 3.0

31.2 28.7 45.7

6.6 10.3 13.7

26.8

31.1

2.4

39.7

9.4

8.8

23.9

–

67.2

1.2


1978 Region Seoul Pusan Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo

449

SOUTH KOREA

Nation-wide a

b c d

7.4

28.1

100.0

DJP 34.6 30.6 38.7 45.9 34.1

DKP 23.9 26.5 23.1 22.4 16.9

KNP (2) 12.0 10.0 10.4 17.3 23.9

Others 19.7 20.6 20.4 11.1 15.2

Indep. 9.8 12.3 7.4 3.3 9.9

Totala 21.9 7.6 13.0 5.1 4.2

35.5

21.0

15.6

13.3

14.6

7.9

38.0 31.0

22.2 22.1

11.0 15.2

21.4 24.7

7.4 7.0

6.1 9.8

38.4

19.3

14.4

13.7

14.2

13.8

34.0

14.8

13.4

24.8

13.0

9.5

23.9 35.6

19.3 21.6

– 13.2

7.3 18.9

49.5 10.7

1.2 100.0


1985 Region Seoul Pusan Taegub Inchonc Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide a

31.7



32.8

DJP 27.4 27.9 28.3 37.1 34.3 46.2 56.7

NKDP 43.2 37.0 29.8 37.4 28.1 11.3 18.3

DKP 20.0 23.6 18.6 22.0 20.6 17.9 15.8

Othersd 5.7 11.1 20.7 3.5 14.8 19.8 9.2

Indep. 3.7 0.4 2.6 – 2.2 4.8 –

Totala 23.8 8.7 4.7 3.2 11.4 4.5 3.7

39.6

21.9

20.7

13.7

4.1

7.3

36.8 35.7

26.5 25.4

18.9 18.1

17.8 17.8

– 3.0

5.4 8.9

44.7

15.7

17.0

15.2

7.4

8.1

39.9

23.4

19.9

15.9

0.9

9.1

31.9 35.2

6.0 29.3

17.1 19.7

1.1 12.5

43.9 3.3

1.2 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. City of Taegu was formerly part of Kyongsang Pukto. City of Inchon was formerly part of Kyonggido. KNP (2): 17.7% in Kangwondo; 15.6% in Taegu; 13.6% in Kyonggido.

450

a b

MONGOLIA

1988 Region

DJP

RDP

PPD

NDRP 16.1 6.8 13.2 15.5 0.6 18.2 20.2 33.3

Others & Indep. 7.3 4.9 9.5 4.6 0.7 6.9 10.6 5.6

Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangjub Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide

26.2 32.1 48.2 37.5 9.7 36.1 43.6 43.7

23.4 54.3 28.4 28.3 0.4 22.9 21.6 16.0

27.0 1.9 0.7 14.1 88.6 15.9 4.0 1.4

30.2

15.0

28.8 23.3

Totala 23.1 9.1 5.0 3.5 2.4 12.3 4.3 3.6

3.8

46.5

4.5

7.2

1.3 0.8

61.5 67.9

2.4 1.3

6.0 6.7

5.2 6.3

51.0

24.5

0.9

16.0

7.6

7.9

40.2

36.9

1.0

10.3

11.6

8.9

36.0 34.0

27.1 23.8

6.0 19.3

3.4 15.6

27.5 7.3

1.2 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. City of Kwangju was formerly part of Cholla Namdo.

1992 Region Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangju Taejonb Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo

DLP 34.8 51.8 46.9 34.3 9.1 27.6 37.1 38.8 44.6

DP (2) 37.2 19.4 11.8 30.7 76.4 25.5 31.8 11.7 23.8

UPP 19.1 10.2 28.6 20.4 3.9 21.3 19.6 31.9 21.5

Others 4.7 3.4 3.9 7.1 1.5 1.8 3.7 3.6 3.6

Indep. 4.2 15.2 8.8 7.5 9.1 23.8 7.8 14.0 6.5

Totala 24.4 8.5 4.7 4.2 2.5 2.4 14.0 3.8 3.3

43.4

20.1

16.0

3.0

17.5

4.5

31.8 25.2

55.0 61.6

4.8 5.0

1.3 0.8

7.1 7.4

4.7 5.5

49.0

6.8

17.7

2.5

24.0

7.2

45.6

8.7

20.4

2.9

22.4

9.1

34.1

19.9

–

–

46.0

1.2

451

SOUTH KOREA

Nation-wide a b

17.4

3.4

11.5

100.0

NKP 36.5 55.8 24.5 38.2 7.5 21.4 33.2 37.3 31.5

NCNP 35.2 6.4 1.4 29.5 86.2 11.4 27.4 6.7 8.9

ULD 11.3 5.5 35.8 14.5 0.8 49.8 18.6 23.6 39.4

Others 13.9 20.6 8.6 12.0 2.1 13.2 14.2 14.8 9.3

Indep. 3.1 11.7 29.7 5.9 3.4 4.1 6.6 17.7 10.9

Totala 22.6 8.0 5.1 4.7 2.7 2.6 16.3 3.6 3.3

28.9

6.1

51.2

8.2

5.5

4.3

23.4 17.7 34.9

63.7 71.0 1.5

0.5 0.8 20.6

6.7 1.3 9.7

5.7 9.3 33.3

4.6 5.2 6.9

46.5

4.2

4.7

15.8

28.7

8.7

37.2 34.5

29.4 25.3

1.2 16.2

2.0 12.2

30.2 11.8

1.2 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. 2000 Region Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangju Taejon Ulsan Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide

a

29.2

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. City of Taejon was formerly part of Chungchong Namdo. 1996 Region Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangju Taejon Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide

a

38.5

GNP 43.3 60.3 62.9 41.7 3.3 23.3 41.7 39.1 38.6 30.6

MDP 45.1 15.0 10.9 40.6 69.9 28.4 9.6 40.9 36.5 31.3

ULD 4.7 1.6 10.2 12.1 0.3 34.3 3.1 12.4 10.2 29.5

Others 5.4 15.5 6.8 2.4 0.4 4.1 21.2 2.9 6.7 1.5

Indep. 1.6 7.5 9.2 3.2 26.1 9.9 24.4 4.7 8.1 7.1

Totala 21.4 7.9 4.9 4.8 2.6 2.6 2.1 17.7 3.6 3.3

17.4

30.0

39.2

8.5

4.9

4.3

3.6 4.1 52.5

65.4 66.4 14.7

3.4 1.6 14.0

0.2 0.5 10.4

27.4 27.5 8.4

4.5 5.3 6.8

53.7

11.8

3.3

9.3

21.9

6.8

44.2 39.0

49.4 35.9

0.6 9.8

0.4 6.0

5.3 9.4

1.3 100.0


452

MONGOLIA

2.7.2 House of Councilors 1960 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes DP (1) LP SMP KSP Others Independents a

1960a Total number 11,593,432 — — 10,682,629 5,491,527 653,748 146,059 135,160 188,792 4,067,343

Because of irregularities the elections were repeated in 13 constituencies.

% – — — — 51.4 6.1 1.4 1.3 1.7 38.1

453

SOUTH KOREA

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 National Assembly 1948–2000 Year

1948 Seats 200 NARRKI 55 KDP 29 TYP 12 NYP 6 FF 2 TLF 1 DNP (1) – KNP (1) – NA – KYP – IC – KFTU – SP (1) – NIF – LP – DP (1) – UP – Others 10 Independ- 85 ents 1960 Seats 233 DP (1) 175 SMP 4 LP 2 KSP 1 UP 1 DRP – CRP (1) – LDP – PP (1) – NDP (1) – MP – NP – Others 1 Independ- 49 ents

% 100.0 27.8 14.6 6.1 3.0 1.0 0.5 – – – – – – – – – – – 5.0 42.9

1950 Seats 210 – – – – – – 24 24 14 10 3 3 2 1 – – – 3 126

% 100.0 75.1 1.7 0.9 0.4 0.4 – – – – – – – 0.4 21.0

1963a Seats 175 13 – 0 – – 110 41 9 2 – – – 0 –

Year

% 100.0 – – – – – – 11.4 11.4 6.7 4.8 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.5 – – – 1.4 60.0

1954 Seats 203 – – – – – – 15 3 3 – – – – – 114 – – – 68

% 100.0 7.4 – 0.0 – – 62.9 23.4 5.1 1.1 – – – 0.0 –

1967a Seats 175 0 – 0 – – 129 – – 0 45 1 – 0 –

% 100.0 – – – – – – 7.4 1.5 1.5 – – – – – 56.2 – – – 33.5

1958 Seats 233 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 126 79 1 – 27

% 100.0 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 54.1 33.9 0.4 – 11.6

% 100.0 0.0 – 0.0 – – 73.7 – – 0.0 25.7 0.6 – 0.0 –

1971a Seats 204 – – – – – 113 – – 1 89 0 1 0 –

% 100.0 – – – – – 55.4 – – 0.5 43.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 –

454 a

MONGOLIA

For the 1963, 1967 and 1971 parliamentary elections a segmented system was applied.

Year

1973a Seats 219 DRP 73 NDP (1) 52 DUP 2 DJP – DKP – KNP (2) – CRP (2) – NPP (1) – SDP – DFP – DPP (1) – NKDP – NDP (2) – NSP – Independ- 19 ents

a

b

% 100.0 33.3 23.7 0.9 – – – – – – – – – – – 8.7

1978a Seats 231 68 61 3 – – – – – – – – – – – 22

% 100.0 29.4 26.4 1.3 – – – – – – – – – – – 9.5

1981b Seats 276 – – – 151 81 25 2 2 2 1 1 – – – 11

% 100.0 – – – 54.7 29.3 9.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 – – – 4.0

1985 Seats 276 – – – 148 35 20 0 – – – – 67 1 1 4

% 100.0 – – – 53.6 12.7 7.2 0.0 – – – – 24.3 0.4 0.4 1.4

For the 1973 and 1978 elections two-thirds of the MPs were elected in two-member constituencies, one-third was appointed by the president. In 1973 and 1978, the President appointed 73 and 77 MPs respectively. Since the 1981 parliamentary elections a segmented system is applied.

Year DJP PPD RDP NDRP Hangyore DP DLP DP (2) UPP NPRP NKP NCNP ULD GNP MDP DPP (2) KNP (3) Independents

1988 Seats 299 125 70 59 35 1 – – – – – – – – – – – 9

% 100.0 41.8 23.4 19.7 11.7 0.3

1992 Seats 299 – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – 3.0

149 97 31 1 – – – – – – – 21

% 100.0 – – – – –

1996 Seats 299 – – – – –

49.8 32.4 10.4 0.3 – – – – – – – 7.0

– 15 – – 139 79 50 – – – – 16

% 100.0 – – – – –

2000 Seats 273 – – – – –

% 100.0 – – – – –

– 5.0 – – 46.5 26.4 16.7 – – – – 5.4

– – – – – – 17 133 115 2 1 5

– – – – – – 6.2 48.7 42.1 0.7 0.4 1.8

455

SOUTH KOREA

2.8.1 a) National Assembly: Distribution of Seats According to the Parts of the Segmented Electoral System (1963–1971; 1981–2000) Yeara DRP CRP (1) DP (1) LDP PP (1) NDP (1) MP Total a

1963 SMC-Seats 88 27 8 6 2 – – 131

% 67.2 20.6 6.1 4.6 1.5 – – 100.0

PR-Seats 22 14 5 3 0 – – 44

% 50.0 31.8 11.4 6.8 0.0 – – 100.0

% 77.9 – 0.0 – 0.0 21.4 0.8 100.0

PR-Seats 27 – 0 – 0 17 0 44

% 61.4 – 0.0 – 0.0 38.6 0.0 100.0

The tables under this section give the seats won in the single-member constituencies (SMCs) in the first two columns for each election. The relevant third and fourth columns refer to the mandates distributed by proportional representation (PR) at national level. Percentages are calculated separately for each part of the segmented electoral system.

Year DRP NDP (1) PP (1) NP Total

1971 SMC-Seats 86 65 1 1 153

1981 TMC-Seatsa DJP 90 DKP 57 KNP (2) 18 CRP (2) 2 NPP (1) 2 SDP 2 DFP 1 DPP (1) 1 NKDP – NDP (2) – NSP – Independ- 11 ents Total 184

% 56.2 42.5 0.7 0.7 100.0

Year

a

1967 SMC-Seats 102 – 0 – 0 28 1 131

PR-Seats 27 24 0 0 51

%

PR-Seats

%

48.9 31.0 9.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.5 – – – 6.0

61 24 7 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 0

66.3 26.1 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 – – – 0.0

1985 TMC-Seatsa 87 26 15 0 – – – – 50 1 1 4

100.0

92

100.0

184

% 52.9 47.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

%

PR-Seats

%

47.3 14.1 8.2 0.0 – – – – 27.2 0.5 0.5 2.2

61 9 5 0 – – – – 17 0 0 0

66.3 9.8 5.4 0.0 – – – – 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0

92

100.0

PR-Seats –

% –

In the 1981 and 1985 elections, there were two-member constituencies (TMCs) instead of SMCs.

Year DJP

1988 SMC-Seats % 87 38.8

PR-Seats 38

% 50.7

1992 SMC-Seats % – –

456 PPD RDP NDRP Hangyore DP DLP DP (2) UPP NPRP Independents Total

MONGOLIA

54 46 27 1

24.1 20.5 12.1 0.4

16 13 8 0

21.3 17.3 10.7 0.0

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

– – – – 9

– – – – 4.0

– – – – 0

– – – – 0.0

116 75 24 1 21

48.9 31.6 10.1 0.4 8.9

33 22 7 0 0

53.2 35.5 11.3 0.0 0.0

224

100.0

75

100.0

237

100.0

62

100.0

% – – 5.3 – 49.3 42.3 0.4 0.4 2.2

PR-Seats – – 5 – 21 19 1 0 0

% – – 10.9 – 45.7 41.3 2.2 0.0 0.0

100.0

46

100.0

Year

1996 SMC-Seats NKP 121 NCNP 66 ULD 41 DP (2) 9 GNP – MDP – DPP (2) – KNP (3) – Independ- 16 ents Total 253

% 47.8 26.1 16.2 3.6 – – – – 6.3

PR-Seats 18 13 9 6 – – – – 0

% 39.1 28.3 19.6 13.0 – – – – 0.0

2000 SMC-Seats – – 12 – 112 96 1 1 5

100.0

46

100.0

227

457

SOUTH KOREA

2.8.1 b) National Assembly: Regional Distribution of Seats (1948–2000) 1948 Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Nation-wide 1950 Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Nation-wide 1954 Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo

NARRKI 1 7 2

KDP 4 2 1

TYP 2 3 1

Others 1 1 0

Indep. 2 16 8

Total 10 29 12

10

0

1

0

8

19

6 5

4 10

1 1

3 4

8 9

22 29

11

5

2

4

11

33

6

3

0

5

17

31

6 1 55

0 0 29

1 0 12

0 1 19

5 1 85

12 3 200

KNP (1) 2 6 3

DNP (1) 2 3 2

NA 1 0 0

Others 4 2 0

Indep. 7 19 7

Total 16 30 12

3

1

3

1

11

19

1 2

3 9

1 3

2 4

15 12

22 30

3

2

1

6

22

34

0

2

2

2

26

32

4 0 24

0 0 24

2 1 14

1 0 22

5 2 129

12 3 210

LP 5 16 8

DNP (2) 3 1 1

Others 2 0 0

Indep. 6 6 3

Total 16 23 12

17

0

0

2

19

10 15

2 3

0 0

10 12

22 30

458 Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Nation-wide

17

3

1

13

34

17

2

2

11

32

8 1 114

0 0 15

1 0 6

3 2 68

12 3 203

1958 Region Seoul Kyonggido Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Kangwondo Chejudo Nation-wide

LP 1 14 8

DP (1) 14 8 4

Others 0 0 0

Indep. 1 3 1

Total 16 25 13

15

6

0

1

22

10 18 24

11 10 8

0 1 0

3 3 6

24 32 38

20

15

0

5

40

15 1 126

2 1 79

0 0 1

3 1 27

20 3 233

DP (1) 15 14 9

SMP 0 0 0

Others 0 0 1

Independ. 1 11 3

Total 16 25 13

18

0

0

4

22

18 29 28

1 0 1

0 0 1

5 2 9

24 31 39

31

1

1

7

40

12 1 175

1 0 4

1 1a 5

6 1 49

20 3 233

DRP 2 6 7

CRP (1) 7 1 5

DP (1) 4 0 1

Others 1 0 0

Totala 14 7 13


MONGOLIA

KSP

1963 Region Seoul Pusanb Kyonggido

459

SOUTH KOREA

Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-widea a b

7 6

0 1

1 0

1 1

9 8

8

3

0

2

13

7 12 19

4 3 1

0 1 0

0 3 0

11 19 20

12

2

1

0

15

2 88

0 27

0 8

0 8

2 131

Without the seats allocated to the additional national list. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo.

1967 Region Seoul Pusanb Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-widea a b

NDP (1) 13 5 3 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 28

Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Totala 14 7 13 9 8 13 11 18 20 15 2 131

Others 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

Totala 19 8 16 9 8 15 12 22 24 18 2 153

Without the seats allocated to the additional national list. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo


DRP 1 2 10 8 8 12 11 16 18 14 2 102 DRP 1 2 11 8 6 11 6 15 15 9 2 86

NDP (1) 18 6 4 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 0 65

Without the seats allocated to the additional national list.

460 b

MONGOLIA

City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo.

1973 Region Seoul Pusanb Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide a b

b

NDP (1) 8 4 6 3 2

DUP 0 0 0 0 0

Independ. 1 0 1 2 1

Total 16 8 16 10 8

6

6

0

2

14

4 10 12

4 6 5

0 2 0

4 2 5

12 20 22

10

8

0

0

18

1 73

0 52

0 2

1 19

2 148a

Only number of elected seats. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo.


DRP 7 4 9 5 5

NDP (1) 11 5 7 3 4

DRP 9 4 8 5 3

DUP 1 0 0 0 1

Independ. 1 1 1 2 0

Total 22 10 26 10 8

5

7

0

2

14

4 7 8

6 8 9

0 1 0

2 4 5

12 20 22

7

8

0

3

18

0 61

1 68

– 3

1 22

2 154a

Only number of elected seats. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo.

1981 Region Seoul Pusanb Kyonggido Kangwondo

DJP 14 6 12 6

DKP 11 5 10 4

KNP (2) 1 0 1 2

Others 1 1 1 0

Indep. 1 0 0 0

Totala 28 12 24 12

461

SOUTH KOREA

Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide a b

b c d

1

3

0

0

8

8

5

2

0

1

16

7 10

6 9

0 1

0 2

1 0

14 22

13

5

5

0

3

26

10

1

3

3

3

20

0 90

0 57

– 18

0 4

2 11

2 184

Without the seats distributed on the additional national list. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo

1985 Region Seoul Pusanb Taeguc Inchond Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide a

4

DJP 13 3 2 2 10 6 4

NKDP 14 6 2 2 4 0 2

DKP 1 2 1 0 3 1 1

Others 0 1 1 0 3 4 1

Indep. 0 0 0 – 0 1 –

Totala 28 12 6 4 20 12 8

8

4

4

0

0

16

7 11

2 5

1 5

4 1

– 0

14 22

10

4

3

1

2

20

10

5

4

1

0

20

1 87

0 50

0 26

0 17

1 4

2 184

Others & Indep. 2 0 0 0

Totala

Without the seats allocated to the additional national list. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo. City of Taegu was formerly part of Kyongsang Pukto. City of Inchon was formerly part of Kyonggido.

1988 Region

DJP

RDP

PPD

NDRP

Seoul Pusanb Taeguc Inchond

10 1 8 6

10 14 0 1

17 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

42 15 8 7

462 Kwangjue Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide a b c d e

b c d e f

0 16 8 7

0 4 3 0

5 1 0 0

0 6 1 2

0 1 2 0

5 28 14 9

2

2

0

13

1

18

0 0

0 0

14 17

0 0

0 1

14 18

17

2

0

2

0

21

12

9

0

0

1

22

0 87

1 46

0 54

0 27

2 10

3 224

Without the seats allocated to the additional national list. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo. City of Taegu was formerly part of Kyongsang Pukto. City of Inchon was formerly part of Kyonggido. City of Kwangju was formerly part of Cholla Namdo. 1992 Region Seoul Pusanb Taeguc Inchond Kwangjue Taejonf Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide

a

MONGOLIA

DLP 16 15 8 5 0 1 18 8 6

DP (2) 25 0 0 1 6 2 8 0 1

UPP 2 0 2 0 0 0 5 4 2

Others 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indep. 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 0

Totala 44 16 11 7 6 5 31 14 9

7

1

4

0

2

14

2 0 14

12 19 0

0 0 2

0 0 0

0 0 5

14 19 21

16

0

3

0

4

23

0 116

0 75

– 24

0 1

3 21

3 237

Without the seats allocated to the additional national list. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo. City of Taegu was formerly part of Kyongsang Pukto. City of Inchon was formerly part of Kyonggido. City of Kwangju was formerly part of Cholla Namdo. City of Taejon was formerly part of Chungchong Namdo. 1996 Region

NKP

NCNP

ULD

DP (2)

Others

Indep.

Total

463

SOUTH KOREA

Seoul Pusanb Taeguc Inchond Kwangjue Taejonf Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide a b c d e f

18 0 0 2 6 0 10 0 0

0 0 8 0 0 7 5 2 5

1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0

0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1

47 21 13 11 6 7 38 13 8

1

0

12

0

0

0

13

1 0 11

13 17 0

0 0 2

0 0 1

0 0 0

0 0 5

14 17 18

17

0

0

2

0

4

23

3 121

0 66

0 41

0 9

0 0

0 16

3 237a

Without the seats allocated to the additional national list. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo. City of Taegu was formerly part of Kyongsang Pukto. City of Inchon was formerly part of Kyonggido. City of Kwangju was formerly part of Cholla Namdo. City of Taejon was formerly part of Chungchong Namdo. 2000 Region Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangju Taejon Ulsan Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide

a

27 21 2 9 0 0 18 9 2

GNP 17 17 11 5 0 1 4 18 3 3

MDP 28 0 0 6 5 2 0 22 5 2

ULD 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2

DPP (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indep. 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Total 45 17 11 11 6 6 5 41 9 7

0

4

6

0

1

0

11

0 0 16

9 11 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 2 0

10 13 16

16

0

0

0

0

0

16

1 112

2 96

0 12

0 1

0 1

0 6

3 227a

Without the seats allocated to the additional national list.

464

MONGOLIA

2.8.2 House of Councilors 1960 Year DP (1) LP KSP SMP Others Independents a

1960a Seats 58 31 4 1 1 1 20

% 100 53.4 6.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 34.6

Because of irregularities the elections were repeated in 13 constituencies.

2.9 Presidential Elections 1948–1997 In 1948 President was elected by Constitutional Assembly.

a

1952 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Syngman Rhee (LP) Cho Pong-am (Independent) Lee Shi-yong (DNP (1)) Shin Hung-u (Independent)

Total number 8,259,428 7,275,883 255,199 7,020,684 5,238,769 797,504 764,715 219,696

% – 88.1 3.5 96.5 74.6 11.4 10.9 3.1

1956 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Syngman Rhee (LP) Cho Pong-am (PrP)

Total number 9,606,870 9,067,063 1,856,818 7,210,245 5,046,437 2,163,808

% – 94.4 20.5 79.5 70.0 30.0

1960 (15/03)a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Syngman Rhee (LP)

Total number 11,196,490 10,862,272 1,228,896 9,633,376 9,633,376

% – 97.0 11.3 88.7 100.0

Election was declared null and void.

465

SOUTH KOREA

In 1960 (12/08) the President was elected jointly by the House of Representatives and the House of Councilors. 1963 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Park Chung-hee (DRP) Yun-Po-sun (CRP (1)) Oh Chae-yong (Independent) Pyon Yong-tae (RCP) Chang I-sok (NdeP)

Total number 12,985,051 11,036,175 954,977 10,081,198 4,702,640 4,546,614 408,664 224,443 198,837

% – 85.0 8.7 91.3 46.6 45.1 4.1 2.2 2.0

1967 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Park Chung-hee (DRP) Yun Po-son (NDP (1)) Oh Chae-yong (UKP) Kim Chun-yon (PP (1)) Chon Chin-han (KIP) Lee Se-chin (JP)

Total number 13,935,093 11,645,215 586,494 11,058,721 5,688,666 4,526,541 264,533 248,369 232,179 98,433

% – 83.6 5.0 95.0 51.4 40.9 2.4 2.2 2.1 0.9

1971 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Park Chung-hee (DRP) Kim Dae-jung (NDP (1)) Chin Pok-ki (PP (1)) Pak Ki-chul (DNP (2)) Lee Chong-yun (LDP)

Total number 15,552,236 12,417,824 494,606 11,923,218 6,342,828 5,395,900 122,914 43,753 17,823

% – 79.8 4.0 96.0 53.2 45.3 1.0 0.4 0.1

466

MONGOLIA

In 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981 the President was elected indirectly by an electoral college. 1987 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Roh Tae-woo (DJP) Kim Young-sam (RDP) Kim Dae-jung (PPD) Kim Jong-pil (NDRP) Shin Jeong-yil (KUP)

Total number 25,873,624 23,066,419 463,008 22,603,411 8,282,738 6,337,581 6,113,375 1,823,067 46,650

% – 89.2 2.0 98.0 35.9 27.5 26.5 7.9 0.2

1992 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Kim Young-sam (DLP) Kim Dae-jung (DP (2)) Chung Ju-yung (UPP) Park Chan-jong (NPRP) Paek Ki-wan (Independent) Kim Ok-sun (Independent) Lee Pyong-ho (TJP)

Total number 29,422,658 24,095,170 319,761 23,775,409 9,977,332 8,041,284 3,880,067 1,516,047 238,648 86,292 35,739

% – 81.9 1.3 98.7 42.0 33.8 16.3 6.4 1.0 0.4 0.2

1997 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Kim Dae-jung (NCNP) Lee Hoi-chang (GNP) Rhee In-jae (NPP (2)) Kwon Young-kil (PV 21) Shin Jeong-yil (Independent) Kim Han-shik (Independent) Huh Kyung-young (Independent)

Total number 32,290,416 26,042,633 400,195 25,642,438 10,326,275 9,935,718 4,925,591 306,026 61,056 48,717 39,055

% – 80.7 1.5 98.5 40.3 38.7 19.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

467

SOUTH KOREA

2.9 a) Presidential Elections: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers)

a

1952 Region Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total

Reg. voters 282,595 912,299 510,014 913,427 854,424 1,278,185 1,416,726 1,535,810 439,519 116,439 8,259,428

Votes cast 258,989 775,808 457,815 797,610 743,499 1,164,923 1,269,863 1,301,770 406,785 98,821 7,275,883

Invalid votes 9,252 29,072 11,860 25,258 33,297 45,529 40,713 49,463 10,003 3,752 255,199

Valid votes 249,737 746,736 445,955 772,352 710,202 1,119,394 1,229,150 1,252,307 396,782 95,069 7,020,684

1952 (continued) Region Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total

Rhee S.

Cho P.

Lee S.

Shin H.

205,300 657,174 386,665 636,061 468,220 823,587 921,988 693,523 366,583 79,668 5,238,769

25,631 44,967 25,875 56,590 109,490 99,885 129,791 288,654 10,516 6,105 797,504

14,883 34,704 23,006 58,754 96,271 165,245 140,271 211,544 13,378 6,659 764,715

3,923 12,891 10,409 20,947 36,221 30,677 37,100 58,586 6,305 2,637 219,696

1956 Region Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total

Reg. voters 703,799 1,119,859 521,061 961,871

Votes cast 608,741 1,058,971 499,744 900,571

Invalid votes 284,359 271,064 89,517 212,067

Valid votes 324,382 787,907 410,227 688,504

Cho P. 119,129 180,150 57,026 157,973

Rhee S. 205,253 607,757 353,201 530,531

910,566

875,210

169,468

705,742

281,068

424,764

1,330,477 1,492,013

1,286,178 1,398,722

257,768 275,275

1,028,410 1,123,447

286,787 501,917

741,623 621,530

1,646,398

1,538,337

205,338

1,332,999

502,507

830,492

804,325

789,673

79,710

709,963

65,270

644,693

116,501 9,606,870

110,916 9,067,063

12,252 1,856,818

98,664 7,210,245

11,981 2,163,808

86,683 5,046,437

468

MONGOLIA

1963 Region Seoul Pusana Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total 1963 (continued) Region Seoul Pusana Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total

Reg. voters 1,676,262 665,545 1,492,207 938,143 657,380 1,278,294 1,076,248 1,687,302 1,940,975 1,427,810 144,849 12,985,051

Votes cast 1,298,460 532,571 1,281,166 834,453 571,401 1,112,494 926,028 1,457,183 1,653,766 1,240,412 128,241 11,036,175

Invalid votes 66,882 28,970 117,319 84,630 61,634 119,391 99,555 119,041 149,436 96,380 11,738 954,977

Valid votes 1,231,578 503,601 1,163,847 749,823 509,767 993,102 826,473 1,338,142 1,504,330 1,144,032 116,503 10,081,198

Park C.

Yun P.

Oh C.

Pyong Y.

Chang I.

371,627 242,779 384,764 296,711 202,789

802,052 239,083 661,984 368,092 249,397

20,634 11,214 54,770 35,568 26,911

26,728 7,106 34,775 24,924 15,699

10,537 3,419 27,554 24,528 14,971

405,077

490,663

47,364

26,639

23,359

408,556 765,712 837,124

343,171 480,800 543,392

37,906 51,714 58,079

18,617 17,312 31,113

18,223 22,604 34,622

706,079

341,971

60,645

19,323

16,014

81,422 4,702,640

26,009 4,546,614

3,859 408,664

2,207 224,443

3,006 198,837

1967 Region Seoul Pusana Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo

Reg. voters 2,043,573 692,039 1,601,160 992,128 690,873 1,326,846 1,126,393 1,808,952 2,031,093 1,463,119 158,917

Votes cast 1,363,388 545,680 1,355,758 885,154 611,885 1,143,212 987,042 1,554,478 1,784,273 1,278,546 135,799

Invalid votes 45,693 19,096 73,152 47,080 32,543 64,294 60,654 90,109 90,911 56,550 6,412

Valid votes 1,317,695 526,584 1,282,606 838,074 579,342 1,078,918 926,388 1,464,369 1,693,362 1,221,996 129,387

469

SOUTH KOREA

Total

13,935,093

1967 (continued) Region Seoul Pusanb Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total a b

11,645,215

Park C.a 595,513 338,315 525,676 429,589 269,830 489,516 392,037 652,847 1,083,939 838,426 73,158 5,688,666

586,494 Yun P. 675,716 164,077 674,964 349,807 252,469 505,076 451,611 682,622 447,082 281,545 41,572 4,526,541

11,058,721 Others 46,466 24,372 81,966 58,678 57,043 84,326 82,740 128,900 162,341 102,025 14,657 843,514

The official regional results for Park are inconsistent. City of Pusan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo.

1971 Region Seoul Pusan Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total

Reg. voters 2,900,024 944,872 1,796,979 1,012,794 677,584 1,370,493 1,139,066 1,872,518 2,147,658 1,513,619 176,629 15,552,236

1971 (continued) Region Seoul Pusan Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total

Park C. 805,772 385,999 687,985 502,722 312,744 556,632 308,850 479,737 1,333,051 891,119 78,217 6,342,828

Votes cast 2,066,406 708,529 1,457,087 875,340 574,579 1,089,283 911,214 1,496,413 1,833,063 1,258,900 147,010 12,417,824

Invalid votes 49,498 15,003 49,208 35,361 28,924 48,655 40,870 103,232 70,246 44,179 9,430 494,606 Kim D. 1,198,018 302,452 696,582 325,556 222,106 461,978 535,519 874,974 411,116 310,595 57,004 5,395,900

Valid votes 2,016,908 693,526 1,407,879 839,979 545,655 1,040,628 870,344 1,393,181 1,762,817 1,214,721 137,580 11,923,218 Others 13,118 5,075 23,312 11,701 10,805 22,018 25,975 38,470 18,650 13,007 2,359 184,490

470

MONGOLIA

1987 Region Seoul Pusan Tageua Inchonb Kwangjuc Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total 1987 (continued) Region Seoul Pusan Tageua Inchonb Kwangjuc Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total a b c

Reg. voters 6,486,710 2,290,038 1,275,293 955,271 520,488 3,352,554 1,040,632 854,232 1,788,014 1,298,522 1,659,767 1,878,025 2,193,206 280,872 25,873,624

Votes cast 5,717,805 2,024,324 1,146,652 841,983 481,126 2,962,014 943,379 777,739 1,578,557 1,172,867 1,498,755 1,709244 1,963,376 248,598 23,066,419

Invalid votes 99,076 29,007 14,574 13,123 4,973 56,691 22,165 20,282 43,651 35,892 38,885 40,225 37,964 6,500 463,008

Valid votes 5,618,729 1,995,317 1,132,078 828,860 476,153 2,905,323 921,214 757,457 1,534,906 1,136,975 1,459,870 1,669,019 1,925,412 242,098 22,603,411

Roh T.

Kim Y.

Kim D.

Kim J.

Shin J.

1,682,824 640,622 800,363 326,186 22,943 1,204,235 546,569 355,222

1,637,347 1,117,011 274,880 248,604 2,471 800,274 240,585 213,851

1,833,010 182,409 29,831 176,611 449,554 647,934 81,478 83,132

460,988 51,663 23,230 76,333 1,111 247,259 49,954 102,456

4,560 3,612 3,774 1,126 74 5,621 2,628 2,796

402,491

246,527

190,772

691,214

3,902

160,760 119,229 1,108,035

17,130 16,826 470,189

948,955 1,317,990 39,756

8,629 4,831 43,227

1,501 994 7,812

792,757

987,042

86,804

51,242

7,567

120,502 8,282,738

64,844 6,337,581

45,139 6,113,375

10,930 1,823,067

683 46,650

City of Taegu was formerly part of Kyongsang Pukto. City of Inchon was formerly part of Kyonggido. City of Kwangju was formerly part of Cholla Namdo.

1992 Region Seoul Pusan Tageu

Reg. voters 7,394,554 2,565,831 1,494,057

Votes cast 6,021,311 2,135,546 1,172,636

Invalid votes 69,534 20,157 14,443

Valid votes 5,951,777 2,115,389 1,158,193

471

SOUTH KOREA

Inchon Kwangju Taejona Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total 1992 (continued) Region Seoul Pusan Tageu Inchon Kwangju Taejona Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total a

1,346,964 769,300 725,583 4,354,271 1,025,018 922,701 1,232,586 1,321,778 1,500,662 1,934,544 2,504,339 330,470 29,422,658

1,081,011 685,797 582,613 3,502,774 834,891 750,483 973,070 1,126,597 1,285,110 1,559,478 2,118,601 265,252 24,095,170

14,723 5,197 8,210 51,379 14,636 14,312 20,616 14,247 15,087 27,841 25,011 4,368 319,761

1,066,288 680,600 574,403 3,451,395 820,255 736,171 952,454 1,112,350 1,270,023 1,531,637 2,093,590 260,884 23,775,409

Kim Y.

Kim D.

Chung J.

Park C.

Others

2,167,298 1,551,473 690,245 397,361 14,504 202,137 1,254,025 340,528 281,678

2,246,636 265,055 90,641 338,538 652,337 165,067 1,103,498 127,265 191,743

1,070,629 133,907 224,642 228,505 8,085 133,646 798,356 279,610 175,767

381,535 139,004 136,037 84,211 2,827 64,526 239,140 56,199 68,900

85,679 25,950 16,628 17,673 2,847 9,027 56,376 16,653 18,083

351,789

271,921

240,400

64,117

24,227

63,175 53,360 991,424

991,483 1,170,398 147,440

35,923 26,686 240,646

9,320 7,210 124,858

12,449 12,369 27,269

1,514,043

193,373

241,135

115,086

29,953

104,292 9,977,332

85,889 8,041,284

42,130 3,880,067

23,077 1,516,047

5,496 360,679

City of Taejon was formerly part of Chungchong Namdo.

472 1997 Region Seoul Pusan Tageu Inchon Kwangju Tajeon Ulsana Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total

MONGOLIA

Reg. voters 7,358,547 2,692,311 1,707,338 1,639,655 870,554 881,474 654,125 5,707,087 1,077,853 1,015,921 1,330,627 1,391,537 1,519,292 1,988,379 2,094,036 361,680 32,290,416

Votes cast 5,926,743 2,124,010 1,347,018 1,311,512 783,025 692,821 530,459 4,600,005 846,596 805,496 1,023,990 1,190,190 1,325,731 1,574,454 1,681,584 278,999 26,042,633

Invalid votes 71,970 29,604 17,930 18,901 7,826 9,928 6,696 64,481 15,653 15,680 22,792 21,001 23,895 34,846 33,570 5,422 400,195

Valid votes 5,854,773 2,094,406 1,329,088 1,292,611 775,199 682,893 523,763 4,535,524 830,943 789,816 1,001,198 1,169,189 1,301,836 1,539,608 1,648,014 273,577 25,642,438

473

SOUTH KOREA

1997 (continued) Region Seoul Pusan Tageu Inchon Kwangju Tajeon Ulsana Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Total a

Kim D.

Lee H.

Rhee I.

Others

2,627,308 320,178 166,576 497,839 754,159 307,493 80,751 1,781,577 197,438 295,666 483,093 1,078,957 1,231,726 210,403 182,102 111,009 10,326,275

2,394,309 1,117,069 965,607 470,560 13,294 199,266 268,998 1,612,108 358,921 243,210 235,457 53,114 41,534 953,360 908,808 100,103 9,935,718

747,856 623,756 173,649 297,739 5,181 164,374 139,824 1,071,704 257,140 232,254 261,802 25,037 18,305 335,087 515,869 56,014 4,925,591

85,300 33,403 23,256 26,473 2,565 11,760 34,190 70,135 17,444 18,686 20,846 12,081 10,271 40,758 41,235 6,451 454,854

City of Ulsan was formerly part of Kyongsang Namdo.

474

MONGOLIA

2.9 b) Presidential Elections: Regional Level (% Of Valid Votes) 1952 Region Seoul Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide a

Rhee S. 82.2 88.0 82.4 65.9

Cho P. 10.3 6.0 7.3 15.4

Lee S. 6.0 4.6 7.6 13.6

Shin H. 1.6 1.7 2.7 5.1

Totala 3.6 10.6 11.0 10.1

73.6

8.9

14.8

2.7

15.9

75.0 55.4 92.4

10.6 23.0 2.7

11.4 16.9 3.4

3.0 4.7 1.6

17.5 17.8 5.7

86.7

5.8

5.2

2.3

6.4

83.8 74.6

6.4 11.4

7.0 10.9

2.8 3.1

1.4 100.0



Rhee S. 63.3 77.1 77.1 60.2 72.1 55.3 62.3 90.8 86.1 87.9 70.0

Cho P. 36.7 22.9 22.9 39.8 27.9 44.7 37.7 9.2 13.9 12.1 30.0

Totala 4.5 10.9 9.5 9.8 14.3 15.6 18.5 9.8 5.7 1.4 100.0


1963 Region Seoul Pusan Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo

Park C. 30.2 48.2 33.1 39.6 39.8 40.8 49.4 57.2 55.6 61.7 69.9

Yun P. 65.1 47.5 56.9 49.1 48.9 49.4 41.5 35.9 36.1 29.9 22.3

Others 4.7 4.3 10.0 11.3 11.3 9.8 9.1 6.9 8.3 8.4 7.8

Totala 12.2 5.0 11.5 7.4 5.1 9.9 8.2 13.3 14.9 11.3 1.2

475

SOUTH KOREA

Nation-wide a

46.6

100.0

Park C. 45.2 64.2 41.0 51.3 46.6 45.4 42.3 44.6 64.0 68.6 56.5 51.4

Yun P. 51.3 31.2 52.6 41.7 43.6 46.8 48.7 46.6 26.4 23.0 32.1 40.9

Others 3.5 4.6 6.4 7.0 9.8 7.8 9.0 8.8 9.6 8.4 11.4 7.7

Totala 11.9 4.8 11.6 7.6 5.2 9.8 8.4 13.2 15.3 11.1 1.2 100.0

Kim D. 59.4 43.6 49.5 38.8 40.7 44.4 61.5 62.8 23.3 25.6 41.4 45.3

Others 0.6 0.7 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.1 3.0 2.8 1.1 1.0 1.7 1.5

Totala 16.9 5.8 11.8 7.0 4.6 8.7 7.3 11.7 14.8 10.2 1.2 100.0



8.3



45.1

Park C. 40.0 55.7 48.9 59.8 57.3 53.5 35.5 34.4 75.6 73.4 56.9 53.2

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. 1987 Region Seoul Pusan Tageu Inchon Kwangju Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo

Roh T. 30.0 32.1 70.7 39.4 4.8 41.4 59.3 46.9 26.2

Kim Y. 29.1 56.0 24.3 30.0 0.5 27.5 26.1 28.2 16.1

Kim D. 32.6 9.1 2.6 21.3 94.4 22.3 8.8 11.0 12.4

Kim J. 8.2 2.6 2.1 9.2 0.2 8.5 5.4 13.5 45.0

Totala 24.9 8.8 5.0 3.7 2.1 12.9 4.1 3.4 6.8

14.1 8.2 66.4 41.2

1.5 1.2 28.2 51.3

83.5 90.3 2.4 4.5

0.8 0.3 2.6 2.7

5.0 6.5 7.4 8.5

476

MONGOLIA

Chejudo Nation-wide a

18.6 27.0

4.5 8.1

1.1 100.0

Kim Y. 36.4 73.3 59.6 37.3 2.1 35.2 36.3 41.5 38.3

Kim D. 37.7 12.5 7.8 31.7 95.8 28.7 32.0 15.5 26.0

Chung J. 18.0 6.3 19.4 21.4 1.2 23.3 23.1 34.1 23.9

Park C. 6.4 6.6 11.7 7.9 0.4 11.2 6.9 6.9 9.4

Others 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 0.5 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.4

Totala 25.0 8.9 4.9 4.5 2.9 2.4 14.5 3.5 3.1

36.9

28.5

25.2

6.7

2.7

4.0

5.7 4.2 64.7

89.1 92.2 9.6

3.2 2.1 15.7

0.8 0.6 8.2

1.2 0.9 1.8

4.7 5.3 6.4

72.3

9.2

11.5

5.5

1.5

8.8

40.0 42.0

32.9 33.8

16.1 16.3

8.8 6.4

2.2 1.5

1.1 100.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. 1997 Region Seoul Pusan Tageu Inchon Kwangju Tajeon Ulsan Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide

a

26.8 28.0

Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. Percentages for Shin Jeong yil (varying between 0.0 and 0.5%) have not been documented. 1992 Region Seoul Pusan Taegu Inchon Kwangju Taejon Kyonggido Kangwondo Chungchong Pukto Chungchong Namdo Cholla Pukto Cholla Namdo Kyongsang Pukto Kyongsang Namdo Chejudo Nation-wide

a

49.8 36.7

Kim D. 44.9 15.3 12.5 38.5 97.3 45.0 15.4 39.3 23.8 37.4 48.3

Lee H. 40.9 53.3 72.7 36.4 1.7 29.2 51.4 35.5 43.2 30.8 23.5

Rhee I. 12.8 29.8 13.1 23.0 0.7 24.1 26.7 23.6 30.9 29.4 26.1

Others 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.7 6.5 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.1

Totala 22.8 8.2 5.2 5.0 3.0 2.7 2.0 17.7 3.2 3.1 3.9

92.3 94.6 13.7 11.0 40.6 40.3

4.5 3.2 61.9 55.1 36.6 38.7

2.1 1.4 21.8 31.3 20.5 19.2

1.1 0.8 2.6 2.6 2.3 1.8

4.6 5.1 6.0 6.4 1.1 100.0


SOUTH KOREA

477

2.10 List of Power Holders 1948–2001 Head of State Syngman Rhee Ho Chong Yun Po-son

Years

Remarks

1948–1960

President since 12/08/1948; establishment of a semi-democratic regime after 1950; confirmed President in 1952 and 1956 after semi-competitive elections; resigned after large-scale protests on 26/04/1960. De facto President after Syngman Rhee's resignation, in office until 16/ 06/1960. President elected by Parliament on 12/08/1960; forced to resign by the SNCR on 24/03/1962. President former major-general of the AFK, leader of the coup d'état of 16/ 05/1961; head of the military junta SNCR until he became de facto President on 24/03/1962; confirmed President in the elections of 1963, 1967, and 1971; established a bureaucratic-military authoritarian regime in 1972; confirmed President by the NCU in non-competitive elections in 1972 and 1978; assassinated on 26/10/1979. De facto President after Park's assassination; confirmed President by the NCU in non-competitive elections; forced to resign by the SCNSM on 16/ 08/1980. De facto President; head of the SCNSM. President former general of the AFK; leader of the coup d'état of 12/12/ 1979; head of the military junta SCNSM; took over the position of commander of martial law from Gen. Sung Hwachung; elected President by the NCU unopposed on 27/08/1980; 1981 confirmed President in non-competitive elections. President former general of the AFK; conducted the coup d'état of 1979 together with Chun; designated successor of Chun; after the redemocratization he became President via the competitive elections of 16/ 12/1987, assumed office on 25/02/1988. President former leader of the opposition; became President after the competitive elections of 18/12/1992, as candidate of the governing party, DLP, assumed office on 25/02/1993. President defeated in the presidential elections of 1971, 1987, 1992; won finally in the competitive elections of 18/12/1997; he was the first opposition candidate to win the presidential elections. President since his inauguration on 25/02/1998.

1960 1960–1962

Park Chung-hee 1962–1979

Choi Kyu-hah

1979–1980

Park Chung-hun 1980 Chun Doo-hwan 1980–1988

Roh Tae-woo

1988–1993

Kim Young-sam 1993–1998 Kim Dae-jung

1998–

Years Head of Governmenta Chang Myon 1960–1961

a

Remarks Prime Minister with full responsibility for the administration; after elections for bicameral parliament elected by the House of Representatives on 19/08/1960; forced to resign by a coup d'état on 16/05/1961.

The offices of Head of State and Head of Government did not coincide only during the period 1960–1961.

478

MONGOLIA

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Central Election Management Committee (1987). Korean Presidential Election Act. Seoul. —— (1989ff.). History of National Assembly Elections, Volume I–V. Seoul (in Korean).

SOUTH KOREA

479

—— (1992). Korean National Assembly Members Election Act. Seoul. Korea Overseas Information Service (1987). Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Seoul. National Election Commission (1996). History of Presidential Elections, 1st–15th. Seoul (in Korean). Korea Legislation Research Institute (1998a). ‘Election Commission Act’, in Statues of the Republic of Korea, Volume 1. Seoul. —— (1998b). ‘Election for Public Office and Election Malpractice Prevention Act’, in Statues of the Republic of Korea, Volume 1. Seoul. National Statistical Office (1997). Korea Statistical Yearbook 1997. Seoul.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Ahn, B. M. (et al.) (1988). Elections in Korea. Seoul: Seoul Computer Press. Cho, K. (1996). ‘Regional Voting and Democratization’. Korean Unification and International Relations, 12: 231–258. Choi, S.-Y. (ed.) (1997). Democracy in Korea: Its Ideals and Realities. Seoul: Seoul National University Press. Croissant, A. (1998a). ‘Machtwechsel im Zeichen der Krise: Die 15. Präsidentschaftswahl und die Konsolidierung der Demokratie in Südkorea’. Asien, 68 (July): 36–57. —— (1998b). Politischer Systemwechsel in Südkorea (1985–1997). Hamburg: Institut für Asienkunde. Han, K. (1974). ‘Development of Parties and Politics in Korea (I)’. Korea Journal (September): 37–50. Han, S. J. (1974). The Failure of Democracy in South Korea. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press. Kim, K. (1967). ‘A Statistical Analysis of Elections in Korea’. Koreana Quarterly, 9/2: 60–84. Lee, M. W. (1990). The Odyssey of Korean Democracy. New York and Westport, Conn.: Praeger Press. Macdonald, D. S. (1978). Korea and the Ballot: The International Dimension in Korean Political Development As Seen in Elections. Ph.D. thesis, Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan. Mo, J., and Moon, C. (1998). ‘Democracy and the Origins of the Korean Economic Crisis’. CIS Research Working Paper Series 98-1, Seoul. —— (eds.) (1999). Democracy and the Korean Economy. Stanford, Cal.: Hoover Institution Press. Moon, C., and Mo, J. (eds.) (1999). Democratization and Globalization in Korea: Assessments and Prospects. Seoul: Yonsei University Press. Oh, J. K. (1999). Korean Politics. The Quest for Democratization and Economic Development. Ithaca, N.Y./London: Cornell University Press.

480

MONGOLIA

Pae, S. M. (1986). Testing Democratic Theories in Korea. Lanham, N.Y./London: University Press of America. Paik, R. (1959). ‘Presidential Elections in Korea’. Koreana Quarterly, 1/1: 7–16. Pak, C. Y. (1977). ‘The Politics of Constitutional Reforms in Korea’. Journal of East and West Studies, 6/1: 35–47. —— (1980). Political Opposition in Korea, 1945–1960. Seoul: Seoul National University Press. Rhee, J. P. (1984). The Breakdown of Authority Structure in Korea in 1960: A Systems Approach. Seoul: Seoul National University Press. Scharnweber, D. (1997). Die politische Opposition in Südkorea im Spannungsfeld von tradierter politischer Kultur und sozioökonomischer Entwicklung. Landau: Knecht Verlag. Shin, D. C. (1995). ‘Political Parties and Democratization in South Korea: The Mass Public and the Democratic Consolidation of Political Parties’. Democratization, 2/1: 20–55. United Nations Official Records (1948). Third Session, Supplement No. 9-A/575/Add. 3. Paris: United Nations. —— (1950). Fifth Session, Supplement No. 16-A/1350. New York: United Nations. —— (1952). Seventh Session, Supplement No. 14-A/2187. New York: United Nations. —— (1954). Ninth Session, Supplement No. 15-A/2711. New York: United Nations. —— (1956): Eleventh Session, Supplement No. 13-A/3172. New York: United Nations. —— (1960). Fifteenth Session, Supplement No. 13-A/4466 and Add. 1. New York: United Nations. —— (1963): Eighteenth Session, Supplement No. 12 A-A/5512/Add. 1. New York: United Nations. —— (1970). Twenty Fifth Session, Supplement No. 26-A/8026. New York: United Nations. Yang, S. C. (1994). The North and South Korean Political Systems. A Comparative Approach. Boulder, Col./Seoul: Westview Press/Seoul Press. Yonhap News Agency (1984 ff.). Korea Annual. Seoul: Yonhap News Agency.

Mongolia by Peter M. Gluchowski and Florian Grotz2

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Situated in the Central Asian grassland between Russia and China, Mongolia became a communist country after its formal independence in 1921. For over six decades the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP) monopolized political power, being confirmed in non-competitive elections since the 1950s. Following the breakdown of the Eastern Bloc in 1990, the MPRP initiated a democratic transition which culminated in the victory of the opposition parties at the 1996 parliamentary elections. The territory of the present Mongolian state (Outer Mongolia) had been reigned by the Manchu-Chinese emperors since the late 17th century. After the 1911 Chinese revolution the Mongolian nobility took the opportunity to declare its autonomy and established an elitist-theocratic regime. The spiritual leader of the Lamaist Church, Javzandamba Hutagt, became Head of State (Bogd Khaan). In 1912 the office of Prime Minister was introduced, and two years later a bicameral assembly comprised of secular nobles, ecclesiastical dignitaries, and army officers was formed. This assembly was however no truly parliamentary organ—it had a merely deliberative function and could be voluntarily dissolved by the Bogd Khaan. As Mongolian autonomy was not immediately accepted by its neighbor states, the country remained under Chinese predominance until the Russian Revolution and the subsequent civil war. In 1921, after a period of turmoil, the Mongolian People's Party (MPP)—affiliated to the Comintern—gained control of the country and formed a provisional government which included the traditional political élite. On 1 September 1921 Mongolia became a constitutional monarchy with the Bogd

2

The authors would like to thank Tsevelmaa Batmunkh, Fred Forkert, and the General Election Committee of Mongolia for their most valuable help in gathering the reliable information.

482

TAIWAN

Khaan as re-appointed Head of State, and was officially recognized by the Soviet Union. When the Bogd Khaan died in 1924 the Communists thwarted the appointment of a successor. On 13 June 1924 the MPP, now under the name Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP), assumed power and proclaimed the Mongolian People's Republic. The First Constitution came into force on 26 November 1924. It formally established a parliamentary system and provided for an indirectly elected Great Assembly (Ih Hural), which in turn was to elect a permanent Little Assembly (Baga Hural) with the official Head of State at its head. Yet political power was not actually vested in the governmental institutions; as in other communist systems it was monopolized by the Central Committee of the state party. Since the late 1920s the MPRP carried out purges and forced collectivizations, which broke the supremacy of the aristocratic élite and extinguished the Lamaist culture. Simultaneously, Mongolian domestic politics became increasingly influenced by the Soviet Union, especially after Horloogiyn Choybalsan's victory in the intra-party power struggles of the late 1930s. Under his dictatorship the Great Assembly passed the Second Constitution on 30 June 1940. Despite being largely modeled on the Stalinist USSR Constitution, the structure of the governmental institutions remained almost unchanged. The end of the Second World War brought Mongolia's complete independence. Pressured by the Soviet Union the Chinese leadership agreed at the Yalta Conference to accept a popular decision on the question of independence. This referendum constituted the first direct participation of the Mongolian people in national politics. It was held in October 1945. Independence was approved by 100% of the voters. In 1949 direct elections to the Ih Hural were introduced and the Baga Hural was abolished. In spite of its fully independent status Mongolia's sovereignty remained strongly limited. With the deepening of the Sino-Soviet conflict in the early 1960s the USSR stationed its troops in Mongolia. Moreover, in 1963 the country was to join the socialist Council of Mutual Economic Assistance, an important development aid donor in the ensuing two decades. Domestic politics entered a kind of thaw period when Yumjaagiyn Tsedenbal succeeded Choybalsan as Head of Government after the latter's death in 1952. But like in the post-Stalinist USSR, liberalization was restricted to the cultural sphere. Parliamentary elections remained non-competitive, and yet the MPRP was regularly confirmed by formally landslide electoral victories. The new Third Constitution

MONGOLIA

483

passed by the Ih Hural on 6 July 1960 did not introduce any significant change into the polity. The first steps towards political reforms came in the late 1980s, after Mikhail Gorbachev had assumed power in the USSR and the Sino-Soviet relations had eased. The new MPRP General Secretary Jambyn Batmönh, who had replaced Tsedenbal in 1984, permitted a tentative liberalization of the political system and tried to make the socialist economy more efficient. With the fall of the communist systems in Eastern Europe and a further deterioration of the economic situation as background, the MPRP leadership was challenged by the emergence of the Mongolian Democratic Union (MDU) in December 1989. This opposition group, consisting of younger political-administrative élites, organized mass demonstrations to call for democratic changes. In March 1990, Batmönh resigned as General Secretary of the state party. Two months later the paragraph on the MPRP's leading role in society was deleted from the Constitution, and opposition parties were legally admitted. Further constitutional amendments provided for the presidential and vicepresidential offices, and restored the Baga Hural as second—permanently working—parliamentary chamber. July 1990 was the date of the first competitive elections in Mongolia's history. Since the five contesting opposition parties lacked both well-organized structures and a significant base among the rural constituencies, the MPRP won a clear majority in both chambers. Nevertheless, it built a coalition government with the other parliamentary parties. In September 1990 the new Ih Hural elected Puntsalmaagiyn Ochirbat President. On 12 February 1992 a democratic Constitution came into force. Drafted by a multiparty commission, it established a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister responsible to a unicameral Parliament (State Ih Hural of Mongolia), a directly elected President with several powerful competencies and a strong Constitutional Court (Ündsen Huuliyn Tsets). In spite of the increasing economic difficulties the MPRP maintained its dominant position for this first post-socialist period with an overwhelming majority in the 1992 parliamentary elections, greatly favored by the majority system. This time, however, the other parties rejected the MPRP's renewed invitation to join the government. Surprisingly enough, President Ochirbat proved to be an effective counterweight to the anti-reformist government of his own party by vetoing several laws and appealing against them to the Constitutional Court. In the light of these acts the conservative MPRP-faction rejected Ochirbat as candidate for the upcoming presidential elections, while the main opposition parties—the

484

TAIWAN

Mongolian National Democratic Party (MNDP) and the Mongolian Social Democratic Party (MSDP)—finally secured him as their nominee. At the 1993 polls, the widely recognized acting President gained a clear majority and thus brought about the first electoral success of the opposition. Conflicts intensified in the run-up to the 1996 parliamentary elections between government and opposition, which demanded a proportional electoral system. Although the MPRP secured the maintenance of a plurality system, it lost strength. At the polls the Democratic Union (DU), a coalition of MNDP and MSDP, emerged as the strongest party and—profiting from the effects of the plurality system—mustered a clear parliamentary majority. Thus the first democratic change of power was completed. Yet, the new government could not stabilize. Due to the hard social consequences of its neo-liberal austerity program, the 1997 presidential polls favored the MPRP-candidate, Natsagiyn Bagabandi, who defeated the incumbent Ochirbat, nominated by the DU. In April 1998 Premier Enhsayhan was recalled by the governmental parties and replaced by the leader of the MNDP, Tsahiagyn Elbegdorj. His government, however, had to resign three months later, when its involvement in a privatization scandal was unearthed. From then on the position of the DU-parties became even more critical, as President Bagabandi rejected several of the candidates they suggested. This institutional deadlock lasted up to December 1998 when Janlaviyn Narantsatsralt was elected Prime Minister. The latter was replaced in turn in July 1999 by Rinchinnyamiyn Amarjargal. The parliamentary elections of July 2000 have brought a new change of power. As the DU-parties had lost their popularity and several prominent members left the coalition before the elections, the MPRP attained 72 out of 76 seats. This renewed victory of the post-communists, however, will hardly threaten the democratization process, as reformoriented élites have become increasingly dominant within the former state party.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Since independence in 1921 elections in Mongolia have been held under four different constitutions. They were enacted in 1924, 1940, 1960, and 1992, and amended several times. With regard to the evolution of electoral provisions, there are three distinct phases:

MONGOLIA

485

In the first stage (1924–1944) the elections to national institutions were all indirect. The Order on the State Hural of 21 September 1924 permitted the popular election of local assemblies (Hurals) which in turn elected the Ih Hural. Between 1924 and 1949, this assembly was convened nine times, always for limited two-week periods (1924–1928, 1930, 1934, 1940, 1949). Over time its membership grew gradually from 90 to 515 delegates. Its tasks were deciding on constitutional issues and general policies and electing the Baga Hural, a permanent legislature which formally selected the Prime Minister and elected its five-member (since 1927 three-member) presidium. The chairman of the Baga Hural became the official Head of State. According to the 1924 Constitution passed by the First Ih Hural all citizens over 18 years living off their own labor were entitled to vote. Yet, suffrage was not secret, since candidates were chosen in open meetings by a show of hands. Nor was it universal because secular and ecclesiastical ‘feudalists' were explicitly excluded from voting rights. The 1940 Constitution even widened the range of disenfranchised citizens by issuing a detailed list of counter-revolutionary groups (Art. 71). The second phase (1944–1990) began with the Constitutional Amendment of 28 September 1944, which introduced universal and equal suffrage. On the basis of a further Amendment on 23 February 1949 direct elections to the Ih Hural by secret ballot were held regularly since 1951. When the Baga Hural was actually abolished early in 1950, the Ih Hural took over its functions and its chairman became the official Head of State. The legal term for this unicameral assembly was gradually extended from three years (1951–1969) to four (1969–1980) and finally to five years (since 1981). With regard to its members, the 1949 Constitution provided for one deputy every 2,500 inhabitants; in 1957 this ratio changed to 3,500 people and in 1960, to 4,000. Due to these modifications the number of seats, while initially dropping from 295 (1951) to 233 (1975), grew steadily during the 1960s and 1970s with the increase in population, and was finally fixed at 370 by the Constitutional Amendment of 21 November 1980. In this second period the age required to exercise active and passive voting rights remained 18 years. The Constitution of 1980 stated that every citizen was obliged to participate in the elections. In 1986 compulsory voting was abolished again. Candidates for Parliament could be nominated by the MPRP and its affiliated organizations (trade unions, youth organizations, agricultural co-operatives, etc.). Elections were held in a strictly non-competitive manner, i.e. there was only one candidate per seat to be filled. Ballots needed not be marked in order to be

486

TAIWAN

valid. De jure, electors had the possibility of removing the name of the candidate and express thereby a kind of negative vote. This provision was nevertheless actually insignificant, since nearly all electors used to cast their unmarked ballots openly. Formally, an absolute majority system in single-member constituencies was applied: to be elected candidates had to obtain more than 50% of both registered voters and the votes cast in a constituency. Otherwise, a second ballot would have to be held within two weeks, but this happened very seldom between 1951 and 1986. Vacant seats were filled through by-elections during the parliamentary term; one year before general elections no by-elections were held. The democratic transition of 1990 marked the beginning of the third phase. It brought significant and dynamic changes into the electoral rules. The new Electoral Law of 23 March 1990 kept the voting age at 18, but raised the age threshold for nominees to 23 years. This measure, initiated by the MPRP, was obviously intended to prevent the relatively young membership of the anti-communist parties from running as candidates. One further change was the installing of a second parliamentary chamber that especially met the demands of the democratic opposition for institutionalized power-sharing: whereas the Great Assembly (Ih Hural) was elected by majority rule, the restored Little Assembly (Baga Hural) applied an electoral system of pure proportional representation. The elections to the 430-member Ih Hural were held on 22 July 1990 under an absolute majority system in singlemember constituencies, with a possible run-off between the two best-placed candidates. On the ballots the names of the non-elected nominees had to be deleted—a complicated procedure which was obviously the main reason for the high number of invalid votes. The elections for the 50 Baga Hural members took place seven days later, simultaneously with the run-offs to the Ih Hural. In them, electors had two different votes on separate ballots: one for the run-off candidates of the Great Assembly and one for a party contesting the elections to the Little Assembly. The latter votes were distributed proportionally in one national constituency according to Hare-Niemeyer. Furthermore, a minimum participation rate of 80% (run-off: two-thirds) of registered voters was required for the elections to be valid. In 1992 the government structure underwent major changes again. The new Constitution established a unicameral Parliament (State Ih Hural of Mongolia) whose 76 members were directly elected for a four-year term. Nominees had to be at least 25 years. Independents were eligible as candidates, but in contrast to party nominees they had to evidence the supporting signatures of at least 801 voters registered in their

MONGOLIA

487

respective constituency. The electoral system also changed. The Electoral Law (as of 4 April 1992) provided for a plurality system in 26 small multi-member constituencies (8 two-member, 12 three-member, and 6 four-member districts). These constituencies corresponded territorially to the 18 traditional administrative units (Aymags), two bigger towns (Darchan, Erdenet) and the capital Ulan Bator (with 6 constituencies). Electors had as many votes as there were seats to be filled (multiple vote). For the elections to be valid, a minimum participation rate was set at 50% of registered voters in the respective constituency. Before the 1996 polls the electoral system was modified again by introducing single-member constituencies and a qualified majority of 25% (for details see below 1.3). For the first time in Mongolia's history, democratization went together with the institution of Presidency. The transitory regulations provided for indirect presidential elections to the Great Assembly and for the Chairman of the Little Assembly ex officio to become Vice-President. The 1992 Constitution, however, abolished the vice-presidential office and introduced direct presidential elections (for a detailed description of the provisions for presidential elections see 1.3).

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of 13 January 1992; Electoral Law of the State Ih Hural of Mongolia (as of 16 January 1996); Electoral Law of the President of Mongolia (as of 28 February 1997).

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. Voters have to be Mongolian citizens and not less than 18 years old. Voting is not compulsory. Electors can register in every constituency, regardless of their place of residence. Citizens outside the country cannot vote from abroad.

Elected National Institutions: Unicameral Parliament (State Ih Hural) and the President of the Republic. The State Ih Hural consists of 76 members directly elected for a four-year term. Vacancies arising between general elections are filled through by-elections; one year before general elections no by-elections take place. The President has a legal term of four years; one immediate reelection is allowed. Presidential and parliamentary elections are not held simultaneously.

488

TAIWAN

Nomination of Candidates - Presidential Elections: presidential candidates must be at least 45 years old, be indigenous citizens and have resided uninterruptedly in Mongolia for the five years prior to the elections. Only parties represented in the State Ih Hural can (separately or jointly) nominate presidential candidates. Every nominee has to submit a written political program and a health certificate.

- Parliamentary Elections: Every Mongolian citizen who has reached the age of 25 is eligible for the State Ih Hural. Each registered party and/or electoral party coalition can nominate only one candidate per constituency. Independents may also stand as candidates, but they must prove the endorsement of at least 801 electors of the constituency concerned. Each nominee can run only in one constituency at a time. Moreover, he/she has to deposit a security of 10,000 Tögrögs (equals app. US$ 9.20 in 2001). Winning candidates receive back this amount in full after the elections; nominees with an above-the-average share of valid votes receive 50% back; the rest lose the whole deposit. After a constitutional amendment of December 1999, those government ministers who previously had to abandon their office if elected parliamentary deputies, may now hold both charges simultaneously. This parliamentary decision was then declared invalid by the Constitutional Court, but the newly elected Parliament re-confirmed its original decision in the same form by a respective constitutional amendment. In mid-2001 it is still an open question whether this institutional arrangement will be disputed again.

Electoral System - Presidential Elections: Absolute majority system. If none of the candidates gets more than 50% of valid votes, a run-off between the two best-placed candidates is held.

- Parliamentary Elections: Plurality system in 76 single-member constituencies. If the winning candidate obtains less than 25% of the valid votes in the respective constituency, a run-off between the top two candidates is held within the following 14 days. Boundary delimitation is fixed by Parliament not later than 70 days before the elections. Constituency boundaries have to be drawn according to equal numbers of population, regardless of administrative territorial units. If the turnout is inferior to 50% of the registered voters the election must be repeated in the constituency in question. In contrast to communist times, electors cannot vote against the candidates listed on the ballot. Yet, another special feature of the communist electoral system has remained, namely the casting of unmarked ballots.

MONGOLIA

489

With regard to this traditional electoral experience the Constitutional Court decided in June 1996 that unmarked ballots should be added to the valid votes. This resolution led to considerable confusion in the 1996 parliamentary elections because the election officials were not able to determine exactly the formal status of unmarked ballots.

Organizational Context of Elections: The General Election Committee (GEC) is a permanent body responsible for organizing and supervising the elections. Its members are elected by Parliament for a five-year term. The Election Committees at constituency and local level are temporary organizations, its members being recruited among administrative personnel and voluntary assistants. Representatives of international organizations and foreign states have the right to send electoral observers, who need to be accredited by the GEC.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The following electoral statistics are compiled on the basis of the respective official sources. The results of the 1945 referendum are taken from the National Archives of Mongolia (BNMAU-yn tusgaar togtnolyn sanal asuulga). Electoral data for the communist period (1951–1986) were documented as published by the Administration Office of the State Little Hural. For these elections, there is no official information on the number of valid and invalid votes. The data since 1990 are based on the official reports of the General Election Committee (GEC). Regarding the 1990 parliamentary elections, the distribution of the first votes cast in single-member constituencies are not recorded in the tables, because the national aggregation and recalculation made by the authors on the basis of the officially published constituency results brought severe arithmetical inconsistencies. The rare arithmetical inconsistencies of the official sources have been corrected as far as possible and are indicated in the corresponding footnotes. Furthermore, regional results are provided for all competitive elections since 1992. These sub-national breakdowns follow the administrative structure of the country, the so-called Aymags, which are listed in the (Mongolian) alphabetical order. In 1994 some Aymags changed their name; this is indicated in the first tables after this administrative reform.

490

TAIWAN



Parliamentary electionsa


Referendums

Coups d'état

First Chamber Second Chamber 1945 1951 1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1973 1977 1981 1986 1990 1992 1993 1996 1997 2000 2001 a

b

20/10

03/09b

10/06 13/06 16/06 19/06 09/06 26/06 22/06 24/06 19/06 21/06 22/06 22/07 (1st) 29/07 (2nd) 28/06

29/07

06/06 30/06 18/05 02/07 20/05

Direct elections for a unicameral parliament (People's Great Assembly under communist rule, since 1992 State Great Assembly). A bicameral assembly existed only between 1990 and 1992: In 1990, the People's Great Assembly (first chamber) was elected by an absolute majority system, and the second chamber (Little Assembly) from party lists proportionally to the national distribution of party votes. The first President was indirectly elected by the People's Great Assembly.

491

MONGOLIA


1945 1951 1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1973 1977 1981 1986 1990 1992 1993 1996 1997 2000 2001 a b

c d

Type of electiona

Ref Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pac Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

759,100 772,400 813,600 862,000 936,900 1,017,100 1,104,400 1,197,600 1,339,500 1,512,400 1,682,000 1,900,600 2,149,300 2,215,000 2,225,000 2,353,000 2,387,000 2,383,000 2,383,000

Total number 494,960 489,377 494,890 509,526 526,023 543,531 558,477 577,724 622,188 694,855 792,896 929,403 1,027,277 1,085,129 1,106,403 1,147,260 1,155,228 1,247,033 1,205,885

Total Number 487,409 489,031 494,793 509,494 525,940 543,518 558,463 577,709 622,149 694,854 792,891 929,393 1,005,629 1,037,392d 1,025,970 1,057,182 982,640 1,027,985 1,000,110

% pop. 65.2 62.0 60.8 59.1 56.1 53.4 50.6 48.2 46.4 46.0 47.1 48.9 47.8 49.0 49.7 48.8 48.4 52.3 50.6

% reg. voters 98.4 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.9 95.6 92.7 92.1 85.1 82.4 82.9

% pop. 64.2 63.3 60.8 59.1 56.1 53.4 50.6 48.2 46.4 46.0 47.1 48.9 46.8 46.8 46.1 44.9 41.2 43.1 42.0

Pa = Parliament (People's Great Assembly, since 1992 State Great Assembly); Pr = President; Ref = Referendum. Population data between 1945 and 1993 are taken from the State Statistical Office of Mongolia (1994: 20), those of 1996 and 1997 from the Statistical Yearbook (1998: 22), and those of 2000 from the website of the State Statistical Office under http://statis.pmis.gov.mn. For 2001, the figure for 2000 is given. Registered voters and votes cast refer to both parliamentary chambers, the People's Great Assembly, and the Little Assembly. Since in 1992 the electors had between two and four votes in small multi-member constituencies, this figure refers to the number of ballots cast.

492

TAIWAN

2.3 Abbreviations DP DS DU GC FLP MBP MCDNLP MCUP MDNSP MDRP MGP MLDP MNDP MNPP MNSDP MNUP MoDP MPI MPP MPRP MPRuD MPTJ MRDP MRenP MRP MPRegD MSDP MUPCBF MUPPO MWP PCC PM UP a b c d e f g h i j k

Democratic Party (Ardchilsan Nam)a Democratic State (Ardchilsan Tör)b Democratic Union (Ardchilsan Holboo)c Grand Coalition (Ih Evsel)d Free Labor Party (Chölööt Hödölmöriyn Nam) Mongolian Bourgeois Party (Mongolyn Höröngötniy Nam)e Mongolian Civil-Democratic New Liberal Party (Mongolyn Irgeniy Ardchilsan Shine Liberal Nam) Mongolian Conservative United Party (Mongolyn Ulamjlalyn Negdsen Nam)f Mongolian Democratic New Socialist Party (Mongolyn Ardchilsan Shine Sozialist Nam) Mongolian Democratic Renaissance Party (Mongolyn Ardchilsan Sergen Mandlyn Nam) Mongolian Green Party (Mongolyn Nogoon Nam) Mongolian Liberal Democratic Party (Mongolyn Liberal Ardchilsan Nam) Mongolian National Democratic Party (Mongolyn Ündesniy Ardchilsan Nam)g Mongolian National Progress Party (Mongolyn Ündesniy Devshilt Nam) Mongolian New Social-Democratic Party (Mongolyn Shine Sotsial Demokrat Nam)h Mongolian National Unity Party (Mongolyn Ündesniy Ev Negdliyn Nam) Mongolian Democratic Party (Mongolyn Ardchilsan Nam) Mongolian Party for Independence (Mongolyn Tusgaar Togtnolyn Nam) Mongolian People's Party (Mongol Ardyn Nam)i Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (Mongol Ardyn Huv'sgalt Nam) Mongolian Party for Rural Development (Mongolyn Hödöögiyn Högjliyn Nam) Mongolian Party for Tradition and Justice (Mongolyn Ulamjlal, Shudarga Yosny Tölöö Nam)j Mongolian Religious Democratic Party (Mongolyn Shashintniy Ardchilsan Nam) Mongolian Renaissance Party (Mongolyn Sergen Mandlyn Nam) Mongolian Republican Party (Mongolyn Bügd Nairamdah Nam) Mongolian Party for Regional Development (Mongolyn Oron Nutgiin Högjliyn Nam) Mongolian Social-Democratic Party (Mongolyn Sotsial Demokrat Nam) Mongolian United Party of Cattle Breeders and Peasants (Mongolyn Malchin Tariachny Negdsen Nam) Mongolian United Party of Private Owners (Mongolyn Huviyn Ömchtöniy Negdsen Nam) Mongolian Workers' Party (Mongolyn Ajilchny Nam) Party of Civil Courage (Irgeniy Dzorig Nam)k Party for Mongolia (Mongolyn Tölöö Nam) United Party (Negdsen Nam)

After the 2000 parliamentary elections MNDP, MSDP, MRDP, MDRP, and MoDP merged into a new party called DP. Electoral alliance of MDRP and MPP, founded in 1996. Electoral alliance of MNDP, MSDP, MGP, and MRDP founded in February 1996. Electoral alliance of three non-parliamentary parties (MCUP, MDRP, and PM), founded before the 2000 elections. Renamed itself MRP in April 1997. In January 1994 MPI, MUPPO and MUPCBF merged into a new party called MCUP. After the 1992 parliamentary elections MoDP, MNPP, MRenP, FLP, and UP merged into a new party called MNDP. Founded by former MSDP-members in March 2000. Coalition of MPP and MRDP, formed in the run-up to the 1992 parliamentary elections. In spring 1999 the MNPSP was renamed MPTJ, after the former MCUP-chairman had taken over the leadership of the party. Founded by former MNDP-members in March 2000. In December 2000 PM and MPRuD merged into PCC.

493

MONGOLIA

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1951–2001

a b c d e f g h i j k l m

Party / Alliance

Years

MPRP MGPc,d MNPPe MoDP (1)e,f MSDPc FLP Allianceg MBP MPI MPPh MRDPc,i MRenP MUPCBF MUPPO UPe MNDPc,i DSj DUk MCUPl MDRPh,l MNUP MWP GCm MoDP (2)f MCDNLP MDNSP MLDP MNSDP MPRegD MPRuD MPTJ MRP PCCd PMl DP

1951–2001 1990–1992, 1996–2000 1990–1992 1990–1992 1990–2000 1990 1992 1992, 1996 1992 1992 1992, 1996–2000 1992 1992 1992 1992 1993–2000 1996 1996–2000 1996–2000 1996, 2000 1996, 2000 1996, 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000–2001 2000 2001

Elections contested Presidentiala 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Parliamentaryb 15 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Total number: 3. Total number: 15. The 1990 elections to the lower and upper chambers are not listed separately. In 1996 and 1997 part of the electoral coalition DU. In 2000 part of the electoral alliance PCC-MGP. In 1992 part of the electoral coalition ‘Alliance’. The MNDP was dissolved in 1992. In January 2000 it was refounded by former MNDP-members. ‘Alliance’ (1992) consisted of the following parties: MoDP (1), MNPP, and UP. Formed part of the electoral coalition DS in 1996. Member of the electoral coalition DU in 2000. The electoral coalition DS (1996) consisted of MPP and MDRP. The electoral coalition DU consisted of the following parties: MNDP, MSDP, MGP, and MRDP in 1996; MNDP and MRDP in 2000. In 2000 part of the electoral coalition GC. Members of the electoral coalition GC (2000) were: MCUP, MDRP and PM.

494

TAIWAN


1945a Total number 494,960 487,409 0 487,409 487,409 0

% – 98.4 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Referendum on national independence. Voters were asked: ‘Do you confirm your endeavor for the independence of your Mongolian People's Republic?’

495

MONGOLIA

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly Elections for Constitutional Assembly have not been held.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1951–2000 For the non-competitive elections between 1951 and 1986, detailed figures for valid and invalid votes have not been available. Numbers of registered voters and votes cast are reported in table 2.2. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes MPRP MoDP (1) MNPP MSDP MGP FLP Alliance MRenP MBP MUPCBF MPI MUPPO MRDP/MPPe Independents a

b

c

d e

1990 Total numbera 1,027,277 1,005,629 27,817 977,812c 598,984 236,087 57,691 53,545 12,044 11,823 – – – – – – – –

% – 97.9 2.8 97.2 61.3 24.1 5.9 5.5 1.2 1.2 – – – – – – – –

1992 Total numberb 1,085,129 1,037,392 63,198 974,194 1,719,257 –d –d 304,648 17,489 – 528,393 112,234 62,194 61,344 59,008 42,795 23,675 90,387

% – 95.6 6.1 93.9 56.9 –d –d 10.1 0.6 – 17.5 3.7 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.4 0.8 3.0

The figures refer to the second votes cast nation-wide for the Little Assembly. The first votes cast for the Great Assembly are not documented here due to severe inconsistencies (see 1.4). In this election voters had between two and four votes, depending on the size of their constituency (multiple vote). Therefore, the figures in the upper section of the table refer to ballots cast, invalid and valid ballots. The figures for the parties, on the other hand, are given according to their overall number of valid votes. The percentages of votes for parties are also calculated on the basis of the total number of valid votes (3,021,424). In the report of the Central Electoral Commission the number of valid votes was given at 977,816. The deviation of four votes from the correct result was obviously due to arithmetical errors in the hand-written final record. The sum total of the given party votes amounts only to 970,174. On the remaining 7,638 ballots (0.8%) the names of all candidates were deleted. Nevertheless, these ballots were officially counted as valid votes. Member of the electoral coalition Alliance. Electoral coalition of MRDP and MPP.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votesa

1996 Total number 1,147,260 1,057,182 47,025 1,010,157

% – 92.1 4.4 95.5

2000 Total number 1,247,033 1,027,985 25,431 1,002,554

% – 82.4 2.5 97.5

496 DU MPRP DS MNUP MCUP MBP/MRPb MDNSP MSDP PCC-MGP MoDP (2) GC MNSDP Otherse Independents a

b c d e

TAIWAN

475,267 408,977 31,417 22,350 18,372 17,581 – –c – – – – 1,211 31,072

47.0 40.5 3.1 2.2 1.8 1.7 – –c – – – – 0.1 3.1

133,890 517,746 – –d –d 41,991 110,608 91,663 36,196 18,217 9,105 4,077 8,289 29,352

13.4 51.6 – – – 4.2 11.0 9.1 3.6 1.8 0.9 0.4 0.8 2.9

Since the Constitutional Court (Decision No. 2 of 19/06/1996) declared the ballots cast unmarked as valid, the number of valid votes rose from 1,006,247 to 1,010,157 in 1996, and from 1,001,134 to 1,002,554 in 2000. The percentages of party votes are calculated on the basis of the official number of valid votes respectively. MBP renamed itself MRP in April 1997. Member of the electoral coalition DU. Member of the electoral coalition GC. Includes for 1996: MWP; for 2000: MWP, MNUP, MPTJ, MLDP, MPRegD, MPRuD, and MCDNLP.

497

MONGOLIA

2.7 a) Parliamentary Elections 1992–2000: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) 1992 Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altay Dornogov'-Choir Dornod Dundgov' Dzavchan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan Erdenet Ulaanbaatar Total

Registered voters Votes cast 46,510 45,226 45,350 42,136 39,702 38,172 30,211 29,626 32,170 31,664 31,399 30,254

Invalid votes 2,376 2,910 1,530 2,324 1,635 1,916

Valid votes 42,850 39,226 36,642 27,302 30,029 28,338

MPRP 58,000 72,635 62,481 35,461 30,249 38,454

38,038 25,220 47,837 52,215 22,027 27,280 44,288 53,650 45,389 39,002 59,699 36,422 40,795 26,379 301,546 1,085,129

2,757 1,658 2,219 3,166 1,076 1,576 2,403 2,980 3,498 1,710 4,619 1,631 2,636 1,854 16,724 63,198

34,342 22,958 44,147 47,407 20,622 25,486 40,579 48,931 39,846 36,487 50,744 34,051 35,062 22,737 266,408 974,194

59,363 22,336 88,530 108,781 24,817 31,571 74,915 133,169 93,370 84,624 94,258 57,182 57,569 24,673 466,819 1,719,257

37,099 24,616 46,366 50,573 21,698 27,062 42,982 51,911 43,344 38,197 55,363 35,682 37,698 24,591 283,132 1,037,392

498 1992 (continued) Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altay Dornogov'-Choir Dornod Dundgov' Dzavchan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan Erdenet Ulaanbaatar Total

TAIWAN

Alliance

MSDP

MRenP

Others

Independents

19,595 6,904 27,319 6,487 7,623 6,528

38,401 16,057 5,907 7,352 9,940 6,578

— 18,437 3,686 618 — —

7,975 3,650 10,533 4,686 0 5,116

4,579 — — — 12,246 —

23,241 9,938 19,849 26,142 6,519 6,509 20,055 23,566 11,735 10,874 48,689 15,800 27,436 8,679 194,905 528,393

6,980 6,037 7,695 16,615 5,013 4,702 12,042 8,123 7,950 3,321 19,554 11,250 11,543 8,188 91,400 304,648

3,508 5,267 — 8,772 3,165 700 1,497 5,289 1,071 6,670 16,411 2,791 1,949 — 32,403 112,234

7,611 1,357 5,415 14,313 1,730 4,635 13,227 21,836 5,434 3,974 23,364 12,348 3,390 3,934 111,977 266,505

2,323 981 10,952 15,005 — 2,855 — 3,744 — — — 2,782 3,299 — 31,621 90,387

499

MONGOLIA

1996a Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altay Gov'-Sumber Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan-Uul Orhon Ulaanbaatar Total a

b

Registered voters Votes cast 49,863 47,331 38,261 35,677 41,311 39,725 32,316 31,321 34,182 33,144 15,213 14,010 16,792 16,022 40,020 35,909 25,506 24,591 49,730 47,184 57,831 53,580 23,039 22,374 29,439 28,591 49,351 45,013 55,227 50,919 48,049 42,758 41,771 40,334 61,862 57,783 37,121 35,418 40,836 35,717 32,069 28,331 327,471 291,450 1,147,260 1,057,182

Invalid votes 1,839 1,815 1,528 1,136 1,003 734 874 1,544 971 1,681 2,600 611 1,260 2,128 2,072 2,606 1,522 2,709 1,205 1,284 1,313 14,590 47,025

Valid votesb 45,492 33,862 38,197 30,185 32,141 13,276 15,148 34,365 23,620 45,503 50,980 21,763 27,331 42,885 48,847 40,152 38,812 55,074 34,213 34,433 27,018 276,860 1,010,157

DU 25,004 12,591 23,527 14,592 7,915 – 5,681 20,900 9,794 23,522 23,885 11,424 9,410 22,680 22,512 8,029 14,399 28,678 21,489 18,962 15,733 134,540 475,267

Due to the administrative reform of 1994, the following Aymags changed their names: Darhan into Darhan-Uul-Aymag, Erdenet into Orhon, and Choir into Gob'-Sumber. Valid votes also include the non-marked ballots cast (cf. table 2.7).

500 1996 Region (cont.) Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altai Gov'-Sumber Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan-Uul Orhon Ulaanbaatar Total

TAIWAN

MPRP

MCUP

DS

MNUP

Others

Independents

15,356 18,088 11,964 11,463 20,506 8,199 9,344 12,716 8,585 21,186 21,269 8,030 10,963 16,928 22,841 24,933 21,448 21,718 9,733 10,242 9,470 93,995 408,977

189 463 460 – 2,026 – – – 2,284 266 933 1,411 5,400 – – 354 1,187 837 – – – 2,562 18,372

1,386 560 373 642 757 4,869 – 344 1,710 223 – – – 1,110 1,849 3,041 315 1,049 1,808 753 1,652 8,976 31,417

3,050 – 893 – – – – 246 1,136 – – – – 1,321 707 – 78 697 937 4,377 – 8,908 22,350

426 120 153 1,041 907 – – – – – – 856 324 252 – 1,276 – 1,929 – – – 11,508 18,792

– 2,040 796 2,381 – – – – – 241 4,851 – 1,168 424 778 2,384 1,365 – 174 – – 14,470 31,072

501

MONGOLIA

2000 Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Atlay Gov'-Sumber Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan-Uul Orhon Ulaanbaatar Total a

Registered voters 54,170 44,996 44,919 34,366 35,313 15,913 19,353 39,740 24,659 50,207 61,526 26,262 31,636 54,052 55,826 45,684 44,095 67,050 38,252 42,283 37,394 379,337 1,247,033

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votesa

MPRP

DU

45,751 39,254 39,761 29,454 31,660 13,543 16,255 32,197 23,410 43,699 53,203 23,447 28,451 43,650 43,809 39,597 40,457 58,008 32,372 31,948 28,650 289,409 1,027,985

1,852 1,350 1,079 744 614 336 349 765 435 573 1,286 469 672 909 1,197 1,277 956 1,526 842 608 537 7,055 25,431

43,899 37,904 38,682 28,710 31,046 13,207 15,906 31,432 22,975 43,126 51,917 22,978 27,779 42,741 42,612 38,320 39,501 56,482 31,530 31,340 28,113 282,354 1,002,554

19,677 19,769 16,901 20,252 16,069 8,732 7,361 14,678 8,923 26,041 25,701 12,387 13,708 21,449 25,152 23,276 21,516 24,935 15,584 15,422 13,125 147,088 517,746

5,566 3,219 6,228 1,071 1,547 930 641 4,795 8,566 5,860 13,105 7,652 3,849 7,070 6,029 2,447 7,583 3,092 7,268 9,120 1,572 26,680 133,890

Valid votes also include the non-marked ballots cast (cf. table 2.7).

2000 (cont.) Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Atlai Gov'-Sumber Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs

MSDP

MRP

PCC

MDNSP

Others

Independents

10,254 4,671 3,868 2,558 3,667 715 1,030 487 772 5,366 3,965 283 712 5,096 2,709 2,920

309 1,088 813 303 1,746 305 757 841 1,274 171 483 1,165 360 1,809 1,767 2,683

355 1,220 1,257 1,566 158 – 392 7,438 1,181 1,655 255 196 1,012 1,003 1,175 2,713

4,972 3,717 5,171 2,744 2,830 2,493 845 2,049 1,797 3,547 5,029 967 3,383 3,459 5,326 3,778

2,275 4,148 1,308 174 250 – 88 1,100 422 472 3,296 301 3,920 861 409 194

463 – 3,102 4,754 – 4,769 – – – – – 795 1,835 – 254

502 Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan-Uul Orhon Ulaanbaatar Total

TAIWAN

1,843 8,995 3,082 1,107 5,077 22,486 91,663

579 1,089 396 1,570 1,625 20,858 41,991

217 535 173 560 725 12,410 36,196

5,093 8,445 2,902 2,929 4,376 34,756 110,608

2,038 1,944 285 531 289 15,383 39,688

602 7,363 1,806 77 1,262 2,270 29,352

503

MONGOLIA

2.7 b) Parliamentary Elections 1992–2000: Regional Level (% Of Valid Votes) 1992 Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altay Dornogov-Choir Dornod Dundgov' Dzavchan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan Erdenet Ulaanbaatar Total a

MPRP 45.1 61.7 56.8 64.9 50.4 67.8

Alliance 15.2 5.9 24.9 11.9 12.7 11.5

MSDP 29.9 13.6 5.4 13.5 16.6 11.6

Others 6.2 18.8 13.0 9.7 0.0 9.0

Independents Totala 3.6 4.4 – 4.0 – 3.8 – 2.8 20.4 3.1 – 2.9

57.6 48.6 66.8 57.4 60.2 61.9 61.5 68.0 78.1 77.3 46.6 56.0 54.7 54.3 50.2 56.9

22.6 21.6 15.0 13.8 15.8 12.8 16.5 12.0 9.8 9.9 24.1 15.5 26.1 19.1 21.0 17.5

6.8 13.1 5.8 8.8 12.2 9.2 9.9 4.2 6.6 3.0 9.7 11.0 11.0 18.0 9.8 10.1

10.8 14.5 4.1 12.1 11.9 10.5 12.1 13.9 5.4 9.7 19.7 14.8 5.1 8.7 15.6 12.5

2.3 2.1 8.3 7.9 – 5.6 – 1.9 – – – 2.7 3.1 – 3.4 3.0

3.5 2.4 4.5 4.9 2.1 2.6 4.2 5.0 4.1 3.7 5.2 3.5 3.6 2.3 27.3 100.0


1996a,b Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altai Gov'-Sumber Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar

DU

MPRP

MCUP

DS

Others

Indep.

Totalc

55.0 37.2 61.6

33.8 53.4 31.3

0.4 1.4 1.2

3.0 1.7 1.0

7.6 0.4 2.7

– 6.0 2.1

4.5 3.4 3.8

48.3 24.6 –

38.0 63.8 61.8

– 6.3 –

2.1 2.4 36.7

3.4 2.8 0.0

7.9 – –

3.0 3.2 1.3

37.5 60.8 41.5 51.7 46.9 52.5 34.4

61.7 37.0 36.3 46.6 41.7 36.9 40.1

– – 9.7 0.6 1.8 6.5 19.8

– 1.0 7.2 0.5 – – –

0.0 0.7 4.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 1.2

– – – 0.5 9.5 0.0 4.3

1.5 3.4 2.3 4.5 5.0 2.2 2.7

504 Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan-Uul Orhon Ulaanbaatar Nation-wide a

b c

b c

52.9 46.1 20.0 37.1 52.1 62.8 55.1 58.2 48.6 47.0

39.5 46.8 62.1 55.3 39.4 28.4 29.7 35.1 34.0 40.5

– – 0.9 3.1 1.5 – – – 0.9 1.8

2.6 3.8 7.6 0.8 1.9 5.3 2.2 6.1 3.2 3.1

3.7 1.4 3.2 0.2 4.8 2.7 12.7 0.0 7.4 4.1

1.0 1.6 5.9 3.5 – 0.5 – – 5.2 3.1

4.2 4.8 4.0 3.8 5.5 3.4 3.4 2.7 27.4 100.0

Due to the administrative reform of 1994, the following Aymags changed their names: Darhan into Darhan-Uul-Aymag, Erdenet into Orhon, and Choir into Gob'-Sumber. Percentages are calculated on the basis of the official number of valid votes, which also includes the non-marked ballots cast (see table 2.7). Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. 2000a Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altai Gov'-Sumber Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan-Uul Orhon Ulaanbaatar Nation-wide

a

TAIWAN

MPRP 44.8 52.2 43.7

DU 12.7 8.5 16.1

MDNSP 11.3 9.8 13.4

MSDP 23.4 12.3 10.0

MRP 0.7 2.9 2.1

Others 6.0 14.1 6.6

Indep. 1.1 – 8.0

Totalb 4.4 3.8 3.9

70.5 51.8 66.1

3.7 5.0 7.0

9.6 9.1 18.9

8.9 11.8 5.4

1.1 5.6 2.3

6.1 1.3 0.0

– 15.3 –

2.9 3.1 1.3

46.3 46.7 38.8 60.4 49.5 53.9 49.3 50.2 59.0 60.7 54.5 44.1 49.4 49.2 46.7 52.1 51.6

4.0 15.3 37.3 13.6 25.2 33.3 13.9 16.5 14.1 6.4 19.2 5.5 23.1 29.1 5.6 9.4 13.4

5.3 6.5 7.8 8.2 9.7 4.2 12.2 8.1 12.5 9.9 12.9 15.0 9.2 9.3 15.6 12.3 11.0

6.5 1.5 3.4 12.4 7.6 1.2 2.6 11.9 6.4 7.6 4.7 15.9 9.8 3.5 18.1 8.0 9.1

4.8 2.7 5.5 0.4 0.9 5.1 1.3 4.2 4.1 7.0 1.5 1.9 1.3 5.0 5.8 7.4 4.2

3.1 27.2c 6.9 4.9 6.8 2.2 17.7 4.3 3.8 7.6 5.7 4.3 1.4 3.5 3.6 9.8 7.6

30.0 – – – – – 2.9 4.3 – 0.7 1.5 13.0 5.7 0.2 4.5 0.8 2.9

1.6 3.1 2.3 4.3 5.2 2.3 2.8 4.3 4.3 3.8 3.9 5.6 3.1 3.1 2.8 28.2 100.0

Percentages are calculated on the basis of the official number of valid votes which also includes the non-marked ballots cast (see table 2.7). Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. PCC: 23.7%.

505

MONGOLIA

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 First Chamber: People's Great Assembly (1951–1990) and State Great Assembly (1992–2000) Year

1951a Seats 295 MPRP 176 Non-party 118 candidates a

% 100.0 59.7 40.3

1954 Seats 295 192 103

% 100.0 65.1 34.9

1957 Seats 233 178 55

100.0 % 76.4 23.6

1960 Seats 267 207 60

100.0 % 77.5 22.5

People's Great Assembly (unicameral). For the non-competitive elections held between 1951 and 1986, there were elected candidates without MPRP membership. These candidates, however, were not independent, but appointed by the MPRP according to their social status.

Year

1963 Seats 270 MPRP 216 Non-party 54 candidates Year MPRP Non-party candidates

% 100.0 80.0 20.0

1977 Seats 354 328 26

1966 Seats 287 234 53

% 100.0 92.7 7.3

% 100.0 81.5 18.5 1981 Seats 370 344 26

1969 Seats 297 252 45

% 100.0 93.0 7.0

% 100.0 84.8 15.2

1973 Seats 336 282 54

1986 Seats 370 346 24

% 100.0 84.0 16.0

% 100.0 93.5 6.5

506 1990a Seats 430 MPRP 358 MoDP (1) 17 MNPP 6 MSDP 4 Alliance – DU – MCUP – MDNSP – PCC – Independ- 38 ents Unfilled 7 h seats

TAIWAN

Year

a b c d e f g h

% 100.0 83.3 3.9 1.4 0.9 – – – – – 8.8

1992b Seats 76 70 –c –c 1 4e – – – – 1

1.6

–

% 100.0 92.1 –c –c 1.3 5.3e – – – – 1.3

1996 Seats 76 25 – –d –d – 50f 1 – – 0

–

–

% 100.0 32.9 – –d –d – 65.8f 1.3 – – 0.0

2000 Seats 76 72 0 – 0 – 1g – 1 1 1

% 100.0 94.7 0.0 – 0.0 – 1.3g – 1.3 1.3 1.3

–

–

–

People's Great Assembly (first chamber within a bicameral parliament). Great State Hural (unicameral). Member of the electoral coalition Alliance. Member of the electoral coalition DU. The seats for this electoral coalition were distributed as follows: MoDP: 2 seats, MNPP: 1 seat, and UP: 1 seat. Of the seats for this electoral coalition, the MNDP won 35, and the MSDP 15. Seat for the MNDP (member of the electoral coalition DU). In four constituencies the election results were declared invalid, in three constituencies no elections were held. For the corresponding repeated elections held on 31 August 1990, no reliable data have been available.

507

MONGOLIA

2.8.1 a) First Chamber: Regional Distribution of Seats (1990–2000) 1990 Regiona Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altai Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan Erdenet Ulaanbaatar Total a

MPRP 17 12 17 16 20 18 11 14 21 23 13 14 19 26 18 18 20 20 5 3 33 358

MoDP 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 5 17

MNPP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 6

MSDP 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4

Independents Total 0 19 3 15 4 21 0 17 0 20 1 19 3 19 3 17 4 26 0 23 2 15 0 15 2 21 3 29 0 18 0 18 2 25 1 23 1 7 1 5 8 51 38 423

In seven constituencies the elections were declared invalid or did not take place: Bayan-Ölgiy (1), Selenge (1), Uvs (3), Darhan (1), and Ulaanbaatar (1). For the corresponding repeated elections held on 31 August 1990 no detailed data have been available.

1992 Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altay Dornogov'-Choir Dornod Dundgov' Dzavchan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs

MPRP 2 3 3 2 1 2

Alliance 0 0 0 0 0 0

MSDP 1 0 0 0 0 0

Independents 0 0 0 0 1 0

Total 3 3 3 2 2 2

3 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 3

508 Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan Erdenet Ulaanbaatar Nation-wide 1996a Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altai Gov'-Sumber Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan-Uul Orhon Ulaanbaatar Nation-wide a

TAIWAN

3 3 2 3 2 18 70

0 1 1 0 0 2 4 DU 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 4 3 3 2 17 50

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPRP 1 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 25

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MCUP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

3 4 3 3 2 20 76 Total 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 20 76

Due to the administrative reform of 1994, the following Aymags changed their names: Darhan into Darhan-Uul-Aymag, Erdenet into Orhon, and Choir into Gob'-Sumber.

2000 Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altai Gov'-Sumber Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov'

MPRP 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 1

DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

PCC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

MDNSP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Independents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 2

509

MONGOLIA

Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan-Uul Orhon Ulaanbaatar Nation-wide

3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 19 72

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 20 76

510

TAIWAN

2.8.2 Second Chamber: Little Assembly (1990) Year MPRP MoDP MNPP MSDP a

1990a Seats 50 31 13 3 3

For number and distribution of votes compare with data for 1990 in table 2.7.

% 100.0 62.0 26.0 6.0 6.0

511

MONGOLIA

2.9 Presidential Elections 1993–2001 1993 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Punsalmaagiyn Ochirbat (MNDP/ MSDP) Lodongiyn Tudev (MPRP)

Total number 1,106,403 1,025,970 36,073 989,897 592,836

% – 92.7 3.5 96.5 59.9

397,061

40.1

1997 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Natsagiyn Bagabandi (MPRP) Punsalmaagiyn Ochirbat (DU) Jambyn Gombojav (MCUP)

Total number 1,155,228 982,640 26,970 955,670 597,573 292,896 65,201

% – 85.1 2.7 97.3 62.5 30.6 6.8

2001 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Natsagiyn Bagabandi (MPRP) Radnaasumbereliyn Gonchigdorj (DP) Luvsandambyn Dashnyam (PCC)

Total number 1,205,885 1,000,110 17,411 982,699 581,381 365,363

% – 82.9 1.7 98.3 59.2 37.2

35,425

3.6

512

TAIWAN

2.9 a) Presidential Elections: Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) 1993 Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altai Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan Erdenet Choir Ulaanbaatar Total

Registered voters 47,277 38,722 39,309 29,878 34,070 26,892 40,047 24,821 47,793 52,447 22,535 27,468 44,646 55,060 46,054 38,968 58,334 35,746 41,148 29,427 5,754 320,007 1,106,403

Votes cast

Invalid votes

Valid votes

Ochirbat

Tudev

45,120 37,318 37,641 28,644 30,986 25,346 35,897 23,598 45,709 49,833 21,601 26,296 41,321 51,472 41,501 37,290 54,719 33,886 37,568 26,232 5,093 288,879 1,025,970

1,414 1,626 1,024 990 797 801 1,238 640 1,198 1,715 443 1,105 1,525 1,781 2,205 1,294 2,705 1,063 1,435 725 204 10,145 36,073

43,706 35,692 36,617 27,674 30,189 24,545 34,659 22,958 44,511 48,118 21,158 25,191 39,796 49,691 39,296 35,996 52,014 32,823 36,133 25,507 4,889 278,734 989,897

29,646 17,361 24,193 17,785 6,094 14,724 23,846 11,674 35,987 30,080 12,381 16,008 26,374 28,171 10,094 16,943 33,253 22,787 23,802 19,082 3,365 169,186 592,836

14,060 18,331 12,424 9,889 24,095 9,821 10,813 11,284 8,524 18,038 8,777 9,183 13,422 21,520 29,202 19,053 18,761 10,036 12,331 6,425 1,524 109,548 397,061

513

MONGOLIA

1997 Region Registered voters Arhangay 50,539 Bayan-Ölgiy 38,234 Bayanhon- 43,038 gor Bulgan 32,275 Gov'-Altai 35,609 Gov'-Sum- 5,895 ber Dornogov' 26,772 Dornod 39,082 Dundgov' 25,551 Dzavhan 49,602 Övörhangay 57,264 Ömnögov' 22,611 Sühbaatar 29,251 Selenge 47,974 Töv 51,218 Uvs 46,927 Hovd 41,991 Hövsgöl 60,286 Hentiy 36,935 Darhan-Uul 40,378 Orhon 34,586 Ulaanbaatar 339,210 Total 1,155,228

Votes cast

Valid votes

Bagabandi

Ochirbat

Gombojav

43,559 32,742 36,286

Invalid votes 1,298 1,186 917

42,261 31,556 35,369

20,806 21,233 21,893

19,424 8,882 11,735

2,031 1,441 1,741

28,473 31,606 4,664

661 559 107

27,812 31,047 4,557

18,303 24,062 2,771

7,855 4,939 1,223

1,654 2,046 563

23,094 31,656 22,808 43,399 49,066 21,917 26,165 40,355 45,526 38,849 37,710 52,697 31,243 32,227 26,468 282,130 982,640

650 884 513 907 1,283 312 834 1,138 1,355 1,349 1,133 1,588 816 795 660 8,025 26,970

22,444 30,772 22,295 42,492 47,783 21,605 25,331 39,217 44,171 37,500 36,577 51,109 30,427 31,432 25,808 274,105 955,670

15,479 15,792 15,571 26,875 26,098 14,636 10,079 23,175 29,365 29,940 27,202 27,163 14,617 18,822 12,199 181,492 597,573

5,182 13,007 4,687 14,572 18,588 5,549 6,351 13,562 11,532 5,703 7,642 21,504 12,614 10,747 12,013 75,585 292,896

1,783 1,973 2,037 1,045 3,097 1,420 8,901 2,480 3,274 1,857 1,733 2,442 3,196 1,863 1,596 17,028 65,201

514 2001 Region Registered voters Arhangay 52,862 Bayan-Ölgiy 46,422 Bayanhon- 45,070 gor Bulgan 32,817 Gov'-Altai 33,972 Gov'-Sum- 6,068 ber Dornogov' 27,289 Dornod 37,783 Dundgov' 25,907 Dzavhan 46,347 Övörhangay 59,453 Ömnögov' 24,591 Sühbaatar 30,431 Selenge 49,161 Töv 51,435 Uvs 45,097 Hovd 43,901 Hövsgöl 63,656 Hentiy 35,104 Darhan-Uul 39,586 Orhon 37,231 Ulaanbaatar 371,702 Total 1,205,885

TAIWAN

Votes cast

Valid votes

Bagabandi

44,138 38,615 37,027

Invalid votes 988 1,112 690

11,467 21,829 20,038

Gonchigdorj 30,621 14,814 15,108

43,150 37,503 36,337

28,073 30,516 4,949

527 438 95

23,186 31,544 22,013 39,959 49,554 21,835 26,890 38,792 40,533 36,445 39,526 53,158 29,177 30,050 29,570 304,560 1,000,110

352 587 330 528 904 287 515 741 802 964 960 1,029 558 424 478 4,102 17,411

Dashnyam 1,037 837 1,176

27,546 30,078 4,854

18,909 20,956 3,337

7,687 8,390 1,291

936 725 222

22,834 30,957 21,683 39,431 48,650 21,548 26,375 38,051 39,731 35,481 38,566 52,129 28,619 29,626 29,092 300,458 982,699

16,230 16,653 15,455 27,971 26,197 14,049 17,301 22,273 27,643 24,136 25,371 26,269 15,799 17,463 15,022 177,013 581,381

5,843 12,252 5,495 10,577 20,864 6,824 7,970 14,732 10,539 10,461 12,201 24,269 11,654 11,246 13,334 109,191 365,363

745 2,029 724 860 1,544 661 1,072 1,031 1,536 853 971 1,555 1,149 903 730 14,129 35,425

515

MONGOLIA

2.9 b) Presidential Elections: Regional Level (% Of Valid Votes) 1993 Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altai Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan Erdenet Choir Ulaanbaatar Total a

Ochirbat 67.8 48.6 66.1 64.3 20.2 60.0 68.8 50.8 80.8 62.5 58.5 63.5 66.3 56.7 25.7 47.1 63.9 69.4 65.9 74.8 68.8 60.7 40.1


Tudev 32.2 51.4 33.9 35.7 79.8 40.0 31.2 49.2 19.2 37.5 41.5 36.5 33.7 43.3 74.3 52.9 36.1 30.6 34.1 25.2 31.2 39.3 59.9

Totala 4.4 3.6 3.7 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.5 2.3 4.5 4.9 2.1 2.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.6 5.3 3.3 3.7 2.6 0.5 28.2 100.0

516 1997 Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altai Gov'-Sumber Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan-Uul Orhon Ulaanbaatar Total a

TAIWAN

Bagabandi 49.2 67.3 61.9 65.8 77.5 60.8 69.0 51.3 69.8 63.2 54.6 67.7 39.8 59.1 66.5 79.8 74.4 53.1 48.0 59.9 47.3 66.2 62.5


Ochirbat 46.0 28.1 33.2 28.2 15.9 26.8 23.1 42.3 21.0 34.3 38.9 25.7 25.1 34.6 26.1 15.2 20.9 42.1 41.5 34.2 46.5 27.6 30.6

Gombojav 4.8 4.6 4.9 5.9 6.6 12.4 7.9 6.4 9.1 2.5 6.5 6.6 35.1 6.3 7.4 5.0 4.7 4.8 10.5 5.9 6.2 6.2 6.8

Totala 4.4 3.3 3.7 2.9 3.2 0.5 2.3 3.2 2.3 4.4 5.0 2.3 2.7 4.1 4.6 3.9 3.8 5.3 3.2 3.3 2.7 28.7 100.0

517

MONGOLIA

2001 Region Arhangay Bayan-Ölgiy Bayanhongor Bulgan Gov'-Altai Gov'-Sumber Dornogov' Dornod Dundgov' Dzavhan Övörhangay Ömnögov' Sühbaatar Selenge Töv Uvs Hovd Hövsgöl Hentiy Darhan-Uul Orhon Ulaanbaatar Total a

Bagabandi 26.6 58.2 55.1 68.6 69.7 68.7 71.1 53.8 71.3 70.9 53.8 65.2 65.6 58.5 69.6 68.0 65.8 50.4 55.2 58.9 51.6 58.9 59.2


Gonchigdorj 71.0 39.5 41.6 27.9 27.9 26.6 25.6 39.6 25.3 26.8 42.9 31.7 30.2 38.7 26.5 29.5 31.6 46.6 40.7 38.0 45.8 36.3 37.2

Dashnyam 2.4 2.2 3.2 3.4 2.4 4.6 3.3 6.6 3.3 2.2 3.2 3.1 4.1 2.7 3.9 2.4 2.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 4.7 3.6

Totala 4.4 3.8 3.7 2.8 3.1 0.5 2.3 3.2 2.2 4.0 5.0 2.2 2.7 3.9 4.0 3.6 3.9 5.3 2.9 3.0 3.0 30.6 100.0

518

TAIWAN

2.10 List of Power Holders 1924–2001 Head of State Peljidiyn Genden

Years 1924–1927

Jantsagiyn Damdinsüren Horloogiyn Choybalsan

1927–1929 1929–1930

Losolyn Laagan Anandyn Amar

1930–1932 1932–1936

Dansranbilegiyn Dogsom

1936–1939

Gonchigiyn Bumtsend

1940–1953

Sükhbaataryn Yanjmaa

1953–1954

Jamsrangiyn Sambuu

1954–1972

Tsagaanlambyn Dügersüren

1972

Sonomyn Luvsan

1972–1974

Yumjaagiyn Tsedenbal

1974–1984

Nyamin Jagvaral

1984

Jambyn Batmönh

1984–1990

Punsalmaagiyn Ochirbat

1990–1997

Natsagiyn Bagabandi

1997–

Head of Government Dogsomyn Bodoo

Years 1921–1922

Jalchandz Hutagt Damdinbadzar

1922–1923

Balingiyn Tserendorj

1923–1928

Agdanbuugiyn Amar

1928–1930

Tsengeltiyn Jigjidjav Peljdiyn Genden

1930–1932 1932–1936

Remarks Became Chairman of the Baga Hural and thus official Head of State on 29/11/1924. Detained and executed in 1937. Succeeded Genden in office on 16/11/1927. Head of State as Chairman of the Baga Hural since 24/01/1929. Mainly responsible for the Stalinist repression in Mongolia. Succeeded Choybalsan in office on 27/04/1930. Chairman of the Baga Hural since 02/07/1932. Detained in 1939, extradited to the USSR and executed in 1941. Became Chairman of the Baga Hural on 22/03/1936. Detained in 1939, extradited to the USSR and executed in 1941. Took office as Chairman of the Baga Hural on 06/07/ 1940. After the constitutional reform of 1949, Chairman of the State Ih Hural and by extension Head of State since 06/07/1951. After Bumtsend's death on 23/09/1953, InterimChairman of the State Ih Hural. Took office as Chairman of the State Ih Hural on 07/ 07/1954. Under the new Constitution of 1960, Chairman of the People's Ih Hural. After Sambuu's death on 20/05/1972, Dügersüren became acting Chairman of the People's Ih Hural. Died in June 1972. Deputy Chairman of the People's Ih Hural, took office on 29/06/1972. Became official Head of State on 11/06/1974. Resigned allegedly due to health reasons. After being dismissed from all state offices, admitted to a sanatorium in the USSR. Deputy of the People's Ih Hural, acting Chairman since 23/08/1984. Became Chairman of People's Ih Hural on 12/12/ 1984. Resigned as General Secretary of the MPRP in March 1990 after Round Table negotiations with opposition groups over the holding of free elections. Elected first President of Mongolia by the Parliament on 21/03/1990. Confirmed in direct presidential elections on 06/06/1993. Having been a member of the MPRP parliamentary faction, Bagabandi became directly elected President on 20/06/1997. Re-elected President on 20/05/2001. Remarks Became Head of the Provisional Government on 13/ 03/1921. Since 1921, Premier and Minister of Foreign Affairs. Was executed as ‘counter-revolutionary’ in 1922. Member of the traditional Mongolian élite. Became Premier on 03/03/1922. Died on 23/06/1923 at the age of 49. Assumed office on 28/09/1923. Simultaneously member of the Central Committee of the MPRP and Minister for Foreign Affairs. Died in 1928. Assumed office in January 1928. Between 1932 and 1936 Chairman of the Presidium of the Baga Hural. Executed as ‘counter-revolutionary’ in 1933. Assassinated by the Soviet Secret Service in 1937.

MONGOLIA Agdanbuugiyn Amar

1936–1939

Horloogiyn Choybalsan

1939–1952

Yumjaagiyn Tsedenbal

1952–1974

Jambyn Batmönh Dumaagiyn Sodnom Shavaryn Gungaadorj

1974–1984 1984–1990 1990

Dashiyn Byambasüren

1990–1992

Puntsagiyn Jasray

1992–1996

Mendsayhany Enhsayhan

1996–1998

Tsahiagyn Elbegdorj

1998

Janlavyn Narantsatsralt

1998–1999

Nyam-Osoriyn Tuyaa

1999

Rinchinnyamyn Amarjargal Nambaryn Enhbayar

1999–2000 2000–

519 Simultaneously Minister for Foreign Affairs. Assassinated by the Soviet Secret Service in 1941. Became Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars on 24/03/1939; since 1946 Chairman of the Council of Ministers (CM). After Choybalsan's death on 28/01/1952, Tsedenbal became Chairman of the CM. Became Chairman of the CM on 11/06/1974. Appointed Chairman of the CM on 12/12/1984. Having been Vice-Premier in Sodnom's cabinet, Gungaadorj became head of a caretaker government on 21/03/1990 until the first free parliamentary elections. MPRP-member, was elected Prime Minister on 11/ 09/1990. Although the MPRP had won an absolute majority in the parliamentary elections, the opposition parties were invited to participate in Byambasüren's cabinet. MPRP-member, became Prime Minister after the June 1992 elections on 21/07/1992. Became Prime Minister after the DU's election victory on 19/07/1996. Headed a cabinet of non-partisan experts. Resigned two years later due to intra-party power struggles. Leader of the DU-party MNDP, succeeded Enhsayhan as Prime Minister on 23/04/1998. Had to resign because of his involvement in a highly contested merger of a state-owned bank with a private credit institute. Succeeded Elbegdorj as Prime Minister on 09/12/ 1998. Acting Head of Government from 22/07 till 30/07/ 1999. Elected Prime Minister on 30/07/1999. Elected Prime Minister on 26/07/2000.

520

TAIWAN

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources BNMAU-yn Ardyn Ih Hural (1981). Arav dah' udaagiyn songuul' (too barimtyn tovch lavlamj) [Great People's Assembly of the Mongolian People's Republic, 10th Electoral Period (Comprehensive Data Summary)]. Ulaanbaatar: Government Printing Press. —— (1990a). Arvan hoyordah udaagiyn conguul' (tovch lavlah) [12th Electoral Period (Comprehensive Data Summary)]. Ulaanbaatar: Government Printing Press. —— (1990b). Bügd Nayramdah Mongol Ard Ulsyn Ardyn Hurlyn Deputatuudyn Songuuliyn Huul' [Law on the Election of the Deputies of the Great State Assembly of the Mongolian People's Republic, as of 23 March 1990]. Ulaanbaatar: Government Printing Press. —— (1992). Electoral Law of the State Ih Hural (as of 04 April 1992). Ulaanbaatar: Government Printing Press. BNMAU-yn Ardyn Ich Hurlyn Deputatuudyn Songuuliyn nutag devsgeriyn komiss (1990). Uls töriyn namuudyn talaar BNMAU-yn songogchdyn sanal avsan düngiyn medee [Result of the Poll on the Voters' Opinion on Political Parties, as of 31 August 1990]. Ulaanbaatar: Parliamentarian Archives.

MONGOLIA

521

—— (1990). BNMAU-yn Ardyn Ih Hurlyn 12 dah´ udaagiyn bolon oron nutgiyn Ardyn Hurlyn 16 dah´ udaagiyn songuuliyn düngiyn tuhay medee [Results of the 12th Elections of the Great People's Assembly of the Mongolian People's Republic and the 16th Elections to the Local People's Assemblies, as of 31 August 1990]. Ulaanbaatar: Parliamentarian Archives. ‘Constitution of Mongolia’ (as of 13 January 1992), in A. J. K. Sanders (1996), Historical Dictionary of Mongolia. Lanham, Md./ London: Scarecrow Press, 272–292. Mongol Ulsyn Deed Shüüh (1999). Mongol Uls dah' uls töriyn namuudyn tovch sudalgaa [Comprehensive Report on the Political Parties of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: Supreme Court of Mongolia. Mongol Ulsyn Ih Hural (1993). Electoral Law of the President of Mongolia (as of 15 February 1993). Ulaanbaatar: Government Printing Press. —— (1996). Mongol Ulsyn Ih Hurlyn songooliyn huul' [Electoral Law of the Great State Assembly of Mongolia, as of 04 April 1992]. Ulaanbaatar: Mönhiyn üseg. —— (1997): Mongol Ulsyn Yerönhijlögchiyn songooliyn huul' [Electoral Law of the President of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar. Government Printing Press. National Archives of Mongolia (1945). BNMAU-yn tusgaar togtnolyn sanal asuulga [Referendum on Independence of the Mongolian People's Republic]. Ulaanbaatar: Government Printing Press. National Statistical Office of Mongolia (1999). Mongolian Statistical Year-book 1998. Ulaanbaatar: National Statistical Office of Mongolia. Songuuliyn Erönhiy Horoo (1992a). Ulsyn Ich Hurlyn songuuliyn sanal avaltad oroltsson songogchid, sanalyn dün [Turnout and Results of the Elections of the Great State Assembly, as of 2 July 1992]. Ulaanbaatar: Parliamentarian Archives. —— (1992b). Nam, evsel, bie daan ner devshigchdiyn avsan sanalyn sudalgaa [Report on the Votes Cast for Parties, Coalition and Individual Candidates, as of 2 July 1992]. Ulaanbaatar: Parliamentarian Archives. —— (1992c). Ulsyn Ich Hurlyn gishüüdiyn tovch sudalgaa [Biographical Notes of the Members of the Great State Assembly, as of 2 July 1992]. Ulaanbaatar: Parliamentarian Archives. —— (1992d). Nam, evsleesner devshigchid bolon bie daan ner devshigchded songogchdoos ögsön sanalyn sudalgaa [Overview over the Votes Cast for Parties, Coalitions and Individual Candidates, as of 2 July 1992]. Ulaanbaatar: Parliamentarian Archives. —— (1993). Mongol Ulsyn Erönhiylögchiyn songuuliyn anhan shatny sanal huraaltyn negdsen dün [Final Result of the First Round of the Presidential Elections in Mongolia, as of 15 June 1993]. Ulaanbaatar: Archives of Presidential Office.

522

TAIWAN

—— (1996). Ulsyn Ich Hurlyn songuuliyn negdsen dün [Final Result of the Elections of the Great State Assembly]. Ulaanbaatar: Parliamentarian Archives. —— (1997). Mongol Ulsyn Erönhiylögchiyn songuuliyn anhan shatny sanal huraaltyn negdsen dün [Final Result of the First Round of the Presidential Elections in Mongolia, as of 26 May 1997]. Ulaanbaatar: Archives of Presidential Office. —— (2000) Mongol ulsyn ih hurlyn songuulijn negdsen dün [Final Result of the Elections of the Great State Assembly, as of 15 July 2000]. Ulaanbaatar: Ödrijn sonin. Songuuliyn nutag devsgeriyn komiss (1990). BNMAU-yn Ardyn Ich Hurlyn Deputataar songogdson hümüüsiyn ner [Index of the Persons Elected as Deputies of the Great People's Assembly, as of 21 August 1990]. Ulaanbaatar: Parliamentarian Archives. State Statistical Office of Mongolia (1994). Statistic 70. Population of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar: National Statistical Office of Mongolia.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Awirmid, E., and Tschimid, B. (1977). ‘Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der sozialistischen Demokratie in der Mongolischen Volksrepublik’, in Akademie für Staats- und Rechtswissenschaften der DDR (ed.), Sozialismus und Demokratie. East Berlin: Staatsverlag der DDR, 362–404. Baabar, B. (1999). Twentieth Century Momgolia. Cambridge: The White Horse Press. Barkmann, U. B. (1999). Geschichte der Mongolei. Bonn: Bouvier. Bataa, D. (1998). Mongol ulsyn ündsen xuuliud, tedgeert orson nemelt öörchlöltüüd. Ulaanbaatar: Chutm. Bawden, Charles R. (1989). The Modern History of Mongolia. London: Kegan Paul International. Boldbaatar, J. (1999). Mongol ulsyn tüüh. Ulaanbaatar: Admon. Butler, W. E. (1982). The Mongolian Legal System. Contemporary Legislation and Documentation. The Hague: Nijhoff Publishers. Fish, M. S. (1998). ‘Mongolia: Democracy Without Prerequisites’. Journal of Democracy, 9/3: 127–141. Fritsche, K. (1994). ‘Mongolei’, in D. Nohlen and F. Nuscheler (eds.), Handbuch der Dritten Welt, Vol. 8: Ostasien und Ozeanien. Bonn: Dietz, 212–229. Fritz, V. (1999). Doppelte Transition in der Mongolei. Münster/ Hamburg/ London: Lit Verlag. Ginsburg, T. (1995). ‘Political Reform in Mongolia’. Asian Survey, 35/5: 459–471.

MONGOLIA

523

—— and Ganzorig, G. (1996). ‘Constitutional Reforms and Human Rights’, in O. Brun, and O. Odgaard (eds.), Mongolia in Transition. Richmond: Curzon Press, 147–164. Inter-Parliamentary Union (1974). ‘Mongolia’. Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections July 1, 1972–June 30, 1973. Geneva: IPU: 89–90. —— (1982). ‘Mongolia’. Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections July 1, 1980–June 30, 1981. Geneva: IPU: 95–96. —— (1987). ‘Mongolia’. Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections July 1, 1985–June 30, 1986. Geneva: IPU: 95–96. Kotzel, U., and Siemers, G. (1993). Die Mongolische Volksrepublik. Politik, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft. Eine Auswahlbibliographie. Hamburg: Deutsches Übersee-Institut. Merz, J. (1993). ‘Die Mongolei auf dem Weg zu pluralistischer Demokratie und Marktwirtschaft—Die neue mongolische Verfassung 1992’. Verfassung und Recht in Übersee, 26/1: 82–100. Möllers, W. (1992). ‘Die Mongolei nach den Wahlen vom 28. Juni 1992: Schwierige Wege zur Demokratie und Marktwirtschaft’. KAS-Auslands-informationen, 8/10: 1–6. Montsane News Agency (1999). State Ih Hural of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar. Pomfret, R. (2000). ‘Transition and Democracy in Mongolia’. Europe-Asia Studies, 52/1: 149–160. Prohl, W. M. (1996). ‘Die Parlamentswahlen in der Mongolei am 20. [sic!] Juni 1996’. KAS-Auslandsinformationen, 12/8: 79–92. Rupen, R. (1979). How Mongolia Is Really Ruled. Stanford, Cal.: Hoover Institution Press. Sanders, A. J. K. (1968). The People's Republic of Mongolia. A General Reference Guide. London/ New York: Oxford University Press. —— (1974). ‘Mongolia: From Sambuu to Tsedenbal’. Asian Survey, 14/11: 971–984. —— (1987). Mongolia: Politics, Economics and Society. London: Pinter and Rienner. —— (1992). ‘Mongolia's New Constitution: Blueprint for Democracy’. Asian Survey, 32/6: 506–520. —— (1996). Historical Dictionary of Mongolia. Lanham, Md./ London: The Scarecrow Press. Slatkin, I. J. (1954). Die Mongolische Volksrepublik. Geschichtlicher Abriβ. Berlin: Dietz. Siemers, G. (1990). ‘Die Mongolei auf dem Weg zur Demokratie?’. Europa-Archiv, 45/21: 632–638. Thiel, E. (1958). Die Mongolei. Land, Volk und Wirtschaft in der Mongolischen Volksrepublik. München: Isar Verlag.


Taiwan (Republic of China) by Marianne Rinza3

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview After the defeat of the Chinese national government of Marshal Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese Civil War (1946–49) and its retreat from Mainland China to Taiwan in 1949, the authoritarian government of the Nationalist Party Guomindang (GMD) established Martial Law, which lasted for the following thirty-eight years. Since the mid-1980s, Taiwan has experienced a gradual transition to democracy, resulting in the institutionalization of a multi-party system and the holding of regular competitive elections. The island of Taiwan never achieved national independence as an individual state in a traditional sense. Its political existence was the direct result of the Chinese Civil War in Mainland China: following the defeat of the Nationalists against the Chinese Communist Party, Chiang Kai-shek and his army, together with government officials and other refugees, poured onto the island in August 1949. From this time on, the Nationalists considered the island as the only remaining free part of the Republic of China (ROC), while Mainland China became the People's Republic of China. The historical and institutional origins of the political system of the ROC—and therefore also of the Taiwanese system—date back to the foundation of the republic in 1912 in Nanjing, on Mainland China. At this time the island of Taiwan was a mere province of the ROC. The fundaments of the GMD were laid down by first President Sun Yatsen in the Three Principles of the People (Sanmin zhuyi)—nationalism (minzu), democracy (minzhu) and people's well-being (minsheng). Furthermore, the system of the so-called ‘Five-branch-Government’ was introduced. It

3

I would like to express my special gratitude to I-fen Chen from the Central Election Commission of the ROC, who kindly provided me with the official electoral data, as well as to Michael Meyer, Institute of Sinology, University of Heidelberg (Germany) and to Axel Schneider, Institute of Sinology, University of Leiden (Netherlands) for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

526

AUSTRALIA

combined the Western notion of executive, legislative and judicial powers with two additional institutions drawn from traditional Chinese political theory, the powers of examination (kaoshi), and control (jiancha). There were hence five concurring branches of government with specific institutions, which, together with the Principles, formed the framework for the ROC's post-war constitution of 1946. In the 1946 Constitution these five branches were complemented by additional institutions, a President of the Republic (indirectly elected) and a so-called National Assembly. In this complex system of government several institutions thus concurred within both the executive and the legislative. The Constitution of the ROC provided for three bodies that assumed parliamentary functions: the Legislative Yuan, the National Assembly, and the Control Yuan. The first one serves as the main legislative organ, the National Assembly is exclusively responsible for the election of the President and amendments of the Constitution, and the last one controls the administration. Both the Legislative Yuan and the National Assembly were popularly elected. On the executive side, the 1946 Constitution provided for a so-called Executive Yuan with a Prime Minister at its Head, elected by the Legislative Yuan. The President of the Republic represents the ROC in the international community, signs treaties, declares war and peace, proclaims amnesties, nominates public officials, and has the right to rule in times of unrest with the help of emergency powers, which, however, are subject to the approval of the Legislative Yuan. This constitutional system of government was, however, strongly modified during the authoritarian rule of the GMD (1949–1986). The constitutional powers of the parliamentary bodies were completely eroded by the President with the announcement of Martial Law (jieyanfa), the Emergency Degree (dongyanfa) and the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion (short: Temporary Provisions, dongyuan kanluan shiqi linshi tiaokuan), which had been already adopted in Mainland China and later extended to Taiwan Province. These restrictions suspended parts of the 1946 Constitution and were designed to enhance presidential power during the period of communist uprising. The Temporary Provisions abrogated the terms of office of the President and gave him the right to establish special executive organs to maintain the political order. Another Temporary Provision ordained that all members of the Legislative Yuan, the National Assembly and the Control Yuan elected in Mainland China in 1947–1948 hold their seats until the liberation of all communist territories. This decree rendered the

TAIWAN

527

holding of regular elections impossible, and the parliamentarians, elected initially for constitutionally fixed terms of office, became senior parliamentarians. Nevertheless, supplementary and additional elections were held for all three parliamentary chambers even during the authoritarian era. Until the mid 1970s, the ROC experienced a regime of hard authoritarianism under the Presidency of Chiang Kaishek, who tried to achieve a rapid socio-economic development to compensate for the lack of political legitimacy. Under Chiang Kai-shek's son, Jiang Jingguo, who had succeeded him in 1975, the political system began to liberalize, thanks on the one hand to the emergence of an opposition movement known as dangwai (outside the party), and on the other to splits within the leadership of the GMD. In 1986, within the course of this gradual process of liberalization, the first official opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), was legalized, and Martial Law was lifted in 1987. At this stage, democratization could not be restrained any longer, yet the incumbent élites of the GMD still managed to hold the reform process under control. GMD-President Li Denghui dominated the constitutional reform. He had succeeded Jiang Jingguo in 1988 and had been elected President by the National Assembly in 1990. In July of the same year, Li Denghui convened a National Affairs Conference, where representatives of all social groups and political parties were invited to discuss about the reforms of the political system and to decide on the partial reform or total re-elaboration of the 1946 Constitution. The opposition had opted for a totally new Constitution (without the Five-Branches doctrine), but the GMD decided eventually to have it amended, being the National Assembly in charge of preparing and acting such amendment. In January 1989, the Legislative Yuan passed the Law on the Voluntary Retirement of Senior Parliamentarians, which paved the way for new elections to the National Assembly and the Legislative Yuan. In May 1991 President Li Denghui declared the end of the Period for the Repression of the Communist Rebellion and thus annulled the last Temporary Provisions. In this sense, the democratization process initially re-established the original constitutional system of 1946—which had been designed for the whole China—by removing the additional presidential powers. The first revision of the Constitution in April 1991 included 10 amendments, the most important of which prescribed new elections to the national representative institutions until December 1991 (National Assembly) and December 1992 (Legislative Yuan). As the GMD won 78 percent of the seats in the 1991 elections to the National Assembly—the

528

AUSTRALIA

organ in charge of constitutional reforms—there was no need for it to compromise with the DPP-led opposition. Further constitutional amendments, adopted in May 1992 and July 1994, provided for a reduction of the terms of office of both the National Assembly and the President from six to four years. The President was to be directly elected. The National Assembly saw its power strengthened by the possibility to have a speaker, and the Prime Minister was made responsible to the Legislative Yuan. The constitutional reforms established thus a semi-presidential system of government with the President appointing the Government. The latest constitutional amendments of April 2000 provide for an extension of the term of the Third National Assembly—elected in 1996—,which would have expired on 19 May 2000, and abolish the elections to the National Assembly, which will be now fully appointed, on the basis of the seat distribution in the Legislative Yuan. The first appointment of the Fourth National Assembly will be based on the electoral outcomes of the Fifth Legislative Yuan elections in December 2001. Despite having controlled the reform process, the GMD saw its 50 years of uninterrupted rule end abruptly in the second direct presidential elections of March 2000, when DPP candidate Chen Shuibian secured a plurality of 39 percent. Incumbent Vice-President Lian Zhan of the GMD ranked only third, with 23 percent. This victory of the opposition has given rise to new concerns about the relationship with the People's Republic of China, which has warned the opposition against declaring the independence of Taiwan. It has also precipitated the GMD into a major crisis; although the latter still controls the majority of seats in the Legislative Yuan.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage were introduced in the ROC's Constitution of 1946. In 1947, the first direct election of the 2,961 members of the National Assembly (guomin dahui) were held in the ROC, which then comprised also the territory of Mainland China. The regular term of office was supposed to be six years; the system of single non-transferable vote (SNTV) in multi-member constituencies (MMC) was applied. In 1948 there were direct elections to the 760-member Legislative Yuan (lifayuan). The ongoing Civil War prevented the holding of elections in some constituencies. Consequently, these seats remained vacant. In 1949, when the GMD government was

TAIWAN

529

forced to leave the mainland for Taiwan, not all parliamentary members could accompany them, which resulted in an overall reduction of the National Assembly to 1,947 members. From then on general elections in Mainland China became impossible, so the Temporary Provisions stipulated that all Members of Parliament from both the National Assembly and Legislative Yuan were to remain in office unlimitedly, until Mainland China was recovered again. In 1966 an amendment to the Temporary Provisions authorized the President of the ROC to call for supplementary elections to both chambers, in order to fill vacancies and increase Taiwanese representation as a compensation for the population growth on the island. The first supplementary elections for the National Assembly and the Legislative Yuan were held in 1969 to fill 15 and 11 seats respectively; all of which were immediately frozen for an unlimited term of office. In 1972 a decree provided for additional elections to be held for the National Assembly every six years, and every three years for the Legislative Yuan. The Members of Parliament elected in these additional elections were not to be immediately frozen in office, like the seats for the 1947/ 1948 elections and the 1969 supplementary elections. Until 1989 the following supplementary elections were held: for the National Assembly 1972 (53 seats), 1980 (76 seats) and 1986 (84 seats), for the Legislative Yuan 1972 (51 seats), 1975 (52 seats), 1980 (98 seats), 1983 (98 seats), 1986 (100 seats), and 1989 (130 seats). In 1989 the Law on the Voluntary Retirement of Senior Parliamentarians was the first step toward the release from office of the National Assembly's senior members, who stemmed from the 1947 and 1969 elections. With the interpretation of the Constitution made by the Council of Grand Justice (Supreme Court) in 1990, all of them retired on 31 December 1991. Furthermore, the 1991 Constitutional Amendment provided for general elections to be held for the whole National Assembly in December 1991, the first complete renewal since 1947. 325 members were to be elected for a term of four years; 219 seats were filled by SNTV in 25 MMCs, ranging in size from 2 to 31 seats (nine constituencies with 2–4 seats; five constituencies with 5–7 seats; three constituencies with 8–9 seats; six constituencies with 11–14 seats; single constituencies with 28 and 31 seats each; average size: 8.8). An additional national constituency was introduced: 80 seats were to be filled by proportional representation from party lists according to the total party votes obtained in the MMCs (modus of seat allocation: Hare-Niemeyer); a threshold of five percent was applied. Aborigine minorities elected six members in two special nation-wide constituencies by SNTV; Chinese

530

AUSTRALIA

living abroad (overseas Chinese) could vote for 20 members in an overseas constituency by proportional representation from party lists (seat allocation: Hare-Niemeyer). The term of office for the additional members elected in 1986 overlapped with the term for the 1991 National Assembly, so they were allowed to serve in the National Assembly together with the 1991 members until their term expired on 31 January 1993. For the 1996 National Assembly election the provisions remained unchanged, only the number of seats was raised to 334, with 228 members coming from 25 MMCs, ranging from 2 to 33 seats (eight constituencies with 2–4 seats; five constituencies with 5–6 seats; two constituencies with 8 seats; single constituencies with 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, and 33 seats each; average size: 9.1); 80 seats were filled through the additional national constituency; six members came from the two aborigine constituencies and 20 members from the overseas constituency. The regular term of the 1996-elected National Assembly ended in May 2000. The 2000 Constitutional Amendment, nevertheless, has abolished the National Assembly as directly elected chamber and from December 2001, the National Assembly will turn into a 300-member non-permanent chamber, appointed in accordance with the seat distribution in the Legislative Yuan. Like the National Assembly, the Legislative Yuan experienced major changes in the 1990s. In accordance with the 1991 Constitutional Amendment, this chamber was to be directly elected as a whole in December 1992—the first complete renewal since 1948. 161 members were to be elected for a term of three years; 119 of them from SMCs and MMCs: four seats by the plurality system in SMCs and 115 seats by SNTV in 21 MMCs, ranging in size from 2 to 18 seats (ten constituencies with 2–3 seats; five constituencies with 4–5 seats; three constituencies with 7 seats; single constituencies with 12, 16, and 18 seats each; average size: 5.5). An additional national constituency was introduced also for the Legislative Yuan: 30 seats were to be filled by proportional representation from party lists according to the total party votes obtained in the SMCs and MMCs (seat allocation: Hare-Niemeyer); a threshold of five percent was applied. Aborigine minorities elected six members in two special nation-wide constituencies by SNTV; Chinese living abroad elected six members in an overseas constituency by proportional representation from party lists (seat allocation: HareNiemeyer). As regards the 1995 election, the only change concerned the number of seats, which rose to 164; 122 seats were now to be filled in SMCs and MMCs: five seats in SMCs and 117 seats in 20 MMCs, ranging in size from 2 to 18 seats (eight constituencies with 2–3 seats; four constituencies with 4–5

TAIWAN

531

seats; four constituencies with 6–7 seats; single constituencies with 8, 12, 17, and 18 seats each; average size: 5.9). From the additional national constituency, 30 seats were to be filled, aborigine minorities elected six members in two special nation-wide constituencies and in the overseas' constituency, again six seats were to be filled. For the last election in 1998 the number of seats was raised again, now to 225 (for details see 1.3). The 1992 Constitutional Amendment introduced also, for the first time, direct elections of the President and the VicePresident (for details see 1.3). Both offices were formerly elected by the National Assembly. The first direct presidential elections were held in 1996; the same regulations applied for the 2000 presidential elections.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Republic of China (1946), with amendments of 1991, 1992, 1994, 1997, and 2000; Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election and Recall Law (1995); Public Office Personal Election and Recall Law (1998). Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. Every citizen of the Republic of China (ROC) who has reached the age of 20 is entitled to vote. Persons who have been declared incompetent or who have been deprived of their civil rights are disenfranchised. Voters have to reside in a constituency for a minimum of four months in order to be registered there. Voting is not compulsory. Citizens living abroad are allowed to vote. Yet, they have to return to the ROC in order to exercise their voting right. Elected national institutions: The President of the Republic (zongtong), the Vice-President ( fuzongtong) and the Legislative Yuan (lifayuan) are directly elected. The President and Vice-President are elected on a single ballot for a regular term of four years. One consecutive re-election is allowed. The Legislative Yuan consists of 225 members, 168 of whom are elected in single-member constituencies (SMCs) and multi-member constituencies (MMCs); eight are elected by aborigine minorities in two special nation-wide MMCs; 41 members are elected in one nation-wide constituency and the other eight in a constituency for the overseas Chinese. Among the 168 seats from the SMCs and MMCs, a certain number

532

AUSTRALIA

of seats is reserved to representatives of women's organizations. The regular term of office is four years. Vacancies arising during the parliamentary term are filled in the following way: for vacancies of members elected in SMCs and MMCs, by-elections are held only if one half of the respective constituency seats fall vacant. Otherwise they remain unfilled. No by-election is held if the next regular election is due in less than one year; for vacancies of members coming from a party list, seats are filled by the next person on the respective party list. Elections for presidency and parliament are not held simultaneously.

Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: Candidates for presidency and Vice-Presidency have to be citizens of the ROC by birth, be 40 years or over, have formally resided in the ROC for more than 15 years and have been living in Taiwan for four consecutive months before the election. Persons serving in the military and the police, holding a foreign nationality, being undischarged bankrupts or convicted of sedition after 1 May 1991 and of several other criminal offences, are disqualified as presidential candidates. Candidates can either be nominated by a political party or run as individuals. Only those parties that have won more than five percent of the valid votes in the previous provincial or national election are allowed to nominate a candidate. Individuals have to submit the signatures of more than 1.5 per cent of registered voters of the previous national election. In 2000 this figure was 224,429. Presidential and vice-presidential candidates have to register jointly and are listed on a single ticket. Moreover, candidates have to pay an election deposit of NT$ 15,000,000 (equals app. US$ 433 in 2001). This fee will be reimbursed if the candidates obtain at least five per cent of the valid votes. Those candidates whose valid votes exceed one third of the votes will receive a campaign subsidy of NT$ 30 (equals app. US$ 1 in 2001) per vote. - elections for the Legislative Yuan: Persons who have reached the age of 23 and are citizens of the ROC are eligible for Parliament. Naturalized citizens have to have the nationality for at least ten years. For the SMC and MMC-seats, candidates may either run as individuals or as party candidates; nominees for the nation-wide constituency and the constituency for overseas Chinese, though, must be nominated by a political party and have to be members of the respective party. Furthermore, those candidates running for the overseas Chinese seats must have been living abroad for a minimum of eight years. Regarding educational criteria, candidates must have high school education or the higher civil servicemen examination. Persons serving in the military and the police,

TAIWAN

533

being undischarged bankrupts or convicted of sedition after 1 May 1991 and of several other criminal offences specified in the Election Law may not run for presidency. A security deposit is required for all candidates. However, the fee will be reduced by fifty per cent for those candidates running in the SMCs and MMCs under a party label. The deposit is reimbursed to those candidates who win more than ten percent of the quotient resulting from dividing the number of registered voters by the number of seats to be filled in the constituency. Those candidates from SMCs and MMCs, whose valid votes exceed three quarters of the minimum votes required to obtain a seat, will receive a campaign subsidy of NT$ 30 (equals app. US$ 1 in 2001) per vote.

Electoral system - presidential elections: Plurality system. - Legislative Yuan: Plurality system in SMCs and single non-transferable vote (SNTV) in MMCs with an additional national constituency. There is also SNTV in two special nation-wide constituencies reserved for aborigine minorities and proportional representation in a MMC for overseas Chinese. Each elector is entitled to one single vote. Among the 225 parliamentary seats, 168 are elected in four SMCs and 21 MMCs, ranging from two to 27 seats, (nine constituencies with 2–4; four constituencies with 6–7; six constituencies with 9–12; one constituency with 20 and 27 seats respectively, average size 7.8). 41 seats are distributed in proportion to the national total of votes, received by the party candidate in the SMCs and MMCs. A national threshold of five per cent is applied. Seat allocation follows the Hare-Niemeyer formula. Eight special seats for the aborigine minorities are elected in two nation-wide MMCs, with four seats each. Further eight seats for the overseas Chinese are elected in one MMC. The system applied is proportional representation and the electoral formula for seat-allocation is Hare-Niemeyer. Organizational context of elections: Elections are conducted by the Central Election Commission (CEC). The Commission was founded in 1980 and works under the instruction of the Executive Yuan. Its responsibilities are: holding and supervising national and local elections, screening candidate qualifications, recalling elected officials, and drafting or amending laws concerning elections. The CEC is led by a chairman and consists of eleven to 19 commissioners, who, after being nominated by the Prime Minister and later approved by the President, serve for a term of three years. To guarantee the impartiality of the CEC, the

534

AUSTRALIA

Public Officials and Recall Law stipulates that each party may have a maximum number of commissioners not superior to two-fifths of the total members of the Commission.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The following electoral statistics are based on official government sources documented by the Central Election Commission. The figures from 1947 to 1986 are based on The Statistical Precis of the ROC Election 1946–1987 (Zhonghua minguo xuanqu tongji tiyao) (1988), the election results from 1989 to 1992 on official Electoral Reports of the CEC. The election results from 1994 to 2000 are aggregated in the data-bank, which was jointly developed by the CEC and the Election Study Center of the National Zhengzhi University (http://esc.nccu.edu.tw/e00h0004.htm). All statistical documents, which are only available in Chinese, are very precise and well documented. However, the absolute numbers of votes won by each party are not available for the period from 1947 to 1989. Regional breakdowns of data are based on constituencies for the 1947/ 48 elections, and on the administrative regions for all other elections. Useful secondary sources are the Central Daily News (Zhongyang ribao, Chinese), the Free China Journal (English), China aktuell (German) and various English and Chinese Internet sites (i.e. http://www.taiwanheadlines.gov.tw; http://www. gio.gov.tw; http://www.oop.gov.tw).

535

TAIWAN


Presidential electionsa

Parliamentary elections Legislative Yuan

1947 1948 1949 1950 1954 1960 1966 1969 1972 1973 1975 1978 1980 1983 1984 1986 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1995 1996 1998 2000 a

xx/04 21/01 01/03 21/03 22/03 21/03 21/03

National Assembly 21–23/11

21–23/01

20/12 23/12

20/12 23/12

20/12 21/03 06/12 03/12

06/12

06/12

06/12

21/03

03/12 21/03 22/12 21/12 02/12 23/03

23/03 05/12

18/03

Presidential elections were indirect until 1990.


Referendums

Coups d'état

536

AUSTRALIA


1947 1948 1969 1969 1972 1972 1975 1980 1980 1983 1986 1986 1989 1991 1992 1995 1996 1996 1998 2000 a b

Type of electiona

NA LY NA LY NA LY LY NA LY LY NA LY LY NA LY LY Pr NA LY Pr

Population

Registered voters

Votes cast

— — 13,956,612 13,956,612 15,208,464 15,208,464 15,878,529 17,474,500 17,474,500 18,647,856 19,405,473 19,405,473 20,040,882 20,491,467 20,685,341 20,893,361 21,311,885 21,311,885 21,442,231 22,077,000

Total number 2,675,094b 2,801,392b 3,325,203 6,694,978 7,555,694 7,608,589 8,410,775 9,891,068 9,921,965 10,908,171 11,790,344 11,814,315 12,600,901 13,083,119 13,421,170 14,153,410 14,313,288 14,130,084 14,961,900 15,462,625

Total number 1,959,154b 2,000,491b 1,819,402 3,682,357 5,177,167 5,187,312 6,392,264 6,570,847 6,584,338 6,891,160 7,714,392 7,723,637 9,470,526 8,938,622 9,666,021 9,574,388 10,883,279 10,769,224 10,188,302 12,786,671

NA = National Assembly, LY = Legislative Yuan, Pr = President. The figures refer only to the Province of Taiwan.

% pop. — — 23.8 48.0 49.7 50.0 53.0 56.6 56.8 58.5 60.8 60.9 62.9 63.8 64.9 67.7 67.2 66.3 69.8 70.0

% reg. voters 73.2 71.4 54.7 55.0 68.5 68.2 76.0 66.4 66.4 63.2 65.4 65.4 75.2 68.3 72.0 67.6 76.0 76.2 68.1 82.7

% pop. — — 13.0 26.4 34.0 34.1 40.3 37.6 37.7 37.0 39.8 39.8 47.3 43.6 46.7 45.8 51.1 50.5 47.5 57.9

TAIWAN

537

2.3 Abbreviations CAPWP CDCP CDP CDSP CGHDP CJP CNP CP CRP CRepP CSDP CSP CTAP CUP CVUP CWP CYP DPP DUT FP GMD GPP GPT LEP LP MPP NDNU NDP NNA NP NRP PAP TAIP TP WP YCP

China All People Welfare Party (Zhongguo quanmin fuli dang) China Democratic Constitutional Party (Zhongguo minzhu xianzheng dang) China Democratic Party (Zhongguo minzhu dang) China Democratic Socialist Party (Zhongguo minzhu shehui dang) China Great Harmony Democratic Party (Zhongguo datong minzhu dang) China Justice Party (Zhongguo zhongyi dang) China Neutral Party (Zhongguo zhonghe dang) Citizen's Party (Gongmin dang) China Renaissance Party (Zhongguo fuxing dang) Chinese Republican Party (Zhonghua gonghe dang) Chinese Social Democratic Party (Zhonghua shehui minzhu dang) China Selfstrengthening Party (Zhongguo ziqiang dang) Chinese Taiwan Aborigines Party (Zhongguo taiwan yuanzhumin dang) China Unity Party (Zhongguo tuanjie dang) China Veteran Unification Party (Zhongguo laobing tongyi dang) China Women's Party (Zhongguo funü dang) China Young Party (Zhongguo qingnian dang) Democratic Progressive Party (Minzhu jinbu dang) Democratic Union of Taiwan (Taiwan minzhu lianmeng) Farmer's Party (Nongmin dang) Guomindang (Zhongguo guomin dang) Great Public Party (Dagong dang) Green Party of Taiwan (Taiwan lü dang) Loyal Employees Party (Zhongyi zhigong dang) Labour Party (Laodong dang) Modern Progressive Party (Xianjin dang) Nationwide Democratic Nonpartisan Union (Quanguo minzhu feizhengdang lianmeng) National Democratic Party (Guojia minzhu dang) New Nation Alliance (Xin guojia lianxian) New Party (Xin dang) National Revival Party (Zhongxing dang) People's Activity Party (Renmin xingdong dang) Taiwan Independence Party (Jianguo dang) Truth Party ( Zhenli dang) Worker's Party (Gong dang) Young China Party ( Qingnian Zhongguo dang)

538

AUSTRALIA

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1947–2000 Party / Alliance CYP GMD CDSP DPP CDP CNP CRepP CRP CSP CUP GPP LEP LP WP YCP CAPWP CDCP CGHDP CJP CSDP CVUP FP NDNU NRP PAP TP CP CTAP NP CWP GPT MPP NDP NNA TAIP DUT a b

Years 1947–1998 1947–2000 1948–1992 1986–2000 1989 1989 1989–1991 1989–1991 1989 1989, 1992 1989 1989 1989–1995 1989, 1991, 1992 1989, 1998 1991–1992 1991 1991–1992 1991–1992 1991–1992 1991 1991 1991, 1995–1998 1991–1992 1992 1992 1995 1995–1998 1995–1998 1996 1996–1998 1996 1996–1998 1996–1998 1996–1998 1998

Elections contested Presidentiala 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Direct elections since 1996. Total number: 2. Including Legislative Yuan and Nation Assembly elections. Total number: 18.

Parliamentaryb 18 18 15 8 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1

539

TAIWAN

2.5 Referendums Referendums at the national level have not been held.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly Elections for a Constitutional Assembly have not been held.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 Legislative Yuan 1948–1998 The absolute numbers of votes won by each party in the elections held from 1948 to 1989 are not available. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes a

b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes b

% – 55.0 4.4 95.6

1972a Total number 7,608,589 5,187,312 368,289 4,819,023

% – 68.2 7.1 92.9

1975b Total number 8,410,775 6,392,264 168,877 6,220,454

% – 76.0 2.6 97.3

1983b Total number 10,908,171 6,891,160 148,796 6,741,873

% – 63.2 2.2 97.8

1989b Total number 12,600,901 9,470,526 354,748 9,115,778

% – 75.2 3.7 96.3

First Additional Elections: 51 new members were elected. Second Additional Elections: 52 new members were elected.

Year

a

% – 71.4 1.2 98.8

1969b Total number 6,694,978 3,682,357 161,575 3,520,782

Elections for the first Legislative Yuan were held in Mainland China. 760 delegates were elected for whole China. The absolute numbers are only available for the Province of Taiwan. First Supplementary Elections: 11 new members were elected.

Year

a

1948a Total number 2,801,392 2,000,491 23,872 1,976,619

1980a Total number 9,921,965 6,584,338 210,565 6,373,762

% – 66.4 3.2 96.8

Third Additional Elections: 97 new members were elected. Fourth Additional Elections: 98 new members were elected.


1986a Total number 11,814,315 7,723,637 207,266 7,515,747

% – 65.4 2.7 97.3

540 a b

Fifth Additional Elections: 100 new members were elected. Sixth Additional Elections: 130 new members were elected (101 regular legislators plus 29 representatives for overseas Chinese).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes GMD DPP CSDP NP Others Independents a

b

c

1992a Total number 13,421,170 9,666,021 177,249 9,488,772 5,030,725 2,944,195 126,213 – 56,084b 1,331,555

% – 72.0 1.8 98.2 53.0 31.0 1.3 – 0.6 14.0

1995 Total number 14,153,410 9,574,388 132,252 9,442,136 4,349,089 3,132,156 – 1,222,931 7,431c 730,529

% – 67.6 1.4 98.6 46.1 33.2 – 13.0 0.1 7.7

Since the Law on the Voluntary Retirement of Senior Parliamentarians took effect in December 1991, all senior legislators have retired. With the retirement of all senior parliamentarians the legislative elections in 1992 marked the first free and democratic elections in Taiwan. Others include: WP: 32,349 votes; LP: 11,224; TP: 6,545; CUP: 1,438; PMP: 1,221; CYP: 1,035; NRP: 886; CAPWP: 677; CDSP: 418; CGHDP: 201; CJP: 90. Others include: CTAP: 5,707 votes; LP: 1,207; NDNU: 517.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes DPP GMD NP DU TAIP NNA NDNU Othersa Independents a

AUSTRALIA

1998 Total number 14,961,900 10,188,302 152,473 10,035,829 2,966,834 4,659,679 708,465 375,118 145,118 157,826 66,033 10,325 946,431

Others include: GPT: 8,089 votes; CTAP: 1,171; CYP: 723; NDP: 342.

% – 68.1 1.5 98.5 29.6 46.4 7.1 3.7 1.5 1.6 0.7 0.1 9.4

541

TAIWAN

2.7.1 a) Legislative Yuan, Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) The absolute numbers of votes won by each party in the elections held from 1948 to 1989 are not available.

a

b

c

1948 Region Taibei County Xinchu County Taizhong County Tainan County Gaoxiong County Hualian County Taidong County Penghu County Taibei City Jilong City Xinchu City Taizhong City Zhonghua City Jiayi City Tainan City Gaoxiong City Pingdong City Total

Reg. voters 307,644 343,985 549,915 576,537 295,394 70,788 43,101 34,624 153,425 44,170 54,525 52,749 28,321 55,685 75,373 67,522 47,634 2,801,392

Votes cast 192,908 310,501 504,173 514,140 143,737 26,267 28,831 19,122 69,438 5,382 43,213 42,307 16,749 14,131 25,369 13,958 30,265 2,000,491

Invalid votes 2,776 2,697 5,212 5,220 1,795 593 377 509 988 185 689 986 262 228 807 257 291 23,872

Valid votes 190,132 307,804 498,961 508,920 141,942 25,674 28,454 18,613 68,450 5,197 42,524 41,321 16,487 13,903 24,562 13,701 29,974 1,976,619

1969 Region Taiwan Province District I District II Taibei City Total

Reg. voters 5,803,627 2,495,227 3,308,400 891,351 6,694,978

Votes cast 3,293,998 1,442,617 1,851,381 388,359 3,682,357

Invalid votes 147,335 50,489 96,846 14,240 161,575

Valid votes 3,146,663 1,392,128 1,754,535 374,119 3,520,782

1972 Region Taiwan Provincea Taibei Cityb Fujian Provincec Total

Reg. voters 6,561,944 1,013,500 33,145 7,608,589

Votes cast 4,580,071 576,308 30,933 5,187,312

Invalid votes 339,812 28,220 257 368,289

Valid votes 4,240,259 548,088 30,676 4,819,023

In the official statistics the figures are listed by districts and also separately by representatives of aborigine and Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 114,339 Mountain Aborigines; 744,511 Occupational Groups. Votes cast: 95,922 Mountain Aborigines; 568,923 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 3,898 Mountain Aborigines; 61,455 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 92,024 Mountain Aborigines; 507, 468 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 140 Mountain Aborigines; 89,394 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 58 Mountain Aborigines; 56,975 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 7 Mountain Aborigines; 6,015 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 51 Mountain Aborigines; 50,960 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 36 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 30 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 2 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 28 Occupational Groups.

1975 Region Taiwan Provincea Taibei Cityb

Reg. voters 7,260,818 1,119,178

Votes cast 5,711,086 650,972

Invalid votes 154,869 16,631

Valid votes 5,556,217 634,341

542 Fujian Provincec Total a

b

c

b

c

d

b

310 171,810

29,896 6,220,454

Reg. voters 6,784,629 1,168,405 571,795 20,460 8,545,289 148,817 1,227,859

Votes cast 4,428,298 758,113 386,320 19,384 5,592,115 103,166 889,057

Invalid votes 138,518 16,344 8,138 156 163,156 3,728 43,692

Valid votes 4,289,780 741,769 378,182 19,228 5,428,959 99,438 845,365

9,921,965

6,584,338

210,576

6,373,762

Reg. voters 8,714,014 1,445,901 719,111 29,145 10,908,171

Votes cast 5,479,801 912,010 471,359 27,990 6,891,160

Invalid votes 117,426 21,195 10,158 508 149,287

Valid votes 5,362,375 890,815 461,201 27,482 6,741,873

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 163,103 Aborigines; 1,045,876 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 96,676 Aborigines; 710,404 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 1,944 Aborigines; 22,291 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 94,762 Aborigines; 688,113 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 1,108 Aborigines; 144,705 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 457 Aborigines; 93,504 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 31 Aborigines; 5,083 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 426 Aborigines; 88,421 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 1,175 Aborigines; 81,591 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 566 Aborigines; 48,863 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 18 Aborigines; 2,542 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 548 Aborigines; 46,321 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 9,105 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 8,891 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 273 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 8,618 Occupational Groups.

1986 Region Taiwan Provincea Taibei Cityb Gaoxiong Cityc Fujian Provinced Total a

30,206 6,392,264

In the official statistics of the Central Election Commission the figures for the election of 1980 are listed by votes of regional constituencies and, separately, by votes of aborigines and Occupational Groups. The votes of aborigines and Occupational Groups are calculated in total and not distributed to each regional constituency.


30,779 8,410,775

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 124,773 Mountain Aborigines; 822,317 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 113,958 Mountain Aborigines; 71,924 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 1,427 Mountain Aborigines; 26,030 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 112,531 Mountain Aborigines; 648,700 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 123 Mountain Aborigines; 105,776 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 59 Mountain Aborigines; 71,924 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 3,990 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 59 Mountain Aborigines; 67,934 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 472 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 462 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 2 Occupational Groups.

1980a Region Taiwan Province Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Total Aborigines Occupational Groups Total a

AUSTRALIA

Reg. voters 9,391,054 1,609,706 784,217 29,338 11,814,315

Votes cast 6,143,479 1,041,373 512,252 26,533 7,723,637

Invalid votes 169,791 24,094 12,714 1,291 207,890

Valid votes 5,973,688 1,017,279 499,538 25,242 7,515,747

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 173,583 Aborigines; 1,228,183 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 89,750 Aborigines; 787,496 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 3,910 Aborigines; 43,590 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 85,840 Aborigines; 743,906 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 1,834 Aborigines; 178,689 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 793 Aborigines; 110,371 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 16,870 Taibei City; 61 Aborigines (45 lowland, 16 highland Aborigines); 7,163 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 913,339 Taibei City; 732 Aborigines (578 lowland, 154 highland Aborigine); 103,208 Occupational Groups.

543

TAIWAN c

d

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 1,589 Aborigines; 91,090 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 663 Aborigines; 54,667 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 17 Aborigines; 2,876 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 646 Aborigines; 51,791 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 9,421 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 8,945 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 536 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 8,409 Occupational Groups.


b

c

d

b

c

d

Invalid votes 295,494 36,139 22,457 658 354,748

Registered voters 10,705,443 1,793,999 892,423 29,305 13,421,170

Votes cast 7,759,735 1,212,763 669,869 23,654 9,666,021

Invalid votes 145,693 18,794 12,448 314 177,249

Valid votes 7,614,042 1,193,969 657,421 23,340 9,488,772

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 208,483 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 113,673 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 110,745 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 3,081 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 1,336 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 63 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 2,630 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 1,192 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 48 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 3 highland Aborigines. Votes cast: 2 highland Aborigines. Valid Votes:

1992 (continued) Region Taiwan Province Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Total 1995 Region Taiwan Provincea Taibei Cityb Gaoxiong Cityc Fujian Provinced Total a

Votes cast 7,565,200 1,213,673 668,453 23,200 9,470,526

Valid votes 7,269,706 1,177,534 645,996 22,542 9,115,778

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 187,459 Aborigines; 1,455,642 Occupational Groups; Votes Cast: 111,554 Aborigines; 1,162,218 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 6,053 Aborigines; 66,147 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 105,501 Aborigines; 1,096,971 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 2,732 Aborigines; 230,373 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 1,406 Aborigines; 165,387 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 94 Aborigines; 9,358 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 1,312 Aborigines; 156,029 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 2,288 Aborigines; 91,746 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 1,269 Aborigines; 70,981 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 76 Aborigines; 3,879 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 1,193 Aborigines; 67,102 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 3,441 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 2,824 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 150 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 2,674 Occupational Groups.


Reg. voters 9,977,062 1,752,952 843,150 27,737 12,600,901

GMD 4,182,524 490,477 347,026 10,698 5,030,725 2,928 Aborigines. Valid Votes: Aborigines. Valid Votes: 1,273 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 1,144 2 highland Aborigines.

DPP

CSDP

Others

Independents

2,286,679 424,868 232,091 557 2,944,195

116,811 4,807 4,595 – 126,213

20,949 1,223 33,912 – 56,084

1,007,079 272,594 39,797 12,085 1,331,555


Votes cast 7,675,736 1,202,107 672,208 24,337 9,574,388

Invalid votes 108,106 13,812 10,052 282 132,252

Valid votes 7,567,630 1,188,295 662,156 24,055 9,442,136

GMD 3,600,975 364,513 270,162 12,784 4,349,089e

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 224,708 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 130,662 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 2,830 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 127,832 Aborigines.

544 b

c

d e

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 3,402 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 1,555 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 59 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 1,496 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 2,919 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 1,478 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 45 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 1,433 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 18 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 8 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 8 Aborigines. Including 100,655 votes of Aborigines.

1995 (continued) Region Taiwan Province Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Total a b c

b

c

d e

DPP

NP

Others

Independents

2,489,507 426,539 211,944 611 3,132,156a

797,526 339,605 73,967 8,328 1,222,931b

6,224 1,207 – – 7,431

551,273 54,935 104,650 2,324 730,529c

Including 3,555 votes of Aborigines. Including 3,505 votes of Aborigines. Including 17,347 votes of Aborigines.


AUSTRALIA

Registered voters 12,052,544 1,866,416 1,003,834 39,106 14,961,900

Votes cast 7,848,179 1,509,281 807,400 23,442 10,188,302

Invalid votes 108,896 27,708 15,216 653 152,473

Valid votes 7,739,283 1,481,573 792,184 22,789 10,035,829

GMD 3,745,676 516,456 288,429 11,540 4,659,679e

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 241,224 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 132,651 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 2,242 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 130,409 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 4,567 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 3,337 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 130 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 3,207 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 3,927 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 2,846 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 97 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 2,749 Aborigines. the figures include: Reg. Voters: 56 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 22 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 22 Aborigines. Including 97,578 votes of Aborigines.

545

TAIWAN

1998 (continued) Region Taiwan Province Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Total a b

DPP

NP

DUT

NNA

TAIP

2,127,260 536,705 293,193 – 2,966,834a

391,643 255,746 59,930 1,146 708,465

364,638 3,880 – – 375,118b

125,643 32,183 – – 157,826

71,958 7,080 66,080 – 145,118

Including 9,676 votes of Aborigines. Including 6,600 votes of Aborigines.

1998 (continued) Region Taiwan Province Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Total a b c d e

NDNU 36,206 8,694 – – 66,033c

Including: CYP. Including: GPT: 8,089 votes; NDP: 342 votes. Including 21,133 votes of Aborigines. Including: CTAP: 1,171 votes of Aborigines. Including 229 votes of Aborigines.

Others 723a 8,431b – – 10,325d

Independents 745,127 109,191 81,803 10,081 946,431e

546

AUSTRALIA

2.7.1 b) Legislative Yuan, Regional Level (% Of Valid Votes) Since the absolute numbers of votes won by each party for the elections to the Legislative Yuan from 1948–1989 are not available, the percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide cannot be calculated. For an overview of the seats won by each party in this period see 2.8.1 (composition of parliament). 1992 Region Taiwan Province Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Nation-wide a b

b c d e f g

DPP 30.0

CSDP 1.5

Othersa 0.3

Indep. 13.2

Totalb 80.2

41.1 52.8 45.8

35.6 35.3 2.4

0.4 0.7 –

0.1 5.2 –

22.8 6.1 51.8

12.6 6.9 0.2

53.0

31.0

1.3

0.6

14.0

100.0

Others include: CAPWP, CDSP, CGHDP, CJP, CUP, LP, NRP, PMP, TP, WP. Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide.

1995 Region Taiwan Province Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Nation-wide a

GMD 54.9

GMD 47.6

DPP 32.9

NP 10.5

Indep. 7.3

Othersa 0.1

Totalb 80.1

30.7 40.8 53.1

35.9 32.0 2.5

28.6 11.2 34.6

4.6 15.8 9.7

0.1 – –

12.6 7.0 0.3

46.1c

33.2d

13.0e

7.7f

0.1g

100.0

Others include: CTAP, LP, NDNU. Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. Including 70.0% (100,655 votes) of Aborigines valid votes cast (Total: 130,769 votes). Including 2.7% (3,555 votes) of Aborigines valid votes cast. Including 2.0% (3,505 votes) of Aborigines valid votes cast. Including 13.3% (17,347 votes) of Aborigines valid votes cast. Including 4.4% (5,707 votes) of Aborigines valid votes cast.

547

TAIWAN

1998 Region Taiwan Province Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Nation-wide a b c d

Including Including Including Including

GMD 48.4

DPP 27.5

NP 5.1

DUT 4.7

Indep. 9.6

TAIP 0.9

34.9 36.4 50.6

36.2 37.0 –

17.3 7.6 5.0

0.3 – –

7.4 10.3 44.2

0.5 8.3 –

46.4a

29.6b

7.1

3.7c

9.4d

1.4

71.5% (97,578 votes) of Aborigines valid votes cast (Total: 136,387 votes). 7.1% (9,676 votes) of Aborigines valid votes cast. 0.5% (6,600 votes) of Aborigines valid votes cast. 0.2% (229 votes) of Aborigines valid votes cast.

1998 (continued) Region Taiwan Province Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Nation-wide a b c

NNA

NDNU

Othersa

Totalb

1.6 2.2 – – 1.6

0.5 0.6 – – 0.7c

0.0 0.6 – – 0.1

77.1 14.8 7.9 0.2 100.0

Others include: CYP, CTAP, GPT, NDP. Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide. Including 15.5% (21,133 votes) of Aborigines valid votes cast.

548

AUSTRALIA

2.7.2 National Assembly 1947–1996 The absolute numbers of votes won by each party in the elections of the National Assembly from 1947 to 1986 are not available. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes a

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes GMD DPP NDNU CSDP CDSP Others Independents

% – 54.7 5.1 94.9

1972 Total number 7,555,694 5,177,167 308,972 4,796,195

% – 68.5 6.0 92.6

1980 Total number 9,891,068 6,570,847 237,782 6,333,065

% – 66.4 3.6 96.4

1986 Total number 11,790,344 7,714,392 291,994 7,422,398 — — – – — – —

% – 65.4 3.8 96.2 — — – – — – —

1991 Total number 13,083,119 8,938,622 179,743 8,758,879 6,053,366 2,036,271 193,234 185,515 1,125 36,336a 253,032

% – 68.3 2.0 98.0 69.1 23.3 2.2 2.1 0.0 0.4 2.9

Others include: LP: 18,008; WP: 7,698; FP: 4,268; CYP: 1,573; CRP: 1,189; CVUP: 910; CDCP: 695; CNP: 576; CAPWP: 530; NRP: 430; CJP: 276; CGHDP: 183 votes. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes GMD DPP NP GPT Othersa Independents

a

% – 73.2 1.7 98.3

1969 Total number 3,325,203 1,819,402 92,757 1,726,645

The elections for the first National Assembly were held in Mainland China. 2,961 delegates were elected for whole China. The absolute numbers are only available for the Province of Taiwan, but not for Mainland China.

Year

a

1947a Total number 2,675,094 1,959,154 33,415 1,925,739

1996 Total number 14,130,084 10,769,224 340,836 10,428,388 5,180,829 3,121,423 1,417,209 113,942 14,566 572,961

Others include: CYP: 6,197 votes; LP: 4,340; MPP: 4,029.

% — 76.2 3.2 96.8 49.7 29.9 13.6 1.1 0.1 5.5

549

TAIWAN

2.7.2 a) National Assembly, Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) The absolute numbers of votes won by each party in the elections to the National Assembly held from 1947 to 1986 are not available.

a

b

1947 Region Taibei County Xinchu County Taizhong County Tainan County Gaoxiong County Hualian County Taidong County Penghu County Taibei City Jilong City Xinchu City Taizhong City Zhonghua City Jiayi City Tainan City Gaoxiong City Pingdong City Total

Reg. voters 312,380 350,272 450,731 575,831 280,706 72,197 42,050 34,312 145,809 44,002 53,729 53,620 27,884 55,138 72,968 58,963 44,502 2,675,094

Votes cast 209,808 293,141 351,708 472,356 196,643 40,333 30,461 23,189 92,246 21,980 39,538 33,739 21,975 28,818 38,993 32,118 32,108 1,959,154

Invalid votes 6,467 3,100 6,940 7,861 2,889 639 120 244 1150 477 481 694 204 385 506 807 451 33,415

Valid votes 203,341 290,041 344,768 464,495 193,754 39,694 30,341 22,945 91,096 21,503 39,057 33,045 21,771 28,433 38,487 31,311 31,657 1,925,739

1969 Region Taiwan Provincea Taibei Cityb Total

Reg. voters 2,433,852 891,351 3,325,203

Votes cast 1,431,100 388,302 1,819,402

Invalid votes 75,465 17,292 92,757

Valid votes 1,355,635 371,010 1,726,645

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 674,924 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 470,487 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 25,615 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 444,872 Occupational Groups. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 32,952 Occupational Groups. Votes Cast: 19,456 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 744 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 18,712 Occupational Groups.

1972 Region Taiwan Provincea Taibei Cityb Fujian Provincec Total a

b

c

Reg. voters 6,509,049 1,013,500 33,145 7,555,694

Votes cast 4,569,960 576,274 30,933 5,177,167

Invalid votes 349,501 31,148 323 380,972

Valid votes 4,220,459 545,126 30,610 4,796,195

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 113,799 Aborigines; 787,456 Women's Organization. Votes Cast: 94,640 Aborigines; 603,971 Women's Organization. Invalid Votes: 4,099 Aborigines; 68,432 Women's Organization. Valid Votes: 90,541 Aborigines; 535,539 Women's Organization. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 140 Aborigines; 93,510 Women's Organization. Votes Cast: 59 Aborigines; 60,310 Women's Organization. Invalid Votes: 5 Aborigines; 7,421 Women's Organization. Valid Votes: 54 Aborigines; 52,889 Women's Organization. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 36 Women's Organization. Votes Cast: 30 Women's Organization. Valid Votes: 30 Women's Organization.

1980a Region Taiwan Province Taibei City

Reg. voters 6,705,477 1,165,107

Votes cast 4,372,858 755,206

Invalid votes 143,818 22,948

Valid votes 4,229,040 732,258

550 Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Total Aborigines Occupational Groups Total a

b

c

d

b

c

b

9,302 144 176,212 4,288 57,282

374,684 19,240 5,355,222 94,816 883,027

9,891,068

6,570,847

237,782

6,333,065

Reg. voters 9,367,092 1,609,705 784,209 29,338 11,790,344

Votes cast 6,134,440 1,041,235 512,184 26,533 7,714,392

Invalid votes 242,535 33,909 14,089 1,461 291,994

Valid votes 5,891,905 1,007,326 498,095 25,072 7,422,398


Votes cast 7,200,057 1,086,917 628,827 22,821 8,938,622

Invalid votes 146,229 20,733 12,270 511 179,743

Valid votes 7,053,828 1,066,184 616,557 22,310 8,758,879

GMD 4,910,265 729,391 391,709 22,001 6,053,366

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 202,529 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 98,738 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 2,667 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 96,071 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 2,990 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 1,081 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 52 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 96,071 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 2,508 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 988 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 46 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 942 Aborigines.

1991 (continued) Region Taiwan Province Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Total a

383,986 19,384 5,531,434 99,104 940,309

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 168,992 Aborigines; 1,215,980 Occupational Groups; 81,219 Women's Organization; Votes Cast: 85,791 Aborigines: 775,991 Occupational Groups; 69,194 Women's Organization; Invalid Votes: 3,651 Aborigines; 72,867 Occupational Groups; 2,418 Women's Organization; Valid Votes: 82,140 Aborigines; 703,324 Occupational Groups; 66,776 Women's Organization. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 1,835 Aborigines; 177,922 Occupational Groups; 4,976 Women's Organization. Votes Cast: 797 Aborigines; 109,657 Occupational Groups; 4,291 Women's Organization. Invalid Votes: 55 Aborigines; 9,124 Occupational Groups; 199 Women's Organization. Valid Votes: 742 Aborigines; 100,533 Occupational Groups; 4,092 Women's Organization. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 1,587 Aborigines; 89,166 Occupational Groups; 4,121 Women's Organization. Votes Cast: 660 Aborigines; 52,898 Occupational Groups; 3,360 Women's Organization: Invalid Votes: 24 Aborigines; 3,678 Occupational Groups; 84 Women's Organization. Valid Votes: 636 Aborigines; 49,220 Occupational Groups; 3,276 Women's Organization. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 9,420 Occupational Groups. Votes cast: 8,944 Occupational Groups. Invalid Votes: 632 Occupational Groups. Valid Votes: 8,312 Occupational Groups.

1991 Region Taiwan Provincea Taibei Cityb Gaoxiong Cityc Fujian Province Total a

569,173 20,460 8,460,217 144,488 1,286,363

In the official statistics of the Central Election Commission the figures of the election of 1980 are listed by votes of regional constituencies and, separately, by votes of Aborigine and Occupational Groups. The votes of Aborigine and Occupational Groups are calculated in total and not distributed to each regional constituency.


AUSTRALIA

DPP

NDNU

CSDP

Others

Independents

1,576,745 259,214 200,312 – 2,036,271

172,915 13,592 6,727 – 193,234

132,366 42,535 10,614 – 185,515

33,617a 2,242b 1,602c – 37,461

227,920 19,210 5,593 309 253,032

Others include: LP: 18,008; WP: 6,672; FP: 4,268; CYP: 1,573; CRP: 1,189; CrepP: 576; CAPWP: 530; CDSP: 467; CVUP: 334 votes. Others include: CDCP: 695; CDSP: 658; NRP: 430; CJP: 276; CGHDP: 183 votes.

551

TAIWAN c

Others include: WP: 1,026; CVUP: 576 votes.


b

c

d e


Votes cast 8,630,340 1,384,399 730,918 23,567 10,769,224

Invalid votes 266,287 51,755 22,097 697 340,836

Valid votes 8,364,053 1,332,644 708,821 22,870 10,428,388

GMD 4,324,904 432,462 296,181 10,734 5,180,829e

The figures include: Reg. Voters: 226,555 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 145,754 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 5,487 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 140,267 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 3,462 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 2,014 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 109 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 1,905 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 2,992 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 1,819 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 63 Aborigines. Valid Votes: 1,756 Aborigines. The figures include: Reg. Voters: 19 Aborigines. Votes Cast: 7 Aborigines. Invalid Votes: 1 lowland Aborigine. Valid Votes: 6 Aborigines. Including 116,548 votes of Aborigines.

552 1996 (continued) Region Taiwan Province Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Province Total a

b c d

AUSTRALIA

DPP

NP

GPT

Othersa

Independents

2,395,194 467,846 255,058 447 3,121,423b

915,212 375,787 99,221 11,380 1,417,209c

90,772 23,170 – – 113,942

10,455 5,372 6,197 – 22,024

488,510 26,102 56,605 303 572,961d

Others include: CTAP (7,458 votes, Taiwan Province); CYP (6,197 votes, Gaoxiong City); LP (4,340 votes, Taibei City); MPP (4,029 votes: 1,032 Taibei City; 2,997 Taiwan Province). Including 2,878 votes of Aborigines. Including 15,609 votes of Aborigines. Including 1,441 votes of Aborigines.

553

TAIWAN

2.7.2 b) National Assembly, Regional Level (% Of Valid Votes) Since the absolute numbers of votes won by each party for the elections to the National Assembly from 1947 to 1986 are not available, the percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide cannot be calculated. For an overview of the seats won by each party in this period see under 2.8.2 (composition of parliament). 1991 Region Taiwan Prov. Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Prov. Nation-wide a b

b

DPP 22.4

NDNU 2.5

CSDP 1.9

Othersa 0.5

Indep. 3.2

Totalb 80.5

68.4 63.5

24.3 32.5

1.3 1.1

4.0 1.7

0.2 0.3

1.8 0.9

12.2 7.0

98.6 69.1

– 23.2

– 2.2

– 2.1

– 0.4

1.4 2.9

0.3 100.0

Others include: CAPWP, CDCP, CDSP, CGHDP, CJP, CNP, CRP, CVUP, CYP, FP, LP, NRP, WP. Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide.

1996 Region Taiwan Prov. Taibei City Gaoxiong City Fujian Prov. Nation-wide a

GMD 69.6

GMD 51.7

DPP 28.6

NP 10.9

GPT 1.1

Othersa 1.2

Indep. 5.8

Totalb 80.2

32.45 41.8

35.1 36.0

28.2 14.0

1.7 –

0.4 0.9

2.0 8.0

12.8 6.8

46.9 49.7

1.9 29.9

49.8 13.6

– 1.1

– 0.2

1.3 5.5

0.2 100.0

Others include: CYP, LP, and MPP. Percentages of valid votes cast nation-wide.

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 Legislative Yuan 1948–1998 The elections to the Legislative Yuan between 1969 and 1989 were supplementary or additional elections held to add new seats, necessary due to population growth or to the death of former elected delegates. But since the official statistics of the Central Election Commission do not indicate the number of delegates of the old Legislative Yuan that continued to serve in the new Legislative Yuan, the figures listed below refer exclusively to the number of seats of additionally elected delegates, and not to the absolute number of seats of the whole Legislative Yuan.

554

AUSTRALIA

Year

1948a Seats 8 GMD — CYP — Independ- — ents

a

b c

d

% 100.0 — — —

1980a Seats 97 GMD 79 CYP 2 CDSP – DPP – Independ- 16 ents

b

c

d

% 100.0 72.7 – 27.3

1972c Seats 51 41 1 9

% 100.0 80.4 2.0 17.6

1975d Seats 52 42 1 9

% 100.0 80.8 1.9 17.3

The elections to the First Legislative Yuan were held in mainland China. 760 delegates were elected for whole China, 8 of them representing the Province of Taiwan. The figures of seats won by each party are not available for the 1948 elections. First supplementary elections, electing 11 new members to replace the previous delegates. Out of the 51 seats, 36 were for district representatives (30, GMD, 5 Independents, 1 CYP), 1 aborigine representative (GMD), 8 for representatives of occupational groups (7 GMD, 1 Independents) and 15 for representatives of Overseas Chinese (11 GMD, 4 Independents). Out of the 52 seats, 28 were for district representatives (22 GMD, 5 Independents, 1 CYP), 1 for an aborigine representative (GMD), 8 for representatives of occupational groups (7 GMD, 1 Independent) and 15 for representatives of Overseas Chinese (12 GMD, 3 Independents).

Year

a

1969b Seats 11 8 – 3

% 100.0 81.4 2.1 – – 16.5

1983b Seats 98 83 2 1 – 12

% 100.0 84.7 2.0 1.0 – 12.2

1986c Seats 100 79 2 1 – 18

% 100.0 79.0 2.0 1.0 – 18.0

1989d Seats 130 94 1 – 21 14

% 100.0 72.3 0.8 – 16.2 10.8

Out of the 97 seats, 52 were for district representatives (41 GMD, 11 Independents), 2 for aborigine representatives (GMD), 16 for representatives of occupational groups (13 GMD, 3 Independents) and 27 for representatives of Overseas Chinese (23, GMD, 2 CYP, 2 Independents). Out of the 98 seats, 53 were for district representatives (44 GMD, 9 Independents), 2 for aborigine representatives (GMD), 16 for representatives of occupational groups (GMD) and 27 for representatives of Overseas Chinese (21 GMD, 3 Independents, 2 CYP, 1 CDSP). Out of the 100 seats, 55 were for district representatives (42 GMD, 13 Independents), 2 for aborigine representatives (GMD), 16 for representatives of occupational groups (15 GMD, 1 Independents) and 27 for representatives of Overseas Chinese (20 GMD, 4 Independents, 2 CYP, 1 CDSP). Out of the 130 elected delegates, 79 of were for district representatives (55 GMD, 18 DPP, 6 Independents), 4 for aborigine representatives (GMD), 18 for representatives of occupational groups (13 GMD, 3 DPP, 2 Independents) and 29 for representatives of Overseas Chinese (22 GMD, 1 CYP, 6 Independents).

Year GMD DPP CSDP NP DUT NDNU NNA TAIP Independents

1992 Seats 161 95 51 1 – – – – – 14

% 100.0 59.0 31.7 0.6 – – – – – 8.7

1995 Seats 164 85 54 – 21 – – – – 4

% 100.0 51.8 32.9 – 12.8 – – – – 2.4

1998 Seats 225 123 70 – 11 4 3 1 1 12

% 100.0 54.7 31.1 – 4.9 1.8 1.3 0.4 0.4 5.3

555

TAIWAN

2.8.1 a) Legislative Yuan: Distribution of Seats According to the Parts of the Electoral System (1992–1998) Year GMD DPP CSDP Independents Total a

b c

GMD DPP NP Independents Total

GMD DPP NP DUT NDNU NNA TAIP Independents Total b

Nat.-Seats 19 11 0 – 30

% 63.3 36.7 0.0 – 100.0

External Seats % 4 66.7 2 33.3 – – – – 6 100.0

1995 MMC-Seats 67a 41 16 4 128

% 52.3 32.0 12.5 3.1 100.0

Nat.-Seats 15 11 4 – 30

% 50.0 36.7 13.3 – 100.0

External Seats % 3 50.0 2 1 – – 6 100.0

% 54.5 29.5 4.0 2.2 1.7 0.6 0.6 6.8 100.0

Nat.-Seats 23 15 3 0 0 0 0 – 41

% 56.1 36.6 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 – 100.0

External Seats % 4 50.0 3 37.5 1 12.5 – – – – – – – – – – 8 100.0

Including 6 aborigine seats.

Year

a

% 57.6 30.4 0.8 11.2 100.0

The first two columns provide the number of seats won by proportional representation in the SMCs and MMCs, including aborigine seats; the third and fourth columns refer to the seats distributed by proportional representation at the national level; the fifth and sixth column refer to the seats distributed by proportional representation in the overseas constituency. Percentages are calculated separately for each part of the electoral system. Including 5 aborigine seats. Including 1 aborigine seat.

Year

a

1992 MMC-Seatsa 72b 38 1c 14 125

1998 MMC-Seats 96a 52 7 4 3b 1 1 12 176b

Including 6 aborigine seats. Including 2 aborigine seats.

556

AUSTRALIA

2.8.2 National Assembly 1947–1996 Like the elections to the Legislative Yuan, the elections to the National Assembly from 1969 to 1986 were supplementary or additional elections. The figures listed below show only the number of seats of additionally elected delegates; they do not represent the absolute number of seats of the whole National Assembly. Year

1947a Seats 19 GMD — CDSP — CYP — Independ- — ents

a

b c

d

GMD CDSP DPP NDNU NP Independents b

% 100.0 100.0 – – –

1972c Seats 53 43 – – 10

% 100.0 81.1 – – 18.9

1980d Seats 76 61 1 – 14

% 100.0 80.3 1.3 – 18.4

The elections of the First National Assembly were held in mainland China. 2961 delegates were elected for whole China, 19 of them representing the Province of Taiwan. The figures of seats won by each party are not available for the 1947 elections. Out of the 15 seats, 8 were for district representatives and 7 for occupational groups. Out of the 53 seats, 36 were for district representatives (27 GMD, 9 Independents), 2 for aborigine representatives (GMD) and 15 for representatives of occupational groups (14 GMD, 1 Independent). Out of the 76 seats, 51 were for district representatives (39 GMD, 12 Independents), 2 for aborigine representatives (1 GMD, 1 Independent) and 23 for representatives of occupational groups (21 GMD, 1 CDSP, 1 Independent).

Year

a

% 100.0 — — — —

1969b Seats 15 15 – – –

1986a Seats 84 68 1 – – – 15

% 100.0 81.0 1.2 – – – 17.9

1991b Seats 325 254 – 66 3 – 2

% 100.0 78.2 – 20.3 0.9 – 0.6

1996 Seats 334 183 – 99 – 46 6

% 100.0 54.8 – 29.6 – 13.8 1.8

Out of the 15 seats, 59 were for district representatives (46 GMD, 13 Independents), 2 for aborigine representatives (GMD) and 23 for representatives of occupational groups (20 GMD, 2 Independents, 1 CDSP). 78 Additional delegates elected in the 1986 additional elections joined the Second National Assembly to amend the Constitution, and remained until their six-year terms expired on 31 January 1993. The Second National Assembly had 403 members from December 1991 to January 1993.

557

TAIWAN

2.8.2 a) National Assembly: Distribution of Seats According to the Parts of the Electoral System (1992–1998) Year GMD DPP NDNU Independents Total a

b

GMD DPP NP Independents Total b

% 79.6 18.2 1.3 0.9 100.0

Nat.-Seats 60 20 0 – 80

% 75.0 25.0 0.0 – 100.0

External Seats % 15 75.0 5 25.0 – – – – 20 100.0

The first two columns provide the number of seats won by proportional representation in the MMCs, including aborigine seats; the third and fourth columns refer to the seats distributed by proportional representation at the national level; the fifth and sixth columns refer to the seats distributed by proportional representation in the overseas constituency. Percentages are calculated separately for each part of the electoral system. Including 6 aborigine seats.

Year

a

1991 MMC-Seatsa 179b 41 3 2 225

1996a MMC-Seats 129b 68 31 6 234

% 55.1 29.1 13.2 2.6 100.0

Nat.-Seats 42 26 12 – 80

The distribution of seats has been calculated by the author. Including 8 aborigine seats.

% 52.5 32.5 15 – 100.0

External Seats % 12 60 5 25 3 15 – – 20 100.0

558

AUSTRALIA

2.9 Presidential Elections 1996–2000 1996 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Li Denghui/ Lian Zhan (GMD) Peng Mingmin/ Xie Zhangting (DPP) Lin Yanggang/ Hao Bocun (Independents) Chen Lü'an/ Wang Qingfeng (Independents)

Total number 14,313,288 10,883,279 117,160 10,766,119 5,813,699 2,274,586

% – 76.0 1.1 98.9 54.0 21.1

1,603,790

14.9

1,074,044

9.9

2000 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Chen Shuibian/ Lü Xiulian (Annette Lü) (DPP) Song Chuyu (James Soong)/ Zhang Zhaoxiong (Indep.) Lian Zhan/ Xiao Wanchang (GMD) Xu Xinliang/ Zhu Huiliang (Independents) Li Ao/ Feng Huxiang (NP)

Total number 15,462,625 12,786,671 122,278 12,664,393 4,977,697

% – 82.7 1.0 99.0 39.3

4,664,972

36.8

2,925,513 79,429

23.1 0.6

16,782

0.1

559

TAIWAN

2.9 a) Presidential Elections, Regional Level (Absolute Numbers) 1996 Region Taibei County Yilan County Taoyuan County Xinchu County Miaoli County Taizhong County Zhonghua County Nantou County Yunlin County Jiayi County Tainan County Gaoxiong County Pingdong County Taidong County Hualian County Penghu County Jilung City Xinchu City Taizhong City Jiayi City Tainan City Jinmen County Lianjiang County Taibei City Gaoxiong City Total

Registered voters Votes cast 2,166,016 1,661,034 313,770 232,239 985,365 767,709 270,365 215,015 376,581 293,767 897,357 718,425 841,294 649,300

Invalid votes 17,074 2,063 9,955 3,051 3,795 9,099 8,412

Valid votes 1,643,960 230,176 757,754 211,964 289,972 709,326 640,888

Li Denghui 793,718 126,405 423,198 140,321 202,593 426,668 407,820

371,630 521,592 398,362 742,953 809,157

276,788 363,160 278,146 557,333 631,468

2,786 4,343 3,105 5,686 6,210

274,002 358,817 275,041 551,647 625,258

86,357 237,871 180,709 347,825 374,386

623,207

465,393

4,752

460,641

289,812

176,313 245,715 63,533 254,276 226,574 555,794 175,137 469,463 30,476 3,895 1,842,261 952,202 14,313,288

110,170 165,891 41,077 195,154 176,882 42,718 130,018 359,162 21,066 2,678 1,404,951 740,735 10,883,279

1,709 2,364 563 1,747 2,031 4,084 1,130 3,136 401 53 12,522 7,089 117,160

108,461 163,527 40,514 193,407 174,851 421,634 128,888 356,026 20,665 2,625 1,392,429 733,646 10,766,119

74,211 104,740 25,367 97,223 93,812 195,865 60,628 201,436 8,401 1,221 541,721 371,391 5,813,699

560 1996 Region (cont.) Taibei County Yilan County Taoyuan County Xinchu County Miaoli County Taizhong County Zhonghua County Nantou County Yunlin County Jiayi County Tainan County Gaoxiong County Pingdong County Taidong County Hualian County Penghu County Jilong City Xinchu City Taizhong City Jiayi City Tainan City Jinmen County Lianjiang County Taibei City Gaoxiong City Total

AUSTRALIA

Peng Mingmin 370,728 68,044 114,901 23,555 31,036 115,034 116,154 45,556 68,785 63,101 134,969 151,943 117,283 14,506 18,383 8,070 34,256 28,281 82,416 42,984 84,929 336 35 338,895 200,406 2,274,586

Lin Yanggang 292,541 15,154 128,607 23,342 26,459 96,594 54,776 127,537 26,247 13,716 27,590 51,139 26,902 11,584 25,836 2,907 35,978 30,155 96,509 12,515 30,603 6,123 1,013 346,272 93,691 1,603,790

Chen Lü'an 186,973 20,573 91,048 24,746 29,884 71,030 62,138 14,552 25,914 17,515 41,263 47,790 26,644 8,160 14,568 4,170 25,950 22,603 46,844 12,761 39,058 5,805 356 165,541 68,158 1,074,044

561

TAIWAN

2000 Region Taibei County Yilan County Taoyuan County Xinchu County Miaoli County Taizhong County Zhonghua County Nantou County Yunlin County Jiayi County Tainan County Gaoxiong County Pingdong County Taidong County Hualian County Penghu County Jilong City Xinchu City Taizhong City Jiayi City Tainan City Jinmen County Lianjiang County Taibei City Gaoxiong City Total

Registered voters Votes cast 2,437,456 2,041,860 325,691 263,903 1,134,413 954,720 295,192 251,215 390,780 326,666 992,527 845,374 896,075 753,444

Invalid votes 22,711 2,029 11,628 2,607 3,298 9,344 7,997

Valid votes 2,019,149 261,874 943,092 248,608 323,368 836,030 745,447

Chen Shuibian 741,596 123,157 299,120 61,533 86,707 305,219 298,571

383,478 538,140 410,702 789,844 874,875

311,259 415,583 321,298 651,147 732,543

2,622 3,298 3,006 5,531 5,851

308,637 412,285 318,292 645,616 726,692

106,440 193,715 157,512 347,210 342,553

647,524

519,516

4,008

515,508

238,572

177,706 252,771 64,887 275,256 249,395 636,533 183,325 508,517 35,808 4,698 1,914,915 1,042,117 15,462,625

122,522 189,180 45,199 227,501 208,629 530,752 150,318 418,509 24,649 3,238 1,599,615 878,031 12,786,671

1,418 2,201 388 1,958 2,185 5,000 1,134 3,282 214 16 12,449 8,103 122,278

121,104 186,979 44,811 225,543 206,444 525,752 149,184 415,227 24,435 3,222 1,587,166 869,928 12,664,393

28,102 40,044 16,487 69,555 69,760 193,796 70,124 191,261 759 58 597,465 398,381 4,977,697

562 2000 Region (cont.) Taibei County Yilan County Taoyuan County Xinchu County Miaoli County Taizhong County Zhonghua County Nantou County Yunlin County Jiayi County Tainan County Gaoxiong County Pingdong County Taidong County Hualian County Penghu County Jilong City Xinchu City Taizhong City Jiayi City Tainan City Jinmen County Lianjiang County Taibei City Gaoxiong City Total

AUSTRALIA

Song Chuyu 812,821 86,549 413,370 128,231 160,533 318,499 251,310 144,863 114,188 85,890 136,217 203,616 131,371 63,913 109,962 17,723 106,032 88,412 217,486 43,773 114,299 19,991 2362 631,538 259,023 4,664,972

Lian Zhan 451,707 51,082 208,881 51,442 71,798 206,832 191,685 56,025 102,177 73,409 159,443 174,021 142,934 28,659 36,043 10,418 48,545 46,234 111,391 34,670 107,679 3,543 787 347,564 208,544 2,925,513

Xu Xinliang 10,641 736 20,581 7,093 3,931 4,304 2,811 914 1,230 920 1,582 2,478 1,939 294 736 119 1,116 1,746 2,463 448 1,408 105 8 8,723 3,103 79,429

Li Ao 2,384 350 1,140 309 399 1,176 1,070 395 975 561 1,164 1,024 692 136 194 64 295 292 616 169 580 37 7 1,876 877 16,782

563

TAIWAN

2.9 b) Presidential Elections, Regional Level (% Of Valid Votes) 1996 Region Taibei County Yilan County Taoyuan County Xinchu County Miaoli County Taizhong County Zhonghua County Nantou County Yunlin County Jiayi County Tainan County Gaoxiong County Pingdong County Taidong County Hualian County Penghu County Jilong City Xinchu City Taizhong City Jiayi City Tainan City Jinmen County Lianjiang County Taibei City Gaoxiong City Nation-wide a

Li Denghui 48.3 54.9 55.8 66.2 69.9 60.2 63.6

Peng Mingmin 22.6 29.6 15.2 11.1 10.7 16.2 18.1

Lin Yanggang 17.8 6.6 17.0 11.0 9.1 13.6 8.5

Chen Lü'an 11.4 8.9 12.0 11.7 10.3 10.0 9.7

Totala 15.3 2.1 7.0 2.0 2.7 6.6 6.0

31.5 66.3 65.7 63.1 59.9

16.6 19.2 22.9 24.5 24.3

46.5 7.3 5.0 5.0 8.2

5.3 7.2 6.4 7.5 7.6

2.5 3.3 2.6 5.1 5.8

62.9

25.5

5.8

5.8

4.3

68.4 64.1 62.6 50.3 53.7 46.5 47.0 56.6 40.7 46.5 38.9 50.6 54.0

13.4 11.2 19.9 17.7 16.2 19.5 33.3 23.9 1.6 1.3 24.3 27.3 21.1

10.7 15.8 7.2 18.6 17.2 22.9 9.7 8.6 29.6 38.6 24.9 12.8 14.9

7.5 8.9 10.3 13.4 12.9 11.1 9.9 11.0 28.1 13.6 11.9 9.3 10.0

1.0 1.5 0.4 1.8 1.6 3.9 1.2 3.3 0.2 0.0 12.9 6.8 100.0


2000 Region Taibei County Yilan County Taoyuan County Xinchu County Miaoli County Taizhong County

Chen Shuibian 36.7 47.0 31.7

Song Chuyu 40.3 33.0 43.8

Lian Zhan 22.4 19.5 22.1

Xu Xinliang 0.5 0.3 2.2

Li Ao 0.1 0.1 0.1

Totala 15.9 2.1 7.4

24.8

51.6

20.7

2.9

0.1

2.0

26.8 36.5

49.6 38.1

22.2 24.7

1.2 0.5

0.1 0.1

2.6 6.6

564 Zhonghua County Nantou County Yunlin County Jiayi County Tainan County Gaoxiong County Pingdong County Taidong County Hualian County Penghu County Jilong City Xinchu City Taizhong City Jiayi City Tainan City Jinmen County Lianjiang County Taibei City Gaoxiong City Nation-wide a

AUSTRALIA

40.1

33.7

25.7

0.4

0.1

5.9

34.5

46.9

18.2

0.3

0.1

2.4

47.0 49.5 53.8

27.7 27.0 21.1

24.8 23.1 24.7

0.3 0.3 0.2

0.2 0.2 0.2

3.3 2.5 5.1

47.1

28.0

23.9

0.3

0.1

5.7

46.3

25.5

27.7

0.4

0.1

4.1

23.2

52.8

23.7

0.2

0.1

1.0

21.4

58.8

19.3

0.4

0.1

1.5

36.8

39.6

23.2

0.3

0.1

0.4

30.8 33.8 36.9 47.0 46.1 3.1

47.0 42.8 41.4 29.3 27.5 81.8

21.5 22.4 21.2 23.2 25.9 14.5

0.5 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

1.8 1.6 4.2 1.2 3.3 0.2

1.8

73.3

24.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

37.6 45.8 39.3

39.8 29.8 36.8

21.9 24.0 23.1

0.5 0.4 0.6

0.1 0.1 0.1

12.5 6.9 100.0


TAIWAN

565

2.10 List of Power Holders 1948–2001 Head of State Chiang Kai-shek (Jiang Jieshi)

Years 1948–1949

Li Zongren

1949–1950

Chiang Kai-shek

1950–1975

Yan Jiagan (C. K. Yen)

1975–1978

Jiang Jingguo

1978–1988

Li Denghui

1988–2000

Chen Shuibian

2000–

Head of Government Song Ziwen (T. V. Soon)

Years 1945–1947

Zhang Qun

1947–1948

Weng Wenhao

1948

Sun Fo

1948–1949

He Yingqin

1949

Remarks Elected President of the ROC by the National Assembly in March 1948; inaugurated on 20/05/1948. Empowered to exercise presidential powers temporarily on 21/01/1949 after Chiang Kai-shek announced his retirement from Presidency. With the take-over of mainland China by the Chinese Communists, the ROC government was forced to relocate to Taiwan. On 01/03/1950, Chiang resumed the Presidency in Taibei. Five times re-elected by the First National Assembly. Sworn in as President on 06/04/1975, one day after the death of President Chiang Kai-shek, to serve out the latter's term in accordance with the Constitution. The eldest son of the late President Chiang Kai-shek, Jiang Jingguo was appointed premier in 1972. On 21/03/1978 Jiang was elected by the National Assembly as the sixth-term President; re-elected to a second term in 1984. Died in office on 13/01/ 1988. Elected Vice-President in 1984, Taiwaneseborn Li Denghui became President and chairman of the GMD after President Jiang Jingguo's death. Became the first direct elected President in 1996. Elected on 18/03/2000. Won the second direct presidential elections as the first candidate of the opposition. Remarks Appointed president of the Executive Yuan, or premier, on 31/05/1945. Resigned in March 1947. Named president of the Executive Yuan in a new coalition government in April 1947. Resigned in May 1948. Elected first president of the Executive under the new 1947 Constitution; resigned in autumn 1948. Since May 1948 president of the Legislative Yuan, called upon to head the Executive Yuan and form a cabinet in November 1948. Assumed office at Nanjing on 23/03/1949. When the Communist forces crossed the Yangtze River and occupied Nanjing, he resigned as Premier on 30/05/1949.

566

AUSTRALIA

Chen Cheng

1950–1954

Yu Hongjun (O. K. Yui)

1954–1958

Chen Cheng

1958–1963

Yan Jiagan (C. K. Yen)

1963–1972

Jiang Jingguo

1972–1978

Sun Yunxuan

1978–1984

Yu Guohua

1984–1989

Li Huan Hao Bocun

1989–1990 1990–1993

Lian Zhan

1993–1997

Xiao Wanchang (Vincent Siew)

1997–2000

Dang Fei

2000

Zhang Junxiong

2000–

Became president of the Executive Yuan in Taibei some days after Chiang Kai-shek had formally assumed leadership of the Nationalist government in its Taiwan refuge on 01/1950. Was also elected Vice-President of the ROC in March 1954. Appointed President of the Executive Yuan on 20/05/1954. His resignation as Premier was accepted by Chiang Kai-shek in June 1958. Took over his position again in June 1958 after the resignation of Yu Hongjun. On 15/12/1963, in the face of Chiang Kaishek's son Jiang Jingguo, Chen Cheng resigned the Premiership of the government. Appointed on 16/11/1963, even though he was not a veteran GMD-leader. In 1966 the National Assembly elected Yan as fourthterm Vice-President. When Yan Jiagan was elected Vice-President for a second term, Jiang Jingguo was appointed Premier on 26/05/1972. In 1978 he succeeded his father as President. Elected by the National Assembly as sixthterm President. When Jiang Jingguo was elected President of the ROC in 1978, he appointed Sun Yunxuan as Prime Minister on 26/05/ 1978. When President Jiang Jingguo was reelected for a second six-year term, he nominated Yu as new Premier. Appointed Prime Minister on 30/05/1989. Appointed on 29/05/1990. After being reelected President in March 1990, Li Denghui appointed general Hao as Premier, to win the support of the military. Appointed on 27/021993. Was also elected Vice-President in May 1996. Resigned as Premier on 21/08/1997. Appointed Premier on 01/09/1997 September 1997. Resigned on 03/10/2000 after five months in office. Former Vice-Premier, succeeded Dang in October 2000.

TAIWAN

567

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Central Election Commission (1988). The Statistical Precis of the ROC Elections 1946–1987 (Zhonghua minguo xuanju tongji tiyao). Taibei: Ministry of Interior. Central Election Commission (1995). Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law. Comparative Table of Coming into Force of Laws and Regulations (Zongtong fuzongtong xuanju bamianfa ji qi shixing xize guanxi tiaowen duizhao biao). Taibei: Ministry of Interior. Central Election Commission (1998). Public Office Personal Election and Recall Law. Comparative Table of the Coming into force of Laws and Regulations (Gongzhi renyuan xuanju bamianfa ji qi shixing xize guanxi tiaowen duizhao biao). Taibei: Ministry of Interior. Constitution of the Republic of Taiwan (1983). Taibei: Government Information Office.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Ahern, E. M., and Gates, H. (1981). The Anthropology of Taiwanese Society. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press. Bosco, J. (1994). ‘Faction versus Ideology: Mobilization Strategies in Taiwan Elections’. The China Quarterly, 136: 28–62.

568

AUSTRALIA

Cabestan, J.-P. (2000). ‘Taiwan in 1999: A Difficult Year for the Island and the Kuomintang’. Asian Survey, 40/1: 172–180. Chao, L., and Myers, R. H. (2000). ‘How Elections promoted Democracy in Taiwan under Martial Law’. The China Quarterly, 162/1: 387–409. Chang, P. H. (1984). ‘Taiwan in 1983: Setting the Stage for Power Transition’. Asian Survey, 24/2: 122–134. Chen, G. Y. (1982). ‘The Reform Movement Among Intellectuals in Taiwan Since 1970’. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 3: 32–47. Cheng, C. (1989). Sun Yat-sen's Doctrine in the Modern World. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press. Cheng, T. (1989). ‘Democratizing the Quasi-Leninist Regime in Taiwan’. World Politics, 41/4: 471–499. —— and Haggard, S. (eds.) (1992). Political Change in Taiwan. Boulder, Col.: Rienner. —— and Liao, Y. (1998). ‘Taiwan in 1997: An Embattled Government in Search of New Opportunities’. Asian Survey, 38/1: 53–63. Chiou, C.L. (1986). ‘Politics of Alienation and Polarization: Taiwan's Tangwai in the 1980s’. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 18/3: 16–28. Chiu, H. (ed.) (1993). ‘Constitutional Development and Reform in the Republic of China on Taiwan’. Issues & Studies, 29/1: 1–38. Chou, Y., and Nathan, A. J. (1987). ‘Democratizing Transition in Taiwan’. Asian Survey, 27/3: 277–299. Chu, Y. (1999): ‘The Challenges of Democratic Consolidation’, in S. Tsang and H. Tien (eds.), Democratization in Taiwan. Implications for China. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 148–167. —— and Diamond, L. (1999). Taiwan's 1998 Elections: Implications for Democratic Consolidation. Asian Survey, 39/ 5: 808–820. Copper, J. F. (1999). Nation State or Province. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press. Domes, J. (1981). ‘Political Differentiation in Taiwan: Group Formation within the Ruling Party and the Opposition Circles’. Asian Survey, 21/10: 1011–1028. —— (1999). ‘Electoral and Party Politics in Democratization’, in S. Tsang, and H. Tien (eds.). Democratization in Taiwan. Implications for China. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 49–66. Fairbank, J. K. (1992). China. A New History. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Gold, T. B. (1986). State and Society in Taiwan Miracle. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe. Harrison, S. S. (1988). ‘Taiwan After Chiang Ching-guo’. Foreign Affairs, 67/4: 206–220.

TAIWAN

569

Hu, F., and Chu, Y. (1992). ‘Electoral Competition and Political Democratization’, in T. Cheng, and S. Haggard (eds.), Political Change in Taiwan. Boulder, Col.: Rienner, 177–203. Huang, T. (1995). ‘Electoral Competition and the Evolution of the Kuomintang’. Issues & Studies, 31/2: 91–120. Jabobs, B. J. (1981). ‘Political Opposition and Taiwan's Political Future’. The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, 6: 22–44. Kagan, R. C. (1974). ‘Martial Law in Taiwan’. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 3: 48–54. Kerr, G. (1966). Formosa Betrayed. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. Lasater, M. L. (1990). A Step Toward Democracy. The December 1989 Elections in Taiwan. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press. Lasers, W. (1992). ‘Rückkehr zur Verfassung, Reform der Verfassung oder Erlaß einer neuen Verfassung? Ein Zwischenbericht über die demokratische Reform im national-chinesischen Verfassungsrecht’. Verfassung und Recht in Übersee, 25/2: 115–153. Lin, J. (1999). ‘Democratization under One-Party Dominance: Explaining Taiwan's Paradoxical Transition’. Issues & Studies, 35/6: 1–28. Ling, T., and Myers, R. H. (1992). ‘Surviving the Rough-and-Tumble of the Presidential Politics in an Emerging Democracy. The 1990 Elections in the Republic of China on Taiwan’. The China Quarterly, 129: 123–148. Lü, Y. (1992). ‘Political Opposition in Taiwan. The Development of the Democratic Progressive Party’, in T. Cheng, and S. Haggard, S. (eds.), Political Change in Taiwan. Boulder, Col.: Rienner, 121–146. Meaney, C. S. (1992). ‘Liberalization, Democratization, and the Role of the GMD’, in T. Cheng, and S. Haggard (eds.), Political Change in Taiwan. Boulder, Col.: Rienner, 95–120. Moody, P. R. Jr. (1992). Political Change on Taiwan. A Study of Ruling Party Adaptability. New York, N.Y.: Praeger. Myers, R. H. (1987). ‘Political Theory and Recent Political Development in the Republic of China’. Asian Survey, 27/9: 1003–1022. —— (ed.) (1991). Two Societies in Opposition. The Republic of China and the Peoples Republic of China After Forty Years. Stanford, Cal.: Hoover Institution Press. Nathan, A. J. (1986). Chinese Democracy. London: Tauris. —— (1992). ‘The Effect of Taiwan's Political Reform on Taiwan-Mainland Relations’, in T. Cheng, and S. Haggard, S. (eds.), Political Change in Taiwan. Boulder, Col.: Rienner, 207–219. Peng, C. T. (1992). ‘President Lee's Rise to Power and His Reform Program’. Issues & Studies, 28/6: 59–69. Schubert, G. (1992). ‘Constitutional Politics in Taiwan. The Rise of the Legislative Yuan’. Issues & Studies, 28/3: 21–37.

570

AUSTRALIA

—— (1994). Taiwan—die chinesische Alternative. Demokratisierung in einem ostasiatischen Schwellenland. Hamburg: Deutsches Übersee-Institut. —— and Schneider, A. (eds.) (1996). Taiwan an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert. Hamburg: Institut für Asienkunde. Tien, H. (1989). The Great Transition. Political and Social Change in the Republic of China. Stanford, Cal.: Hoover Institution Press. —— (1992). ‘Taiwan's Evolution Toward Democracy. A Historical Perspective’, in Denis F. Simon, and Y. M. Michael Kau (eds.), Taiwan Beyond the Economic Miracle. Armonk, N. Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 3–23. —— and Chu, Y. (1996). ‘Building Democracy in Taiwan’. The China Quarterly, 148/12: 1141–1170. Tsang, S., and Tien, H. (1999) (ed.). Democratization in Taiwan. Implications for China. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Wang, Y. (1996). ‘The Political Consequences of the Electoral System: Single Nontransferable Voting in Taiwan’. Issues & Studies, 32/8: 85–104. Winckler, E. A. (1984). ‘Institutionalization and Participation on Taiwan. From hard to soft Authoritarianism’. China Quarterly, 99: 481–499. Wu, Y. (1999). ‘Taiwanese Elections and Cross Strait Relations: Mainland Policy in Flux’. Asian Survey, 39/4: 565–587.

The South Pacic


Australia by Colin A. Hughes

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Parliamentary elections are a prominent feature of Australian politics. They are frequent, close, decisive, and extensively reported by the mass media. Federal elections for the lower house, the House of Representatives, must be held every three years; in practice they are held on average at approximately two and a half year intervals. Senate elections are held usually, but not invariably, on the same day. State and local government elections are kept separate from federal elections. For most of the 20th century there were only two serious competitors in parliamentary elections. Each could count on at least 40% of the vote, and usually polled 45% or better. Thus most outcomes were in doubt until the polls had closed, and campaigns were important because they might influence outcomes. Other candidates were unable to win in single-member electoral districts which ensured that the outcome of the House of Representatives election immediately settled which of the two rivals would form the national government. Even when the winner had a tiny majority, strict party discipline in the Parliament allowed it to govern effectively. Referendums, in contrast, have been marginal. Their scope is narrow: the federal referendums have been confined to relatively obscure constitutional questions, the state ones to a limited range of topics. Their initiation has been restricted to the government of the day passing legislation. Recent proposals to allow other possibilities, for example to empower state legislatures or electors' petitions to initiate federal constitutional referendums, have not progressed. The 1998 Constitutional Convention was the first occasion since federation in 1901 when electors chose delegates to prepare constitutional amendments, and then only half the members of the Convention. Their proposals still had to go through the usual cabinet and Parliament channels before the referendums could be held.

574

COOK ISLANDS

European settlement in Australia began late in the 18th century with the first penal colonies. Cessation of the transportation of convicts and a growing number of free immigrants, backed by economic success in the pastoral and mining industries, led to internal self-government at the middle of the 19th century. The Westminster model of parliamentary government was inherited from the United Kingdom, but with a strongly democratic bias in both its franchise and the competitive style of politics. In the second half of the 19th century unstable parliamentary government depended on factions composed of followers of the leading politicians and close to adult male suffrage. In the 1890s party politics emerged, reflecting free trade versus protection and capital versus labour cleavages, and set a pattern which continued throughout the 20th century. In 1901 the six colonies formed a federation as the Commonwealth of Australia, a self-governing Dominion within the British Empire, which gradually acquired the attributes of independence and international status. The Australian Constitution, passed by the United Kingdom Parliament but approved by popular votes in the federating colonies in 1899, created a bicameral legislature. It comprised a Senate in which the states would be represented equally and a House of Representatives in which they were to be represented proportionately to population, subject to a guaranteed minimum for each of the original states. The elements of a system of cabinet and parliamentary government were sketched in the Constitution, but much of the detail was left to the conventions and practices developed in the United Kingdom and adopted by the British colonies which achieved internal selfgovernment during the 19th century. So, for example, whether or not a Governor-General would agree to a Prime Minister's request for a premature dissolution of the House of Representatives, as he had the constitutional power to grant, depended on unwritten conventions. The Governor-General who acts as Head of State has been appointed by the Queen of Australia (who is also Queen of the United Kingdom and a number of other countries) on the nomination of the Australian Prime Minister of the day. At a referendum in 1999 replacement of the Monarchy and Governor-General by a President and modification of the previous procedure to involve the whole Parliament in the choice was defeated by a combination of those voters seeking a directly-elected President and those who wished to retain the Monarchy. By 1909 Australia, at both the federal and state levels, had established a strong and uniformly spread two-party system. This consisted of a working-class party based on powerful trade unions (the Labor Party)

AUSTRALIA

575

and a middle-class party associated with business and rural interests (known first as the Liberal Party, then the Nationalists, then the United Australia Party, and from the mid-1940s the Liberal Party again). The other cleavage, based on economic policy, had been resolved by adoption of a set of protection all round policies which were not challenged until the 1980s. After World War I some rural interests left the Nationalists to form a separate Country Party, but the two parties then entered into an enduring alliance known as The Coalition. Agreement was facilitated by introduction of the alternative vote, called preferential voting in Australia, which permitted competition in any electoral districts disputed by the partners. This alliance has involved (a) invariably the exchange of preferences under the alternative vote at House of Representatives elections and usually joint teams under the alternative vote, and subsequently under the single transferable vote, at Senate elections, (b) ministries roughly proportional to numerical strengths in Parliament with each partner choosing its own ministers, and (c) both joint and separate parliamentary party meetings and separate extraparliamentary organizations. It has been suggested by Giovanni Sartori (1976: 187–188) that this party arrangement is better classified as a coalescence because of its relative stability and longevity. The Coalition label is used in this chapter to cover also small, usually short-lived, secessionist groups from either of the two main parties. The Labor party, for its part, has experienced three major splits. The first was over conscription during World War I when the breakaway group joined the Liberals, who then changed their party's name to Nationalist. The second was over economic policy during the Depression of the 1930s when some breakaways joined the Nationalists, who changed their party's name to the United Australia Party; others formed Lang Labor which is covered by the Labor label in the tables. The third was over an appropriate anti-communist stance during the early days of the Cold War. By the last of these splits, the use of proportional representation for Senate elections enabled a minor party to win seats and thereby to survive. The third group of Labor breakaways formed the Democratic Labor Party, whose electoral support through the alternative vote enabled the Coalition to remain in office from 1949 to 1972. When it collapsed in the mid-1970s it was replaced by the Democrats, drawn more equally from the members of both major parties and post-materialist in character. Two other minor parties have been significant, though not as successful as either Democratic Labor or the Democrats: in the early 1990s an assortment

576

COOK ISLANDS

of Green parties and in the late 1990s the rightwing populist Pauline Hanson's One Nation. Since World War I the Australian party system has always contained one or more micro parties, the Communist Party being by far the longest lived. In the last quarter of the 20th century single-issue parties began to proliferate at the micro end of the party spectrum. Simultaneous growing distrust of the two major competitors and the durability of at least one minor party at any time reduced the major parties' share of the vote to around 80%. But, despite such developments, the Australian party system remains one of the most intensely ‘frozen’ in the world.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions For the most part, the federal Constitution's electoral provisions were explicit though subject to interpretation by the federal High Court. The federal Parliament could pass its own electoral laws, but the Constitution itself might be amended only by a double majority referendum, one carried by a majority of all voters and by a majority of voters in a majority of states (four of the six). For example, in 1977 the power of the state legislatures to fill casual vacancies in the Senate was amended by a referendum to limit them to choosing a replacement from the same political party as the former Senator. On the other hand, obscure provisions for disqualification of candidates and members of the Parliament set out in the Constitution and applied by the High Court remain in force because no federal Government has been willing to risk the political difficulty and the expense of trying to improve them by referendum. The first national election in 1901 was conducted in each of the federating colonies under the prevailing electoral legislation of that colony, subject to the federal Constitution which, for example, prevented plural voting where it still existed under colonial law. The new Parliament passed the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 and the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 and appointed its own electoral officials. Thereafter responsibility for the rules and conduct of federal elections rested with the federal Government and Parliament. The Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906 provided for the conduct of constitutional amendment referendums, following the same basic principles as the electoral legislation. The states and territories retained their own legislation and their own officials for the conduct of state and local government elections and referendums, but these closely resemble federal arrangements. Existing legislation was consolidated into the Commonwealth Electoral

AUSTRALIA

577

Act 1918 which has remained the title of the principal electoral statute subsequently. Similarly the referendum statute eventually became the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. In 1902 the suffrage was made universal for British subjects aged 21 and six months residence in Australia, but subject to disqualifications on racial criteria. Enrolment was made compulsory in 1911, and voting in 1924. In 1973 age for enrolment was reduced to 18. Franchise was restricted to Australian citizens and British subjects enrolled at a prescribed date in 1981. Postal voting outside Australia was provided for since 1952, so as protect the right to vote of electors temporarily overseas. Members of the House of Representatives would be elected for three-year terms and Senators for six-year terms, with half retiring at three-year intervals unless the constitutional provision for a double dissolution was invoked, in which event all Senate places would be filled. The membership of the House of Representatives was fixed at as nearly as practicable twice the number of Senators. Until the Parliament otherwise provided, there were to be 36 Senators and 75 Members of the House of Representatives. In 1948 the number of Senators was increased to 60, with the consequence that number of deputies in the House of Representatives increased to 121; similarly in 1983 the number of state Senators and members of the House of Representatives were raised to 72 and 145 respectively. On both occasions the principal reason for enlargement was the increase in population and thus in the representational workload of Members and Senators: population had doubled between 1901 and 1948 and doubled again between 1948 and 1983. It has been alleged that in 1983 it was also hoped that the election of six Senators at an ordinary half Senate election by proportional representation would result in a quota that enabled the larger parties to win all six places; however this did not happen. Prior to 1977 Senate casual vacancies were filled by direct election either (a) as part of the next ordinary election of half the Senate, or (b) when House of Representatives and Senate elections were held separately, simultaneously with the next House of Representatives general election, as happened in 1963, 1966, 1969, and 1972. Since 1977 casual vacancies are filled by the state legislature for the remainder of the term for which the former Senator had been elected. In 1902 the original intention to use the single-transferable vote for the Senate and the alternative vote for the House of Representatives was abandoned in favor of the plurality system for both chambers. But in 1918 and 1919 the alternative vote was introduced for both types of elections. Whereas it has been maintained for the House of Representatives

578

COOK ISLANDS

elections ever since, the single-transferable vote was used for Senate elections since 1948. In 1983 ticket voting—whereby a single mark adopts the full set of preferences prescribed by the party the elector wants to vote for—was introduced for the Senate. Initially boundaries of single-member constituencies for the House of Representatives were to be drawn by public servants applying specified criteria, but subject to rejection by either House of Parliament. In 1965 and 1983 the boundary redistribution processes were subsequently judicialized. For the Senate each state constituted a multi-member district. Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) gained representation in Parliament only in 1922 and 1948 respectively, when a non-voting member was elected to the House of Representatives. ACT members were given full voting rights in 1966, NT members in 1968. In 1973 election of two Senators for each the NT and ACT was introduced. Since 1977 the assessment of states' entitlement to representation according to population is required to take place during each Parliament. The electoral legislation did not recognize the existence of political parties. Candidates were nominated by six electors, had to deposit the amount of $A 50 repayable if they received more than 20% of the valid votes, and were subject to maximum limits and disclosure requirements for their campaign expenses. Any elector might nominate. Deposits were increased to $A 200 for the Senate and $A 100 for the House of Representatives in 1965, to $A 500 and $A 250 in 1983, and to $A 700 and $A 350 in 1998. The number of nominators was increased to 50 in 1998. In 1983 party labels were added to ballots and party registration introduced. Since 1902 elections would be conducted by polling officials appointed for the purpose, under the direction of a small corps of full-time and part-time officers within the Department of Home Affairs; they were also to compile and maintain a continuous roll. In practice, these officers were free from political influence from the start. Provision was made for voting by post or at a polling place other than that for which the elector was enrolled. A Court of Disputed Returns, comprising a justice of the High Court, had to hear election petitions. Subsequent modifications of the organizational context included abolition of disclosure requirements in 1980, and the introduction of public funding of election campaigns and restoration of disclosure provisions in 1983. In the same year the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) was created to confirm the independence of the agency and the federal Parliament's Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform held an inquiry into a broad range of changes proposed for the current legislation, and subsequently reported

AUSTRALIA

579

on the operation of the resulting amendments at the 1984 election. The committee then became the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and has conducted an inquiry into the conduct of every subsequent election, as well as a number of special inquiries into particular topics of electoral law and administration. The submissions to and public hearings of these inquiries and the Standing Committee's subsequent reports are a major source of information about Australian election organization.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Australian Constitution (and Amendments); Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. The latter Act adopts many of its provisions by reference to the former Act. Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage are applied. Persons entitled to enroll must (a) have attained the age of 18, (b) be Australian citizens or else British subjects who were enrolled prior to 26 January 1984 and have remained enrolled since then, and (c) have lived in the electoral district for the month prior to enrolment. Provisional enrolment at age 17 allows those who reach 18 between the close of the rolls and polling day to vote, and persons leaving Australia for a period up to three years may retain their enrolment. Persons incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting or who have been convicted and are under a sentence of imprisonment for five years or longer are disqualified. Enrolment is compulsory subject to a fine of $A 50, but any prosecution is terminated by the offender applying for enrolment. Entitlement to vote is a consequence of enrolment. Voting is compulsory. The process by which the requirement is enforced is that after each election the returning officer writes to electors who appear not to have voted, requesting an explanation or else payment of a penalty of $A 20. Failing an acceptable explanation or payment of the penalty, the matter may be pursued with further notices and eventually in the courts where a penalty of $A 50 may be imposed. Religious belief is specified as a sufficient reason for not voting. Electors outside Australia when an election is being held may vote at, or obtain postal votes from, Australian diplomatic missions; to be included in the count these have to be received by the appropriate returning officer in Australia within 13 days of polling day. The votes of

580

COOK ISLANDS

electors working in the Australian part of Antarctica are cast there and communicated by wireless to Australia. Elected national institutions: The Parliament consists of two directly elected Houses: the Senate with 76 members who have a term of six years maximum and the House of Representatives with 148 members who have a term of three years maximum. When a whole Senate election has taken place, the Senate itself divides Senators into those with a six-year term and those with a three-year term. By-elections are held when required to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. For the Senate vacancies are filled by election of a person of the same political party by the Parliament of the state concerned. The Northern Territory legislature and the federal Parliament fill a vacancy for a Senator from the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory respectively.

Nomination of Candidates: - House of Representatives: Candidates have to be Australian citizens aged at least 18. They need not reside in that electoral district or in that state, though in practice they usually do. They are to be nominated by either 50 electors entitled to vote at that election or by the registered officer of the political party which has endorsed the candidate. Candidates' place(s) on the ballot are determined by a doubly randomized draw conducted by the returning officer. For each candidate a deposit of $A 350 (approx. US$ 180 in 2001) is required, returnable if he/she polls not less than 4% of the first preference votes in the respective constituency. Since the 1984 election candidates have been identified on the ballot paper by a registered abbreviation of their party's name; party symbols are not used. - Senate: Candidacy requirements are almost the same as for the House of Representatives. On the ballot, groups of candidates have their names printed together in the order which they choose. For each candidate a deposit of $A 700 is required, which is reimbursed if the Senate group to which they belong polls at least 4% of the valid votes in the constituency.

Electoral system: - House of Representatives: Alternative Vote. To mark a House of Representatives ballot paper validly the elector must sequentially number all candidates to indicate their preferences, though if one candidate is not marked that candidate will be deemed to have the last preference. Valid ballots are initially counted by their first preferences.

AUSTRALIA

581

If one candidate has received more than half the total valid first preferences, they are elected. If no candidate has more than half the first preferences, the candidate with the fewest first preferences is then excluded from the count, and their second preferences are distributed to the remaining candidates. If it is still the case that no candidate has more than half the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes remaining (their original first preferences plus second preferences from the first candidate excluded) goes out and their votes transferred according to the next preferences shown. The process continues until one candidate has more than half the total votes. Each preference when it is transferred continues to be counted as a whole vote. - Senate: Single-Transferable Vote (STV). To mark a Senate ballot paper validly the elector may either sequentially number all candidates (over 50 in each of the three largest states in 1998) below the line; or he/she makes a single mark above the line to adopt the set of preferences lodged by the party or group the elector preferred (ticket voting). The parties and groups lodge their voting tickets within 24 hours of the declaration of nominations. A poster showing all the voting tickets lodged for that election is displayed at each polling place. Senate seats are assigned in a rather complicated process. A quota is calculated by dividing the total number of valid ballots by one more than the number of Senators to be elected and adding one to the result whilst ignoring any remainder (STV-Droop quota). The size of the quota varies greatly: in 1998 in New South Wales it was 536,533 but in Tasmania 44,054 and in the Northern Territory 31,001. Each candidate's first preference votes are compared with the quota; in the states it is certain that two (from the major parties) and possibly three (if a minor party polls well enough) will exceed the quota and they will be elected at that point. The surplus by which their actual votes exceed the quota is then transferred according to the second preferences recorded, but at reduced value calculated by dividing the surplus by the number of valid votes from which it came. This count is likely to elect another two candidates, again one from each of the major parties. The process is then repeated. When the allocation of surpluses no longer elects a candidate, the process is then changed and the candidate with the fewest votes (their original first preferences plus the fractions they have accumulated) is excluded and their preferences distributed to the remaining candidates. This continues until the required number of Senators has been elected. Since 1998 that process has been computerized. The relatively small proportion (5.1% in 1998) of ballot papers with below the line preferences are counted at a central counting facility where they are keyed in;

582

COOK ISLANDS

the great majority of above the line ticket votes are counted in the traditional counting centers, one in each electoral district, and require minimal keying. A computer then allocates votes; the new version of the process requires only half the time previously needed for the manual equivalents. Organizational context of elections: The organizational context of Australian elections is characterized by extensive voter-supportive processes. The election timetable commences with the dissolution of the previous House of Representatives (or both chambers in case of a double dissolution) and thereafter follows statutory requirements for the issue of writs, the closing of rolls and nominations and the declaration of nominations. The AEC's information campaign during the last election (1998) went through three phases: enrolment, assistance available for electors who could not cast an ordinary vote on polling day, and requirements for casting a valid vote. Its advertisements were translated into 18 languages for the press, 15 indigenous languages and 23 other languages for radio, and seven languages for television. The AEC regularly publishes summaries of electoral procedures, pamphlets on the nomination process, and handbooks for candidates and scrutineers as well as on party registration and on funding and disclosure requirements for parties, candidates, third parties, broadcasters, and publishers. It is subject to Freedom of Information statutory requirements, and maintains a website (http://www.aec.gov.au).

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics From the beginning official election returns, in state by state volumes, have been published by the federal government; until 1984 they were included in the Parliamentary Papers series of official publications. However initially party affiliations were not shown in the returns and had to be found in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Handbook series. Neither did the returns show results at the polling booth level, but only for the sub-divisions into which the electoral districts were divided. However the AEC has made available on microfiches polling booth figures for the House of Representatives elections 1949–1983. The Bibliography lists the Handbooks of Australian Government and Politics which were compiled to provide, inter alia, party data (for state elections as well as federal) and the Voting for the Australian House of Representatives volumes compiled to consolidate electoral district level figures, from which regional

AUSTRALIA

583

breakdowns of the national election results—which are not documented here—can be easily calculated. Over the period 1984–1993 the official election returns give polling booth statistics, but because of their increased bulk they no longer went into the Parliamentary Papers series. Starting in 1996 polling booth figures are available on CD-Rom, and the hard copy returns give only electoral district totals. Long use of the alternative vote led to interest in the two-party-preferred vote produced by allocating preferences in all electoral districts to one or other of the two major parties. It requires either additional counts in those districts where a candidate obtained an absolute majority on the first count of preferences or, when looking at historical data, informed guesses as to what those figures might have been. Since 1983 the AEC and its predecessor, the Australian Electoral Office, has counted the outstanding ballot papers and published the results, originally in their own volumes. For 1949–1980 various academics combined real and estimated figures for particular elections, and in 1983 a comprehensive set for federal and state elections was published by the Australasian Political Science Association, Canberra.

584

COOK ISLANDS

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups D'etat Year 1901 1903 1906 1910 1911 1913 1914 1916 1917 1919 1922 1925 1926 1928 1929 1931 1934 1937 1940 1943 1944 1946 1948 1949 1951 1953 1954 1955 1958 1961 1963 1964 1966 1967 1969 1970 1972 1973 1974 1975 1977 1980 1983 1984 1987 1988 1990 1993 1996 1997 1998 1999 a

b c


Parliamentary elections Lower Chamber 29–30/03 16/12 12/12 13/04

Upper Chamber 29–30/03 16/12 12/12 13/04

31/05 05/09

31/05 05/09a

05/05 13/12 16/12 14/11

05/05 13/12 16/12 14/11

17/11 12/10 19/12 15/09 23/10 21/09 21/08

17/11

28/09

28/09

10/12 28/04

10/12 28/04a 09/05

29/05 10/12 22/11 09/12 30/11 26/11 25/10 02/12


Referendums

Coups d'état

12/12 13/04 26/04 31/05 28/10 20/12 13/12 04/09 17/11

19/12 15/09 23/10 21/09 21/08

06/03 19/08 28/09 29/05 22/09

10/12 22/11 09/12 05/12 25/11

27/05

21/11

18/05 13/12 10/12 18/10 05/03 01/12 11/07

18/05a 13/12a 10/12 18/10 05/03a 01/12 11/07a

24/03 13/03 02/03

24/03 13/03 02/03

03/10

03/10

08/12 18/05 21/05b 01/12 03/09

09/12c 06/11

Since 1903 half of the Upper House (Senate) has normally been renewed in staggered elections every three-years. Only in 1914, 1951, 1974, 1975, 1983, and 1987 elections of the whole Senate were held due to a so-called double dissolution of Parliament. In addition to the 1977 referendum on constitutional issues a poll for a National Song was held simultaneously. A postal ballot to elect half of the 152 delegates to a Constitutional Convention was held. The date shown was the last day for receipt of ballots. Voting material was distributed by post over the preceding two weeks approximately. The remaining delegates were nominated by the Prime Minister.

585

AUSTRALIA


1901 1901 1903 1903 1906 1906 1906 1910 1910 1910 1911 1913 1913 1913 1914 1914 1916 1917 1917 1917 1919 1919 1919 1922 1922 1925 1925 1926 1928 1928 1928 1929 1931 1931 1934 1934 1937 1937

Type of electiona

R S R S R S Ref R S Ref Ref R S Ref R S Ref R S Ref R S Ref R S R S Ref R S Ref R R S R S R S

Populationb

Registered votersc

Votes castc

3,824,913 3,824,913 3,916,592 3,916,592 4,091,485 4,091,485 4,091,485 4,425,083 4,425,083 4,425,083 4,573,868 4,894,099 4,894,099 4,894,099 4,972,287 4,972,287 4,918,632 4,982,793 4,982,793 4,982,793 5,304,422 5,304,422 5,304,422 5,637,286 5,637,286 6,003,304 6,003,304 6,124,361 6,356,250 6,356,250 6,356,250 6,436,765 6,553,291 6,553,291 6,707,912 6,707,912 6,871,492 6,871,492

Total number 987,754d 988,629 1,893,586d 1,893,586 2,109,562d 2,109,562 2,109,562 2,258,482d 2,258,482 2,258,482 2,341,624 2,760,216d 2,760,216 2,760,216 2,811,515d 2,811,515 2,789,830 2,835,327d 2,835,327 2,776,440 2,849,862d 2,849,862 2,849,862 2,980,424d 2,980,424 3,302,016d 3,302,016 3,254,952 3,444,766d 3,444,766 3,444,766 3,539,120d 3,649,954d 3,649,954 3,902,677d 3,902,677 4,080,038d 4,080,038

Total number 514,440 — 739,401 887,312 988,553 1,059,168 1,048,636 1,349,626 1,403,976 1,397,533f 1,246,929f 1,955,723 2,033,251 2,030,770 1,726,906 2,042,336 2,308,603 1,934,478 2,202,801 2,258,221 1,977,843 2,032,937 2,030,911 1,646,863 1,728,224 2,987,200 3,014,953 2,964,384 2,728,815 3,224,500 3,224,500 2,957,547 3,286,474 3,468,303 3,677,723 3,708,578 3,699,269 3,921,337

% pop. 25.8 25.8 48.3 48.3 51.6 51.6 51.6 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.2 56.4 56.4 56.4 56.5 56.5 56.7 56.9 56.9 55.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 52.9 52.9 55.0 55.0 53.1 54.2 54.2 54.2 55.0 55.7 55.7 58.2 58.2 59.4 59.4

% reg. voters 56.7e — 50.3e 46.9 51.5e 50.2 49.8 62.8e 62.2 61.9 53.3 73.5e 73.7 73.6 73.5e 72.6 82.8 78.3e 77.7 81.3 71.6e 71.3 71.3 59.4e 58.0 91.4e 91.3 91.1 93.6e 93.6 93.6 94.9e 95.0e 95.0 95.2e 95.0 96.1e 96.1

% pop. 13.4 — 18.9 22.7 23.3 25.9 25.6 30.5 31.7 31.6 27.3 40.0 41.5 41.5 34.7 41.1 46.9 38.8 44.2 45.3 37.3 38.3 38.3 29.2 30.7 49.8 50.2 48.4 42.9 50.7 50.7 45.9 50.1 52.9 54.8 55.3 53.8 57.1

586 1937 1940 1940 1943 1943 1944 1946 1948 1949 1951 1951 1951 1953 1954 1955 1955 1958 1961 1963 1964 1966 1967 1967 1969 1970 1972 1973 1974 1974 1974 1975 1977 1977 1980 1983 1984 1984 1984 1987 1987 1988 1990 1990

COOK ISLANDS

Ref R S R S Ref R/S/Ref Ref R/S R S Ref S R R S R/S R/S R S R S Ref R S R Ref R S Ref R/S R/S Ref R/S R/S R S Ref R S Ref R S

6,871,492 7,077,586 7,077,586 7,269,658 7,269,658 7,347,024 7,517,081 7,794,880 8,050,882 8,528,129 8,528,129 8,528,129 8,902,686 9,090,395 9,311,825 9,311,825 9,951,618 10,603,931 11,022,811 11,280,429 11,710,387 11,904,102 11,904,102 12,388,192 12,639,009 13,283,900 13,490,600 13,709,500 13,849,300 13,709,500 13,849,300 14,192,200 14,192,200 14,695,400 15,393,500 15,579,400 15,579,400 15,579,400 16,263,300 16,263,300 16,538,200 17,085,400 17,085,400

3,980,728 4,239,346d 4,239,346 4,466,637d 4,466,637 4,483,949 4,739,853 4,783,887 4,895,227 4,962,675d 4,962,675 4,974,337 5,067,753 5,096,468d 5,172,443d 5,172,443 5,384,624 5,651,561 5,824,917 5,880,952 6,193,881 6,191,921 6,182,585 6,606,233 6,611,742 7,073,930 7,653,469 7,897,506 7,759,571 7,759,714 8,262,413 8,548,779 8,242,383 9,023,592 9,372,064 9,869,217 9,869,217 9,866,266 10,353,213 10,353,213 10,362,959 10,728,435 10,728,435

57.9 59.9 59.9 61.4 61.4 61.0 63.1 61.4 60.8 58.2 58.2 58.3 56.9 56.1 55.5 55.5 54.1 53.3 52.8 52.1 52.9 52.0 51.9 53.3 52.3 53.3 56.7 57.6 56.0 56.6 59.7 60.2 58.1 61.4 60.9 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.7 63.7 62.7 62.8 62.8

3,744,363 3,979,009 4,016,803 4,245,369 4,301,655 4,325,451 4,453,941 4,476,001 4,697,800 4,654,406 4,763,915 4,754,589 4,810,964 4,619,571 4,525,774 4,914,094 5,141,109 5,384,350 5,575,977 5,556,980 5,892,327 5,889,129 5,801,584 6,273,611 6,213,763 6,747,244 7,147,367 7,535,768 7,410,511 7,410,511 7,881,873 8,127,762 7,605,882 8,513,992 8,870,175 9,295,421 9,331,165 9,279,044 9,707,597 9,767,314 9,537,725 10,225,800 10,278,943

94.1 94.8e 94.8 96.3e 96.3 96.5 94.0 93.6 96.0 96.0e 96.0 95.6 94.9 96.1e 95.0e 95.0 95.5 95.3 95.7 94.5 95.1 95.1 93.8 95.0 94.0 95.4 93.4 95.4 95.5 95.5 95.4 95.1 92.3 94.4 94.6 94.2 94.5 94.0 93.8 94.3 92.0 95.3 95.8

54.5 56.2 56.8 58.4 59.2 58.9 59.3 57.4 58.4 54.6 55.9 55.8 54.0 50.8 48.6 52.8 51.7 50.8 50.6 49.3 50.3 49.5 48.7 50.6 49.2 50.8 53.0 55.0 53.5 54.1 56.9 57.3 53.6 57.9 57.6 59.7 59.9 59.6 59.7 60.1 57.7 59.9 60.2

587

AUSTRALIA

1993 1993 1996 1996 1997 1998 1998 1999 a

b

c

d

e

f

R S R S CC R S Ref

17,667,100 17,667,100 18,310,700 18,310,700 18,532,200 18,730,359 18,730,359 18,996,788

11,384,638 11,384,638 11,740,568 11,740,568 11,989,682 12,154,050 12,154,050 12,361,694

64.4 64.4 64.1 64.1 64.7 64.9 64.9 65.1

10,900,861 10,954,258 11,244,017 11,294,479 5,430,830 11,545,201 11,587,365 11,785,000

95.8 96.2 95.8 96.2 45.3 95.0 95.3 95.3

61.7 62.0 61.4 61.7 29.3 61.6 61.9 62.0

CC = Constitutional Convention, R = House of Representatives (Lower Chamber), Ref = Referendum, S = Senate (Upper Chamber). Elections for R and S which were held simultaneously and recorded with the same number of votes cast are documented together in one line. Source for estimated population Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia; population estimated at 31/12 prior to 1975, thereafter at 30/06. Population excludes full-blood Aborigines prior to 1961. Statutory and constitutional changes which significantly increased Total numbers: 1902 Enfranchisement of women in four remaining states; 1911 Compulsory enrolment; 1924 Compulsory voting; 1966 Australian Capital Territory included in R statistics (the member given full voting rights); 1968 Northern Territory included in R statistics (the member given full voting rights); 1973 Enfranchisement of 18-20year olds; 1973 Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory included in S statistics (Senators added). In these elections, there were constituencies with only one candidate who then became automatically Member of Parliament—without the elections being held. Registered voters of these uncontested electoral districts are included here. For further details refer to tables under 2.7. For these elections with several uncontested constituencies the percentages refer to the registered voters in the contested constituencies only, but percentages in the population column refer to population in all constituencies. For further details refer to tables under 2.7. These figures refer to the first question of the referendums held at this date. For detailed figures of the other referendum questions held on this date refer to 2.5.

588

COOK ISLANDS

2.3 Abbreviations Party abbreviations have been used rarely in Australia except for the Australian Labor Party (ALP), the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) and the United Australia Party (U.A.P.).

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1901–1998 Party / Alliancea Free Trade Labor Protectionist Liberal (Queensland) Anti-Socialist Western Australia Liberal Nationalistd Countryd Coalitione Communistf Social Credit (New South Wales) State Labor One Parliament for Australia Democratic Laborg Australia Democrat Nuclear Disarmament Greens P. Hanson's One Nation a b c d

e

f

g

Years 1901–1903 1901–1998 1901–1906 1903 1906 1906 1910–1914 1917–1919 1919 1922–1998 1931–1977 1934–1937 1940–1943

Elections contested House of Representativesb 2 39 3 0 1 1 3 2 1 31 17 2 2

Senatec 2 37 3 1 1 0 3 2 1 29 12 2 1

1943

1

1

1955–1975 1967–1975 1977–1998 1984–1987 1990–1998 1998

9 4 9 0 4 1

8 4 9 2 4 1

Only parties that secured at least 2% of the national vote at at least one election are shown. Total number of elections: 39. Total number of elections: 37. These parties formed the Coalition in 1922 and participated in the following elections under the Coalition label until 1929 (Nationalist) and 1972 (Country). The Coalition was formed in 1922 by the Nationalist Party and the Country Party as main alternative to Labor. Subsequently the Nationalists were succeeded in the Coalition by reconstructed versions of the same party, the United Australia (1931–1943), and a revival of the Liberal Party (1946–1998). The Country Party changed its name to the National Country Party (1974–1980) and the National Party (1983–1998). By the 1980 election the Communist Party had divided into Stalinist, Maoist and Eurocommunist parties; Trotskyite groups also began to contest elections more extensively. After 1975 contested only Victorian seats.

589

AUSTRALIA

2.5 Referendums Year

1906a Total number 2,109,562 1,048,636 112,155 936,481 774,011 162,470


Senate Elections.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a b



% – 61.9 6.9 93.1 54.9 45.1

Total number

%

Question IIb 1,398,789 82,437 1,316,352 645,514 670,838

61.9 5.9 94.1 49.0 51.0

1911 Total number 2,341,624 Question Ia 1,246,929 20,869 1,226,060 483,356 742,704

% –

Total number

%

Question IIb 1,246,914 21,854 1,225,060 488,668 736,392

53.3 1.7 98.3 39.4 60.6

53.2 1.8 98.2 39.9 60.1

Total number

%

Question IIb 83,235 1,947,535 960,711 986,824

4.1 95.9 49.3 50.7

Trade and Commerce. Nationalization of Monopolies.

Year

a

1910 Total number 2,258,482 Question Ia 1,397,533 96,209 1,301,324 715,053 586,271

State Debts. Surplus Revenue.

Year

a

% – 49.8 10.7 89.3 82.7 17.3

Trade and Commerce. Corporations.

1913 Total number 2,760,216 2,030,770 Question Ia 89,736 1,941,034 958,419 982,615

% – 73.6 4.4 95.6 49.4 50.6

590 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a b




Total number

%

Question IVb 87,496 1,943,274 967,331 975,943

4.3 95.7 49.8 50.2

Total number

%

8.5 91.5 49.3 50.7

Question VIb 84,366 1,946,404 956,358 990,046

4.2 95.8 49.1 50.9

% – 82.8 2.6 97.4 48.4 51.6

1917b Total number 2,776,440 2,258,221 61,315 2,196,906 1,015,159 1,181,747

% – 81.3 2.7 97.3 46.2 53.8

4.0 96.0 49.3 50.7

1913 (cont.) Total number 2,760,216 2,030,770 Question Va 171,658 1,859,112 917,165 941,947

% – 73.6

1916a Total number 2,789,830 2,308,603 61,013 2,247,590 1,087,557 1,160,033

Conscription. Sometimes classified as plebiscite because if passed it would not have amended the Constitution. Conscription. Sometimes classified as plebiscite because if passed it would not have amended the Constitution.

Year

a

% – 73.6

Nationalization of Monopolies. Railway Disputes.

Year

a

1913 (cont.) Total number 2,760,216 2,030,770 Question IIIa 81,558 1,949,212 961,601 987,611

Industrial Disputes. Trusts.

Year

a

COOK ISLANDS

1919 Total number 2,849,862 2,030,911 Question Ia 195,394 1,835,517 911,357 924,160

Extension of Powers for Post-war Reconstruction. Nationalization of Monopolies.

Year

1926

% – 71.3 9.6 90.4 49.7 50.3

Total number

%

Question IIb 357,580 1,673,331 813,880 859,451

17.6 82.4 48.6 51.4

591

AUSTRALIA

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a b

Total number 3,254,952 2,964,384 Question Ia 97,641 2,866,743 1,247,088 1,619,655

1928a Total number 3,444,766 3,224,500 213,257 3,011,243 2,237,391 773,852

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No



Question IIb 171,089 2,793,295 1,195,502 1,597,793

5.8 94.2 42.8 57.2

% – 93.6 6.6 93.4 74.3 25.7

1937 Total number 3,980,728 3,744,363 Question Ia 150,355 3,594,008 1,924,946 1,669,062

% – 94.1

Total number

%

4.0 96.0 53.6 46.4

Question IIb 270,167 3,474,196 1,259,808 2,214,388

1.3 98.7 36.3 63.7

% – 96.5 1.3 98.7 46.0 54.0

1946 (Quest.I)b Total number 4,739,853 4,453,941 228,859 4,225,082 2,297,934 1,927,148

% – 94.0 5.1 94.9 54.4 45.6

Total number

%

Aviation. Marketing.

Year

a

%

State Debts.

Year

a

3.3 96.7 43.5 56.5

Total number

Industry and Commerce. Essential Services.

Year

a

% – 91.1

1944a Total number 4,483,949 4,325,451 56,633 4,268,818 1,963,400 2,305,418

Post-war Reconstruction and Democratic Rights. Social Services.

Year Registered voters Votes cast

1946 (cont.) Total number 4,739,853 4,453,941

% – 94.0

592

Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a b




8.0 92.0 50.3 49.7

1948a Total number 4,783,887 4,476,001 64,106 4,411,895 1,793,712 2,618,183

% – 93.6 1.4 98.6 40.7 59.3

1951b Total number 4,974,337 4,754,589 66,653 4,687,936 2,317,927 2,370,009

% – 95.6 1.4 98.6 49.4 50.6


Total number

%

Question IIb 91,464 5,710,120 5,183,113 527,007

1.6 98.4 90.8 9.2

Total number

%

Question IIb 114,967 7,032,400 2,420,315 4,612,085

1.6 98.4 34.4 65.6

Total number

%

% – 93.8 1.6 98.4 40.3 59.7

Membership Number Nexus between House and Senate. Aboriginals.

Year

a

6.1 93.9 50.6 49.4

Question IIIb 357,806 4,096,135 2,060,275 2,035,860

Rents and Prices Controls. Communism.

Year

a

Question IIa 269,506 4,184,435 2,116,264 2,068,171

Organized Marketing of Primary Products. Industrial Employment.

Year

a

COOK ISLANDS


% – 93.4 1.3 98.7 43.8 56.2

Price Control. Incomes Control.


1974 Total number 7,759,714 7,410,511 Question Ia

% – 95.5

Question IIb

593

AUSTRALIA





1.7 98.3 48.0 52.0

1974 (cont.) Total number 7,759,714 7,410,511 Question IIIa 124,171 7,286,340 3,439,471 3,846,869

% – 95.5

Total number

%

Question IVb 139,010 7,271,501 3,406,724 3,864,777

1.9 98.1 46.9 53.1

Total number

%

Question IIb 135,148 7,470,734 5,477,771 1,982,963

1.8 98.2 73.3 26.7

Total number

%

Question IVb 139,914 7,465,968 5,980,394 1,485,574

1.8 98.2 80.1 19.9

1.7 98.3 47.2 52.8


% – 92.3 1.8 98.2 62.2 37.8

Simultaneous Elections for House and Senate. Senate Casual Vacancies.

Year

a

123,081 7,287,430 3,497,507 3,789,923

Democratic Elections. Finance for Local Government.

Year

a

1.7 98.3 48.3 51.7

Simultaneous Elections for House and Senate. Constitutional Amendment Process.

Year

a

123,663 7,286,848 3,519,710 3,767,138


% – 92.3 1.8 98.2 77.7 22.3

Territory Vote in Referendums. Retirement Age for Judges.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes

1977a Total number 8,401,467 7,069,046 773,061

% – 84.1 10.9

594

COOK ISLANDS

Valid votes Advance Australia Fair Waltzing Matilda God Save the Queen Song of Australia a




% – 94.0 4.8 95.2 50.6 49.4

Total number

%

Question IIb 621,634 8,657,410 4,074,340 4,583,070

6.7 93.3 47.1 52.9

1988a Total number 10,362,959 9,537,725 Question Ia 121,515 9,416,210 3,099,270 6,316,940

% – 92.0

Total number

%

Question IIb 124,350 9,413,375 3,538,817 5,874,558

1.3 98.7 32.9 67.1

1.3 98.7 37.6 62.4

Total number

%

Question IVb 141,145 9,396,580 2,892,828 6,503,752

1.5 98.5 30.8 69.2

Total number

%

Parliamentary Terms. Fair Elections.

Year

a


Senators' Terms (Simultaneous Elections). Interchange of Powers with States.

Year

a

89.1 43.3 28.3 18.8 9.6

A non-constitutional poll to select a National Song was held simultaneously with the constitutional referendums in 1977.

Year

a

6,295,985 2,725,292 1,780,747 1,182,689 607,257


% – 92.0 1.3 98.7 33.6 66.4

Local Government. Rights and Freedoms.


1999 Total number 12,361,694 11,785,000 Question Ia

% – 95.3

Question IIb

595

AUSTRALIA


End Monarchy. New Preamble.

101,189 11,683,811 5,273,024 6,410,787

0.9 99.1 45.1 54.9

112,474 11,672,561 4,591,563 7,080,998

1.0 99.0 39.3 60.7

596

COOK ISLANDS

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Convention 1997a Registered voters Ballots countedb Invalid votes Valid votes Australian Republican Movement No Republic–ACM Ted Mack Clem Jones Queensland Real Republic Safeguard the People Australian Monarchist League Constitutional Monarchists Christian Democratic Party Elect the President Alternative Three A Just Republic Othersc Ungroupedd a

b c d

Total number 11,989,682 5,430,830 118,265 5,312,565

% – 45.3 2.2 97.8

Seats

%

100.0 35.5

1,611,960

30.3

76 27

1,195,627 213,422 182,464

22.5 4.0 3.4

19 2 3

25.0 2.6 3.9

162,223 143,420 115,894

3.1 2.7 2.2

2 2 3

2.6 2.6 3.9

98,382

1.9

2

2.6

76,059

1.4

1

1.3

75,770 74,231 69,317 536,867 756,929

1.4 1.4 1.3 10.1 14.2

1 0 2 6 6

1.3 0.0 2.6 7.9 7.9

Postal ballot to elect half of the 152 delegates of a Constitutional Convention to consider three constitutional questions. The remaining 76 delegates were nominated by the Prime Minister. Envelopes received: 5,626,354 (46.9%); Envelopes rejected: 178,967 (3.2%); Envelopes opened: 5,447,387 (96.8%). Others include 37 different groups which gained less than 1% of the valid votes each. Individual candidates who did not form part of a team or ticket.

597

AUSTRALIA

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 2.7.1 House of Representatives 1901–1998 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Protectionist Free Trade Labor Others Independentse a

b c

d e

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Anti-Socialist Labor Protectionist Western Australia Party Liberal Independents b

% – 56.7 1.6 98.4 43.6 35.7 18.7 – 2.0

1903 Total number 1,893,586b 739,401 18,463 720,938 214,091 247,774 223,163 3,546d 32,364

% – 50.3 2.5 97.5 29.7 34.4 31.0 0.5 4.5

Contested district voters: 907,658. From 1901 to 1958 it was usual for some electoral districts to be uncontested; in only two elections (1946, 1949) were all seats contested. Over the 22 general elections in this time period an average 7.3% of the registered voters did not have the opportunity to vote, and there were five elections in which the figure exceeded 10%. Consequently, in addition to the registered voters for the whole country the number of registered voters in contested districts, i.e. the only ones who actually could vote is given in footnotes. The percentage of votes cast is calculated on the basis of the contested district voters. Contested district votes: 1,470,902. 426,023 valid votes were recorded in the four states which had been divided into single-member constituencies; the votes below come from those districts. A further 79,949 valid ballot papers were counted in the other two states which were not divided and their elections held at large (South Australia, Tasmania). 350,161 valid votes were recorded in South Australia: Protectionist 116,161 (33.4%), Free Trade 175,813 (50.2%), Labor 55,633 (15.9%), Independents 1,745 (0.5%). 18,041 valid votes were recorded in Tasmania: Protectionist 7,843 (43.5%), Free Trade 10,058 (55.8%), Independents 140 (0.8%). Revenue Tariff. In the following tables, the category ‘Independents’ generally includes some candidates who adopted partylike labels, but lacked other attributes of political parties.

Year

a

1901 Total number 987,754a 514,440 8,468 505,972c 185,943 151,960 79,736 – 8,384

1906 Total number 2,109,562a 988,553 36,865 951,688 363,257 348,711 202,499 22,154 – 15,067

% – 51.5 3.7 96.3 38.2 36.6 21.3 2.3

1910 Total number 2,258,482b 1,349,626 27,044 1,322,582 – 660,864 – –

% – 62.8 2.0 98.0 – 50.0 – –

– 1.6

596,350 65,368

45.1 4.9

%

1914 Total number

%

Contested district voters: 1,920,397. Contested district voters: 2,148,969.

Year

1913 Total number

598 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Liberal Labor Independents a b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Nationalist Labor Country Independents b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Others Independents b c

2,811,515b 1,726,906 40,143 1,686,763 796,397 858,451 31,915

– 73.5 2.3 97.7 47.2 50.9 1.9

1917 Total number 2,835,327a 1,934,478 51,044 1,883,434 1,021,138 827,541 – 34,755

% – 78.3 2.6 97.4 54.2 43.9 – 1.8

1919 Total number 2,849,862b 1,977,843 68,612 1,909231 893,026 811,244 176,884 28,077

% – 71.6 3.5 96.5 46.8 42.5 9.3 1.5

1922 Total number 2,980,424a 1,646,863 74,349 1,572,514 825,372 665,145 10,303c 71,694

% – 59.4 4.5 95.5 52.5 42.3 0.7 4.6

1925 Total number 3,302,016b 2,987,200 70,562 2,916,638 1,551,760 1,313,627 – 51,251

% – 91.4 2.4 97.6 53.2 45.0 – 1.8

% – 93.6 4.9 95.1 51.2 44.6 4.2

1929 Total number 3,539,120b 2,957,547 78,297 2,879,250 1,411,669 1,406,327 61,254

% – 94.9 2.6 97.4 49.0 48.8 2.1

Contested district voters: 2,774,274. Contested district voters: 3,268,739. Majority Labor.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Independents a

– 73.5 2.8 97.2 48.9 48.5 2.6


Year

a

2,760,216a 1,955,723 55,354 1,900,369 930,076 921,099 49,194


Year

a

COOK ISLANDS

1928 Total number 3,444,766a 2,728,815 133,730 2,595,085 1,327,921 1,158,505 108,659

Contested district voters: 2,914,153.

599

AUSTRALIA b

Contested district voters: 3,118,030.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Social Credit Others Independents a b c d

1931 Total number 3,649,954a 3,286,474 114,440 3,172,034 1,707,915 1,194,822 – 8,511c 260,786

% – 95.0 3.5 96.5 53.8 37.7 – 0.3 8.2

1934 Total number 3,902,677b 3,677,723 126,338 3,551,385 1,761,529 1,462,731 166,589 47,499d 113,037

% – 95.2 3.4 96.6 49.6 41.2 4.7 1.3 3.2

% – 96.1 2.6 97.4 50.0 43.2 2.2 – 0.5 4.2

1940 Total number 4,239,346b 3,979,009 102,023 3,876,986 1,703,185 1,759,662 – 101,191 – 312,948

% – 94.8 2.6 97.4 43.9 45.4 – 2.6 – 8.1

1943 Total number 4,466,637a 4,245,369 122,878 4,122,491 2,058,578 1,364,179 87,112

% – 96.3 2.9 97.1 49.9 33.1 2.1

1946 Total number 4,739,853 4,453,941 109,197 4,344,744 2,159,953 1,896,556 –

% – 94.0 2.5 97.5 49.7 43.7 –

111,568b 501,054

2.7 12.2

208,783c 79,452

4.8 1.8

Contested district voters: 3,458,073. Contested district voters: 3,864,439. Communist. Communist.

Year

1937 Total number Registered voters 4,080,038a Votes cast 3,699,269 Invalid votes 95,928 Valid votes 3,603,341 Coalition 1,800,327 Labor 1,555,737 Social Credit 79,432 (N.S.W.) State Labor – Others 17,153c Independents 150,692 a b c

Contested district voters: 3,848,020. Contested district voters: 4,196,446. Communist.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition One Parliament for Australia Others Independents a b

Contested district voters: 4,407,507. Communist, Lang Labor, Services, Protestant People's.

600 c

Communist.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Others Independents a b c

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition Democratic Labor Others Independents b c d

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Democratic Labor Others Independents b

% – 96.0 2.0 98.0 50.3 46.0 1.6 2.2

1951 Total number 4,962,675a 4,654,406 88,507 4,565,899 2,298,512 2,174,840 45,759c 46,788

% – 96.0 1.9 98.1 50.3 47.6 1.0 1.0

1954 Total number 5,096,468a 4,619,571 62,283 4,557,288 2,280,098 2,144,979 – 56,675c 75,536

% – 96.1 1.3 98.7 50.0 47.1 – 1.2 1.7

1955 Total number 5,172,443b 4,525,774 130,239 4,395,535 1,961,829 2,093,930 227,083 51,001d 61,692

% – 95.0 2.9 97.1 44.6 47.6 5.2 1.2 1.4

% – 95.5 2.9 97.1 46.6 42.8 9.4 0.6 0.6

1961 Total number 5,651,561 5,384,350 138,317 5,246,033 2,208,213 2,512,929 456,962 32,172b 35,757

% – 95.3 2.6 97.4 42.1 47.9 8.7 0.6 0.7

% –

1966 Total number 6,193,881

% –

Contested district voters: 4,807,757. Contested district voters: 4,763,793. Communist. Communist.

Year

a

1949 Total number 4,895,227 4,697,800 93,390 4,604,410 2,314,143 2,117,088 73,811b 99,368

Contested district voters: 4,848,423. Communist, Lang Labor. Communist.

Year

a

COOK ISLANDS

1958 Total number 5,384,624 5,141,109 147,616 4,993,493 2,324,500 2,137,890 469,723 29,914a 31,466

Communist, Australian National. Communist, Commonwealth Centre.

Year Registered voters

1963 Total number 5,824,917

601

AUSTRALIA

Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Democratic Labor Others Independents a b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition Democratic Labor Australia Others Independents b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition Australia Others Independents b

5,892,327 182,578 5,709,749 2,853,890 2,282,834 417,411 72,666b 82,948

95.1 3.1 96.9 50.0 40.0 7.3 1.3 1.5

1969 Total number 6,606,233 6,273,611 159,493 6,114,118 2,870,792 2,649,219 367,977 —a 80,120a 146,090

% – 95.0 2.5 97.5 47.0 43.3 6.0 — 1.3 2.4

1972 Total number 7,073,930 6,747,244 146,194 6,601,050 3,273,549 2,737,911 346,415 159,916 18,108b 65,151

% – 95.4 2.2 97.8 49.6 41.5 5.2 2.4 0.3 1.0

% – 95.4 1.9 98.1 49.3 45.7 2.3 2.2 0.4

1975 Total number 8,262,413 7,881,873 149,295 7,732,578 3,313,004 4,102,078 –b 253,691b 63,805

% – 95.4 1.9 98.1 42.8 53.0 – 3.3 0.8

% – 95.1 2.5 97.5 48.1

1980 Total number 9,023,592 8,513,992 208,435 8,305,557 3,853,549

% – 94.4 2.4 97.6 46.4

Australia, Defence of Government Schools, Pensioner Power. Communist, Defence of Government Schools.

Year

a

95.7 1.8 98.2 46.0 45.5 7.4 0.6 0.4

Communist, New Guinea. Communist, Liberal Reform.

Year

a

5,575,977 101,264 5,474,713 2,520,321 2,489,184 407,416 35,035a 22,757

1974 Total number 7,897,506 7,535,768 144,762 7,391,006 3,644,110 3,379,545 172,176 162,791a 32,384

Communist, Democratic Labor. Communist, Democratic Labor, Australia, Workers.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition

1977 Total number 8,548,779 8,127,762 204,908 7,922,854 3,811,340

602 Labor Democrat Others Independents a b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition Democrat Others Independents b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Democrat Others Independents b

3,749,565 546,032 85,865b 70,546

45.1 6.6 1.0 0.8

1983 Total number 9,372,064 8,870,175 185,312 8,684,863 4,297,392 3,787,281 437,265 86,940a 75,985

% – 94.6 2.1 97.9 49.5 43.6 5.0 1.0 0.9

1984 Total number 9,869,217 9,295,421 630,469 8,664,952 4,120,130 3,900,042 472,204 82,243b 90,333

% – 94.2 6.8 93.2 47.5 45.0 5.4 0.9 1.0

1987 Total number 10,353,213 9,707,597 479,825 9,227,772 4,257,906 4,222,431 554,027 24,328a 169,080

% – 93.8 4.9 95.1 46.1 45.8 6.0 0.3 1.9

1990 Total number 10,728,435 10,225,800 326,126 9,899,674 4,302,127 3,904,138 1,114,216 137,351b 441,842

% – 95.3 3.2 96.8 43.5 39.4 11.3 1.4 4.5

% – 95.8 3.0 97.0 44.9 44.3 3.8 3.1 4.0

1996 Total number 11,740,568 11,244,017 360,165 10,883,852 4,217,765 5,142,161 735,848 346,273b 441,805

% – 95.8 3.2 96.8 38.8 47.2 6.8 3.2 4.1

Nuclear Disarmament, Unite Australia. Greens.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition Democrat Others Independents a

39.6 9.4 2.3 0.6

‘Marxist’, Democratic Labor, Progress. Nuclear Disarmament.

Year

a

3,141,051 743,365 182,031a 45,067

Communist, Democratic Labor, Progress. ‘Marxist’, Democratic Labor, Progress.

Year

a

COOK ISLANDS

1993 Total number 11,384,638 10,900,861 324,082 10,576,779 4,751,390 4,681,822 397,060 324,416a 422,091

Greens, Natural Law, Call to Australia.

603

AUSTRALIA b

Greens, Australians Against Further Immigration, Natural Law, Call to Australia.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition P. Hanson's One Nation Democrat Greens Others Independents a

1998 Total number 12,154,050 11,545,201 436,138 11,109,063 4,454,306 4,388,809 936,621 569,935 290,709 211,337a 257,346

Unity—Say No To Hanson, Christian Democratic, Natural Law, Australian Shooters.

% – 95.0 3.8 96.2 40.1 39.5 8.4 5.1 2.6 1.9 2.3

604

COOK ISLANDS

2.7.2 Senate 1901–1998 Year

1901 Total number Registered voters 988,629 Ballots cast — Invalid ballots — Valid votesa 2,669,908 Protectionist 1,197,723 Free Trade 1,053,012 Labor 360,494 Liberal (Queensland) – Others – c Independents 58,679 a b c

Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes Anti-Socialist Labor Protectionist Liberal Others Independents b

1906 Total number 2,109,562 1,059,168 67,318 — 1,384,662 1,152,517 369,308 – 42,292a 26,771

% – 50.2 6.4 – 46.5 38.7 12.4 – 1.4 0.9

1910 Total number 2,258,482 1,403,976 64,603 4,018,119 – 2,021,090 – 1,830,353 31,700b 134,976

% – 62.2 4.6 – – 50.3 – 45.6 0.8 3.4

% – 73.7 5.7 – 49.4 48.7 1.1 0.8

1914 Total number 2,811,515 2,042,336 86,649 11,734,122 5,605,305 6,119,018 – 9,799

% – 72.6 4.2 – 47.8 52.1 – 0.1

Socialist. Socialist.

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes Liberal Labor Others Independents a

% – 46.9 3.6 – 17.5 34.3 29.8 4.8 0.9 12.7

From 1901 to 1917 electors had multiple votes on one ballot (as many as there were Senators to be elected in that state). Tariff Reform. In the following tables, the category ‘Independents’ generally includes some candidates who adopted partylike labels, but lacked other attributes of political parties.

Year

a

% – — — – 44.9 39.4 13.5 – – 2.2

1903 Total number 1,893,586 887,312 32,061 2,872,132 503,586 986,030 854,628 136,727 25,310b 365,851

1913 Total number 2,760,216 2,033,251 114,947 5,752,197 2,840,420 2,802,529 60,549a 48,699

Socialist.

Year

1917

605

AUSTRALIA

Total number 2,835,327 2,202,801 86,011 6,350,370 3,516,354 2,776,648 – 32,692a 24,676

Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid votes Nationalist Labor Country Others Independents a

Socialist.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Nationalist Labor Country Coalition Others Independents a

% – 77.7 3.9 – 55.4 43.7 – 0.5 0.4

1919 Total number 2,849,862 2,032,937 175,114 1,857,823 861,990 795,858 163,093 – 10,508a 26,374

% – 71.3 8.6 91.4 46.4 42.8 8.8 – 0.6 1.4

1922 Total number 2,980,424 1,728,224 163,137 1,565,087 – 715,219 – 814,057 – 35,811

% – 58.0 9.4 90.6 – 45.7 – 52.0 – 2.3

% – 91.3 7.0 93.0 54.8 45.0 0.2

1928 Total number 3,444,766 3,224,500 318,667 2,905,833 1,466,323 1,422,418 17,092

% – 93.6 9.9 90.1 50.5 49.0 0.6

% – 95.0 9.6 90.4 55.4 41.4 – –

1934 Total number 3,902,677 3,708,578 420,747 3,287,831 1,749,428 1,358,196 91,596 73,506

% – 95.0 11.3 88.7 53.2 41.3 2.8 2.2

Socialist.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Social Credit Communist

1925 Total number 3,302,016 3,014,953 209,951 2,805,002 1,537,282 1,262,912 4,808 1931 Total number 3,649,954 3,468,303 332,980 3,135,323 1,737,611 1,297,088 – –

606 Others Independents a

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition Others Independents b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition Others Independents b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Communist Others Independents b

– 15,105

– 0.5

1937 Total number 4,080,038 3,921,337 416,707 3,504,630 1,699,172 1,636,889 49,801a 118,768

% – 96.1 10.6 89.4 48.5 46.7 1.4 3.4

1940 Total number 4,239,346 4,016,803 383,986 3,632,817 1,637,933 1,831,138 91,986b 71,760

% – 94.8 9.6 90.4 45.1 50.4 2.5 2.0

1943 Total number 4,466,637 4,301,655 418,485 3,883,170 2,139,164 1,518,913 149,988a 75,105

% – 96.3 9.7 90.3 55.1 39.1 3.9 1.9

1946 Total number 4,739,853 4,453,941 356,615 4,097,326 2,133,272 1,775,022 161,265b 27,767

% – 94.0 8.0 92.0 52.1 43.3 3.9 0.7

% – 96.0 10.8 89.2 50.4 44.9 2.1 0.9 1.7

1951 Total number 4,962,675 4,763,915 339,678 4,424,237 2,198,687 2,090,300 93,561 13,090b 28,599

% – 96.0 7.1 92.9 49.7 47.2 2.1 0.3 0.6

% – 94.9

1955 Total number 5,172,443 4,914,094

% – 95.0

Communist, One Parliament for Australia. Communist.

Year

a

0.9 2.3

Communist, Social Credit. Communist, (New South Wales) State Labor.

Year

a

29,443a 71,181

Communist.

Year

a

COOK ISLANDS

1949 Total number 4,895,227 4,697,800 505,275 4,192,525 2,113,447 1,881,956 87,958 37,441a 71,723

Protestant People's. Protestant People's.


1953 Total number 5,067,753 4,810,964

607

AUSTRALIA

Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition Communist Democratic Labor Others Independents a

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Democratic Labor Communist Others Independents

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Democratic Labor Others Independents b

473,069 4,441,025 1,803,335 2,161,460 161,869 271,067 – 43,294

9.6 90.4 40.6 48.7 3.6 6.1 – 1.0

1958 Total number 5,384,624 5,141,109 529,050 4,612,059 2,084,193 1,973,027 388,417 134,263 – 32,159

% – 95.5 10.3 89.7 45.2 42.8 8.4 2.9 – 0.7

1961 Total number 5,651,561 5,384,350 572,087 4,812,263 2,025,078 2,151,339 472,578 – 106,740a 56,528

% – 95.3 10.6 89.4 42.1 44.7 9.8 – 2.2 1.2

% – 94.5 7.0 93.0 45.7 44.7 8.4 0.7 0.5

1967 Total number 6,191,921 5,889,129 359,241 5,529,888 2,365,373 2,489,990 540,006 79,327b 55,192

% – 95.1 6.1 93.9 42.8 45.0 9.8 1.4 1.0

% – 94.0 9.4 90.6 42.2 38.2

1974 Total number 7,759,571 7,410,511 798,126 6,612,385 3,127,197 2,988,451

% – 95.5 10.8 89.2 47.3 45.2

Communist, Social Credit, Australian Republican.

Year

a

4.6 95.4 50.6 44.4 3.1 – 1.2 0.7

Democratic, Henry George Justice.

Year

a

219,375 4,591,589 2,323,968 2,039,938 140,073 – 53,699a 33,911

1964 Total number 5,880,952 5,556,980 387,930 5,169,050 2,362,081 2,308,670 433,511 37,915a 26,873

Communist. Australian Reform, Communist.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition

1970 Total number 6,611,742 6,213,763 584,930 5,628,833 2,376,215 2,149,023

608 Democratic Labor Australia Others Independents a b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Democratic Labor Democrat Others Independents b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Democrat Others Independents b

11.1 2.9 0.4 5.2

235,343 – 112,690b 148,704

3.6 – 1.7 2.2

1975 Total number 8,262,413 7,881,873 717,160 7,164,713 3,783,415 2,931,310 191,049 – 142,675a 116,264

% – 95.4 9.1 90.9 52.8 40.9 2.7 – 2.0 1.6

1977 Total number 8,548,779 8,127,762 731,555 7,396,207 3,369,842 2,718,876 – 823,550 347,806b 136,133

% – 95.1 9.0 91.0 45.6 36.8 – 11.1 4.7 1.8

1983 Total number 9,372,064 8,870,175 875,130 7,995,045 3,195,397 3,637,316 764,911 185,338b 212,083

% – 94.6 9.9 90.1 40.0 45.5 9.6 2.3 2.7

Workers, Australian Family Movement, Australia. Democratic Labor, Progress, Call to Australia, Marijuana, Socialist.

Year

a

625,142 163,343 24,017a 291,093

National Socialist. Australia, Communist.

Year

a

COOK ISLANDS

1980 Total number 9,023,592 8,513,992 821,628 7,692,364 3,352,521 3,250,187 711,805 265,194a 112,657

% – 94.4 9.6 90.4 43.6 42.3 9.3 3.4 1.5

Call to Australia, Democratic Labor, Australia, Marijuana, Pensioners and Unemployed, Socialist. Call to Australia–Democratic Labor, ‘Marxist’, Integrity, Progress.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Labor Coalition Democrat Nuclear Disarmament

1984 Total number 9,869,217 9,331,165 437,065 8,894,100 3,750,789 3,516,857 677,970 643,061

% – 94.6 4.7 95.3 42.2 39.5 7.6 7.2

1987 Total number 10,353,213 9,767,314 395,633 9,371,681 4,013,860 3,939,432 794,107 –

% – 94.3 4.1 95.9 42.8 42.0 8.5 –

609

AUSTRALIA

Others Independents a b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Democrat Greens Others Independents b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Coalition Labor Democrat Greens P. Hanson's One Nation Others Independents b

334,952b 289,330

3.6 3.1

1990 Total number 10,728,435 10,278,943 349,178 9,929,765 4,162,633 3,813,547 1,253,807 203,331 336,239a 160,208

% – 95.8 3.4 96.6 41.9 38.4 12.6 2.0 3.4 1.6

1993 Total number 11,384,638 10,954,258 279,453 10,674,805 4,595,148 4,643,871 566,944 314,845 370,622b 183,375

% – 96.2 2.6 97.4 43.0 43.5 5.3 2.9 3.5 1.7

Call to Australia, Nuclear Disarmament (including Irina Dunn Environment Independents), Democratic Socialist, Grey Power, Democratic Labor. Call to Australia, Australian Shooters, Confederate Action, Australians Against Further Immigration, Democratic Labor, Pensioners and Citizens Initiated Referendums, Alliance.

Year

a

2.9 0.6

Call to Australia, Pensioners, Democratic Labor, Australian Family Movement. Call to Australia, Nuclear Disarmament, Greens, Australia, Pensioners, One Australia Movement.

Year

a

255,089a 50,334

1996 Total number 11,740,568 11,294,479 395,442 10,899,037 4,770,295 3,940,150 1,179,357 345,513 – 548,838a 114,884

% – 96.2 3.5 96.5 43.8 36.2 10.8 3.2 –

1998 Total number 12,154,050 11,587,365 375,462 11,211,903 4,225,736 4,182,963 947,940 315,037 1,007,439

% – 95.3 3.2 96.8 37.7 37.3 8.5 2.8 9.0

5.0 1.1

260,730b 272,058

2.3 2.4

Australians Against Further Immigration, Call to Australia, Australian Shooters, Australian Women's, Reclaim Australia: Reduce Immigration, Democratic Labor, A Better Future for Our Children, No Aircraft Noise, Grey Power. Christian Democratic, Unity—Say No To Hanson, Democratic Labor, Abolish Child Support.

610

COOK ISLANDS

2.8 Composition of Parliament 2.8.1 House of Representatives 1901–1998 Year Protectionist Free Trade Labor Anti-Socialist Western Australia Liberal Independentsa a

1901 Seats 75 31

% 100.0 41.3

1903 Seats 75 26

% 100.0 34.7

1906 Seats 75 20

28 14 –

37.3 18.7 –

– – 2

% 100.0 26.7

1910 Seats 75 –

% 100.0 –

25 23 –

33.3 30.7 –

– 26 27

– 34.7 36.0

– 43 –

– 57.3 –

–

–

–

2

2.7

–

–

– 2.7

– 1

– 1.3

– –

– –

31 1

41.3 1.3

In the following tables, the category ‘Independents’ generally includes some candidates who adopted partylike labels, but lacked other attributes of political parties.

Year

1913 Seats 75 Liberal 38 Labor 37 Nationalist – Country – Independ- – ents 1922 Seats 75 Coalition 45 Labor 29 Independ- 1 ents

% 100.0 50.7 49.3 – – –

1914 Seats 75 32 42 – – 1

% 100.0 42.7 56.0 – – 1.3

1917 Seats 75 – 22 53 – –

% 100.0 60.0 38.7 1.3

1925 Seats 75 51 23 1

% 100.0 68.0 30.7 1.3

1928 Seats 75 43 31 1

% 100.0 57.3 41.3 1.3

1929 Seats 75 28 46 1

% 100.0 74.7 24.0 1.3

1934 Seats 75 47 27 –

% 100.0 63.5 36.5 –

1937 Seats 75 45 29 –

% 100.0 60.8 39.2 –

1940 Seats 75 37 36 1

% 100.0 50.0 48.6 1.4

% 100.0 66.2 32.4

1946 Seats 74 43 29

% 100.0 58.1 39.2

1949 Seats 74 47 74

% 100.0 38.8 61.2

1951 Seats 74 52 69

% 100.0 43.0 57.0

Year

Year

1931 Seats 75 Coalition 56 Labor 18 Independ- 1 ents Year Labor Coalition

1943 Seats 74 49 24

% 100.0 – 29.3 70.7 – –

1919 Seats 75 – 26 38 11 –

% 100.0 – 34.7 50.7 14.7 –

% 100.0 37.3 61.3 1.3

611

AUSTRALIA

Lang La- – bor Independ- 1 ents Year Coalition Labor

1954 Seats 121 64 57

1963 Seats 122 Coalition 72 Labor 50 Independ- – ents

–

1

1.4

–

–

–

–

1.4

1

1.4

–

–

–

–

% 100.0 52.9 47.1

1955 Seats 122 75 47

% 100.0 61.5 38.5

1958 Seats 122 77 45

% 100.0 63.1 36.9

1961 Seats 122 62 60

% 100.05; 50.8 49.2

% 100.0 59.0 41.0 –

1966 Seats 124 82 41 1

% 100.0 66.1 33.1 0.8

1969 Seats 125 66 59 –

% 100.0 52.8 47.2 –

1972 Seats 125 58 67 –

% 100.0 46.4 53.6 –

% 100.0 52.0 48.0

1975 Seats 127 36 91

% 100.0 28.3 71.7

1977 Seats 124 38 86

% 100.0 30.6 69.4

1980 Seats 125 51 74

% 100.0 40.8 59.2

% 100.0 60.0 40.0 –

1984 Seats 148 82 66 –

% 100.0 55.4 44.6 –

1987 Seats 148 86 62 –

% 100.0 58.1 41.9 –

1990 Seats 148 78 69 1

% 100.0 52.7 46.6 0.7

1996 Seats 148 49 94 5

% 100.0 33.1 63.5 3.4

Year

Year Labor Coalition

1974 Seats 127 66 61

Year

1983 Seats 125 Labor 75 Coalition 50 Independ- – ents Year Labor Coalition Independents

1993 Seats 147 80 65 2

% 100.0 54.4 44.2 1.4

1998 Seats 148 67 80 1

% 100.0 45.3 54.1 0.7

612

COOK ISLANDS

2.8.2 Senate 1901–1998 The following tables show the composition of the Senate after each election when the newly-elected Senators have joined those continuing their terms from the previous half-Senate election, subject to any defections and the filling of any casual vacancies since that previous election—which usually replaced the former Senator with someone of the same party. Year

1901a Seats 36 Free Trade 17 Protec11 tionist Labor 8 Anti-So– cialist Liberal – e Others – Indepen- – dentsg

a b

c d e f g

% 100.0 47.2 30.6

1903b Seats 36 12 8

22.2 – – – –

1913a Seats 36 Labor 29 Liberal 7 Nationalist –

b c d

% 100.0 80.6 19.4 –

1922a Seats 36 Labor 12 Nationalist 24 Coalition –

b c d

% 100.0 – –

14 –

38.9 –

15 12

41.7 33.3

23 –

63.9 –

– 1f 1

– 2.8 2.8

– 1f 2

– 2.8 5.6

13 – –

36.1 – –

1914b Seats 36 31 5 –

% 100.0 86.1 13.9 –

1917c Seats 36 12 – 24

% 100.0 33.3 – 66.7

1919d Seats 36 1 – 35

% 100.0 2.8 – 97.2

1931d Seats 36 10 – 26

% 100.0 27.8 – 72.2

18 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Labor 11 seats, Liberal 7 seats. Election of the whole Senate. 18 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Nationalist 18 seats. 19 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Nationalist 18 seats, Labor 1 seat.

Year

a

% 100.0 – 16.7

1910d Seats 36 – –

Election of the whole Senate. 19 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Labor 10 seats, Free Trade 4 seats, Protectionist 3 seats, Others 1 seat, Independent 1 seat. 18 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Anti-Socialist 11 seats, Labor 5 seats, Protectionist 2 seats. 18 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Labor 18 seats. Others include parties which polled less than 2% of the valid votes. Tariff Reform. In the following tables, the category ‘Independents’ generally includes some candidates who adopted partylike labels, but lacked other attributes of political parties.

Year

a

% 100.0 33.3 22.2

1906c Seats 36 – 6

% 100.0 33.3 66.7 –

1925b Seats 36 8 – 28

% 100.0 22.2 – 77.8

1928c Seats 36 7 – 29

% 100.0 19.4 – 80.6

19 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Labor 11 seats, Nationalist 8 seats; after the formation of the Coalition government in February 1923 all Nationalist senators became Coalition senators. 22 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Coalition 22 seats. 19 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Coalition 12 seats, Labor 7 seats. 18 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Coalition 15 seats, Labor 3 seats.

Year

1934a

1937b

1940c

1943d

613

AUSTRALIA

Coalition Labor a b c d

18 19 19 19


were were were were

Year Labor Coalition a b c d

Seats 36 33 3 filled filled filled filled

in in in in

% 100.0 91.7 8.3

half-Senate half-Senate half-Senate half-Senate

1946a Seats 36 33 3

elections. elections. elections. elections.

% 100.0 91.7 8.3

1955a Seats 60 Coalition 30 Labor 28 Democrat- 2 ic Labor Independ- – ents

b c d

30 32 31 30


were were were were

filled filled filled filled

in in in in

c d

1949b Seats 60 34 26

% 100.0 50.0 46.7 3.3 –

–

half-Senate half-Senate half-Senate half-Senate

1967a Seats 60 Coalition 28 Labor 27 Democrat- 4 ic Labor Independ- 1 ents

b


1958b Seats 60 32 26 2

elections. elections. elections. elections.

Year

a

The The The The

% 100.0 55.6 44.4 were: were: were: were:

Seats 36 19 17

% 100.0 52.8 47.2

Seats 36 14 22

% 100.0 38.9 61.1

1953d Seats 60 29 31

% 100.0 48.3 51.7

Coalition 18 seats. Labor 16 seats, Coalition 3 seats. Coalition 16 seats, Labor 3 seats. Labor 19 seats.

1951c Seats 60 28 32

% 100.0 56.7 43.3

% 100.0 46.7 53.3

19 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Labor 16 seats, Coalition 3 seats. 18 old seats and 24 new seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Coalition 23 seats, Labor 19 seats. Election of the whole Senate. 32 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Labor 17 seats, Coalition 15 seats.

Year

a

Seats 36 20 16

The The The The


% 100.0 46.7 45.0 6.7

1970b Seats 60 26 26 5

1.7

3

% 100.0 53.3 43.3 3.3

1961c Seats 60 30 28 1

–

1


Coalition Coalition Coalition Coalition

17 16 16 14

seats, seats, seats, seats,

Labor Labor Labor Labor

% 100.0 43.3 43.3 8.3

1974c Seats 60 30 29 –

5.0

1

12 15 14 14

% 100.0 50.0 46.7 1.7

1964d Seats 60 30 27 2

% 100.0 50.0 45.0 3.3

1.7

1

1.7

seats, seats, seats, seats,

Democratic Labor 1 seat. Democratic Labor 1 seat. Independent 1 seat. Democratic Labor 2 seats.

% 100.0 50.0 48.3 –

1975d Seats 64 36 27 –

% 100.0 56.2 42.2 –

1.7

1

1.6

30 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Coalition 14 seats, Labor 13 seats, Democratic Labor 2 seats, Independent 1 seat. 32 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Labor 14 seats, Coalition 13 seats, Democratic Labor 3 seats, Independents 2 seats. Election of the whole Senate. Election of the whole Senate.

Year Coalition Labor

1977a Seats 64 35 26

% 100.0 54.7 40.6

1980b Seats 64 31 27

% 100.0 48.4 42.2

1983c Seats 64 28 30

% 100.0 43.7 46.9

1984d Seats 76 33 34

% 100.0 43.4 44.7

614 Democrat 2 Nuclear – Disarmament Independ- 1 ents a b c d

COOK ISLANDS

3.1 –

5 –

7.8 –

5 –

7.8 –

7 1

9.2 1.3

1.6

1

1.6

1

1.6

1

1.3

34 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Coalition 18 seats, Labor 14 seats, Democrat 2 seats. 34 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Labor 15 seats, Coalition 15 seats, Democrat 3 seats, Independent 1 seat. Election of the whole Senate. 34 old seats and 12 new seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Labor 20 seats, Coalition 20 seats, Democrat 5 seats, Nuclear Disarmament 1 seat.

Year

1987a Seats 76 Coalition 34 Labor 32 Democrat 7 Greens – Nuclear 1 Disarma- 2 ment Independents

a b c

d

% 100.0 44.7 42.1 10.5 – – 2.6

1993c Seats 76 36 30 7 2 – 1

% 100.0 47.4 39.5 9.2 2.6 – 1.3

1996d Seats 76 37 29 7 2 – 1

% 100.0 48.7 38.2 9.2 2.6 – 1.3

Election of the whole Senate. 40 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Coalition 19 seats, Labor 15 seats, Democrat 5 seats, Greens 1 seat. 40 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Coalition 19 seats, Labor 17 seats, Democrat 2 seats, Greens 1 seat, Independent 1 seat. 40 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Coalition 17 seats, Labor 17 seats, Democrat 5 seats, Greens 1 seat.

Year Coalition Labor Democrat Greens One Nation Independents a

% 100.0 44.7 42.1 9.2 – 1.3 2.6

1990b Seats 76 34 32 8 – – 2

1998a Seats 76 35 29 9 1 1 1

% 100.0 46.1 38.2 11.8 1.3 1.3 1.3

40 seats were filled in half-Senate elections. The results were: Coalition 17 seats, Labor 17 seats, Democrat 4 seats, One Nation 1 seat, Independent 1 seat.

AUSTRALIA

615

2.9 Presidential Elections Presidential Elections have not been held since the Queen of Australia (who is also Queen of the United Kingdom and other countries) is the Head of State.

616

COOK ISLANDS

2.10 List of Power Holders 1901–2001 Head of State Queen Victoria

Years 1901

King Edward VII

1901–1910

King George V

1910–1936

King Edward VIII

1936

King George VI

1936–1952

Queen Elizabeth II

1952–

Head of Government

Years

Remarks Represented by Governor-General: J.A.L. Hope, Earl of Hopetoun (1901–1903). Represented by Governors-General: J.A.L. Hope, Earl of Hopetoun (1901–1903), H. Tennyson, Baron Tennyson (1903–1904), H.S. Northcote, Baron Northcote (1904–1908), W.H. Ward, Earl of Dudley (1908–1911). Represented by Governors-General: W.H. Ward, Earl of Dudley (1908–1911), T. Denman, Baron Denman (1911–1914), Sir Ronald Munro Ferguson (1914–1920), H.W. Forster, Baron Forster of Lepe (1920–1925), J.L. Baird, Baron Stonehaven (1925–1931), Sir Isaac Isaacs (1931–1936). Represented by Governors-General: Sir Isaac Isaacs (1931–1936), General A.G.A. Hore-Ruthven, Baron Gowrie (1936–1945). Represented by Governors-General: General A.G.A. Hore-Ruthven, Baron Gowrie (1936–1945), Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1945–1947), Sir William McKell (1947–1953). Represented by Governors-General: Sir William McKell (1947–1953), Field-Marshal Sir William Slim (1953–1960), W. Shepherd, Viscount Dunrossil (1960–1961), W.P. Sidney, Viscount De L'Isle (1961–1965), R.G. Casey, Baron Casey (1965–1969), Sir Paul Hasluck (1969–1974), Sir John Kerr (1974–1977), Sir Zelman Cowen (1977–1982), Sir Ninian Stephen (1982–1989), W.G. Hayden (1989–1996), Sir William Deane (1996–). Remarks

AUSTRALIA

Edmund Barton

1901–1903

Alfred Deakin John Christian Watson George Houston Reid Alfred Deakin Andrew Fisher Alfred Deakin Andrew Fisher James Cook Andrew Fisher

1903–1904 1904 1904–1905 1905–1908 1908–1909 1909–1910 1910–1913 1913–1914 1914–1915

William Morris Hughes

1915–1923

Stanley Melbourne Bruce James Henry Scullin Joseph Aloysius Lyons Sir Earle C.G. Page Robert Gordon Menzies

1923–1929 1929–1932 1932–1939 1939 1939–1941

Arthur William Fadden John Curtin Francis Michael Forde Joseph Benedict Chifley Robert Gordon Menzies Harold Edward Holt John McEwen John Grey Gorton William McMahon Edward Gough Whitlam John Malcolm Fraser Robert James Lee Hawke Paul John Keating John Winston Howard

1941 1941–1945 1945 1945–1949 1949–1966 1966–1967 1967–1968 1968–1971 1971–1972 1972–1975 1975–1983 1983–1991 1991–1996 1996–

617 Resigned. Then appointed to High Court. Parliamentary defeat. Parliamentary defeat. Parliamentary defeat. Parliamentary defeat. Parliamentary defeat. Electoral defeat. Electoral defeat. Electoral defeat. Resigned. Then appointed Australian High Commissioner, London. Electoral outcome. The Country Party which held the balance of power after the December 1922 election refused to form a coalition if Hughes remained leader of the Nationalists. Electoral defeat. Electoral defeat. Died in office. Interim Prime Minister. Resigned. As the result of unrest in his party. Parliamentary defeat. Died in office. Interim Prime Minister. Electoral defeat. Retired. Died in office. Interim Prime Minister. Removed by party. Electoral defeat. Removed by Governor-General. Electoral defeat. Removed by party. Electoral defeat.

618

COOK ISLANDS

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Short notes on federal electoral legislation up to 1984 are available (Hughes and Graham 1968: 279–285, Hughes 1977: 77–79 and Hughes 1986: 127–128). The numerous amending statutes were printed in the annual volumes of Commonwealth Statutes by the Commonwealth Government Printer (Melbourne, later Canberra). The current legislation—the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900), the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984—may be accessed at http://www.austlii.edu.au/databases. Australian Electoral Commission and Australian Surveying and Land Information Group, Department of Administrative Services (1989). Commonwealth of Australia 1901–1988: Electoral Redistributions. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Australian Electoral Commission (1992). Commonwealth Electoral Procedures (3rd ed.). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. —— (1998). Constitutional Convention Election 97: Election Report & Statistics. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. —— (1999). Electoral Pocket Book. Canberra: Ausinfo.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Australian Electoral Commission (1999). Behind the Scenes: The Australian Electoral Commission's 1998 Federal Election Report. Canberra: Ausinfo. Bennett, S. (1996). Winning and Losing: Australian National Elections. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Brooks, A. (1993). ‘A Paragon of Democratic Virtues? The Development of the Commonwealth Franchise’. University of Tasmania Law Review, 12/2, 208–48. Department of the Parliamentary Library (1999). Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia (28th ed.). Canberra: Department of the Parliamentary Library. Electoral Council of Australia (1999). Electoral Systems of Australia's Parliaments and Local Government. Melbourne: Electoral Council of Australia. Hughes, C. A. (1977). A Handbook of Australian Government and Politics 1965–1974. Canberra: Australian National University Press.

AUSTRALIA

619

—— (1986). A Handbook of Australian Government and Politics 1975–1984. Sydney: Australian National University Press. —— (1994). ‘Australia and New Zealand’, in D. Butler, and A. Ranney (eds.), Referendums around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. Washington: AEI Press, 154–173. —— (1995). Voting for the Australian House of Representatives 1965–1984. Brisbane: Department of Government, University of Queensland. —— and Graham, B. D. (1968). A Handbook of Australian Government and Politics 1890–1964. Canberra: Australian National University Press. —— and Graham, B. D. (1974). Voting for the Australian House of Representatives 1901–1964. Canberra: Australian National University Press. Information and Research Services, Department of the [Commonwealth] Parliamentary Library (1999). Federal Election Results 1949–1998. Canberra: Department of the Parliamentary Library. Jaensch, D. (1995). Election! How and why Australia votes. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Oldfield, A. (1992). Woman Suffrage in Australia: A Gift or a Struggle?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, House of Representatives (1997). Constitutional Change: Select sources on constitutional change in Australia 1901–1997. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Streeton, P., and Finnimore, C. (1993). ‘Black Fellow Citizens: Aborigines and the Commonwealth Franchise’. Australian Historical Studies, 25/101: 521–535. Wright, J. F. H. (1980). Mirror of the Nation's Mind: Australia's Electoral Experiments. Sydney: Hale & Iremonger.


Cook Islands by Graham Hassall4

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Cook Islands is a self-governing state in free association with New Zealand. Geographically, it comprises 15 islands, scattered over 900 miles (1,450 km) of the South Pacific Ocean, 2,000 miles (3,000 km) northeast of New Zealand. The population, 90% of whom are ethnically Polynesian, is approximately 20,000, although more than five times this number of Cook Islanders now reside in New Zealand and Australia. Elections to Parliament have been held regularly since 1965. Until the early 1800s, each island was autonomous, and in most cases each district was, under its hereditary chiefly hierarchy. No national government existed. Christian missions rather than colonial authorities were the first major external influence on government in the Cook Islands. From the 1820s onwards, representatives of the London Missionary Society became a strong influence on the rule of Ariki (high chiefs), Mata'iapo and Rangatira (lesser chiefs), prior to the establishment of a British Protectorate in 1888. New Zealand annexed the Islands in 1901 and appointed a Resident Commissioner. A Legislative Council created in 1946 was renamed the Legislative Assembly in 1957. Limited self-government was introduced in 1962 and self-government was established in 1965 following a UN-supervised election (under the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964). This Assembly voted for internal self-government in free association with New Zealand, with the British Monarch as Head of State and the people as New Zealand citizens. This relationship has since matured and been modified, both by exchange of letters and by change of practice. Until 1981, all laws passed by the New Zealand Parliament applied mutatis mutandis to the Cook Islands. By the 9th Constitutional Amendment, New Zealand laws only applied as provided by Act of Parliament of the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands Parliament

4

The author would like to thank Professor Ron Crocombe and Jean Tekura Mason, Rarotonga, for their assistance in the preparation of this contribution.

622

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

is free at any time to terminate its relationship of free association with New Zealand. The Cook Islands have a parliamentary system of government. Parliament chooses a Prime Minister from among its members, who then appoints between six and eight other ministers to his cabinet from the legislature. The 14-member House of Ariki (hereditary chiefs) advises the Parliament on matters relative to the welfare of the people of the Cook Islands. In practice, however, its role is largely ceremonial. Its membership is determined by the chiefs themselves. Additionally, individual islands have their own island councils. Because of its associated status, the formal Head of State of the Cook Islands is that of New Zealand, i.e. the British Queen. Initially, the British sovereign was represented by the New Zealand high commissioner, who also acted as the representative of the New Zealand government. A constitutional amendment in 1981 provided for the establishment of the Queen's Representative in the Cook Islands, to be appointed by the British monarch on the advice of the Cook Islands Prime Minister for renewable terms of three years. Political parties have played a key role in elections since independence. From 1965 to 1978 the Cook Islands Party (CIP), under the leadership of Albert Henry, dominated the political process and held government. Opposition to his rule led to the formation of the Democratic Party (DP) at the beginning of the 1970s. In 1978 the DP leader Thomas Davies was elected Prime Minister after a judicial decision that invalidated the CIP electoral victory (see 1.2 below). Since then a number of subsequent elections have failed to produce a stable executive government. Governments have fallen due to the loss of slim parliamentary majorities through defections and votes of no-confidence. These factors, together with the small size of the legislature, have also increased the significance of by-election results. In 1983, for instance, two general elections were held because the slim majority established by the CIP following a vote in March was eroded by a defection from the ruling party, which resulted in a second vote seven months later. The two-party contest between CIP and DP that had marked politics since 1971 was modified by the arrival of a third player by the 1990s, the Alliance Party. After the June 1999 elections, for the first time, no party had a majority of seats on its own and a coalition government had to be formed, followed by a spectacular withdrawal of the smaller coalition partner within three months, which led to the election of a new Prime Minister. The experience of party-hopping following the 1999 general elections also prompted discussion of prohibiting the practice in future.

COOK ISLANDS

623

Major political issues in Cook Islands governance have been nepotism, politicization of public offices, economic crisis, and conflicts between the interests of the main island of Rarotonga, where 80 percent of the national budget is spent, and the outer islands which have fought for political devolution and a more even distribution of economic resources. In 1993 the Cook Islands Parliament passed legislation allowing for the organization of referendums. Where the Prime Minister with the concurrence of the cabinet determines that any question or issue ought to be submitted to electors for an expression of public opinion, the Prime Minister may direct the Chief Electoral Officer to conduct a poll in any one or more electorates to ascertain the opinion or preferences of electors on any question or issue. Under pressure from the public, Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Henry announced in August 1998 that a referendum would be held before the 1999 general elections to determine changes to the political system. A three-member Commission of Political Review was established, and handed its recommendations in November 1998. The Commission recommended that the number of parliamentary seats be reduced from 25 to 17 (one member from each outer island [9], four from the capital island of Rarotonga, and four Members on a national basis); that the seat for overseas constituents be abolished; that Parliament sit more intensively; that MPs receive less pay; that a preferential voting system be adopted, similar to that operating in Australia; and that a second Commission of Political Review be held in 2005 or halfway through the second term following the 1999 election. None of these recommendations have been brought to the voters for referendum so far.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Prior to self-government, elections were held for some seats in the Legislative Assembly. These commenced in 1958, with 14 of 26 members elected by universal suffrage, seven by Island councils, and one by European voters (the remaining four members were appointed). Elections have been regulated by the 1966 Electoral Act, which was amended numerous times, although very few amendments have been made to make procedures more applicable. In 1998, a new Electoral Act was voted by Parliament (see current provisions in 1.3). In an election year a Chief Electoral Officer is appointed by the Executive Council (which comprises the Queen's Representative and the members of cabinet),

624


and an electoral office is established under the supervision of the Secretary for Justice for the period of the election. The 1966 Electoral Act provided for elections at intervals of four years. The Legislative Assembly of Cook Islands had 22 members in 1965, the number of seats was subsequently increased to 24 in 1981 (with the Constitutional Amendment the Assembly was also renamed) and to 25 in 1991. Since 1981, one member represents those Cook Islanders who have been away from the country for less than three years. Ten of the remaining 24 members represent the main island of Rarotonga, 14 represent constituencies on the other islands. The parliamentary term was extended from four to five years in 1981. Moves to reduce the parliamentary term again from five to four years have so far not succeeded. The term was subject to referendum in 1999, but fell short of a decision for change, with sixty-three percent of the voters favoring a four-year term, three percent short of the 66% of registered voters required for passage. The plurality system was initially applied in single- and multi-member constituencies, but since 1981 voting takes place in single-member constituencies only. Suffrage has been an important issue in Cook Islands electoral politics, since more Cook Islanders live outside than inside the country. Controversy surrounded the use of flying voters to clinch general elections in 1974 and 1978. The definition of ordinary residence in the Constitution allowed for a large number of absentee voters, but there was no constitutional provision for absentee voting outside the Cook Islands, because when it was drafted in 1964 there were few Cook Islanders in New Zealand and no air service. In the 1974 elections the Democratic Party had started chartering aircraft to transport approximately 75 voters to Rarotonga. Before the 1978 elections it was realized that the raising number of prospective absentee voters could swing the electoral result. Both major parties thus made elaborate efforts to register voters resident in New Zealand. DP voters paid for the charter air fares while the Cook Islands Party members were told that their flights would be free of charge. After the CIP victory, with the fly-in-votes as a decisive factor, the DP filed election petitions, challenging, among others, the legality of the fly-in votes at no cost or heavily subsidized by the CIP using government funds. The Supreme Court determined that eight of the CIP's 15 seats had been gained by unlawful conduct. It found the CIP fly-in votes to be tainted by bribery and corruption and disallowed those votes. These were awarded to the DP, and the CIP lost power (see Pryor 1983). As a consequence, in 1981 a constituency was created to give representation to Cook Islanders living overseas. Most were in New Zealand but

COOK ISLANDS

625

many also in Australia and a few elsewhere. Of nearly 50,000 Cook Islanders resident in New Zealand and 20–25,000 in Australia, only 737 registered as voters for the 1994 general election. At general elections in 1999 three of the four political parties fielded candidates for the overseas seat, although an inquiry that suggested that the overseas seat cost some NZ$100,000 each year played a role in the fact that a large proportion of the Cook Islands public favored the abolition of the seat. In 1991 the High Court also ruled that candidates who are normally resident abroad are ineligible to represent Cook Islanders in Parliament. Since the end of the CIP hegemony in the 1970s the organizational context of elections has been characterized by a high number of petitions, especially with regard to residence qualifications and the votes of special electors (those who vote outside their constituency). The new Electoral Act of 1998 was the result of internationally supported programs to strengthen the electoral process, inter alia by the establishment of a computerized enrolment system. Despite these initiatives, failure to adhere strictly to lawful procedures provided grounds for appeals against the electoral outcomes by failed candidates. Mistakes by electoral officials included failing to follow proper election procedures; failing to screen candidates who were later deemed ineligible to run for office; and failing to make the proper election forms available to voters. Recently, the 1999 elections for the Pukapuka/ Nassau seat were annulled twice because of legal and constitutional arguments.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Cook Islands Act 1964; Electoral Act 1998, Electoral Amendment Act 1999. Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. All persons of 18 years or over, having a Commonwealth citizenship or a status of a permanent resident of the Cook Islands are qualified to be registered as electors. Cook Islanders living abroad are allowed to register if they have at some time actually resided in the Cook Islands continuously, for not less than 12 months, but not in the three months preceding the elections, and if they declare that they intend to return to the Cook Islands to reside indefinitely. Of the estimated 55,000 Cook Islanders in New Zealand in 2000, only around 3,000 are eligible to vote because they have been away for less than three years. Similar proportions apply to the estimated 30,000 in Australia. But only a small

626


fraction of those entitled to vote bother to do so. Electors in the Overseas Constituency vote by postal vote. Voting is not compulsory, but registration is, and failure to register is an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding NZ$100 on a first conviction. Elected national institutions: Unicameral Parliament with 25 members and a term of five years. One seat represents the citizens residing abroad. Byelections are held regularly. Nomination of candidates: Any elector may be nominated as a candidate by not less than two electors of the constituency where he/ she intends to stand. No age limits are specified. Party affiliations may be added against the candidate's name on the ballot paper. Every candidate has to deposit with the Returning Officer the sum of NZ$500 (equals approx. US$ 246 in 2001). It is reimbursed if the candidate receives at least 25% of the valid votes in the constituency. Electoral system: Plurality system in single-member constituencies. Organizational context of elections: The Constitution and the Electoral Acts provide for a Chief and a Deputy Chief Electoral Officer (appointed before each election by the executive council, which comprises both the Queen's representative and the cabinet) who controls most organizational aspects of the electoral process and declares the final results. He appoints returning officers for each constituency. Registration and the compilation of the electoral rolls is commissioned to the Chief Registrar of Electors at the Ministry of Justice. Election Petitions are heard and determined in the High Court and are a frequent and regular feature of electoral politics in Cook Islands. The Electoral Amendment Act of 1999 also provides for regulation of the election campaign and limitation of electoral expenditure.

627

COOK ISLANDS

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics There is no official publication of electoral results in the Cook Islands. The Electoral Office is no permanent body and defunct until near election time. There have been frequent changes in the position of Chief Electoral Officer, and previous officers simply took the information regarding electoral data with them. Most of the remaining material relating to the electoral office is stored in the Ministry of Justice, but in order to get access to the data, the Electoral Officer has to give his permission; at the time of data collection for this contribution there was no Electoral Officer. The National Archives remain without a cataloguing system, and the staff has no idea what stock they have got, or if they have got anything on previous elections at all. The statistics for the 1965 and 1968 elections given in the tables are drawn from Stone (1970), the 1999 data were published in the web. The composition of Parliament is based on various issues of the Far East and Australasia.

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups D'etat Year 1965 1968 1972 1974 1978 1983 1989 1994 1999

Presidential elec- Parliamentary tions elections 20/04 01/05 11/04 xx/xx 30/03 30/03 (I) 02/11 (II) 09/01 24/03 16/06


Referendums

24/03 16/06

Coups d'état

628


2.2 Electoral Body 1965–1999 Yeara

1965 1968 1999 a b c d

Type of electionb

Pa Pa Pa

Populationc

Registered voters

Votes cast

19,247 — 20,407

Total number 7,353 7,223 10,601

Total number 6,906 6,904 9,371d

% pop. 38.2 — 51.9

% reg. voters 93.9 95.6 88.4

No data available for the elections and referendums between 1972 and 1994. Pa = Parliament. Population data are estimates. Number of valid votes.

2.3 Abbreviations CIP CIPA DAP DP DTP NAP UCIP

Cook Islands Party Cook Islands Party for Alliance Democratic Alliance Party Democratic Party Democratic Tumu Party New Alliance Party United Cook Islanders Party

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1965–1999 Party / Alliance CIP UCIPb DPc Unity Party CIPA DTP Alliance Partyd DAP NAP a b c d

Years 1965–1999 1968 1971–1994 1978–1989 1983 (II) 1989–1994 1994 1999 1999

Only parliamentary elections held. Total number: 10. Joined DP before the 1971 elections. In the 1999 elections the DP ran under the name DAP. In the 1999 elections the Alliance Party ran under the name NAP.

Elections contesteda 10 1 7b 4 1 2 1 1 1

% pop. 35.9 — 45.9

629

COOK ISLANDS

2.5 Referendums For both the referendums in 1994 and 1999 no data were available. In 1994 69.8% of voters favored the retainment of the current name of Cook Islands; 80.2% favored the retainment of the national anthem; 48.5% of the national flag. In 1999 voters were asked to reduce the parliamentary term from five to four years. 63% approved, but the required majority of 66.6% was not obtained.

2.6 Elections to Constitutional Assembly. Elections for Constitutional Assembly have not been held.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1965–1999 Year

1965 Total number Registered voters 7,353 Ballots cast 6,906 Invalid votes – Valid votes 18,204 CIP 9,511 UCIP and Others – Others & Independ- 8,693 ents

% – 93.9 – – 52.3 – 47.8

1968 Total number 7,223 6,904 – 18,933 12,202 6,731 –

% – 95.6 – – 64.5 35.5 –

For the elections in 1972, 1974, 1978, 1983 (I), 1983 (II), and 1989 no data are available. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes CIP NAP DAP Independents

1994 Total number — — — — — — — —

% – 92.0 — — 51.4 23.7 19.6 5.3

1999 Total number 10,601 — — 9,371 3,731 1,256 4,168 216

% – — — 88.4 39.8 13.4 44.4 2.3

630



1965 Seats 22 CIP 14 UCIP – DP – Independ- 8 ents 1978 Seats 22 CIP 15a DP 7 DTP – Independ- 0 ents

% 100.0 63.6 – – 36.4

1968 Seats 22 16 6 – –

% 100.0 68.2 31.8 – 0.0

1983 (I) Seats 24 13 11 – 0

Year

a

% 100.0 72.7 27.3 – –

1972 Seats 22 15 – 7 –

% 100.0 54.2 45.8 – 0.0

1983 (II) Seats 24 13 11 – 0

% 100.0 68.2 – 31.8 –

1974 Seats 22 14 – 8 –

% 100.0 63.6 – 36.4 –

% 100.0 54.2 45.8 – 0.0

1989 Seats 24 12 9 2 1

% 100.0 50.0 37.5 8.3 4.2

These results were overturned by the Chief Justice, who ruled that eight seats awarded to the CIP had been lawfully won by the DP. One further by-election went to DP. Thus the final composition by early 1979 was CIP 6 seats; DP 16 seats.

Year CIP DP AP DAP NAP

1994 Seats 25 20 3 2 – –

% 100.0 80.0 12.0 8.0 – –

1999 Seats 25 11 – – 10 4

% 100.0 44.0 – – 40.0 16.0

2.9 Presidential Elections In the parliamentary system of the Cook Islands no presidential elections are held. The Head of State is the British Queen, who is represented by the Queen's Representative.

COOK ISLANDS

631

2.10 List of Power Holders 1965–2001 Head of State L. J. Davis

Years 1965–1982

Sir Gaven Donne

1982–1984

Tangaroa Tangaroa

1984–1991

Apenara Short

1991–

Head of Government Albert Henry

Years 1965–1978

Sir Thomas Davis

1978–1983

Sir Geoffrey A. Henry

1983

Sir Thomas Davis

1983–1987

Pupuke Robati

1987–1989

Sir Geoffrey A. Henry

1989–1999

Joseph Williams

1999

Terepai Maoate

1999–

Remarks High Commissioner of New Zealand, representing the British Queen Elizabeth II. Chief Justice from 1975 on and first Queen's representative, following the constitutional amendment introducing this office. Served as MP and Minister before appointed. Remarks Elected first PM on 05/08/1965. Lost power following decision of High Court in August 1978 on electoral corruption. Appointed by the Queen's representative following the invalidation of the elections by the Chief Judge. Entered Legislative Assembly in 1965, leader of Cook Islands Party from 1981. Elected PM after CIP victory in March 1983. After losing the 1983 election Davis returned to power following a second election seven months later, prompted by the CIP's loss of a majority through defection. Formed a coalition government with some CIP ministers in August 1984. After Davis was ousted in July by a motion of no-confidence, he was succeeded by leading DP politician Robati. CIP won general elections in January 1989, and Henry became PM again. Following the June 1999 elections, after Henry's resignation, Williams was elected CIP leader and thus Prime Minister of a coalition government of CIP and NAP. After the decision of NAP to form a coalition with DAP, Maoate was elected Prime Minister on 18/11/1999.

632


3. Bibliography Crocombe, R. (1998). ‘Polynesia in review: Issues and Events, 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997’. The Contemporary Pacific, 10/1: 192. —— (ed.) (1979). Cook Islands Politics: The Inside Story. Auckland: Polynesian Press. Crocombe, T., and Crocombe, R. (1997). ‘Polynesia in Review: Issues and Events, 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996’. The Contemporary Pacific, 9/1: 218. Pryor, P. T. I. (1983). ‘The Cook Islands: Politics as a Way of Life’, in A. Ali, and R. Crocombe (eds.), Politics in Polynesia. Suva: University of the South Pacific. Rasmussen, W. O. P. (1999). ‘Polynesia in Review: Issues and Events’. The Contemporary Pacific, 11/1: 206–211. Sissons, J. (1994). ‘Royal Backbone and Body Politic: Aristocratic Titles and Cook Islands Nationalism since SelfGovernment’. The Contemporary Pacific, 6/2: 371–396. Stone, D. (1970). ‘Parties and Politics in Polynesia: Political Trends in the Self-Governing Cook Islands’. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 79/2: 123–179.

Federated States of Micronesia by Alexander Somoza

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) consists of the four States of Chuuk, Pohnpei, Kosrae, and Yap. It is situated in the western Pacific Ocean and comprises some 600 islands, spread 2,900 kilometers across the Caroline Islands' archipelago. Having been part of the United States American Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) from 1947 on, the country gradually accomplished independence, to achieve it fully in 1990. Since the establishment of the FSM as a self-governing entity in 1979, the country has held various referendums as well as regular general elections and has had frequent government changes. Since the 1870s, Micronesia experienced the rule of various successive colonial powers. Originally claimed by the Spaniards, it was eventually sold to Germany in 1899, before being occupied by the Japanese in 1914. After World War II, the United Nations set up the US-administered TTPI in 1947, which included the districts of Chuuk, Pohnpei, Yap, Palau, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Marshall Islands. The first three were later to become the FSM, together with Kosrae (a district part of Pohnpei until 1977). The President of the United States appointed a High Commissioner to govern the Trust Territory. From the mid-1950s on, the Trust Territory administration began to establish legislative advisory organs in each district. Eventually, elections were organized for these local legislatures, as in 1957 in Chuuk, in 1958 in Pohnpei and in 1959 in Yap. But it was only in 1965, after the criticism of the United Nations, that the Congress of Micronesia was established, becoming the first legislative organ for the whole Trust Territory. It was a bicameral legislature with representatives from the six districts of Micronesia. Its initial function was to serve as an advisory body, but it later assumed also legislative duties. Until its dissolution in 1978, the Trust Territory had held a total of eight elections.

634

FIJI ISLANDS

In 1969 the Congress started negotiations with the United States over the future political status of the Trust Territory. The United States were slow to engage in such negotiations. The Congress, however, established a Constitutional Convention in 1975 to emphasize the political will for an increased autonomy. Between July and November some 60 delegates and traditional leaders of the six districts met in Saipan to elaborate a Constitution for a future Micronesian state. The Draft Constitution provided for a federal and presidential system of government similar to that of the US, with the different districts of the Trust Territory as the federated states. Noteworthy differences from the US model were the unicameral type of legislature (Congress) and the indirect election of President and Vice-President by the Congress from among its members. For the legislature two different types of Senators were proposed: Senators-atlarge who are to be elected one for each state for a regular term of four years, and regular Senators who are to be elected in constituencies of approximately equal population size for a regular term of two years. In the aftermath of the Convention, the Northern Mariana Islands opted not to join the future FSM and become instead a Commonwealth of the United States; the remaining districts, including the newly established district of Kosrae, held a referendum on 12 July 1978 to adopt the Constitution. While voters in Palau and the Marshall Islands rejected the Constitution, electors in the other four districts ratified it, so that the FSM came into being on 10 May 1979 as an internally self-governing federation of four States. First elections to the newly established Congress were held on 27 March 1979. The major obstacle to independence was removed in 1982, when the Compact of Free Association was signed with the United States. The Compact allowed the US to take care of all security and defense matters of the FSM and to have exclusive landing rights for their military forces, in exchange to continued economic assistance for the following 15 years. It was endorsed by the FSM in a referendum held in 1983. On 3 November 1986 the US President declared the dissolution of the Trust Territory, releasing the FSM into independence. Finally, on 22 December 1990, the UN Security Council confirmed the dissolution of the trusteeship; on 17 September 1991 the country became a full member of the United Nations. Since the establishment of the FSM in 1979, the country has enjoyed a high degree of political stability. Elections and referendums have played a major role in policy formulation: all through the various stages of the independence process referendums have been held to ask the population to approve or disapprove all further steps. In addition, the Constitution provides for referendums to be held every ten years, in order


635

to ask the voters whether a Constitutional Convention should meet and elaborate constitutional proposals, which are then subject to approval by another referendum. Correspondingly, in 1990 and 2001 Constitutional Conventions were convened. In 1991, the referendum over the constitutional proposals resulted in the ratification of four amendments out of 26 proposals. One of the rejected proposals was the introduction of direct elections to Presidency and VicePresidency. Political parties have never emerged in the FSM. The political process is dominated by individual candidates and traditional leaders, who hold close ties to their constituencies or States. Alliances in the Congress are occasional and change from issue to issue. Although not formally institutionalized, a system of rotation has applied in the election of the President and Vice-President, giving each State the possibility to have access to both executive offices. In 1995, when President Bailey Olter stood for re-election, some Senators raised concerns and suggested to constitutionally fix a rotation of both executive offices on a State-basis.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Already before the first election to the Congress of the FSM, Micronesian voters had had ample experience with voting exercises. Between 1965 and 1978, a total of eight elections to the Congress of Micronesia had been held. Since the establishment of the Congress of the FSM in 1979 the country has held twelve parliamentary elections, in addition to various referendums and elections to Constitutional Conventions. The electoral regulations have remained unchanged since then (for details see 1.3).

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: The Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia (1978) with amendments of 1991; Code of the Federated Sates of Micronesia, Title 9: National Elections (1980).

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. Every citizen of the FSM over 18 and who has been living in the FSM for nine months and in the respective constituency of registration for three months is entitled to register as voter. Persons sentenced to imprisonment or being of mental incompetency or insanity are not allowed

636

FIJI ISLANDS

to vote. Registered voters living abroad can vote by postal ballot in their respective constituency. In this case, voters have to notify the National Election Commissioner of their State at least 30 days before the election that they cannot be present on the election day; the Commissioner then has to provide them with the necessary documents for external voting. Absentee ballots have to be returned to the Commissioner by the closing hour of the polls on election day at the latest.

Elected National Institutions: The Congress of the FSM is the only direct elected national institution. The President and the Vice-President of the FSM are elected by Congress. The presidential and vice-presidential regular term of office is four years. A President can not serve more than two consecutive terms. The Congress of the FSM consists of 14 Senators: ten Senators are directly elected for a regular term of two years (two-year Senators), four Senators are elected for a regular term of four years (four-year Senators or Senators-at-large). Parliamentary elections are held every two years, always on the Tuesday following the first Monday in March. On every second election (i.e. every four years), the two-year and four-year Senators are elected simultaneously. Vacancies arising after the election of the President and the Vice-President are filled through by-elections in the respective State. Other vacancies arising between elections are also filled through by-elections within 50 days; yet, by-elections are not held if the next regular election is due in less than one year, in this case the seat is filled by appointment by the Chief Executive of the respective State.

Nomination of Candidates - Presidential Elections: Congress members wishing to run for Presidency or Vice-Presidency must be elected Senators for a four-year term (Senators-at-large), must be citizens of the FSM by birth and must have been residents of the FSM for a minimum of 15 years.

- Parliamentary Elections: Candidates running for parliamentary elections must be at least 30 years of age and citizens of the FSM for at least 15 years, and must have been living for a minimum of five years in the State in which they intend to run. Candidates must submit the supporting signatures of at least 25 registered voters of the State (Senators-at-large) or the constituency (two-year Senators) they wish to run for. A deposit of US$ 25 is required.


637

Electoral System - Presidential Elections: The President and Vice-President are separately elected by plurality system from among the members of the Congress of the FSM.

- Parliamentary Elections: Plurality system in single-member constituencies (SMCs). For the four Senators-at-large the SMCs coincide with the States (Chuuk, Pohnpei, Kosrae, and Yap). For the ten two-year Senators the country is divided into SMCs with approximately equal population size. Nevertheless, each State is entitled to a minimum of one two-year Senator constituency. The actual constituency distribution of two-year Senators is as follows: Chuuk 5 constituencies, Pohnpei 3 constituencies, Kosrae 1 constituency, and Yap 1 constituency. A constitutional provision entitles the States to assign one of their respective two-year Senator seats to a traditional leader. So far, no State has taken advantage of this option.

Organizational Context of Elections: All national elections are organized and supervised by the National Election Director and four National Election Commissioners, one for each of the four States. Both the Director and the Commissioners are appointed by the President on the advice and consent of the Congress. The Director at the national level and the Commissioners at the State level review all nomination petitions and maintain the electoral registers. The actual election process, i.e. the management and supervision of each polling station, is conducted by electoral boards in each constituency. They are nominated by the respective Commissioners. Furthermore, candidates are allowed to send up to two poll watchers to each polling station.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Despite all efforts, access to official data turned out to be very difficult. The figures presented are drawn from secondary sources. For the 1975 and 1978 referendums figures were taken from Meller (1985). Data for the 1983 referendum were drawn from Ranney (1984). Figures for the 1983 and 1999 Congress elections were taken from International IDEA (1997; web site: http://www.idea.int).

638

FIJI ISLANDS



1975 1978 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1990 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 a

Elections for Constitutional Convention

Referendums

Coups d'état

08/07 12/07 11/05

27/03 03/03 08/03 05/03 03/03 07/03

11/05 11/05

21/06

07/03 09/01

11/05

05/03 02/03 20/03 04/03 02/03 06/03

11/05 11/05

02/07

06/03

Indirect election of the President by the Congress.


1975 1978 1979 1981 1983 1983 1999 a

b c

Type of electiona

Ref Ref Pa Pa Pa Ref Pa

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

70,000 72,000 73,000 75,000 79,000 79,000 109,000

Total Number 33,329 — — — — — —

Total Number 17,539 28,504 — — 33,686 25,469c 17,020

% pop. 47.6 — — — — — —

%reg. voters % pop. 52.6 — — — — — —

25.1 39.6 — — 42.4 32.2 15.6

Pa = Parliament, Ref = Referendum. For all other parliamentary elections, referendums, and elections to Constitutional Conventions no data were available. Population data are estimates. Census data are 1980: 73,160; 1994: 104,724. Source: Statesman's Yearbook, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Number of valid votes.

639


2.3 /2.4 Abbreviations/electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances There exist no political parties in the Federated States of Micronesia.

2.5 Referendums Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid/ blank ballots Valid votes Yes No a

b c d

Invalid/ blank ballots Valid votes Yes No b c

1975 (continued) Total number a Prop. IV 9,187 8,352 545 7,807


c

d

33.3 66.7 59.1 40.9

%

Total number

%

55.9 44.1 9.2 90.8

Prop. IIId 7,616 9,923 5,759 4,164

43.4 56.6 58.0 42.0

%

Total number Prop. Vb 6,447 11,092 6,543 4,549

52.4 47.6 6.5 93.5

%

Total number Prop. VIc 14,951 2,588 42 2,546

36.8 63.2 59.0 41.0

% 85.2 14.8 1.6 98.4

% – — 4.2 95.8 73.9 26.2

Approval of the FSM Constitution. Year

b

Prop. IIc 9,810 7,729 714 7,015

1978a Total number — 28,504 1,210 27,294 20,164 7,130


a

Total number

‘Statehood’. ‘Present Status’. ‘Other Status’. Year

a

% – 52.6

General referendum on the future status of Micronesia. The referendum was held before the Constitutional Convention of 1975. Voting was on a single ballot with six options offered to the electorate. Nevertheless, voting instructions did not specify whether more than one affirmative choice could be made. Figures for invalid/ blank ballots were calculated by the author. ‘Independence’. ‘Commonwealth’. ‘Free Association’. Year

a

1975a Total number 33,329 17,539 b Prop. I 5,849 11,690 6,912 4,778

1983a Total number — — b Question I — 25,469 20,121 5,348

% – — — — 79.0 21.0

Total number

%

c

Question II —d 19,108 13,924 5,184

72.9 27.1

Compact of Free Association referendum. Question I asked the voter to approve (yes) or disapprove (no) the Compact of Free Association agreement between the Federated States of Micronesia and the United States. Question II asked voters their preference regarding a future political status to be negotiated between Micronesia and the United States in the event that the Compact of Free Association was rejected by the electorate. The choices available to the voters were: independence (here Yes-votes) or ‘a relationship with the US other than Free Association’ (here No-votes). Of the total of invalid votes, 6,361 were blank ballots. Clearly, 25% of the voters were unable to take a position on the issue of a future political status other than Free Association.

640

FIJI ISLANDS

Figures for the 1989 Referendum—voters were asked whether a Constitutional Convention should be established to review the Constitution or not—and the 1991 Referendum—voters were asked to approve or disapprove 26 amendments to the Constitution—were not available.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly Elections for Constitutional Convention have been held twice, in 1990 and 2001. No information was available for any of the two elections.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1979–2001 The data for valid and invalid votes have not been available. The numbers of registered voters and votes cast are reported in table 2.2.

2.8 Composition of Parliament There are no political parties in the FSM. The 14-member Congress consists of 4 four-year Senators and 10 two-year Senators. Occasional alliances are formed around specific issues or among Congressmen from the same State.

641


2.9 Presidential Elections There are no direct presidential elections in the Federated States of Micronesia.


a

Head of Statea Tosiwo Nakayama

Years 1979–1987

John R. Haglelgam

1987–1991

Bailey Olter

1991–1996

Jacob Nena

1996–1999

Leo A. Falcam

1999–

Remarks Elected President by Congress on 11/05/1979 and re-elected in 1983. Former president of the Trust Territory Senate and president of the Constitutional Convention. Elected twice Senator-at-large from Chuuk. Elected President by Congress on 11/05/1987. Senator-at-large from Yap. Not having been re-elected Senator-at-large in 1991, he could not stand for a second term of presidency. Became president on 21/05/91. Former Vice-President from 1983–1987. Senator-at-large from Pohnpei. Re-elected president in 1995. Suffered a stroke in 07/1996 and was replaced in 11/1996 by Jacob Nena. Former Vice-President from 1991–1996. Senator-at-large from Kosrae. Became acting president in 11/1996. Sworn in as President in 05/1997. Assumed office on 21/07/1999. Senator-at-large from Pohnpei.

The Head of State is also the Head of Government.

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources ‘The Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia (1979)’, in N. Meller, Constitutionalism in Micronesia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 368–384. Government of the Federated States of Micronesia (1980). Code of the Federated States of Micronesia, Title 9: National Elections.

642

FIJI ISLANDS

3.2 Books and Articles Anckar, D., and Anckar, C. (2000). ‘Democracies without Parties’. Comparative Political Studies, 33/2: 255–247. Burdick, A. (1983). ‘The Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia’. Pacific Perspective, 13/2: 18–35. Boneparth, E. and Wilkinson, M. J. (1995). ‘Terminating Trusteeship for the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands: Independence and Self-sufficiency in the Post-Cold War Pacific’. Pacific Studies, 18/2: 61–76. Ghai, Y. (ed.) (1988). Law, Government and Politics in the Pacific Island States. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies/ University of the South Pacific. —— and Cottrell, J. (1990). Heads of State in the Pacific: A Legal and Constitutional Analysis. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies/ University of the South Pacific. Hanlon, D., and Eperiam, W. (1983). ‘Federated States of Micronesia: Unifying the Remnants’, in R. Crocombe, and A. Ali (eds.), Politics in Micronesia. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies/ University of the South Pacific, 79–99. International IDEA (1997). Voter Turnout from 1945 to 1997: A Global Report on Political Participation. Stockholm: International IDEA. Larmour, P. (1994). “ ‘A Foreign Flower”? Democracy in the South Pacific’. Pacific Studies, 17/1: 45–77. Meller, N. (1969). The Congress of Micronesia. Development of the Legislative Process in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. —— (1985). Constitutionalism in Micronesia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. —— (1990). ‘The Micronesian Executive: The Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati and the Marshall Islands’. Pacific Studies, 14/1: 55–72 Ranney, A. (1984). ‘The Micronesian Plebiscites of 1983’. Electoral Studies, 3/2: 195–200. —— and Penniman, H. R. (1985). Democracy in the Islands. The Micronesian Plebiscites of 1983. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute Studies in Political and Social Processes.

Fiji Islands by Christof Hartmann5

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview In hardly any other country covered in this handbook has the controversy over appropriate electoral rules dominated the political process to such an extent as in the Fiji Islands. The importance attached to elections and electoral provisions is derived from the particular ethnic composition of the country. Since the 1950s the indigenous Melanesian population was outnumbered by the descendants of migrant workers from India (Indo-Fijians). After independence in 1968 the need to protect the political and cultural supremacy of the indigenous populations continually clashed with the universal idea of equal political rights for all citizens, embodied in the principle of free and fair elections to national offices. The democratic process was interrupted on two occasions by nationalist military forces, when all sophisticated institutional engineering failed to prevent Indo-Fijian parties (1987) and an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister (1999) from assuming government. The British colonial rule in the approximately 300-island archipelago (with Viti Levu and Vanua Levu as main islands) had tried to preserve the traditional Fijian society by establishing a Council of Chiefs, prohibiting the sale of land and the hiring of Fijians as plantation workers. In order to satisfy the demands of European farmers, between 1879 and 1916 the British brought indentured workers from India to Fiji, most of whom stayed. To them, large inflows of free Indian migrants were added. These Indo-Fijians maintained distinct religious, social, and linguistic practices and concentrated on commercial activities, especially in the sugar industry. By the early 1950s the Indo-Fijians had outnumbered the native Melanesian population. Already in the 1920s Indo-Fijians realized that the colonial policy of separate economic and political treatment was largely designed to protect Fijian interests.

5

I thank Bob Norton and Jon Fraenkel for their help in the collection of data. The interpretations of electoral data and their presentation in this contribution are mine.

644

KIRIBATI

Neither the Fijian chiefs nor the colonial authorities had any interest in holding elections under general suffrage, so a racially based system of representation was introduced in 1929, granting Indo-Fijians a limited franchise to elect some Indian deputies to a Legislative Council that consisted of elected European and appointed Fijian members. Owing to this, the 1920s marked the beginning of the Indo-Fijian battle for political rights and socio-economic change. By the early 1960s, when it became evident that the Fiji Islands were to be granted some form of self-government, the indigenous Fijians still saw Europeans as their allies in the protection of their interests. During the Constitutional Conference held in London in July–August 1965, the Indian demands for the introduction of a common roll were rejected, and the European population remained a distinct group of voters. The introduction of a new electoral system brought about three partial communal rolls (where electors of a particular population group [Fijian, Indo-Fijian or European, called General Voters] voted for a candidate of their group), and a new cross-voting system for so-called national seats, where electors of all groups voted for candidates of a particular group. The first elections held under this new electoral system and fought along party lines in September–October 1966 proved decisive in the ethnically based structure of politics until the 1980s. The multi-racial Alliance Party—under Fijian domination and strongly supported by the Europeans, but with some Indian representation as well—defeated the Federation Party, which represented mainly Indian interests. Although in the first moment it boycotted the Parliament and by-elections, the renamed National Federation Party (NFP) eventually decided to accept some compromise in the questions of a common roll and the reform of the electoral system, due for discussion by a Commission after independence. In November 1969 the leaders of both parties agreed that the country should become independent as a British Dominion, with the Queen as constitutional monarch. In addition to the House of Representatives a Senate would be set up with 22 appointed members. Fiji became an independent state on 10 October 1970. The Constitution was neither put to referendum nor debated in Parliament. The leaders of both parties presented the people with a fait accompli. By permitting European overrepresentation and facilitating an alliance of European and Fijian communities the Constitution basically consolidated the principles which had sustained British colonial policy. A parliamentary democracy was established in which two rival communal parties competed for power. The Alliance was initially able to completely dominate the Fijian and General Communal seats, but also to

FIJI ISLANDS

645

transfer the Fijian and General Elector ethnic support to the cross-voting electorates. Indians were more divided, and the election results were decided to a certain extent by the NFP's ability or inability to secure the support of Indo-Fijian voters. The 1977 elections saw an unexpected electoral defeat of the Alliance, now troubled by factionalism and the increased politicization of ethnicity, provoked by the emergence of an extremist Fijian party. This Fijian Nationalist Party (FNP) concentrated its program solely on Fijians, broadcasted its appeals only in Fijian and refused to provide Hindi and English translations. The Alliance with the outgoing Prime Minister Kamisese Mara and the NFP were still the main contenders, but, as the Fijian electorate became more competitive, none of the two major parties was able to secure an overall parliamentary majority. Although the NFP won most seats, the Governor-General asked Mara to form a minority government, prompting strong protests from the NFP. On 1 June, Parliament was dissolved after a successful vote of no-confidence against Mara's government. Before the fresh elections held in September 1977 the NFP split in two factions which presented separate lists of candidates. The Alliance thus attained a parliamentary majority. Racial issues dominated the 1982 campaign, where the Alliance won again an absolute majority of seats. But multi-racial support for the Alliance had diminished, and the polarized ethnic party-system was firmly entrenched. Under these circumstances, a new generation of Indo-Fijian leaders accepted the 1970 Constitution as given, and tried to open electoral politics to economic and social issues in the hope to have a chance to build alliances with Fijian parties and to reach government under the existing provisions. The newly created Fiji Labour Party (FLP), formed by trade unionists in 1985 after a governmental wage freeze, succeeded in challenging the two-party system by shifting the emphasis of political discourses from race to class. Backed strongly by Indo-Fijians, their leader was however an indigenous Fijian, Timoci Bavadra, who did not belong to the traditional chiefs dominating the Alliance. In April 1987 the Alliance was effectively voted out of office by a coalition of FLP and NFP. Prime Minister Bavadra's government was, however, toppled in a military coup d'état on 14 May 1987 by military leaders fearing Indian dominance in politics, and Parliament was dissolved. Fiji was declared a Republic on 7 October 1987. The military re-appointed Mara Prime Minister. In 1990 a new Constitution was prepared that tried to guarantee the supremacy of indigenous Fijian interests by stipulating that the Prime Minister be a

646

KIRIBATI

native Fijian, and by introducing a fully communalized electoral system, with an inbuilt majority of 37 seats elected from the Fijian electoral roll. The new dispensation met with strong resistance from Indo-Fijian parties (but both NLP and FLP participated in the 1992 elections) and the international community. The change in the electoral system led to the emergence of new parties that addressed their respective communal groups only. The Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT, Fijian Political Party) of coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka gained a plurality of seats in the 1992 elections, and the FLP agreed to support his premiership, in return for a guarantee of a Constitutional review. Under the strong pressure of the Commonwealth and in a context of economic decline precipitated by a drop in foreign investment, a three-member Commission was set up in 1995. Its report on constitutional reforms, issued in September 1996, recommended amendments to the 1990 Constitution and a multi-ethnic government, as well as the re-introduction of national rolls and open voting. A Joint Parliamentary Select Committee considered the findings and adopted most of the recommendations in 1997. This was facilitated by the departure of an estimated 75,000 IndoFijians since 1987, due to which the indigenous Fijians had again become a majority population. The electoral recommendations were modified, insofar as only a minority of seats was to be elected in the open constituencies, and the Senate was to remain fully appointed. The mandatory power-sharing—all parties having gained ten percent of total membership in the House could be included in Government—added some consociational elements to the political system. The introduction of the Alternative Vote as the electoral system for the parliamentary elections (for details see below 1.3) led to the emergence of two competing multi-ethnic party coalitions in the 1999 elections. In the elections of May 1999 Rabuka's government was defeated by the FLP under Mahendra Chaudry, who became the first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister of the country. Chaudry's government was based on a coalition with Fijian parties and most of his ministers were indigenous Fijians. But the limits of constitutional engineering became again evident on 19 May 2000 when a group of armed men, led by businessman George Speight and belonging to the extremist Taukei movement, occupied the Parliament building and took Prime Minister Chaudry and 30 other deputies hostage. After days of violent confrontations in the capital city, of Speight's threats to kill the hostages and of negotiations involving the President and the Council of Chiefs, the military took control on 29 May, installed an interim administration

FIJI ISLANDS

647

and negotiated the release of the Prime Minister and the Members of Parliament. The unexpected decision of the Supreme Court in November 2000 and March 2001 to re-confirm the validity of the deposed Chaudry cabinet forced the transitional government to call early elections in late August 2001. These will be held under the provisions of the 1997 Constitution.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Under British colonial rule a Legislative Council was created comprising, since 1904, ten officials, six elected European members and two appointed Fijian members, selected by the Governor from a list submitted by the Fijian Council of Chiefs. In 1916 an appointed member of the Indian community was added, elected by the Indians since 1929. Suffrage was restricted to British citizens of European or Indian descent with certain additional property or income qualifications, and, in the case of Indians, the ability to read and write in English or an Indian language. In 1937 the Legislative Council was again recomposed in a form that remained for the next 25 years: Of the 31 deputies, 16 were ‘official’ and 15 ‘unofficial’ members, the latter being equally distributed between the three populations: five seats for the Europeans (three elected, two appointed); five for the Fijians (selected by the Governor, later elected by the Council of Chiefs), and five seats for the Indians (three elected, two appointed). In the course of preparations for independence indigenous Fijians were granted franchise, in 1963, and income and property qualifications were abolished for all other voters. The literacy qualification remained, however. Women suffrage was also introduced. In April 1963 the first elections under universal suffrage were held, applying the plurality system in single-member constituencies (SMCs). With the 1965 Constitution other minorities, like Chinese and immigrants of other Pacific Islands were also granted the right to vote. For the 1966 elections a new electoral system was introduced, which provided for a partial communal roll (where electors of a particular ethnic group voted for a candidate of their group), and a new cross-voting system for so-called national seats, where electors of all groups voted for candidates of a particular ethnic group. Each voter had thus four votes; one in his/ her reserved franchise constituency and the other three in the common roll constituencies. This system aimed at encouraging political parties to appeal to the electorate across ethnic

648

KIRIBATI

divisions. Of the 34 directly elected members of the Legislative Council, nine Fijians (including other Pacific Islanders), nine Indians and seven so-called General Members (a new term introduced to include Europeans as well as Chinese and other races) were to be elected on three communal rolls; nine further seats were to be elected under the new crossvoting system, in which people of all races would vote together but seats would be reserved in equal proportions to members of the three groups. Besides, the Fijian Council of Chiefs selected two additional candidates, and the British Governor had the right to nominate a maximum of four official members. The Europeans (even ‘disguised’ as General Voters, and less than five percent of the population) were thus strongly over-represented in the Council. The Constitutional Conference of 1970 maintained the basic framework of this electoral system but modified the seat quotas. There were on the whole six types of constituencies, elected from five different types of rolls. Fijians and Indians would have 22 members each in the Assembly (12 members elected from the respective communal roll, 10 members elected from the national roll). The General Voters had eight seats, three elected on the communal roll, five on the national roll. The national roll consisted of all registered electors from the three communal rolls. For each type of election the territory of Fiji was divided into different types of constituencies: 12 constituencies for the Fijian and Indian communal seats; three constituencies which returned one communally elected General member each. For national roll elections the territory was divided into ten constituencies, each of which returned one Fijian and one Indian member; these in turn were combined into five pairs for the purpose of each returning one general member. Technically, the country was hence divided in 52 partly overlapping SMCs. Each voter had four votes, one in his/ her communal SMC, and three in the different national constituencies (one for each candidate of each ethnic group). Yet, they did not have to make use of all four votes. Plurality system was applied in all constituencies. Before each election, a Constituency Boundary Commission delimited the boundaries of the districts anew. By-elections were held regularly. Suffrage was granted to all Fijian citizens of 21 years or over who did not owe allegiance to a state outside the British Commonwealth. Postal voting was permitted for certain categories of electors. Voting was not compulsory. Candidature was open to all electors, but had to be submitted on a nomination paper signed by six to eight voters of the corresponding constituency, and accompanied by a deposit of F$ 100, forfeited if the candidate did not poll at least 10% of the total number of valid votes cast in the

FIJI ISLANDS

649

constituency. Any person holding a public office or who had in the preceding three years held any of certain government posts was disqualified. The Electoral Commission, consisting of a chairman and four members, had general responsibility regarding voters' registration and the conduct of elections. The 1970 Constitutional Conference provided for the creation of a Royal Commission to discuss eventual modifications of the electoral system. Set up in March 1975, in its final report the Commission recommended that the system of communal seats be maintained, but proposed the distribution, on an inter-communal basis, of the 25 national seats; in addition, voting and candidature were to be open to all citizens with the single transferable vote (STV) as decision rule in five multi-member constituencies (of five seats each). However, Prime Minister Ratu Mara rejected the recommendations, which were not even debated in Parliament. The so-called provisional electoral rules established in 1970 remained in force until the military coup d'état of 1987. Under the new 1990 Constitution the electoral system was modified: the size of the Lower House increased to 70 members, all seats were distributed on communal rolls and the parity of representation between Fijians and IndoFijians was abolished. Indigenous Fijians had now 37 seats, and Indo-Fijians 27 seats. For the inhabitants of Rotuma Island a separate roll was established, with one seat to be distributed. (Rotumans had previously voted on the Fijian roll.) The number of seats for the General Voters was reduced from eight to five, and the roll now included Pacific Island voters, previously included in the Fijian electoral roll. Whereas the Indo-Fijians, General, and Rotuman voters elected their representatives by plurality system in SMCs, the 37 Fijian seats were elected from four three-member, ten two-member and five single-member constituencies by plurality (with multiple vote). There was no change in the provisions with regard to voting age and candidature, except for the introduction of compulsory voting. The 1990 Constitution provided also for a President and a Vice-President appointed by the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs, a constitutional organ) after consultation with the Prime Minister for a renewable term of five years. Following the process of constitutional review, which included intense external consultancy on the design of the electoral system, the electoral system underwent new changes with the relevant amendments of 1997. These changes concerned the ratio of seats among communal groups and the introduction for the first time of open seats, with one common roll and free candidature for all communal groups. Finally, the

650

KIRIBATI

plurality decision rule was replaced by the Alternative Vote (for details see below 1.3). These provisions, suspended after the 2000 coup, will come into force again for the elections to the House of Representatives due in August 2001.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of 1990 with Constitutional Amendments of 1997, Electoral Act No.18 of 1998.

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret elections are applied. The Constitution provides for a fixed attribution of seats to communal groups that favors indigenous groups over migrant communities. For most of the history of independent Fiji this electoral system has meant a departure from the principle of equal elections. but now, for the first time, as many Indo-Fijians have been leaving the country since the 1987 coup, the seat ratios provided by the 1997 Constitution nearly equal the effective relationship between the registered voters of the two communal groups. Every person of 21 years or over who has Fijian citizenship and has been resident in Fiji for the two years preceding his/ her application for registration has the right to be registered as voter. There are four electoral rolls. Every person any of whose progenitors, in the male or female line, is or was a native inhabitant of Fiji has the right to be registered on the roll for indigenous Fijians. The same holds true for Indo-Fijians and Rotumans, who have their own rolls. The fourth roll is reserved to all other citizens of Fiji and to those who qualify to be registered on the communal rolls by reason of descent, but choose not to exercise that right. Registration and voting are compulsory and fines are applied to those who fail to register (F$ 50 penalty) or to vote (F$ 20 penalty). Registered voters residing abroad can vote: having duly filled in a postal ballot application form and sent it back by mail, they will receive a postal ballot from their Returning Officer.

Elected National Institutions: Only the House of Representatives is directly elected. It has 71 members: 25 are elected from a national open roll, 46 are elected as representatives of four communal groups by voters of the respective communal groups registered on separate rolls. 23 seats are reserved to indigenous Fijians, 19 to Indo-Fijians, one to Rotuman

FIJI ISLANDS

651

voters and three for the remaining so-called General Voters. The term of Parliament is five years, by-elections are held.

Nomination of Candidates: Candidature is open to all registered voters who submit a nomination paper signed by seven eligible voters of the corresponding constituency and deposit F$ 500 (US$ 218 in 2001). Public office holders, election officials, and government contractors have to vacate their offices before standing as candidates. In the communal constituencies candidature is restricted to voters registered on the respective communal roll.

Electoral System: A two-tier system of Alternative Vote is applied. Each voter has two votes, one vote for a candidate in one of the open constituencies and one for a candidate in the communal constituency of his/ her own ethnic/ racial group. Following the electoral system to the Australian Senate, ballot papers are divided in two sections. Voters may hence arrange their preferences in two distinct ways. They rank each candidate, giving the number ‘1’ to the first choice, ‘2’ to the second choice, and so on until all candidates are numbered (voting below the line). The Electoral Act permits every registered political party, irrespective of whether it has a candidate in a particular constituency or not, to lodge with the Supervisor a list of preferences in respect of that constituency, and therefore have its name and symbol in the upper section of the ballot paper. If this occurs, the voter may opt for the preference order of one of the candidates/ parties by ticking one of the symbols printed above the line (above the line voting). In the 1999 elections, 92 percent of the voters chose to vote above the line and thus disregarded the possibility of ordering their own preferences.

Organizational Context of Elections: An Electoral Commission, with a Chairman and four other members appointed by the President, is responsible for the registration of voters and the conduct of elections to the House of Representatives. Members of Parliament or holders of public offices are disqualified for appointment. Besides, the office of Supervisor of Elections is established by the Constitution. He oversees the work of the Electoral Commission. Constituency boundaries are determined by an independent Commission.

652

KIRIBATI

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Results for all the parliamentary elections held since independence have been published in the Official Gazette of Fiji, and the data presented in the following tables are based on this source. These data, however, pose some problems. First, the Official Gazette documents only the results at the constituency level, which forced us to recalculate all aggregations at the communal or national level. Second, the Gazette documents neither party affiliations nor (for the early years) the total number of registered voters. Therefore, in order to obtain the relevant information, for most elections the author had to resort to the issues of the national newspaper Fiji Times following the relevant contest, which published electoral data for each constituency with the party symbol attached to the candidates' names (issues consulted: 3 May 1972, 5 April 1977, 26 September 1977, 9 August 1982, 13 April 1987, 1 June 1992, 25 February 1994). For the 1999 elections the Election Commission published relevant information about candidates, parties, and results on their website (www.elections.gov.fj). Though most authors working with electoral data resorted to the Fiji Times, the data included there are not always reliable, do not include valid postal ballots and have often been corrected later by the authorities. Nor even the figures provided by the Official Gazette are always consistent, although the standards of data elaboration and presentation have improved considerably since the 1970s. Inconsistencies were corrected by the author as far as possible. Total numbers of registered voters in the communal and the national constituencies did never fully coincide, neither in the Official Gazette nor in the Fiji Times data. The turnout has therefore been calculated on the basis of the figures of registered voters and votes cast in the communal constituencies. The tables include not only aggregations of party totals at the level of communal groups, but also nationally aggregated data, taking the two to four votes that electors cast at the polls. Given the unusual character of this operation, it has posed some problems for the elections of 1992 and 1994, in which only electors of one communal group voted in small multi-member constituencies and the parties running in these constituencies were automatically awarded a higher total of votes. We nevertheless consider it useful to include such national aggregations, as an evidence of the extent to which the communal electoral system with its inbuilt over-weighting of Fijian votes has led to distortions at the level of party representation. In the 1999 elections held under AV, voters' first preferences are counted as absolute numbers of valid votes.

653

FIJI ISLANDS



1972 1977

15–29/04 19/03–02/04 17–24/09 10–17/07 04–11/04

1982 1987 1992 1994 1999 2000


Referendums

Coups d'état

14/05 25/09

23–30/05 18–25/02 08–15/05 19–29/05

654

KIRIBATI


1972

1977

1977

1982

1987

1992

1994

1999

a b

c d e f

Type of elec- Populationb tiona Pa Fijians Indo-F. General Pa Fijians Indo-F. General Pa Fijians Indo-F. General Pa Fijians Indo-F. General Pa Fijians Indo-F. General Pa Fijianse Indo-F. General Pa Fijians Indo-F. Generale Pa Fijians Indo-F. Generale

535,375 213,042 272,040 50,293 588,068 259,932 292,896 35,240 588,068 259,932 292,896 35,240 646,561 287,952 323,707 34,902 715,375 329,305 348,704 37,366 735,985 360,102 339,784 36,099 771,104 385,847 345,169 40,088 775,077 393,575 338,818 42,684

Registered voters

Votes castd

Total number 205,617 98,192 100,846 6,579 280,784 137,940 134,798 8,046 287,081 140,430 137,968 8,683 292,341 141,846 142,529 7,966 353,691 169,398 174,611 9,682 316,765 157,575 148,548 10,642 330,092 155,681 159,480 14,931 436,798 220,163 197,374 19,261

Total number 169,126 78,336 86,342 4,448 190,291 83,353 104,278 2,660 201,245 95,070 104,803 1,372 242,712 123,573 112,507 6,723 250,968 121,377 123,130 6,461 239,612 115,896 115,572 8,144 239,567 112,741 116,277 10,549 399,759 198,629 184,005 17,125

% pop. 38.4 46.1 37.1 13.1 47.7 53.1 46.0 22.8 48.8 54.0 47.1 24.6 45.2 49.3 44.0 22.8 49.4 51.4 50.1 25.9 43.0 43.8 43.7 29.5 42.8 40.3 46.2 37.2 56.4f 55.9 58.3 45.1

% reg. voters % pop. 31.6 85.2c c 36.8 84.7 85.6 31.7 8.8 85.2c c 32.4 74.7 32.1 71.5c 77.4 35.6 c 7.5 78.8 34.2 73.8c c 36.6 71.6 76.0 35.8 3.9 71.2c c 37.5 86.7 87.1 42.9 34.8 86.5c 84.4 19.3 71.0 35.1 71.7 36.9 70.5 35.3 66.7 17.3 32.6 79.0c c 80.5 32.2 77.8 34.0 76.5 22.6 c 31.1 73.6 29.2 73.5c c 33.7 73.9 70.7 26.3 91.5f 51.6 90.2 50.5 93.2 54.3 88.9 40.1

Pa = Parliament (House of Representatives). Census were held in 1976, 1986, and 1996. The 1976 figures were applied for the 1977 elections, the 1986 figures for the 1987 elections, the 1996 figures for the 1999 elections. All other figures are official estimates. Calculated against number of registered voters in contested constituencies. Until 1987 the figure refers only to communal votes, since 1992 to the number of ballots cast. Since 1992 Rotumans had a special roll, included in this table among the General Voters. Before the 1999 elections, compulsory registration and voting were introduced.

FIJI ISLANDS

655

2.3 Abbreviations Alliance ANC COIN FAP FGWC FILP FIP FLP FNP FNUFa GVPc LFR NDP NFP NLP NVTLP POTT STVb SVT UGPc UNLP VDMDP VLV WUFb a b c

Alliance Party All National Congress Coalition of Independent Nationalist Party Fijian Association Party Farmers and General Workers Coalition Party Fiji Indian Liberal Party Fijian Independent Party Fiji Labor Party Fijian Nationalist Party Fijian Nationalist United Front General Voters Party Lio ‘On Famor Rotuma Party Nationalist Democratic Party National Federation Party Natural Law Party Nationalist Vanua Tako Lavo Party Party of the Truth Soqosoqo ni Taukei ni Vanua Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (Fijian Political Party) United General Party United National Labour Party Viti Levu Dynamic Multiracial Democratic Party Veitokani ni Lewenivanua Vakaristo (Christian Democratic Alliance) Western United Front

Alliance of FNP and STV for the 1992 elections. The WUF was renamed STV before the 1992 elections. In late 1998 the GVP merged with a minor party and was renamed UGP.

656

KIRIBATI

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1972–1999 Party / Alliance Alliance FIP NFP FNP WUF FLP ANC FILP FNUF GVP SVT FAP STV COIN FGWC LFR NDP NLP NVTLP POTT UGP UNLP VDMDP VLV a b

Years 1972–1987 1972 1972–1999b 1977(I)–1994 1982–1992 1987–1999 1992–1994 1992 1992 1992–1994 1992–1999 1994–1999 1994 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999

Elections contesteda 5 1 8 6 3 4 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Only parliamentary elections. Total number: 8. In the September 1977 elections the two camps within the NFP presented two separate lists, the Flower faction and the Dove faction. In 1979 both factions re-united. In the 1987 elections, the NFP presented a common list with the FLP. A minor wing of the party decided to present a separate list.

2.5 Referendums No referendums have been held.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly All Constitutions were ratified by Parliament or decreed by Government. No Constituent Assemblies have been elected.

657

FIJI ISLANDS

2.7 Parliamentary Elections Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alliance NFP FIP FNP Independents a b c

% – 85.2b 2.1 97.9 57.5 33.9 0.2 – 6.4

1977 (April) Total number 280,784 783,357c 47,690 735,667 338,523 332,764 – 39,238 25,142

% – 74.7b 6.1 93.9 46.0 45.2 – 5.3 3.4

Every voter had four votes, except in two SMCs where candidates stood unopposed and the relevant voters had three votes. Turnout rate refers to voting in the communal seats only. Every voter had four votes, except in three communal and two national constituencies where candidates stood unopposed and the relevant voters had only three votes.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alliance NFP NFP—Flower NFP—Dove FNP WUF Independents a

1972 Total number 205,617 689,673a 14,201 675,472 388,550 241,866 1,535 – 43,521

1977 (Sept) Total number 287,081 775,957 51,713 724,244 378,349 – 171,508 149,305 18,854 – 6,228

Turnout rate in the communal seats.

% – 73.8a 6.7 93.3 52.2 – 23.7 20.6 2.6 – 0.9

1982 Total number 292,341 998,814 19,605 979,209 507,163 403,548 – – 27,329 37,266 3,903

% – 86.8a 2.0 98.0 51.8 41.2 – – 2.8 3.8 0.4

658 Year Registered voters Votes/ Ballots casta Invalid votes/ ballotsd Valid ballotse Valid votesf Alliance NFP-FLP NFP FLP FNP FNUF WUF NFP (Koya Wing) SVT ANC GVP FILP Independents a

b c d e f

KIRIBATI

1987 Total number 353,691 1,001,845 22,238 – 979,607 484,543 461,056 – – 14,484 – 8,339 4,462 – – – – 6,723

% – 71.0b 2.2

1992 Total number 316,765 239,612 3,013

% – 79.0c 1.3

– 97.8 49.5 47.1 – – 1.5 – 0.9 0.5 – – – – 0.7

236,599 354,357 – – 56,951 56,948 – 29,722 9,321 – 154,656 28,189 5,079 1,783 11,708

98.7 – – – 16.1 16.1 – 8.4 2.6 – 43.6 8.0 1.4 0.5 3.3

In 1987 voters had four votes, one for the communal seats, three for the national seats. In 1992 the figure refers to the number of voters that cast their ballots (multiple vote). Turnout rate in the communal seats. Six uncontested seats. In 1987, total number of invalid votes in all constituencies, in 1992 number of ballots (containing several votes) declared invalid. In 1992, number of valid ballots counted. In 1987, the figure refers to the total number of valid votes from all constituencies, in 1992 total number of valid votes from the single and multi-member constituencies. There were 38 SMCs, nine two-member constituencies and five three-member constituencies (multiple vote). As multiple votes were cast only in the Fijian communal seats, pro-Fijian parties are over-represented with regard to the absolute number of valid votes.

659

FIJI ISLANDS

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballots Valid votes SVT NFP FLP FAP ANC FNP STV GVP VLV NVTLP PANU UGP UNLP Others Independents a b

c

d

1994 Total number 303,529 239,567 2,260 237,307 354,674b 145,091 63,097 51,951 34,976 21,808 14,446 6,417 4,339 – – – – – – 12,549

% – 73.6a 0.9 99.1 – 40.9 17.8 14.6 9.9 6.1 4.1 1.8 1.2 – – – – – – 3.5

1999 Total number 436,798 399,759 39,567 360,192 720,282c 143,177 104,985 231,946 72,907 – – – – 70,153 31,587 28,974 10,144 3,963 5,064d 17,382

% – 91.5 9.9 90.1 – 19.9 14.6 32.2 10.1 – – – – 9.7 4.4 4.0 1.4 0.6 0.7 2.4

Two unopposed seats have been left out in the calculation of the turnout rate. In 1994, the figure refers to the total number of valid votes from the single and multi-member constituencies. There were 38 SMCs, nine two-member constituencies and five three-member constituencies (multiple vote). As multiple votes were cast only in the Fijian communal seats, pro-Fijian parties are over-represented with regard to the absolute number of valid votes. In 1999 each voter had two votes. The figure refers to the absolute number of first preferences. Of the 71 seats, 35 were not decided on preferences. Of the 36 seats that were decided on preferences, 21 seats returned the same members, as would have been the case in a plurality contest. Fifteen seats returned different members. Others include COIN 2,405 votes (0.3%), LFR 1,982 (0.3%), POTT 234 (0.0%), FGWC 197, VDMDP 124, NLP 109, NDP 13 votes.

660

KIRIBATI

2.7 a) Parliamentary Elections: Distribution of Votes According to Ethnic Groups 1972

Fijian Total number % Communal Seats Registered 98,192 – voters Votes cast 78,336 84.7 Invalid votes 2,092 2.7 Valid votes 76,244 97.3 Alliance 63,599 83.4 NFP 1,545 2.0 FIP 1,291 1.7 Independents 9,809 12.9 National Seats Registered 204,948 – voters Votes cast 175,152 85.5 Invalid votes 4,445 2.5 Valid votes 170,707 97.5 Alliance 99,553 58.3 NFP 64,545 37.8 FIP – – Independents 6,609 3.9 1977 (April)

Fijian Total number % Communal Seats Registered 137,940 – voters Votes cast 83,353a 71.5 Invalid votes 2,984 3.6 Valid votes 80,369 96.4 Alliance 53,501 66.6 NFP – – FNP 20,189 25.1 Independents 6,679 8.3 National Seats Registered 280,784 – voters Votes cast 191,627b — Invalid votes 7,273 3.8 Valid votes 184,354 96.2 Alliance 79,225 43.0 NFP 85,753 46.5

Indo-Fijian Total number %

General Voters Total number %

100,846

–

6,579

–

86,342 1,896 84,446 20,455 62,964 – 1,027

85.6 2.2 97.8 24.2 74.6 – 1.2

4,448 130 4,318 3,321 – – 997

85.2 2.9 97.1 76.9 – – 23.1

204,948

–

204,858

–

175,181 5,190 169,801 100,563 66,582 244 2,412

85.5 3.0 97.0 59.2 39.2 0.1 1.4

175,089 5,133 169,956 101,059 46,230 – 22,667

85.5 2.9 97.1 59.5 27.2 – 13.3



134,798

–

8,046

–

104,278 2,602 101,676 16,133 75,853 – 9,690

77.4 2.5 97.5 15.9 74.6 – 9.5

2,660b 66 2,594 1,896 – – 698

78.8 2.5 97.5 73.1 – – 26.9

280,784

–

280,784

–

191,492b 16,984 174,508 87,217 84,558

— 8.9 91.1 50.0 48.5

209,947 17,781 192,166 100,551 86,600

74.8 8.5 91.5 52.3 45.1

661

FIJI ISLANDS

FNP Independents a b

19,049 327

b

– 2,733

– 1.6

– 5,015

– 2.6

Two seats unopposed. One seat unopposed.

1977 (Septem- Fijian ber) Total number Communal Seats Registered 140,430 voters Votes cast 95,070 Invalid votes 2,613 Valid votes 92,457 Alliance 75,743 NFP—Flower 105 NFP—Dove – FNP 10,948 Independents 5,661 National Seats Registered 286,814 voters Votes cast 193,953a Invalid votes 16,437 Valid votes 177,516 Alliance 92,948 NFP—Flower 39,047 NFP—Dove 37,615 FNP 7,906 Independents – a

10.3 0.2

Indo-Fijian

General Voters

%

Total number %

Total number %

–

137,968

–

8,683

–

71.6a 2.7 97.3 81.9 0.1 – 11.8 6.1

104,803 1,988 102,815 14,884 51,166 36,710 – 55

76.0 1.9 98.1 14.5 49.8 35.7 – 0.1

1,372 23 1,349 1,214 135 – – –

71.2b 1.7 98.3 90.0 10.0 – – –

–

286,814

–

287,081

–

73.6 8.5 91.5 52.4 22.0 21.2 4.5 –

211,997 14,907 197,090 110,596 51,883 34,445 – 166

73.9 7.0 93.0 56.1 26.3 17.5 – 0.1

168,762a 15,745 153,017 82,964 29,172 40,535 – 346

73.3 9.3 90.7 54.2 19.1 26.5 – 0.2

One seat unopposed. Two seats unopposed.

1982

Fijian Total number % Communal Seats Registered 141,846 – voters Votes cast 123,573 87.1 Invalid votes 2,157 1.7 Valid votes 121,416 98.3 Alliance 101,533 83.6 NFP 1,530 1.3 WUF 7,939 6.5 FNP 9,384 7.7 Independents 1,010 0.8



142,529

–

7,966

–

112,507 1,707 110,800 16,975 93,209 – – 616

86.5a 1.5 98.5 15.3 84.1 – – 0.6

6,723 91 6,632 5,962 571 – 99 –

83.3 1.4 98.6 89.9 8.6 – 1.5 –

662 National Seats Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alliance NFP WUF FNP Independents a

KIRIBATI

292,341

–

292,341

–

292,341

–

252,706 4,575 248,131 126,221 82,341 29,327 9,889 353

86.4 1.8 98.2 50.9 33.2 11.8 4.0 0.1

251,791 6,577 245,214 129,941 113,349 – – 1,924

86.1 2.6 97.4 53.0 46.2 – – 0.8

251,514 4,498 247,016 126,511 112,548 – 7,957 –

86.0 1.8 98.2 51.2 45.6 – 3.2 –

One seat unopposed.

1987

Fijian Total number % Communal Seats Registered 169,398 – voters Votes cast 121,377 71.7 Invalid votes 2,997 2.5 Valid votes 118,380 97.5 Alliance 92,428 78.1 NFP-FLP 11,313 9.6 FNP 6,337 5.4 WUF 4,484 3.8 NFP-Koya 1,414 1.2 Independents 2,404 2.0 National Seats Registered 353,691 – voters Votes cast 251,082 71.0 Invalid votes 5,380 2.1 Valid votes 245,702 97.9 Alliance 120,983 49.2 NFP-FLP 114,655 46.7 FNP 5,072 2.1 WUF 3,855 1.6 NFP-Koya 538 0.2 Independents 599 0.2



174,611

–

9,682

–

123,130 1,909 121,221 18,798 100,143 – – 1,808 472

70.5 1.6 98.4 15.5 82.6 – – 1.5 0.4

6,461 137 6,324 5,106 1,031 – – – 187

66.7 2.1 97.9 80.7 16.3 – – – 3.0

353,691

–

353,691

–

251,476 7,990 243,486 124,388 115,335 – – 702 3,061

71.1 3.1 96.9 51.1 47.4 – – 0.3 1.3

248,319 3,825 244,494 122,840 118,579 3,075 – – –

70.2 1.5 98.5 50.2 48.5 1.3 – – –

663

FIJI ISLANDS

1992a Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Ballots counted Valid votesb SVT NFP FLP ANC FNUF WUF GVP FILP Independents a b

Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballots Valid votesc SVT NFP FLP FAP ANC FNP STV GVP Independents b c

Indo-Fijian Total number % 148,548 –

General Voters Total number % 10,642 –

115,896 1,304 114,592

80.5 1.1 98.9

115,572 1,573 113,999

77.8 1.4 98.6

8,144 136 8,008

76.5 1.7 98.3

232,350 154,656 – 2,654 24,736 29,722 9,321 – – 11,261

– 66.6 – 1.1 10.6 12.8 4.0 – – 4.8

113,999 – 56,951 54,294 584 – – – 1,783 387

– – 50.2 47.9 0.5 – – – 1.6 0.3

8,008 – – – 2,869 – – 5,079 – 60

– – – – 35.8 – – 63.4 – 0.7

There was additionally one uncontested seat for the Rotumans. Only Fijian voters had multiple votes in most of their constituencies.

1994

a

Fijian Total number % 154,004 –



General Votersa Total number % 14,931 –

112,741 1,204 111,537 228,904 145,091 – 555 34,976 18,259 14,446 6,417 – 9,160

116,277 883 115,394 115,394 – 63,097 51,247 – 411 – – – 639

10,549 173 10,376 10,376 – – 149 – 3,138 – – 4,339 2,750

73.5b 1.1 98.9 – 63.4 – 0.2 15.3 8.0 6.3 2.8 – 4.0

Including Rotumans. One unopposed seat has been left out in the turnout calculation. Only Fijian voters had multiple votes in most of their constituencies.

73.9b 0.8 99.2 – – 54.7 44.4 – 0.4 – – – 0.6

70.7 1.6 98.4 – – – 1.4 – 30.2 – – 41.8 26.5

664 1999a Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes FLP SVT NFP FAP VLV NVTLP PANU UGP COIN Others Independents a

KIRIBATI



General Voters Total number % 14,029 –

198,629 19,412 179,217 3,352 68,114 – 32,032 34,758 16,353 17,149 – 1,149 665 5,645

184,005 18,037 165,968 108,815 – 53,115 955 – – 153 – 34 1,881 1,015

12,443 1,430 11,013 – – – 1,057 – – – 5,412 1,157 – 3,387

90.2 9.8 90.2 0.2 38.0 – 17.9 19.4 9.1 9.6 – 0.6 0.4 3.1

The absolute numbers refer to voters’ first preferences.

93.2 9.8 90.2 65.6 – 32.0 0.6 – – 0.1 – 0.0 1.1 0.6

88.7 11.5 88.5 – – – 9.6 – – – 49.1 10.5 – 30.8

665

FIJI ISLANDS

1999 (cont.) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes FLP SVT NFP FAP VLV NVTLP PANU UGP Others Independents

Open Seats Total number 434,658 396,729 36,639 360,090 119,779 75,063 51,870 38,863 35,395 15,234 11,672 4,732 2,159 5,323

% – 91.3 9.2 90.8 33.3 20.8 14.4 10.8 9.8 4.2 3.2 1.3 0.6 1.5

666

KIRIBATI


1972 Seats 52 Alliance 33 NFP 19 NFP-Flower – NFP-Dove – FNP – WUF – Independ0 ents a

100.0 % 63.5 36.5 – – – – 0.0

1977 (I) Seats 52 24 26 – – 1 – 1

100.0 % 46.2 50.0 – – 1.9 – 1.9

1977 (II) Seats 52 36 – 12 3 0 – 1

1994 Seats 70 – 20 7 – 32 4 0 0 5 1 – – – – 1

100.0 % 69.2 – 23.1 5.8 0.0 – 1.9

1982 Seats 52 28 22a – – 0 2a 0

100.0 % 53.8 42.3 – – 0.0 3.8 0.0

100.0 % – 28.6 10.0 – 45.7 5.7 0.0 0.0 7.1 1.4 – – – – 1.4

1999 Seats 71 – 0 37 – 8 – – – 10 – 4 3 2 2 5

100.0 % – 0.0 52.1 – 11.3 – – – 14.1 – 5.6 4.2 2.8 2.8 7.0

NFP and WUF presented a common slate of candidates. Year NFP-FLP NFP FLP Alliance SVT GVP FNP/ FNUF WUF/ STV FAP ANC PANU VLV UGP NVTLP Independents

1987 Seats 52 28 – – 24 – – 0 0 – – – – – – 0

100.0 % 53.8 – – 46.2 – – 0.0 0.0 – – – – – – 0.0

1992 Seats 70 – 14 13 – 30 5 3 2 – 0 – – – – 3

100.0 % – 20.0 18.6 – 42.9 7.1 4.3 2.9 0.0 – – – – 4.3

2.8 a) Composition of Parliament: Distribution of Seats According to Ethnic Groups 1972

Overall

Alliance 33 NFP 19 Total Seats per 52 Group a

Fijian Coma 12 0 12

Nata 7 3 10

Indo-Fijian Com 0 12 12

Nat 7 3 10

General Com 3 0 3

Nat 4 1 5

Com = Communal seats; Nat = National seats. National seats do not refer to an additional national list, but to seats distributed in SMCs and elected by voters of all communal groups. For details see 1.2. 1977 (I)

Overall

Alliance NFP FNP Independent Total Seats per Group

24 26 1 1 52

Fijian Com 10 – 1 1 12

Nat 4 6 0 0 10

Indo-Fijian Com 0 12 – 0 12

Nat 4 6 – 0 10

General Com 3 – – 0 3

Nat 3 2 – 0 5

667

FIJI ISLANDS

1977 (II)

Overall

Alliance NFP-Flower NFP-Dove Independent Total Seats per Group

36 12 3 1 52

1982

Total

Alliance NFP WUF Total Seats per Group

28 22 2 52

1987

Total

FLP/NFP 28 Alliance 24 Total Seats per 52 Group

Fijian Com 11 0 – 1 12

Nat 8 2 0 – 10

Indo-Fijian Com 0 9 3 0 12

Nat 9 1 0 0 10

General Com 3 0 – – 3

Nat 5 0 0 0 5

Fijian Com 12 0 0 12

Nat 5 3 2 10

Indo-Fijian Com 0 12 – 12

Nat 5 5 – 10

General Com 3 0 – 3

Nat 3 2 – 5

Fijian Com 0 12 12

Nat 7 3 10

Indo-Fijian Com 12 0 12

Nat 7 3 10

General Com 0 3 3

Nat 2 3 5

Yeara

1992 Total SVT 30 NFP 14 FLP 13 GVP 5 FNUF/FNP 3 WUF/SVP 2 FAP – ANC 0 Independ3 ents Total 70 a b

Indo-Fijian – 14 13 – – – – 0 0

General – – – 5 – – – 0 0

38b

27

5

70

Fijian 32 – 0 – 0 0 5 0 1b

Indo-Fijian – 20 7 – – – – 0 0

General – – 0 4 – – – 1 0

38b

27

5

The 1990 Constitution abolished national seats. Including the Rotuman Communal seat. 1999 FLP FAP SVT PANU VLV UGP NVTLP Independents Total

a

Fijian 30 – 0 – 3 2 – 0 3b

1994 Total 32 20 7 4 0 0 5 1 1

Total 0 10 8 4 3 2 2 5 71

Including the Rotuman Communal seat.

Fijiana 0 9 5 4 3 – 1 2a 24a

Com

Indo-Fi. Com 19 0 – 0 – – – 0 19

General Com – 0 – – – 1 – 2 3

Open 18 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 25

668

KIRIBATI

2.9 Presidential Elections Until 1987 the British Queen was Head of State. In the wake of the 1987 coup that declared Fiji a Republic the first President was appointed by military ruler Rabuka. Since the 1990 Constitution, the President has been elected by the traditional Great Council of Chiefs.

2.10 List of Power Holders 1970–2001 Head of State Ratu George Cakobau

Years 1970–1983

Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau

1983–1987

Col. Sitiveni Rabuka

1987

Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau

1987–1993

Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara

1994–2000

Gen. Frank Bainimarama

2000

Ratu Josefa Iloilo

2000–

Head of Government Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara

Years 1970–1987

Remarks First local Governor-General after Independence. Governor-General since 12/02/ 1983. On 20/05/1987 assumed government in the name of Her Majesty the Queen and governed through a Council of Advisers. Following the second coup on 25/ 09/1987 Rabuka declared Fiji a Republic and himself Head of State on 07/10/1987. Took office as Head of State on 6 December 1987 in the wake of the second Rabuka coup. Re-elected by Council of Chiefs on 14 April 1992. Died in office in December 1993. Elected new Head of State by Council of Chiefs on 18/01/1994. Re-elected on 18/01/1999. Deposed by military intervention on 29/05/2000. Following the military attack of Fijian rebels on Parliament on 19/ 05, the army intervened on 29/05 and suspended constitutional order. Appointed by Council of Chiefs on 13/07/2001. Following his destitution by the decision of the Supreme Court, re-appointed by the Council of Chiefs on 14/03/2001. Remarks Leader of Alliance. Since 01/09/ 1967 Chief Minister of the Council. Became Prime Minister with independence. Confirmed after the 1972, 1977 and 1982 elections.

FIJI ISLANDS

Timoci Bavadra

1987

Sitiveni Rabuka

1987

Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara

1987–1992

Sitiveni Rabuka

1992–1999

Mahendra Chaudry

1999–2000

Ratu Epeli Nailatikau

2000

Lasenia Qarase

2000–2001

Tevita Momoedonu

2001

Lasenia Qarase

2001–

669 After the victory of the NFP/FLP coalition in the 1987 elections, FLPleader Bavadra was elected Prime Minister on 13 April. Deposed in a coup d'état on 14 May 1987. Leader of the military coup d'état. Formed interim Ruling Council and declared himself Chief Minister, but government was not accepted by the Great Council of Chiefs. A second coup d'état on 25/09/1987 led to the revocation of the Constitution and the declaration of the Republic. Rabuka declared himself Head of State and Government, but ceded both posts on 06/12/1987. Appointed Head of Government by Rabuka on 06/12/1987. Following the general elections Rabuka was elected Prime Minister on 2 June 1992 as head of a SVT-FLP coalition government. Reconfirmed after the 1994 elections. First Indo-Fijian elected Prime Minister on 19/05/1999. Taken hostage by rebels on 19/05/2000. Deposed by the military coup of 29/05/2000. Appointed by the military on 30/ 05/2000. Appointed by the military on 04/ 07/2000 as Head of civil government, composed only of indigenous Fijians. Appointed by President Iloilo on 14/03/2001. Re-proposed Iloilo as new Head of State to the Council of Chiefs, as provided in the 1997 Constitution, and stepped back the next day. Head of interim government since 15/03/2001.

670

KIRIBATI

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Fiji Islands Government (1999). Fiji Islands Government Gazette Vol. 13, No. 64 (1 September 1999). Suva: Government Printer, 885–991. Government of Fiji (1972). Fiji Royal Gazette Vol. 99, No. 26 (26 May 1972). Suva: Government Printer, 312–335. —— (1977). Fiji Royal Gazette Vol. 104, No. 22 (6 May 1977). Suva: Government Printer, 347–364. —— (1977). Fiji Royal Gazette Vol. 104, No. 53 (18 November 1977). Suva: Government Printer, 855–874. —— (1987). Fiji Royal Gazette Vol. 109, No. 33 (4 May 1987). Suva: Government Printer, 312–335. Government of the Republic of Fiji (1990). ‘Decree No. 22: Constitution of the Sovereign Democratic Republic of Fiji (Promulgation) of 25 July 1990,’ in Pacific Law Unit (ed.). Pacific Constitutions, Vol. II. Suva: USP/ Institute of Pacific Studies, USP, 1–176. —— (1992). Fiji Republic Gazette Vol. 6, No. 66 (22 July 1992). Suva: Government Printer, 1245–1347. —— (1994). Fiji Republic Gazette Vol. 8, No. 21 (14 March 1994). Suva: Government Printer, 495–594. —— (1997). Constitution (Amendment) Act 1997 of the Republic of the Fiji Islands (25 July, 1997) Act No. 13 of 1997. Suva: Government Printer. Parliament of Fiji, House of Representatives (1996). Towards a United Future. Report of the Fiji Constitution Review Commission. Suva: Parliament of Fiji: Parliamentary Paper No. 34 of 1996. —— (1997). Report of the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on the Report of the Fiji Constitution Review Commission. Suva: Parliament of Fiji: Parliamentary Paper No.17 of 1997.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Ali, A. (1973). ‘The Fiji General Election of 1972’. Journal of Pacific History, 8/3: 171–180. —— (1977). ‘The Fiji General Election of 1977’. Journal of Pacific History, 12/4: 189–201. Alley, R. (1997). ‘Fiji at the Crossroads? After the Constitutional Review Commission’. The Round Table, 342: 245–256. Carens, J. H. (1992). ‘Democracy and Respect for Difference: The Case of Fiji’. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 25/3–4: 547–631.

FIJI ISLANDS

671

Fraenkel, J. (2000). The Alternative Vote System in Fiji: Electoral Engineering or Ballot-Rigging. Suva: University of South Pacific, Unpublished Paper. Ghai, Y. (1997). ‘The Recommendations on the Electoral System: The Contribution of the Fiji Constitution Review’, in B. V. Lal and P. Larmour (eds.), Electoral Systems in Divided Societies: The Fiji Constitution Review. Canberra: National Center for Development Studies, 147–159. Hagan, S. (1987). ‘The Party System, the Labour Party and the Plural Society Syndrome in Fiji’. Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 25/2: 126–140. Howard, M. C. (1991). Fiji: Race and Politics in an Island State. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Lal, B. V. (1983). ‘The Fiji General Election of 1982’. Journal of Pacific History, 18/2: 134–157. —— (1988). ‘Before the Storm: an Analysis of the Fiji General Election of 1987’. Pacific Studies, 12/1: 71–96. —— (1992). Broken Waves: A History of the Fiji Islands in the Twentieth Century. Honolulu: UH Press. —— (1995). ‘Rabuka's Republic: The Fiji Snap Elections of 1994’. Pacific Studies, 18/1: 47–77. —— (1997). ‘Towards a United Future: Report of the Fiji Constitution Review Commission’. Journal of Pacific History, 32/1: 71–84. ——(1999). A Time to Change. The Fiji General Elections of 1999. Melbourne: ANU/ Research School of Pacific & Asian Studies (http://rspas.anu.edu/au/ccp/elections.htm). Lal, B. V., and Larmour, P. (eds.) (1997). Electoral Systems in Divided Societies: The Fiji Constitution Review. Canberra: National Center for Development Studies. Lal, B. V., and Vakatora, T. R. (eds.) (1997). Research Papers of the Fiji Constitution Review Commission, Vol. 1: Fiji in Transition; Vol.II: Fiji and the World. Suva: University of the South Pacific, School of Social and Economic Development. Lal, V. (1987). ‘The Fiji General Election of 1987’. Electoral Studies, 6/3: 249–262. —— (1989). Fiji. Coups in Paradise. Race, Politics and Military Intervention. London: Zed Press. Lawson, S. (1991). The Failure of Democratic Politics in Fiji. Oxford: Clarendon Press. —— (1996). Tradition versus Democracy in the South Pacific. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

672

KIRIBATI

Meller, N., and Anthony, J. (1967). Fiji Goes to the Polls: The Crucial Legislative Council Elections of 1963. Honolulu: EastWest Center Press. Milne, R. S. (1975). ‘The Pacific Way—Consociational Politics in Fiji’. Pacific Affairs, 48/3: 413–431. Norton, R. (1990). Race and Politics in Fiji (2nd edition). St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press. —— (2000). ‘Reconciling Ethnicity and Nation: Contending Discourses in Fiji's Constitutional Reform’. The Contemporary Pacific, 12/1: 83–122. Premdas, R. (1979). ‘Elections in Fiji: Restoration of the Balance in September 1977’. Journal of Pacific History, 14/4: 194–207. —— and Steeves, J. S. (1991). ‘Problems of Ethnic Discrimination and Inequality in the New Constitutional Order’. The Round Table, 318: 155–172. Ravuvu, A. (1991). The Facade of Democracy: Fijian Struggles for Political Control 1830–1987. Suva: Reader Publishing House. Robertson, R. T., and Tamanisau, A. (1988). Fiji. Shattered Coups. Leichhardt: Pluto Press. Scarr, D. (1988). Fiji. The Politics of Illusion: The Military Coups in Fiji. Kensington: University of New South Wales Press. —— (1997). ‘Constitutional Change in Fiji, 1997’. Journal of Pacific History, 32/3: 44–52.

Kiribati by Alexander Somoza

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Kiribati, formerly known as Gilbert Islands, is a small island republic situated in the central Pacific Ocean. Under British rule until independence in 1979, it has since then experienced an uninterrupted period of constitutional and democratic governments. Political parties, however, are a rather recent phenomenon, which means that regular elections to the legislative and executive organs have long focused exclusively on individual candidates. The British Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony was established in 1916 with four island groups, from which the Gilbert, Phoenix, and Line Islands had mainly Micronesian population and the Ellice Islands predominately Polynesian population. The first general elections were held in 1967 for the colony's Legislative Council, which subsequently elected a Chief Minister as head of the colony's administration. By that time the British were preparing their withdrawal from the colony and seeking to gradually transfer the administrative duties to the islanders. The diverse ethnic background of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands generated rivalries over the distribution of the newly available public posts. After a referendum held only on the Ellice Islands in 1974 (later Tuvalu), both territories were separated. This process went hand in hand with growing public interest for political issues and with the consolidation of the institutional set-up of the country. In 1974 Nabuoa Ratieta became the Gilbert Islands' Chief Minister. His supporters in the Legislative Council were grouped under the name National Progressive Party, though this was a mere label without any partisan organization. With the population's growing political awareness, Ratieta's and his government's stance started to be scrutinized more critically, and, with a cabinet drawn mainly from the northern islands' Catholic population, they were soon branded anti-labour and arrogant. The opposition in the Legislative Council gathered around

674

MARSHALL ISLANDS

Ieremia Tabai, a Protestant of the southern Gilbert Islands who was considered a representative of the ordinary people. The decolonization process was heavily influenced by Governor John Smith, who determined that a Constitutional Convention should discuss the institutional arrangements of a future political system, bearing in mind the particular character of Gilbertese society and culture, its strong sense for egalitarianism, and widespread mistrust of central government. The Constitutional Convention—appointed by the Governor in May 1977—consisted of 165 I-Kiribati, as the islanders are known in the local language, including representatives from every island and major interest group. It agreed on the following basic constitutional arrangements: a republican form of state, a unicameral House of Assembly (Maneaba ni Maungatabu) comprising 35 elected members, two appointees and a directly elected President (Beretitenti) as simultaneous Head of Government and Head of State. The candidates running for presidential election had to be nominated by and from the House members. All Members of Parliament, except for the President, were liable to recall by petition of the majority of the constituency's registered voters. In addition, the President remained responsible to Parliament. All in all, the system resembled more a parliamentary form of government with a Prime Minister than a presidential system. The arrangement was the result of both the society's specific features and of the experience made with the Ratieta government. First elections—according to the provisions laid down in the draft Constitution—were held in February 1978 for the House of Assembly. As the opposition candidates won the parliamentary elections, and agreed to nominate four of their House members for the presidential election, incumbent Chief Minister Ratieta was excluded from the electoral contest. In March 1978 Ieremia Tabai won the election to Chief Minister and led Kiribati to independence on 12 July 1979 (he was then renamed President). Tabai became one of the most important political figures in the following years and held the presidency until 1991. The political landscape of the country has remained fairly stable since then: the institutional arrangements have proved to work smoothly and elections for both the legislative and executive offices have been regularly held. However, no formally organized political parties have emerged since then. Candidates have ran as individuals. Nevertheless, House members have tended to gather in factions, adopting even party labels and showing a certain discipline in Parliament. House members have always been easily identified as pro-government or opposition, with a resulting moderate polarization in Parliament. The political conflict

KIRIBATI

675

has centered mainly on the regional and religious cleavage existing between the northern islands, mostly Catholic, and the southern island, largely Protestant. The first parliamentary and presidential elections after independence were held in 1982. Tabai achieved re-election as President but lost the majority in the House of Assembly. A few months after the election, in December 1982, the government fell over a rather insignificant law that Tabai had linked to a vote of confidence. The House was automatically dissolved and early elections for both Parliament and President were called. These elections of January and February 1983 led to Tabai's confirmation as President and an increase in his parliamentary support (19 of the 36 elected representatives). For the following elections in 1987 the opposition tried to organize itself as Christian Democratic Party (CDP) in order to challenge Tabai and his government. Yet, the group never went beyond a loose affiliation of politicians. Candidates still ran as independents, personal reputation, and local family ties remaining more determining for the electoral outcome. Again, Tabai succeeded in getting re-elected as President, despite lacking a firm majority support in Parliament. Before the presidential election a debate had open regarding Tabai's term of office, the question being whether he was running for his third or for his fourth term. The latter case would have been unconstitutional, since only three terms were possible. Finally, the High Court considered it to be Tabai's third term, as in 1978 he had been elected Chief Minister, and only in 1982 and 1983 President. In the 1991 elections—Tabai could not run for presidency any more—former Vice-President Teatao Teannaki was elected President. The pro-government group, signing in under the label of National Progressive Party (NPP), had won the precedent legislative elections. In May 1994, Teannaki lost office after a narrow defeat in a parliamentary vote of no-confidence over his and his ministers' alleged misuse of government funds. Again, as in 1982, Parliament was dissolved and early elections for the House and the President were called. In the general election in July 1994, Teannaki's NPP lost its majority to the CDP. Former opposition leader Teburoro Tito became Kiribati's new President, and was eventually confirmed in the 1998 elections.

676

MARSHALL ISLANDS

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The electoral history of Kiribati starts in 1967, with the first election to the colony's Legislative Council. Since independence in 1979, six parliamentary and six presidential elections have been held. Throughout this period the principle of universal, equal, direct, and secret adult suffrage has been applied. Suffrage has been allowed to all I-Kiribati over 18 who are registered and reside in a constituency. External voting has not been provided for. The direct elected national institutions have been the House of Assembly (Maneaba ni Maungatabu) and the President (Beretitenti). The size of the House of Assembly increased from 35 elected members in 1978 to 40 elected members in 1998. Additionally, the Attorney-General has been an ex officio member, and a representative from the Banaban community on Rabi Island in Fiji was appointed Member of Parliament. The regular term of office has been four years. Byelections have been held to fill casual vacancies. The House members have been elected by absolute majority in 23 oneto three-member constituencies with a run-off election. Electors had as many votes as seats were to be distributed in the respective constituency. Whereas the number of constituencies has stood at 23 since independence, the number of seats to be distributed in these constituencies has continuously been adjusted with reference to population growth. The number of elected seats has thus increased from 35 in 1978 (13 single-member constituencies (SMCs), 8 two-member constituencies (TMCs) and 2 three-member constituencies; medium size: 1.5) to 36 in 1982 (12 SMCs, 9 TMCs, 2 three-member; medium size: 1.6), to 39 in 1987 (10 SMCs, 10 TMCs, 3 three-member; medium size: 1.7) and finally to 40 in 1998. The President had to be elected by plurality from a minimum of three and a maximum of four candidates who were nominated by and among the Members of Parliament on their first session after the general election. The President's regular term of office has been four years; with a maximum of three terms. The nomination procedure has changed once since independence. While in 1978 every House member had the chance to nominate four candidates without giving any preferences, this regulation changed for the 1982 election with the introduction of a preferential voting for nomination (see 1.3). The rationale behind this change was that in 1978 certain House members had agreed to coordinate their nomination voting, successfully forcing the then Chief Minister Ratieta out of the presidential race. Since then no further changes have been introduced into the regulations to presidential elections.

KIRIBATI

677

Since independence an Electoral Commission is in charge of the electoral supervision and an Electoral Officer is responsible for voter registration and electoral organization (see 1.3).

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: The Constitution of Kiribati (1979), chapters IV (part I) and V (parts I and III); Elections Ordinance (1979) and annexed regulations; Election of Beretitenti Act (1980).

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. Every I-Kiribati of at least 18 years residing in a constituency is eligible to register as voter. Voting is not compulsory. External voting is not possible. Nevertheless, a representative of the Banaban community on Rabi Island in Fiji is sent to the House, on nomination of the Rabi Island Council.

Elected National Institutions: The President (Beretitenti) and the unicameral House of Assembly (Maneaba ni Maungatabu) are directly elected. The House consists of 40 elected, one nominated and one ex officio member. The elected members are returned from singleto three-member constituencies; the nominated member is a representative of the Banaban community on Rabi Island in Fiji; and the ex officio member is the Attorney-General. The later two have no vote in the House. Vacancies arising between general elections are filled through by-elections within three months. A member of the House can be removed from office during the term, if an absolute majority of the registered voters in his/ her constituency decides so in a petition and a subsequent referendum. This rule does not apply to the President, Vice-President, the Ministers, and the Attorney-General. The President is also elected by popular vote. He chooses his cabinet from among the House members. He is not allowed to serve more than three terms. The term for both, President and Parliament, is four years.

Nomination of Candidates - Presidential Elections: The presidential candidates are nominated by the members of the House of Assembly from amongst themselves. A minimum of three and a maximum of four candidates is required. If there are more than four candidates, preferential voting among the House members is applied, giving each member four preferential votes to cast.

678

MARSHALL ISLANDS

The first choice gets four points, the second choice three points, the third choice two points, and the fourth choice one point. The four candidates with the maximum amount of added points run for presidency.

- Parliamentary Elections: Candidates running for the House elections must be at least 21 years of age and citizens of Kiribati. They must be nominated by a minimum of three registered voters in the constituency for which they intend to stand. Persons holding public offices are not allowed to stand for elections, unless they resign or go on leave without pay. The rather vague term of ‘public office’ has led to problems of constitutional interpretation in the past. Persons sentenced for certain criminal offences are not eligible to run for election.

Electoral System - Presidential Elections: Plurality system.

- Parliamentary Elections: Absolute majority in 23 one- to three-member constituencies (average size: 1.7). The elector may cast as many votes as seats are contested in the respective constituency. A run-off election—usually a week afterwards—takes place if seats have remained vacant. If there are three vacant seats after the first round, the top five candidates contest the run-off; if there are two vacancies, the top four candidates do, and in the event of one single vacant seat, the run-off is held among the top three candidates. Every inhabited island makes up a constituency. Constituency size depends on a population criterion: constituencies with a population up to 2,000 elect one member, constituencies between 2,000 and 4,000 two members and those with a population over 4,000 elect three members.

Organizational Context of Elections: According to Sections 62 and 63 of the Constitution, the Electoral Commission is the supervising authority for all elections. It consists of a Chief Electoral Commissioner plus two to four commissioners, all appointed by the President on advice of the cabinet. The Commission makes also recommendations to the House for changes concerning the constituency delimitation and the size of Parliament. The actual conduct of the elections is the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer, who is appointed by the Minister of Home Affairs. He/ She then assigns electoral officers and assistant electoral officers for all constituencies. They carry out the voter registration and conduct the elections.

679

KIRIBATI

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Despite all efforts, electoral documentation remains scarce. Since no official data for the elections in Kiribati were available, all figures are drawn from secondary sources. For the 1978, 1982, and 1983 parliamentary elections figures were taken from International IDEA (1997), figures for the 1987 election were taken from Van Trease (1993) and for the 1991 election from both, International IDEA and Van Trease. For the 1994 and 1998 parliamentary elections no data were available at all. The results of the 1978 Chief Minister election were taken from Mcdonald (1983), figures for the 1982, 1983, 1987, and 1991 presidential elections are drawn from Van Trease (1993) and various numbers of the Far East and Australasia, for the 1994 presidential election from Skully (1996), and for the 1998 elections from Pacific Islands Report Online (http://166.122.164.43/archive/1998/November/11-30-01.htm).


a

Year


1978

17/03a

1982

04/05

1983

17/02

1987

12/05

1991

03/07

1994

30/09

1998

27/11

01/02 06/02 26/03 01/04 12/01 19/01 12/03 19/03 08/05 16/05 24/07 31/07 23/09 30/09


Referendums

(1st) (2nd) (1st) (2nd) (1st) (2nd) (1st) (2nd) (1st) (2nd) (1st) (2nd) (1st) (2nd)

Elections to Chief Minister. After independence in 1979 the Chief Minister became President.

Coups d'état

680

MARSHALL ISLANDS


1978 1978 1982 1982 1983 1983 1987 1987 1991 1991 1994 1994 1998 1998 a b c

Type of electiona

Pa ChM Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr Pa Pr

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

56,200 56,200 60,300 60,300 60,300 60,300 66,300 66,300 72,300 72,300 78,600 78,600 84,000 84,000

Total number 18,523 — 22,816 — 25,011 — 25,665 — 29,251 — — — — —

Total number 15,004 15,793c 18,826

% pop. 33.0 — 37.8 — 41.5 — 38.7 — 40.5 — — — — —

19,995 17,328c — 21,547c 19,285 21,860c — 21,183c — 25,432c

% reg. voters 81.0 73.5 82.5 82.4 79.9 69.3 — 78.3 65.9 73.7 — — — —

% pop. 26.7 28.1 31.2 — 33.2 28.7 — 32.5 26.7 30.2 — 27.0 — 30.3

ChM = Chief Minister; Pa = Parliament, Pr = President. Population data are estimates. Source: Statesman's Yearbook, Encyclopedia Britannica. Number of valid votes.

2.3 Abbreviations CDP NPP

Mwaneaaban te Mauri Party (Christian Democratic Party) Boutokanto Koaua Party (National Progressive Party)

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1982–1998 Party / Alliance CDP NPP

Years 1994–1998 1994–1998

Elections contested Presidential 0 0

Parliamentary 2 2

2.5 / 2.6 Referendums/ Elections for Constitutional Assembly Referendums and Elections for Constitutional Assembly have not been held.

681

KIRIBATI

2.7 Parliamentary Elections Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes a b c d

1978 Total number 18,523 15,004a 289c 14,715d

% – 81.0 1.9 98.1

1982 Total number 22,816 18,826b — —

% – 82.5 — —

No election took place in unopposed constituencies of Beru and Arorae. No election took place in unopposed constituency of Banaba. Figure taken from van Trease (1993). Figure calculated by the author.

For the elections between 1983 and 1998 no detailed data were available. Figures for registered voters and votes cast are reported in table 2.2.

2.8 Composition of Parliament No formal political parties exist in Kiribati. All candidates run as independents. Yet, Members of Parliament tend to gather in factions, giving themselves party labels. The degree of stability and continuity reached by these factions in recent years leads us to document them in the following table. Between 1978 and 1991 all the 35 (1978), 36 (1982 and 1983) and 39 seats (1987, 1991) were held by Independents. Year

CDP NPP Independents

1991 Seats 39 — — 39

% 100.0 — — 100.0

1994 Seats 39 13 7 19

% 100.0 33.3 17.5 47.5

1998 Seats 40 14 11 15

% 100.0 35.0 27.5 37.5

682

MARSHALL ISLANDS

2.9 Presidential Elections 1978 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Ieremia Tabai Roniti Teiwaki Babera Kirata Taomati Iuta a

Total number — — — 15,793 8,782 3,897 1,844 1,270

% – 73.5a — — 55.6 24.7 11.7 8.0

1982 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Ieremia Tabai Teatao Teannaki Etera Teangana Naboua Ratieta

Total number — — — 18,826 — — — —

% – 82.4 — — 48.7 28.5 12.3 10.5

1983 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Ieremia Tabai Harry Tong Teatao Teannaki Tewareka Tentoa

Total number — — — 17,328 8,597 4,799 2,814 1,118

% – 69.3 — — 49.6 27.7 16.2 6.5

1987 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Ieremia Tabai Teburoro Tito Teatao Teannaki

Total number — — — 21,547 10,800 9,197 1,550

% – 78.3 — — 50.1 42.7 7.2

1991 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Teatao Teannaki Roniti Teiwaki Beniamina Tinga Boanareke Boanareke

Total number — — — 21,860 10,123 9,162 1,581 994

% — 73.7 — — 46.3 41.9 7.2 4.5

Figure was taken from Van Trease (1993).

683

KIRIBATI

1994 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Teburoro Tito Tewareka Tentoa Roniti Teiwaki Peter Taberannang Timeon

Total number — — — 21,183 10,834 3,886 3,383 3,080

% — — — — 51.1 18.3 16.0 14.5

1998 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Teburoro Tito Harry Tong Amberoti Nikora

Total number — — — 25,432 13,309 11,658 465

% — — — — 52.3 45.8 1.8


a

Head of Statea Ieremia Tabai

Years 1979–1991

Teatao Teannaki

1991–1994

Teburoro Tito

1994–

The Head of State is also the Head of Government.

Remarks Directly elected Chief Minister under British rule in 1978. Led Kiribati to independence and became the Republic's first President. Re-elected three times as President in 1982, 1983 and 1987. Assumed office on 03/06/1991. Former vice-president. Ousted after vote of no-confidence by the Parliament on 24/05/1994. Assumed office on 01/10/1994. Former opposition leader. Re-elected President in 1998.

684

MARSHALL ISLANDS

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources ‘The Constitution of Kiribati (1979)’, in Pacific Constitutions, Suva: University of South Pacific, ISAS (1983); web version: http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/paclawmat/Kiribati_legislation/Kiribati_Constitution.html

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Alaima, T. et al. (1979). Kiribati: Aspects of History. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies/ University of the South Pacific. Anckar, D., and Anckar, C. (2000). ‘Democracies Without Parties’. Comparative Political Studies, 33/2: 225–247. Brechtefeld, N. (1993). ‘The Electoral System’, in H. Van Trease (ed.), Atoll Politics: The Republic of Kiribati. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies/ University of the South Pacific, 42–47. Ghai, Y. (ed.) (1988). Law, Government and Politics in the Pacific Island States. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies/ University of the South Pacific. —— and Cottrell, J. (1990). Heads of State in the Pacific: A Legal and Constitutional Analysis. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies/ University of the South Pacific. International IDEA (1997). Voter Turnout from 1945 to 1997: A Global Report on Political Participation. Stockholm: International IDEA. Inter-Parliamentary Union (1983). ‘Kiribati’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections and Development 17 (July 1982–June 1983). Geneva: IPU, 65–66. —— (1987). ‘Kiribati’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections 21 (July 1986–June 1987). Geneva: IPU, 103–104. Macdonald, B. (1982). Cinderellas of the Empire: Towards a History of Kiribati and Tuvalu. Canberra: Australian National University Press. —— (1983). ‘Elections in Kiribati’. Political Science, 35/1: 58–70. Meller, N. (1990). ‘The Micronesian Executive: The Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands’. Pacific Studies, 14/1: 55–72. Murray, D. J. (1982). ‘Constitution-Making in Tuvalu and Kiribati’, in P. Sack (ed.), Pacific Constitutions. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 125–134. Skully, M. (1997). ‘Political Review of Kiribati’. Contemporary Pacific, 9/1: 208–210.

KIRIBATI

685

Teiwaki, R. (1980). ‘Kiribati: Nation of Water’, in R. Crocombe, and A. Ali (eds.), Politics in Micronesia. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies/ University of the South Pacific, 1–28. Van Trease, H. (1992). ‘The 1991 Elections in Kiribati’. Journal of Pacific History, 27/3: 66–73. —— (ed.) (1993). Atoll Politics: The Republic of Kiribati. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies/ University of the South Pacific.


Marshall Islands by Philip Stöver6

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview The Marshall Islands, comprising about 30 atolls and 1,200 islets, is a small Republic located in the central Pacific, more than 2,000 miles Southwest of Hawaii. Having been a part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under US administration from 1947 and then associated to the United States by the Compact of Free Association, the Marshall Islands became officially independent on 22 December 1990. While general and free elections have taken place regularly since 1979, Marshallese politics are characterized by the permanence of forms of traditional leadership within a Western democracy. The colonial history of the Marshall Islands began in the late 19th century. Claimed by Spain since 1874, the islands became a German protectorate in 1885. Following World War I the League of Nations mandated Micronesia, including the Marshall Islands, to Japan. After World War II, in 1947, the Marshall Islands became one of six districts of the Trust Territory and were since then governed by a High Commissioner appointed by the US President. The territory was largely used as a military basis, from which to protect American interests in the Far East. Between 1946 and 1958, the United States conducted numerous nuclear tests, which directly affected the northern atolls of the Marshall Islands including Bikini. During this period the laws of the Trust Territory and the orders of the US Secretary of the Interior were prior to local legislation. Nevertheless, advisory organs were established by executive orders from the United States Secretary of the Interior in the districts of the Trust Territory. As the first Territory-wide organ, the Congress of Micronesia was established in 1965 that closely followed the model of the United States with a Senate and a House of Representatives. The

6

The author would like to thank Frederick deBrum, Secretary of Internal Affairs, Majuro/Marshall Islands for providing information for this article.

688

NAURU

Congress carried out legislative responsibilities for the whole of Micronesia until 1975, when the districts of the Northern Mariana Islands voted in a plebiscite for a commonwealth status with the United States. Three years later a US Secretarial Order provided that the legislative powers of the Trust Territory would be vested in the relevant district legislatures. In the case of the Marshall Islands the district legislature was the Congress of the Marshall Islands, established by the Trust Territory administration in 1958 as an advisory council and later renamed the Nitijela. In response to increasing demands for local autonomy, negotiations over a new status began in 1969. After the setting up of a Political Status Commission in 1973 that was largely composed of members of the Congress of the Marshall Islands and Marshallese delegates to the Congress of Micronesia, an important step toward independence was the general election of a Constitutional Convention in August 1977 to draft a Constitution. After the alternative option to become a part of the Federated States of Micronesia had been rejected by a referendum in July 1978, the Marshall Islands accepted its own draft Constitution that was approved in a referendum in March 1979 and became effective on 1 May. In another referendum the people of the Marshall Islands voted in September 1983 for the Compact of Free Association with the United States coming into effect in 1986. On the basis of this compact, the Republic had full internal self-government and substantial authority in foreign affairs, while the United States remained fully responsible for its defense, providing long-term economic assistance and compensation for nuclear-tests to the Islands' territory. On 22 December 1990 the United Nations finally dissolved the US Trusteeship, and the Marshall Islands were internationally recognized as fully independent state. Despite its history as a dependency of the United States, the Constitution of 1979 has established a essentially parliamentary system of government with a President elected by the unicameral National Assembly (Nitijela) from among its members. Executive power is vested in a cabinet. Unlike in presidential systems, he/she can be ousted by a no-confidence motion and is thus politically responsible to Parliament. If no new President is elected after two successful no-confidence motions, the outgoing President has the constitutional right to dissolve Parliament. Members of the cabinet are selected by the President from among the Nitijela. On 1 May 1979, Amata Kabua—he was among the highest traditional chiefs and had already served in the Congress of Micronesia—was elected first President.

MARSHALL ISLANDS

689

The Nitijela is advised by the Council of Iroij, which is composed of twelve traditional leaders and has the power to request consideration of any bill that affects traditional practices or land rights. Both the Council of Iroij and the municipal councils stand for the permanence of traditional political structures which are closely related to families and landed property. Rather than ideological patterns, political cleavages in the Marshall Islands express traditional rivalries and alliances, or they are regional, concerning to a high extent the allocation of aid received from the United States. This traditionalism has hindered political parties to play a significant role in national electoral politics. Yet, in 1991 opposition forces joined in the Ralik Ratak Democratic Party in order to challenge the domination of the so-called Government Party, but both groupings were occasional alliances. These parties were established in order to oppose President Kabua or for the purpose of stabilizing the parliamentary base of his government, but they lacked a party program and institutionalization. Since December 1996, when President and paramount chief (iroijlaplap) Amata Kabua died, the political process became more dynamic, a fact that can be shown in two instances. Growing public awareness and the demand for participation resulted for the first time in setting a public issue on the political agenda, when a citizen campaign led to a Nitijela vote forbidding gambling. Though in another way, this challenge of traditional leadership was later reflected in the results of the 1999 national elections: four of six cabinet ministers of the Government Party were unseated by the victory of the previous opposition politicians—now running under the label of United Democratic Party (UDP)—who won a large majority of seats. Formed after the failure of the countries' first vote of no confidence by a single vote in October 1998, the UDP campaigned on an anti-corruption platform. In January 2000 the former Nitijela Speaker Kessai Note was elected President.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Elections have been held since the establishment of the first advisory Congress of the Marshall Islands under the Trust Territory administration in 1949. Consisting of a House of Iroij (traditional chiefs) and a chamber of elected representatives of localities, the Congress was transformed into a unicameral legislature in 1958. Direct Elections with universal and secret suffrage were held for sixteen seats out of twenty-four, eight seats being reserved for traditional leaders. In 1965 a

690

NAURU

bicameral legislature was introduced. There were two Senators for each Trust Territory district to be elected for fouryear terms. Representatives were elected for two-year terms and their numbers were based on population in similar fashion to the US Congress. Seven elections were held to this Congress. In consequence, Marshallese voters were well familiarized with the principles of universal and equal suffrage when these were finally codified in the Independence Constitution of 1979 and from the same year on applied in general legislative elections. In August 1977, elections to a Constitutional Convention took place, with 33 delegates (out of 48) being elected from 24 delegate districts comprising the whole of the Marshall Islands. The rest consisted of members of the Marshallese delegation to the Congress of Micronesia, members of the Nitijela and traditional leaders. The constitutional draft was approved by the people on 1 March 1979 by referendum, after the Micronesian Constitution had been rejected in a first referendum in July 1978. Since their first application in the national election of 1979, the basic principles of suffrage, candidacy, and electoral system, as detailed below in 1.3, have principally remained the same.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 1979. Electoral Law of 31 December 1980. Elections and Referenda Act, 1980. Elections and Referenda Regulations, 1993.

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. Every citizen who has reached the age of 18 and resides on the Marshall Islands is entitled to vote. Disqualified are persons being certified insane, serving a sentence of imprisonment, convicted for a felony or released on parole. Persons may vote either in the constituency where they reside or where they have land rights. Absentee voting is possible for electors who are on polling day in a district other then where they are registered. Registered voters may participate in elections by postal voting in case of illness, physical disability or if they reside or stay outside the Republic on polling day (external vote). Voting is not compulsory.

Elected National Institutions: The Parliament called National Assembly (Nitijela) consists of a single chamber of 33 deputies who are directly

MARSHALL ISLANDS

691

elected for a regular term of four years. The Constitution provides for the automatic dissolution of the legislature on 30 September in the fourth year after its election. Casual vacancies are filled through by-elections. The President of the Republic is elected by the Nitijela at its first meeting after each general election, and if not ousted in a no-confidence vote, stays in office until the end of the legislature. There is no limit on the number of terms to be served by the President.

Nomination of Candidates - Presidential Elections: Only members of the National Assembly may be elected. No further requirements are applied.

- Parliamentary Elections: Every qualified voter, who has attained the age of 21 years and is nominated by 25 registered voters in the constituency for which he/she wishes to stand, is qualified to be a candidate. Nominees are allowed to stand in a district in which they do not reside. Public offices being incompatible with a mandate, elected employees of the public service must resign their employment.

Electoral System - Presidential Elections: The President is elected by secret ballot and a plurality system of the total membership of the Parliament.

- Parliamentary Elections: Plurality system in 19 single-member and five multi-member constituencies (three two-member, one three-member, one five-member constituency). Each elector has as many votes as seats to be filled in the relevant constituency. The number or delimitation of constituencies may be changed by a Nitijela act.

Organizational Context of Elections: The Secretary of Internal Affairs is responsible for the electoral administration. Relevant personnel include the Secretary of Internal Affairs, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Boards of Elections, the Counting and Tabulation Committees and certifying officers. The Chief Electoral Officer, who shall be a member of the public service, is responsible for organization, conduct and supervision of elections and for the compilation and maintenance of an Electoral Register. He/She appoints the members of the Boards of Elections, which, one in each constituency, ensure supervision and control of the respective polling place. The Counting and Tabulation Committees, which shall count and tally votes, are appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer as well, such as further persons to render temporary or casual assistance.

692

NAURU

In case of tight election results or alleged errors in vote counting, a candidate may file a petition for a re-count with the Chief Electoral Officer. If the latter rejects the petition, the candidate may appeal to the High Court whose decision is final.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics For most parliamentary elections, no official statistics have been available. The data on the 1999 elections were obtained from the Secretary of Internal Affairs of the Marshall Islands. For the 1975 and 1978 referendums figures were taken from Meller (1985). The results of the 1979 United Nations-observed constitutional referendum are drawn from the relevant UN report, while the results of the 1983 Compact of Free Association referendum are quoted according to Ranney (1984).

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups D'état Year 1975 1977 1978 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1997 1999 a



Referendums 08/07

xx/xx xx/05 xx/xx xx/xx xx/xx xx/xx 13/01 03/01

xx/xx 21/11 xx/xx xx/xx xx/11 22/11

The President has been elected by Parliament.

12/07 01/03 07/09

Coups d'état

693

MARSHALL ISLANDS


1975 1978 1979 1983 1984 1988 1992 1995 1999 a b c d

Type of electiona

Ref Ref Ref Ref Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

26,000 29,000 31,000 34,000 35,000 43,380 47,000 50,000 50,840

Total number 9,203 — 14,385 — — — — — 24,023

Total number 3,237 10,105c 8,880c 10,724c — — — — —

% pop. 35.4 — 46.4 — — — — — 47.3

% reg. voters 35.2 — 61.7 — — — — — 80.0d

% pop. 12.5 34.8 28.6 31.5 — — — — —

Pa = Parliament; Ref = Referendum. For elections to Constitutional Assembly no data were available. Censuses: 1988 and 1999. The other population data are estimates on the basis of the Statesman's Yearbook. Number of valid votes. Estimated figure given by the Secretary of Internal Affairs to the author.

2.3 / 2.4 Abbreviations/electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances There are no formal political parties in the Marshall Islands. Until the first victory of a majority of opposition candidates in 1999—they ran under the label of United Democratic Party—parliamentarians of the government majority united in an alliance called Government Party. Lacking party programs and permanent organization, these alliances were established in order to hold the government or opposition faction together.

2.5 Referendums Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid/blank ballots Valid votes Yes No a

b c d

1975a Total Number % 9,203 –

Total number %

Total number %

16.3

Prop. IIId 485

15.0

83.7 15.1 84.9

2,752 826 1,926

85.0 30.0 70.0

3,237 Prop. Ib 943

35.2 29.1

Prop. IIc 528

2,294 119 2,175

70.9 5.2 94.8

2,709 409 2,300

General referendum on future status of the Marshall Islands. The referendum was held before the Constitutional Convention of 1975. Voting was on a single ballot with six options offered to the electorate. Nevertheless, voting instructions failed to direct whether more than one affirmative choice was to be made. Calculation of figures for invalid/blank ballots were made by the author. ‘Independence’. ‘Commonwealth’. ‘Free Association’.

694 Year

Invalid/blank ballots Valid votes Yes No a b c

NAURU

1975 (continued) Total number % Prop. IVa 736 22.7

Total number % Prop. Vb 233 7.2

Total number % Prop. VIc 1,097 33.9

2,501 199 2,302

3,004 2,317 687

2,140 129 2,011


Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No b c

d

66.1 6.0 94.0

1978a Total number — — — 10,105 3,888 6,217

% – — — — — —

1979b Total number 14,385 — — 8,880 5,670 3,210

% – — — 61.7 63.8 36.1

Total number

%

Question IIc —d 3,142 474 2,668

15.1 84.9

Rejection of the Micronesian Constitution. Approval of the Marshall Islands Constitution.

Year

a

92.8 77.1 22.9

‘Statehood’. ‘Present Status’. ‘Other Status’.

Year

a

77.3 8.0 92.0

1983a Total number — — Question Ib — 10,724 6,215 4,509

% – — — — 58.0 42.0

Approval of the Compact of Free Association. Question I asked the voters to approve (Yes) or disapprove (No) the Compact of Free Association. Question II asked voters their preference regarding a future political status to be negotiated between Micronesia and the United States in the event that the Compact of Free Association was rejected by the electorate. The choices available to the voters were ‘Independence’ (here Yes-votes) or ‘A relationship with the US other than Free Association’ (here No-votes). Of the total of invalid votes, 7,602 were blank ballots. For the second question the sum of Yes-votes, No-votes, and blank votes (10,744) does not coincide with the figure given by the source (10,724).

MARSHALL ISLANDS

695

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly Direct elections of a Constitutional Convention were held in 1977. Out of forty-eight delegates thirty-three were elected. The remaining delegates were members of the Marshall Islands delegation to the Congress of Micronesia, members of the Nitijela and traditional leaders (iroij). Results of the election were not available.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections Elections to the unicameral Parliament (Nitijela) have regularly taken place since 1979. There were only formally independent candidates. Data on registered voters and votes cast have been available only for the 1999 elections (see 2.2).

2.8 Composition of Parliament Since there are no political parties in the Marshall Islands, parliamentary decision-making is structured by the occasional clustering of political groupings that are pro-government or oppositional, and tied by traditional kinship and friendship.

2.9 Presidential Elections The President is elected by the Parliament from among its members.


a

Head of Statea Amata Kabua

Years 1979–1996

Kunio Lemari

1996–1997

Imata Kabua Kessai H. Note

1997–2000 2000–

The Head of State is also Head of Government.

Remarks First President of the Republic, elected by Parliament (Nitijela) on 01/05/1979. Re-elected in 1983, 1987, 1991, and 1995. Died on 19/ 12/1996. Former member of Kabua's cabinet, selected by the Nitijela to serve as acting President from 19/12/1996 to 19/01/1997. Elected on 14/01/1997. Elected on 03/01/2000.

696

NAURU

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Republic of the Marshall Islands (1980). Elections and Referenda Act 1980. Republic of the Marshall Islands (1991). Constitution of the Marshall Islands. Suva: University of the South Pacific. Republic of the Marshall Islands, Electoral Administration (1993). Elections and Referenda Regulations 1993. Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Anckar, D., and Anckar, C. (2000). ‘Democracies without Parties’. Comparative Political Studies, 33/2: 225–244. Boneparth, E. (1995). ‘Terminating Trusteeship for the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands: Independence and Self-Sufficiency in the Post-Cold War Pacific’. Pacific Studies, 18/2: 61–78. Ghai, Y. (ed.) (1988). Law, Government and Politics in the Pacific Island States. Suva: IPS/USP. —— and Cottrell, J. (1990). Heads of State in the Pacific: A Legal and Constitutional Analysis. Suva: IPS/USP. Johnson, G. (2000). ‘Big Changes After Marshalls National Election’. Pacific Islands Monthly, January: 10–11. Meller, N. (1985). Constitutionalism in Micronesia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. —— (1990). ‘The Micronesian Executive: The Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands’. Pacific Studies, 14/1: 55–73. Ntumy, M. A. (ed.) (1993). South Pacific Islands Legal Systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Ranney, A. (1984). ‘The Micronesian Plebiscites of 1983’. Electoral Studies, 3/2: 195–200. Sack, P. (ed.) (1982). Pacific Constitutions. Canberra: Australian National University. United Nations, Trusteeship Council (1979). Report of the United Nations Visiting Mission to Observe the Referendum in the Marshall Islands, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. New York: United Nations. United States Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs (1994). Background Notes: Marshall Islands. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Nauru by Benjamin Reilly and Maria Gratschew7

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview The Republic of Nauru is one of the world's smallest and most obscure democracies. Located in the Central Pacific Ocean, Nauru is a low-lying coastal island covering only 21 square kilometers, with a total population of 9,919 people (1992 census), of predominantly Polynesian origin. Competitive elections to a 18-member Parliament have been regularly held since its independence in 1968. Nauru has an unusual colonial history, being first annexed by Germany in 1888, before being captured by Australian forces during the First World War in 1914. A League of Nations mandate granted in 1920 named Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom as co-trustees. In 1947, following its attack by Japanese forces in the Second World War, the island was placed under United Nations Trusteeship, with Australia as the administering power (on behalf of the two other co-trustees). Following progressive localization of the legislature, Nauru became self-governing in January 1966. After an autochthonous independence Constitution had been prepared by a two-year Constitutional Convention, Nauru became an independent state on 31 January 1968. Nauru represents an unusual subtype of the Westminster system, with a President—who is elected by and responsible to the unicameral Parliament—being both Head of Government and Head of State. In this grafting of the symbolic appeals of presidentialism onto what is essentially a Westminster system, Nauru's constitution anticipated similar moves in other countries (e.g. South Africa) by several decades. However, in recent years, there has been increasing discussion about changing the election of the President to a popular vote, mainly as a remedy to the apparently chronic instability of Nauru's governments, which change

7

Many thanks to Nauru's Returning Officer and Secretary of State, Mathew Batsiua.

698

NEW ZEALAND

frequently on the floor of Parliament due to shifting coalitions of interest amongst parliamentarians. This instability has been particularly marked in recent years compared to the earlier decades. For the first two decades following independence, Nauru's political system was dominated by Hammer DeRoburt, this island's traditional tribal chief, who served intermittently as President from independence until 1989. His leadership was first seriously challenged in 1976, when Bernard Dowiyogo was elected President by a group of younger parliamentarians. These contested the following parliamentary elections in 1977 under the label Nauru Party and won a clear majority of seats; but soon the re-elected President Dowiyogo lost the support of his allies. Following the re-election of DeRoburt as President, the Nauru Party disappeared. Apart from the temporary existence of the Nauru Party, there have not been any formal parties in Nauru, and all candidates have stood effectively as independents. From time to time some loose alliances have developed within the Parliament, often on the basis of extended family ties. As well as at election time, changes of government between elections, via shifting parliamentary coalitions, have been common. By our count there have been 16 changes of government between 1968 and 2000, most of which took place on the floor of parliament due to successful noconfidence motions. In practice, personal issues have a strong impact on national politics. For the president to be able to get a majority of the votes within the Parliament he needs to please different factions from one day to another. It is difficult for an outsider to predict what the next fusion will look like. There are questions about the long-term viability of Nauru as a country. The island's phosphate reserves, which ensured its economic viability for many years, have become progressively exhausted as they have been extracted and exported over the course of the twentieth century. The phosphate reserves did, however, ensure that Nauruans enjoyed, at one stage, one of the highest per-capita gross domestic products of any country in the world. Despite various proposals to move the island's population to another location in anticipation of the exhaustion of their phosphate supplies, and periodic financial and environmental crises, Nauru has remained a functioning state and, in September 1999, became a full member of the United Nations and the Commonwealth of Nations.

NAURU

699

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Universal suffrage was first introduced under Australian trusteeship in 1951. Nauru's formal electoral provisions appear to date from 1965, when an electoral ordinance, based on the Australian law of the time, came into effect. This was transformed into an electoral act following the assumption of independence in 1968. Under this act, which is also based largely on the corresponding Australian legislation, Nauru inherited a preferential electoral system, the alternative vote. Much of the Nauruan electoral law replicates Australian practice: voting is compulsory, for example. To be able to stand as a candidate, one must fulfill the general requirements for voting, and must have no history of criminal convictions. Electors vote for individuals, not parties, numbering the candidates standing in the order of their preference. In this regard, and in terms of most of the provisions outlined in the original legislation, the system resembles a standard alternative vote system, as used in Australia. Indeed, the alternative vote was the system used at Nauru's pre-independence elections and remains the system used at by-elections when only one member is to be elected. However, in 1971 Nauru changed its electoral procedures to effectively invent a modified form of the Borda count, and hence put in place an electoral system which is unique in the world today (for details on the actual system see 1.3).

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: The Constitution of Nauru; The Electoral Act 1965–1992.

Suffrage: Universal suffrage for Nauruan citizens who have attained the age of 20 years. Registration is automatic and compulsory, based on the civil register. Once registered, voting is compulsory, with a fine imposed in cases where the non-voter cannot justify his/ her abstention. There is no external or postal voting in Nauru.

Elected National Institutions: The unicameral Parliament comprises 18 members elected for a three-year term from eight multi-member constituencies. Vacancies arising between general elections are filled through by-elections.

700

NEW ZEALAND

Nomination of Candidates - Presidential Elections: The President is elected by Parliament from its membership. No specific nomination provisions are applied.

- Parliamentary Elections: Any eligible elector may be nominated to stand for election, with the support of two other registered electors. The nomination must be submitted at least 14 days prior to election day.

Electoral System - Presidential Elections: Plurality system.

- Parliamentary Elections: Preferential voting in 8 multi-member constituencies (7 two-member and 1 four-member). Electors vote for candidates, not parties. The instructions on a Nauruan ballot paper direct electors to ‘mark your vote on this ballotpaper by placing the numbers “1” and “2” where there are two candidates, “1”, “2” and “3” where there are three candidates, and so on’. When votes are counted, each preference marked on the ballot paper is assigned a value. A first preference is worth ‘1’, a second preference is one half a vote, a third preference one-third of a vote, and so on. Following this tally, the total preference scores for each candidate are calculated, and the candidate(s) with the highest score(s) wins the seat. For example, a candidate who gained 20 first preferences, 10 second preferences, no third preferences and five fourth preferences would gain a total 26.25 votes: (20 x 1) + (10 x 0.5) + (5 x 0.25). There is no majority threshold, rather in each district the candidate(s) with the highest score(s) win the seat, depending on how many members are to be elected. This system evidences some interesting and unusual theoretical properties. It bears a strong relationship to the method of election proposed by the French mathematician Charles de Borda in the eighteenth century as an optimum decisionmaking procedure for assemblies and committees. The Nauruan system also addresses two of the common critiques of standard preferential systems: the complexity of the vote transfer and elimination process, and the fact that lowerorder preferences are accorded the same weight as higher-order ones. The ‘weighted’ nature of preference votes under the Nauruan system, by which each successive preference vote carries less value than its predecessor, serves to counteract this problem while still encouraging voters to mark (and candidates to campaign for) lower-order preference votes (see Reilly 2001).

Organizational Context of Elections: Elections are conducted under the responsibility of a Returning Officer located in the Chief Secretary's Department. A team of around 30 people are responsible for the monitoring

701

NAURU

of the elections at the polling stations. No technology is used and almost all the work at the polling stations and at the election division is conducted manually.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The data presented below has been gathered from a number of sources, including the election authorities in Nauru. Although this is the best data source available, it should not be regarded as completely reliable. In addition, because not all electoral data between 1968 and 1987 was available, some of the figures below are estimates. The most recent census in Nauru took place in 1992, and most of our population figures are thus estimates. There are several thousand overseas workers in Nauru who are not citizens and thus not entitled to vote, which partly explains the discrepancy between population and voter registration rates.

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums and Coups D'etat Year 1971 1973 1976 1977 1980 1983 1987 1989 1992 1995 1997 2000

Presidential elec- Parliamentary tions elections xx/xx xx/xx 18/12 11/12 12/06 12/03 01/24 17/08 11/15 11/18 02/08 04/08

Elections for Constituent Assembly

Referendums

Coups d'état

702

NEW ZEALAND


1971 1973 1976 1977 1980 1983 1987 1989 1992 1995 1997 2000 a b

Type of electiona

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

8,000 9,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Total number — — — — — — 2,443 2,659 2,576 2,952 3,418 3,829

Total number 880 1,148 1,348 1,599 1,587 — 2,264 2,358 — 2,358 3,139 3,400

% pop. — — — — — — 27.1 26.6 25.8 29.5 34.2 38.3

% reg. voters — — — — — — 92.7 88.7 — 79.9 91.8 88.8

% pop. 11.0 12.8 19.3 22.8 22.7 — 25.2 23.6 — 23.6 31.4 34.0

Pa = Parliament. Population data are based on estimates by the Government of Nauru, the CIA World Factbook and the Voter Turnout website at International IDEA (www.idea.int/turnout).

2.3 / 2.4 Abbreviations/ Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances There are no political parties in Nauru.

2.5 Referendums There have been no referendums.

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly With the exception of the pre-independence Constitutional Convention, for which we have been unable to obtain figures, elections for a Constitutional Assembly have not been held.

703

NAURU

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1971–2000 Data for valid and invalid votes have not been available. Number of registered voters and votes cast are reported in table 2.2.

2.8 Composition of Parliament Since there are no parties, the political composition of the 18-member Parliament is based predominantly around independent candidates. Alliances in Parliament are usually loose and are mainly based on personal or family relationships.

2.9 Presidential Elections There are no direct presidential elections. The President is elected by Parliament.


a

Head of Statea Hammer DeRoburt

Years 1968–1976

Bernard Dowiyogo

1976–1978

Lagumont Harris Hammer DeRoburt

1978 1978–1986

Kennan R. Adeang Hammer DeRoburt

1986 1987–1989

Kenes Aroi

1989

Bernard Dowiyogo Lagumont Harris Bernard Dowiyogo Kennan R. Adeang Reubun Kun Kinza Clodumar

1989–1995 1995–1996 1996 1996 1996–1997 1997–1998

Bernard Dowiyogo

1998–1999

René Harris Bernard Dowiyogo

1999–2000 2000–

Head of State and Head of Government are identical.

Remarks Chief of Nauru since 1956. Became the first elected President of the independent State. Reelected in 1971 and 1976. Was elected President by the newly convened Parliament on 22/12/1976. Re-elected in 1977, resigned in January 1978. Re-elected in 1978, but resigned immediately. Elected in 1978 but resigned after three weeks. Became President in 1978. Re-elected in 1980 and 1983. Elected in 1986. Elected in 1987. Was ousted by a vote of noconfidence on 17/08/1989. Chairman of the Nauru Phosphate Corporation and former Minister of Finance. Elected President in August 1989. Resigned in 1989 after four months due to illness. Became President in 1989. Re-elected in 1992. Elected in 1995. Elected in 1996. Resigned after a vote of no-confidence in 1996. Elected in 1996. Elected in 1997. Resigned after a vote of noconfidence in 1998. Elected in 1998. Ousted by a vote of noconfidence in April 1999. Elected in 1999. Originally René Harris was reelected by the newly convened Parliament in April 2000. However, following the resignation of the Parliamentary Speaker, Harris left office as well. Thereafter Dowiyogo was elected President once more.

704

NEW ZEALAND

3. Bibliography The Constitution of Nauru. Nauru: Government Printer, 1968. The Electoral Act 1965–1992. Nauru: Government Printer, 1992. Crocombe, R., and Giese, C. (1988). ‘Nauru: The Politics of Phosphate’, in A. Ali and R. Crocombe (eds.), Micronesian Politics. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific. Mehra, N. N. (1990). Practice and Procedure of the Parliament of Nauru. Nauru: Parliament of Nauru. Meller, N., and Fry, G. (1985). ‘Nauru’, in H. Fukui (ed.), Political Parties of Asia and the Pacific. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Reilly, B. (2001). The Borda Count in the Real World: the Electoral System in the Republic of Nauru. Christchurch: Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies Working Paper, University of Canterbury. Viviani, N. (1970). Nauru, Phosphate and Political Progress. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

New Zealand by Nigel S. Roberts

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview New Zealand was the last great landmass in the world to be permanently settled. Polynesian explorers and migrants did not reach the islands now known as New Zealand until a mere 800 years or so ago. Prior to the arrival of these Polynesians—now known as Maori—the country was the exclusive domain of birds, insects, reptiles, and just two types of mammals (both were bat species). Nevertheless, despite the country's youthfulness, New Zealand has often been the center of attention for students of elections, politics, and voting systems. It is not only in biogeography that the statement can be made, ‘Explain New Zealand and the world falls into place’. New Zealand is a prime example of a parliamentary democracy. Since its inception as a colony, the country has held regular, free elections that have made and unmade governments. Despite being regarded as ‘more British than Britain’ and as ‘the purest example of the Westminster model of government’, New Zealand has often attracted world-wide attention for constitutional and electoral reforms that have included the creation in 1867 of separate electoral districts for Maori voters, granting female suffrage in 1893, the abolition in 1950 of the upper house of its Parliament, and the adoption in the 1990s of proportional representation. The European explorer-navigators Abel Tasman and James Cook sailed to the country in 1642 and 1769 respectively. After Cook's third voyage in 1777, New Zealand was visited by an increasing number of sealers, whalers and missionaries. Partly to fend off French interest in the country, representatives of the British Crown and Maori tribes signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, ceding ‘to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of sovereignty’ and extending to ‘the natives of New Zealand [. . . ] all the rights and privileges of British subjects.’

706

PALAU

The British Parliament passed the New Zealand Constitution Act in 1852, establishing an elected House of Representatives, an appointed upper house (i.e., the Legislative Council), with a Premier as Head of Government (the term Prime Minister was adopted in 1906). The Queen of the United Kingdom remained Head of State, represented by the Governor of New Zealand until 1917 and by the Governor-General after that. The colony was effectively selfgoverning. Because New Zealand never had to struggle for its independence from Britain, the exact date of independence is difficult to determine. The country became a Dominion in 1907 but that was, in effect, a psychological rather than a practical change. Virtually nothing was altered, because the term Dominion was used primarily to distinguish self-governing sections of the British Empire from colonies. Although the Statute of Westminster was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament in 1931 to confirm that the de facto independence of Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and South Africa had judicial effect, the Statute was regarded as reasonably irrelevant in New Zealand and was not even adopted until 1947. But as the country is a former British colony, it is not surprising to find that New Zealand's constitutional framework superficially resembles that of Britain. It is a unitary—not a federal—state. Although the country's Parliament initially comprised two chambers, the upper house (Legislative Council) was abolished in 1950 and never replaced. (Legislation used to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. However, because members of the Legislative Council were simply appointed by the government, for decades the chamber was widely regarded as having little independence and even less relevance.) As in the United Kingdom, the political executive must be drawn from the legislature. Because there is no longer an upper house, this means that all Ministers of the Crown must be elected members of the House of Representatives. The executive must have the confidence of Parliament. There are no restrictions surrounding this requirement, and New Zealand exhibits all the characteristics of negative parliamentarism (for example, there are no requirements for anything such as constructive votes of confidence that operate in favour of incumbent governments in Germany). As early as the 1850s, elections were contested rigorously and democratically. Initially, however, politics centered on individuals. Support was garnered for or against particular men (and they were all men—the first woman was only elected to the House of Representatives in 1933). Ministries were formed and dissolved comparatively frequently. There were 25 different governments during the period from 1856 to 1891. Both William Fox and Harry Atkinson were Premiers of the colony on

NEW ZEALAND

707

four separate occasions. Prior to 1890, New Zealand's politics were those of faction and personality, not party, and as a result—in common with other authoritative sources—the Tables in the second section of this Chapter document general elections and the political scene in New Zealand from 1890 onwards. Indeed, even after the formation of the Liberal Party, opposition to the Ballance- and Seddon-led governments was slow to materialize into something other than groups of disgruntled MPs. The Reform Party did not formally contest elections until 1911, even though its first leader, William Massey, had established the Political Reform League eight years earlier. The domination of governments in New Zealand by the Liberal and then the Reform parties for forty years from 1891 to the early 1930s camouflaged growth in support for the Labour Party. Effectively, what happened in Britain also occurred in New Zealand: voting for Labour damaged the Liberal Party in particular. Not even a coalition between the remnants of the Liberal Party (which changed its name on several occasions) and the Reform Party could stem the tide, though, and Labour was swept to power for the first time in 1935. The following year the National Party was formally created by members of the former Reform and United parties, and for the next sixty years, New Zealand politics generally—and particularly its Parliament—were a classic example of two-party politics within a plurality electoral system. Four Labour governments (1935–1949, 1957–1960, 1972–1975, and 1984–1990) alternated in power with four National governments (1949–1957, 1960–1972, 1975–1984, and 1990–1996). The first challenge for the two major parties came from the Social Credit Political League. Having participated in elections since 1954, the party finally achieved more than 20% of the popular vote in the 1981 general election. In the 1980s and early 1990s, political fragmentation increased as new political parties emerged. Founded by former Labour and former National politicians, these parties continued the erosion of support for Labour and National. But parliamentary representation for the Social Credit Political League and other parties remained insignificant, resulting in a growing disparity between parties' shares of votes and seats. The establishment of a Royal Commission on the Electoral System by the Labour government in 1985 provided an initial spark for widespread discussions about changes to New Zealand's electoral system. The Royal Commission's 1986 report proposed a more representative electoral system, in order to cope with the plurality system's deficiencies as well

708

PALAU

as with the altered political realities of the country. The fact that both the fourth Labour government (1984–1990) and the fourth National government (1990–1996) broke many of the promises they had made to voters also led to widespread disenchantment with the major parties and with the electoral system under which Labour and National had prospered. Finally, referendums in 1992 and 1993 resulted in New Zealand adopting a system of proportional representation, and—as a result—the country has not had a single party majority government since September 1994. New Zealand has been governed continuously by coalitions since early 1996. It is often said that the world is getting smaller, but—by the end of the twentieth century—New Zealand was surprisingly far away from Britain and the Westminster system it had originally engendered.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Regular parliamentary elections have been held since 1853. Initially, only male property owners (with individual—not communal—title) were given the vote. However, four Maori seats were created in 1867 and Maori men were thus effectively accorded full suffrage rights twelve years before European males in New Zealand (to whom full voting rights were extended in 1879). The secret ballot became mandatory in all bar the four Maori constituencies in 1890, and three years later New Zealand became the first country in the world in which women won the vote. As a result, some commentators refer to New Zealand as the world's oldest democracy. It has had universal adult suffrage since 1893. The age of voting was 21 during the second half of the nineteenth century, as well as through to and including the 1966 election. It was lowered to 20 in 1969, and five years later reduced to 18 (in time for a November 1974 byelection and the 1975 general election). Since 1853, the only directly elected national institution in New Zealand has been the House of Representatives. It originally had a five-year term, but this was reduced to three years in 1879. After that, the only occasions when parliamentary terms have exceeded three years have been during the two world wars and the great depression (there were elections in 1914 then 1919; in 1931 then 1935; and in 1938 then 1943). The only time since 1890 when there has been a significantly early election was in 1951. (New Zealanders are so accustomed to Parliaments lasting for full threeyear terms that when Sir Robert Muldoon called an election for

NEW ZEALAND

709

July rather than November 1984—a mere four-and-a-half months early, this was in all seriousness referred to as a ‘snap election’.) In the period since 1890, the size of the House of Representatives has increased from 74 seats to 120. During the last decade of the nineteenth century, there were 70 European electoral districts (i.e., constituencies) and four Maori seats. At the start of the twentieth century, the number of members of the House of Representatives rose to 80 (76 European and four Maori constituencies). These numbers were not altered until 1969. At that stage an amendment to the 1956 Electoral Act fixed the number of European constituencies in the South Island at 25, but allowed the number of European seats in the North Island to grow, reflecting changes in the distribution of the population between the two islands. The number of Maori constituencies remained fixed at four. As a result, the House of Representatives grew from 84 (including the four Maori constituencies) in 1969 to a total of 99 seats in 1993. At the time of New Zealand's last first-past-the-post (plurality) general election, its Parliament consisted of 25 South Island General constituencies (the European seats were renamed General constituencies in the 1970s), 70 North Island General constituencies, and four Maori constituencies. New Zealand's switch to proportional representation saw the size of the House of Representatives raised to a total of 120 for the 1996 and 1999 general elections (for details see below 1.3). Initially only qualified electors—they were only men—could stand for Parliament. The creation of the four Maori constituencies in 1867 together with the granting of full suffrage rights for adult Maori males then meant that all Maori men were eligible to be candidates. Despite the fact that females won the right to vote in 1893, it is important to note that women were ineligible to stand as candidates for the House of Representatives until 1919. The first woman to win a seat in Parliament, Elizabeth McCombs, was elected in a by-election in 1933 following the death of her husband, who had been the MP for the seat she won. New Zealand's first colonial election in 1853 used a plurality system in both single-member (SMC) and multi-member constituencies (generally known as electorates in New Zealand). Multi-member seats were abolished in 1881. They were reintroduced in the four main cities (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin) in 1889, but finally discarded in 1905. In 1908 New Zealand implemented the second ballot system (similar to that used in France). It was widely interpreted as a move to keep third parties—particularly the rapidly rising Labour Party—out of Parliament. Two round voting was used in the 1908 and 1911 general elections, then discarded because the advantages of the experiment

710

PALAU

were generally judged to be minor. It did not greatly effect the number of seats that the major parties won. What is more, Labour candidates led in only one constituency after the first round in 1911, but won four seats as a result of the second round voting. By the time the 1914 general election was held, New Zealand had reverted to its former plurality system in SMCs, and the system was retained up to and including the 1993 general election. The system of mixed member proportional (MMP) representation that New Zealand adopted during the 1990s was implemented in time for the 1996 elections, and was used again for the 1999 general election (for details see below 1.3). At this stage, however, it is worth noting that under the terms of the legislation establishing MMP, a parliamentary select committee was required to review the system prior to 2002. The House of Representatives set up a committee for this purpose in 2000, but it is expected that the committee will recommend few, if any, major changes to New Zealand's new electoral system. The Representation Commission was established in 1887 as an independent body to determine constituency boundaries after every census. It is an independent body (Parliament must accept the Representation Commission's recommendations regarding district boundaries), and is highly respected. The creation of new districts and the redrawing of SMC boundaries are almost invariably done in a neutral, non-partisan manner. Unlike many countries (Australia is a good example), however, the Representation is not part of the newly-created Electoral Commission and has no role in the administration of elections per se.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution Act 1986 (deals, inter alia, with the term of Parliament; the period of time within which Parliament must meet after an election; and the appointment of members of the executive); Electoral Act 1993 (introduced ‘the mixed member proportional [MMP] system of representation in relation to the House of Representatives’; established the Electoral Commission; repealed the Electoral Act 1956). The Act came into effect when a majority of voters supported MMP in a binding constitutional referendum held on 6 November 1993. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (which, among other things, legislates for the right of New Zealanders ‘to vote in genuine periodic elections [. . . ] by equal suffrage and secret ballot’); the Broadcasting Act

NEW ZEALAND

711

1989 (a section of which concerns election-time broadcasting by candidates and political parties).

Suffrage: The principles of universal adult suffrage apply. Voters have to be 18 years old, but need not be citizens. Permanent residents of New Zealand who have lived in the country for a minimum of one year are eligible to vote. Registration as electors is nominally compulsory (but no sanctions are applied to eligible people who do not register to be on the voters' rolls). Voting is not compulsory. Electors who are Maori or of Maori origin are able to choose whether they wish to be on the Maori or the General voters' rolls. This option can be made when they first register as electors and after every five-yearly census as part of an exercise known as the Maori option. Electors may either vote in their own constituency, or cast a special vote in hospital, overseas, or in an SMC other than their own district. Roughly 10% of all votes cast in a general election are special votes, the bulk of which are counted ten days after the close of the polls. Consequently, election-night results in New Zealand are unlike those in, say, Britain. They are provisional.

Elected National Institutions: The House of Representatives is the sole chamber in a Parliament that has been unicameral since the end of 1950. The House currently has 120 members. In accordance with the MMP electoral system, there are two categories of Members of Parliament (MPs). There are currently 67 constituency MPs (each representing a single-member district) and 53 list MPs. The latter do not formally represent a geographical constituency. They are used to ensure that the overall number of MPs each party has in Parliament reflects its share of the nationwide party vote. It should be noted that because of provisions in the Electoral Act 1993 for overhang Members of Parliament—i.e., the equivalent of Überhangmandate in Germany—more than 120 MPs could be elected if any party were to win more electoral districts than the overall number of parliamentary seats it was entitled to as a result of its party vote. This has not happened to date: after both the 1996 and the 1999 New Zealand general elections, the House of Representatives consisted of 120 members. There are also two types of constituency MPs: General MPs and Maori MPs. Whereas the number of Maori constituencies was fixed at four from 1867 until 1993, under New Zealand's new voting system the number of Maori constituencies is determined (using a complicated formula) by the number of Maori on the Maori electoral rolls. In 1996,

712

PALAU

there were 5 Maori constituencies (out of a total of 65 constituencies); after the redistribution of electoral boundaries that occurred after the 1996 census and subsequent Maori option, there were 6 Maori constituencies (out of a total of 67 constituencies) at the time of the 1999 general election. Under MMP, the number of General constituencies in the South Island is now fixed at 16. By-elections are held to fill vacancies that occur during the parliamentary term as a result of the death or resignation of constituency MPs. Vacancies for list MPs are filled by appointing the next available person on the party list from which the MP was drawn. The parliamentary term is three years. Early elections are very unusual in New Zealand; there have been none since MMP was adopted.

Nomination of Candidates: Registered electors who are either New Zealand citizens or were registered as electors prior to August 1975 are qualified to stand as candidates for Parliament—either as candidates in a constituency or as candidates on a party list. Constituency candidates have to be nominated by at least two electors registered in their constituency and are required to lodge a deposit of NZ$ 300 (approximately US$ 125 in 2001) with the constituency's Returning Officer. Deposits are returned to candidates who get more than 5% of the votes in their constituency. No deposit is required from list candidates. Only political parties registered by the Electoral Commission are allowed to present a list of candidates. Parties need not field a full slate of list candidates. Individuals may be nominated as both constituency and list candidates (and if elected as a constituency candidate, their list candidacy effectively lapses). People are also allowed to be simply constituency candidates or only list candidates. However, an individual may not stand as a candidate in more than one constituency in any one election.

Electoral System: Mixed member proportional representation system (MMP). The overall design of the New Zealand system owes much to the one used in Germany. Electors have two votes, one for a party list in a nationwide constituency and one for a candidate elected by plurality in a SMC. These are known as the party vote and the electorate (i.e., constituency) vote respectively. As in Germany, but contrary to the situation in Japan and Russia, the party vote is paramount in the New Zealand system, because the party vote determines the overall number of seats parties are entitled to in Parliament. For example, if a political party wins 25% of the party votes in an election, it will qualify for 30 (25%) of the 120 seats in Parliament.

NEW ZEALAND

713

If the party has already won 23 local district seats (SMCs), then its complement of seats in the House of Representatives is topped up by giving it seven additional seats, and those seven seats will be allocated to the first seven eligible people on the party's rank-ordered list of nominated candidates. Similarly, a party with 25% of the party votes but only two constituency MPs will be awarded an additional 28 seats from its party list to bring its total number of seats in Parliament up to 30 as well. Unlike Germany, where list seats are allocated at the state level (that is, at the Bundesland level), in New Zealand list seats are allocated only at the national level, which reduces the likelihood of an overhang. An overhang would occur if a party managed to win more constituency seats on the basis of its constituency vote than the overall number of parliamentary seats it was entitled to as a result of its party vote. If a party were to win overhang seats, there would be no proportional compensation for the other parties in Parliament. As in German federal elections, the party lists are rank-ordered and closed. Indeed, in New Zealand the names of party list candidates do not even appear on the ballot paper. The precise number of seats each party is entitled to in the House of Representatives is calculated by using the pure Sainte-Laguë formula. Two thresholds apply to the allocation of list seats in the House of Representatives. A party must win either at least 5% of the nationwide party vote or a minimum of one constituency in order to participate in the nationwide seat allocation. In 1996 and 1999, United New Zealand won one SMC, but on each occasion had too few party votes to qualify for the allocation of additional seats in Parliament. In 1999, New Zealand First won 4.3% of the nationwide party votes, but its leader (very narrowly) won the SMC in which he was a candidate, and the party was thus allocated an additional four seats in the House of Representatives. This example can be compared with the fate of the Christian Coalition in 1996, when it too won 4.3% of the party votes cast throughout the country as a whole. However, as the party did not win a SMC, it failed to qualify for any seats in Parliament.

Organizational Context of Elections: The Chief Electoral Officer—who heads a division of the Ministry of Justice—is responsible for running general elections in New Zealand. His office also conducts by-elections and referendums. Returning Officers for each of the country's 67 constituencies report directly to the Chief Electoral Officer. He is the official who calculates and announces the number of list MPs awarded to each political party after the results in all the constituencies have been

714

PALAU

finalized. The official results of New Zealand elections are compiled and published by the Chief Electoral Office. Two other bodies have a role in running parliamentary elections in New Zealand. The Electoral Enrolment Centre is a division of New Zealand Post, and has a contract with the Ministry of Justice for compiling and maintaining the country's electoral rolls. The Electoral Commission—on the other hand—is an independent Crown entity. It registers political parties and it registers parties' official logos (which appear in color on both the party vote and the constituency vote halves of New Zealand's ballot papers). The Electoral Commission collects and publishes parties' election-time spending returns, as well as the details of the donations made to political parties. The Commission also allocates both time and funds for official election broadcasts; conducts public education campaigns in connection with the electoral system; and advises both Parliament and the Ministry of Justice about electoral matters. The Electoral Commission is chaired by a judge, and also has the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court, the Secretary for Justice, and the Commission's Chief Executive as its members. Candidates and parties can contest the results of an election by applying to a District Court Judge for a recount. If they are still not satisfied, they can lodge an electoral petition in the High Court. The latter has occurred very rarely in New Zealand—only twice during the past forty-five years. In 1979 the court overturned the result that had been promulgated the previous year in the Hunua constituency; nine years later, the court altered the results of the 1987 election in the Wairarapa constituency. (Coincidentally, both the candidates who won their seats as a result of these court cases went on to become Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand.)

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The official results of New Zealand elections, published in the H.33 series (until 1969) and the E.9 series (since 1972) of the Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives, are authoritative and highly accurate sources for election statistics. This is not to say, though, that all the statistics are entirely problem-free. There were no rolls for electors in Maori constituencies until 1949. As a result, the data for registered voters from 1890 to 1949 in the following tables contain figures for (what used to be called) European voters only. On the other hand, however, the number of valid votes and the votes

NEW ZEALAND

715

won by political parties and other candidates in the tables in this chapter do include the votes cast by electors in the Maori seats. The definition of valid and invalid votes in New Zealand has also changed slightly from time to time; from 1981 onwards, the following tables include disallowed special votes (basically absentee, hospital, overseas, and postal votes) in the figures for invalid votes. The major problem confronting the interpretation of electoral data in New Zealand stems from the fact that until 1935 (and especially during the period from 1890 to 1908), party affiliations were frequently fairly fluid. To counter difficulties in this respect, considerable attention has been paid to the pioneering work undertaken in connection with party classifications by Lipson (1948), by Bassett (1982), and by McRobie in James and McRobie (1993). The information contained in the Electoral Commission's Electoral Compendium is also invaluable for electoral analysts and researchers. However, it was (unfortunately) still necessary to group the votes both for ‘Others’ and for ‘Independents’ in Table 2.7. The vast bulk of independent candidates in New Zealand general elections have actually stood for Parliament under the banner or label of a political party, even though their parties have frequently fielded only one candidate. Until the adoption of proportional representation in New Zealand, there were no provisions whatsoever for the registration of political parties. Anyone could call themselves a party, and many individuals did. (It is also worth noting that whereas only registered political parties can submit lists of candidates to the Chief Electoral Officer and thus appear on the party-list half of the ballot paper under MMP, unregistered parties can still field constituency candidates.) What is more, in the period between 1890 and 1935, many candidates who called themselves independents were, in fact, covert or even not-so-covert supporters of established political parties. Only historians expert in the field can classify the true affiliation of many of the candidates in New Zealand's general elections, and regrettably the bias, the inclinations and the leanings of large numbers of candidates are now lost in the mists of time. As far as possible, though, the tables that follow try to show the fortunes of all the significant parties in New Zealand politics, despite the fact that—on a nationwide basis—some of them have been very small (such as the Country Party, Ratana and Mana Motuhake). At the same time, however, factions within parties prior to the 1930s have not been treated as separate entities. In order that the data are able to tell a coherent

716

PALAU

story, various strands within the Liberal and Labour parties—for example—have been regarded simply as parts of their wider wholes. Finally, New Zealand's decision to discard its plurality electoral system in favour of proportional representation has also attracted a great deal of attention from scholars around the world. Works by Boston et al. (1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000), Jackson and McRobie (1998), Lijphart (1987), Mulgan (1997), and Vowles et al. (1994, 1995, and 1998) are especially relevant regarding details of why the new voting system was chosen, how it works, and the results of the first two New Zealand general elections held under proportional representation.

717

NEW ZEALAND


1890 1893 1896 1899 1902 1905 1908 1911 1914 1919 1922 1925 1928 1931 1935 1938 1943 1946 1949

1951 1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 1967 1969 1972 1975 1978


Parliamentary elections Lower Cham- Upper Chambera berb 05/12 28/11 04/12 06/12 25/11 06/12 17/11 (1st) 24/11 (2nd) 07/12 (1st) 14/12 (2nd) 10/12 17/12 07/12 04/11 14/11 02/12 27/11 15/10 23/09 27/11 30/11

01/09 13/11 30/11 26/11 30/11 26/11 29/11 25/11 29/11 25/11


Referendums

17/12c 07/12c 04/11c 14/11c 02/12c 27/11c 15/10c 23/09c 27/11c 09/03 (I) 03/08 (II) 30/11c 01/09c 13/11c 30/11c 26/11c 30/11c 26/11c 23/09 29/11c 25/11c 29/11c 25/11c

Coups d'état

718 1981 1984 1987 1990 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1999 a

b c

PALAU

28/11 14/07 15/08 27/10 06/11

28/11c 14/07c 15/08c 27/10 19/09 06/11 02/12

12/10 27/11

26/09 27/11

Until 1951 parliamentary elections were held in Maori and non-Maori (then known as European) electoral districts on different days. The dates listed in this table are for the non-Maori polling days. New Zealand had an appointed upper chamber from 1852 until 1950. In accordance with the practice adopted by the New Zealand Electoral Commission (see Electoral Commission, 2000: 56–57), the referendums about liquor licensing have been excluded from the detailed documentation contained in Table 2.5. On 23 occasions from 1919 to 1987, electors voted in nationwide referendums on the sale and distribution of liquor. These referendums were held at the same time as New Zealand's general elections, and asked voters whether they preferred ‘national continuance’ (which always won the most votes), ‘state control’, or ‘national prohibition’.

719

NEW ZEALAND

2.2 Electoral Body 1890–1999

a b

c

d

e f g h i j

a

b

Year

Type of election

Population

1890 1893 1896 1899 1902 1905 1908 1911 1914 1919 1922 1925 1928 1931 1935 1938 1943 1946 1949 1949 1949 1951 1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 1967 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1990 1992 1993 1993 1995 1996 1997 1999 1999

Rd R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Ref (I) Ref (II) R R R R R R R Ref R R R R R R R R Ref Refi R Ref Ref R Ref R Refi

662,749 703,342 746,288 789,838 840,936 913,144 992,794 1,063,887 1,140,172 1,192,665 1,305,126 1,384,428 1,453,800 1,514,200 1,564,200 1,611,200 1,635,600 1,759,600 1,871,700 1,871,700 1,871,700 1,947,600 2,094,900 2,232,500 2,377,000 2,536,900 2,682,600 2,727,700 2,780,100 2,915,600 3,100,100 3,143,500 3,156,700 3,252,800 3,303,600 3,362,500 3,362,500 3,515,000 3,555,800 3,555,800 3,657,900 3,715,700 3,762,300 3,812,800 3,812,800

Registered voters Total numberc 183,171 302,997 339,230 373,744 415,789 476,473 537,003 599,092 616,043 683,420 707,717 761,541 844,633 874,787 919,798 995,173 1,000,197e 1,081,898 1,148,481 1,148,701 1,148,748f 1,205,762 1,209,670 1,252,329 1,310,742 1,345,836 1,409,600 1,430,320 1,519,889 1,583,256 1,953,050 h 1,967,527 2,034,747 2,111,651 2,114,656 2,202,157 2,202,157 2,205,225 2,321,664 2,321,664 2,419,958 2,418,587j 2,475,220 2,509,365 2,509,365

% pop. 27.6 43.1 45.5 47.3 49.4 52.2 54.1 56.3 54.0 57.3 54.2 55.0 58.1 57.8 58.8 61.8 61.2 61.5 61.4 61.4 61.4 61.9 57.7 56.1 55.1 53.1 52.5 52.4 54.7 54.3 63.0 62.6 64.5 64.9 64.0 65.5 65.5 62.7 65.3 65.3 66.2 65.1 65.8 65.8 65.8

Votes cast Total number 73,332 220,082 258,254 279,330 318,859 396,657 428,648 492,912 521,525 560,468 641,308 694,191 764,631 719,466 859,524 952,766 951,785 1,055,204 623,625 729,245 1,079,878 1,074,475 1,105,609 1,163,061 1,176,963 1,205,322 1,212,127 996,933 1,351,813 1,410,240 1,612,020 1,721,443 1,860,564 1,978,798 1,883,394 1,877,115 1,814,577 1,217,284 1,978,092 1,917,883 652,394 2,135,175 1,988,650 2,127,265 2,077,647

% reg. voters 40.0 72.6 76.1 74.7 76.7 83.2 79.8 82.3 84.7 82.0 90.6 91.2 90.5 82.2 93.4 95.7 95.2 97.5 54.3 63.5 94.0 89.1 91.4 92.9 89.8 89.6 86.0 69.7 88.9 89.1 82.5 87.5 91.4 93.7 89.1 85.2 82.4 55.2 85.2 82.6 27.0 88.3 80.3 84.8 82.8

% pop. 11.1 31.3 34.6 35.4 37.9 43.4 43.2 46.3 45.7 47.0 49.1 50.1 52.6 47.5 54.9 59.1 58.2 60.0 33.3 39.0 57.7 55.2 52.8 52.1 49.5 47.5 45.2 36.5 48.6 48.4 52.0g 54.8 58.9 60.8 57.0 55.8 54.0 34.6 55.6 53.9 17.8 57.5 52.9 55.8 54.5

R = House of Representatives (lower chamber); Ref = Referendum. With the exception of 1928, 1935, and 1938, all the figures in this column are official estimates of the mean population for the year in question. See Statistics New Zealand (2000: 92). Data for 1928, 1935, and 1938 are estimates by the author. Until 1949 Maori voters were not included in the number of the registered voters. Except where noted, the data for the number of registered voters for general elections are the same as those contained in Electoral Commission (2000: 152–154). This was the last election prior to women winning the vote. There was, however, universal male suffrage (i.e., both European and Maori men were eligible to vote). Registered voters data (and subsequent statistics) are for civilian voters in 1943. This figure was taken from Mackie and Rose (1974: 300). The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1974—hence the rise at this juncture in the proportion of the population casting a vote. This figure was taken from James and McRobie (1993: 310). The 1992 and 1999 referendums each consisted of two questions. The data in this table are for the first question. This figure was taken from E9 (1997: 339).

720

PALAU

2.3 Abbreviations Acta ALC Aln ChC ChH Coab Conc CP Dem (1) Dem (2)d DSL FNZe Gre Labf Libg LLPh Man Nat (1)i Nat (2)j NLP NZF NZP Oppk Ratl Ref SCPm Socn Unio UNZ Val a b c d e

f g h

i

j k l m

n o

Act Party Aotearoa Legalize Cannabis Party The Alliance Christian Coalition Christian Heritage Party Coalition Conservative group Country Party Democratic Party Democrats Democratic Soldier Labour Party Future New Zealand Green Party Labour Party Liberal Party Liberal Labour Party Mana Motuhake Party (Self-Reliance Party) National Party National Party New Labour Party New Zealand First New Zealand Party Opposition Ratana group Reform Party Social Credit Party Social Credit Political League United Party United New Zealand Values Party

The party stemmed from a pressure group called the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. Nominally independent candidates who supported the 1931 United (ex-Liberal)/ Reform election coalition. In part predecessors of the Reform Party. The party formerly known as the Social Credit Political League and the Social Credit Party became the Democrats in 1987. This party was first known as the Christian Democrat Party (which contested the 1996 election as part of the Christian Coalition), but changed its name to Future New Zealand in 1999. Officially formed in 1916, but the party's predecessors date back to 1902. Known as Liberal Labour in 1922, as National in 1925, and as United in 1928 and 1931. Formerly known as the Liberal Party; became Liberal Labour for the 1922 election; changed to the National Party in 1925; and to the United Party for the 1928 and 1931 elections. Formerly known as the Liberal Party and the Liberal Labour Party; became the National Party in 1925; and changed its name to the United Party for the 1928 and 1931 elections. Officially formed in 1936, but grew out of a 1935 electoral grouping of the same name. Candidates opposed to the Liberal government. Named after its leader, the Maori prophet T. W. Ratana; the group merged with the Labour Party after 1935. Formerly known as the Social Credit Political League; became the Social Credit Party in 1982; and changed its name again in 1987 to become the Democrats. Became the Social Credit Party in 1982 and then the Democrats in 1987. Formerly known as the Liberal Party; became Liberal Labour in 1922 and the National Party in 1925; changed its name to the United Party for the 1928 and 1931 elections.

721

NEW ZEALAND

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1890–1999 Party / Alliance Con Lib Lab Opp Refb LLP Rat CP Nat (1) Unib Coa Dem (1) Nat (2) DSL Soc Val Manc NZP SCP Dem (2)d ChHe Gref NLPg Alnh NZF Act ALC ChCi UNZ FNZj a b c d e f g h

i

j

Years 1890–1899 1890–1919 1902–1999 1902–1908 1911–1931 1922 1922, 1928–1935 1925–1938 1925 1928–1931 1931 1935 1935–1999 1943 1954–1981 1972–1987 1981–1990 1984–1987 1984 1987–1990 1990–1999 1990, 1999 1990 1993–1999 1993–1999 1996–1999 1996–1999 1996 1996–1999 1999

Elections contesteda 4 10 32 3 7 1 4 5 1 2 1 1 22 1 10 6 4 2 1 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2 1

Only parliamentary elections. Total number: 36. United and Reform Party contested the 1931 election in a coalition. The Mana Motuhake Party joined the Alliance in 1992. The Democrats (ex-Social Credit Political League/ Social Credit Party) joined the Alliance in 1992. The Christian Heritage Party contested the 1996 election as part of the Christian Coalition. The Green Party joined the Alliance for the 1993 and 1996 elections. The New Labour Party helped establish and then joined the Alliance in 1992. A five-party coalition, which when it was established in 1992 consisted of the Democrats (ex-Social Credit Political League/ Social Credit Party), the Green Party, the Liberal Party (comprising MPs who left the National Party in the early 1990s but never contested an election as a separate entity), Mana Motuhake, and the New Labour Party, A two-party coalition established for the 1996 election, consisting of the Christian Heritage Party and the Christian Democrats (who became Future New Zealand for the 1999 election). Future New Zealand contested the 1996 election as the Christian Democrats and as part of the Christian Coalition.

722

PALAU

2.5 Referendums In accordance with the practice adopted by the New Zealand Electoral Commission (see Electoral Commission 2000: 56–57), details of the 23 referendums about liquor licensing which were held between 1919 and 1987 have been excluded from this Table. Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesc Valid votes Yes No a b c

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesc Valid votes Yes No b

c

% – 54.3 — 100.0 68.0 32.0

1949 (August)b Total number 1,148,701 729,245 — 729,245 568,427 160,998

% – 63.5 — 100.0 77.9 22.1

On whether off-course horse-race betting should be permitted. This referendum was not held in conjunction with a general election. On whether compulsory military training should be introduced. This referendum was not held in conjunction with a general election. Information regarding the number of invalid votes cast in these referendums is not available.

Year

a

1949 (March)a Total number 1,148,481 623,625 — 623,625 424,219 199,406

1967a Total number 1,430,320 996,933 — 996,933 317,973 678,960

% – 69.7 — 100.0 31.9 68.1

1990b Total number 2,202,157 1,814,577 — 1,814,577 556,559 1,258,018

% – 82.4 — 100.0 30.7 69.3

On whether the term of Parliament should be extended from 3 to 4 years. This referendum was not held in conjunction with a general election. On whether the term of Parliament should be extended from 3 to 4 years. This referendum was held in conjunction with the 1990 general election. Information regarding the number of invalid votes cast in these referendums is not available.

723

NEW ZEALAND

Year

1992 Total number Registered voters 2,205,225 Question Ia Votes cast 1,217,284 c Invalid votes — Valid votes 1,217,284 Yes 186,027 No 1,031,257 Mixed member pro- – portional system Single transferable – vote system Preferential voting – system Supplementary – member system a

b

c

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votesc Valid votes Yes No b

c

Total number

%

Question IIb 55.2 — 100.0 15.3 84.7 –

— 1,121,261 – – 790,648

— 100.0 – – 70.5

–

194,796

17.4

–

73,539

6.6

–

62,278

5.5

The first question was on whether to retain the plurality (i.e., the existing first-past-the-post) electoral system. The referendum was not held in conjunction with a general election. Although the referendum was—legally and technically—indicative and non-binding, prior to the referendum the government indicated that if a majority voted in favour of a change to the voting system in the first of the referendum's two questions, then that would trigger a binding electoral referendum the following year. The second question in this referendum sought voters' views on four electoral reform options. If the vote in Question I resulted in a second electoral referendum the following year, then the government also said that the most popular (i.e., the plurality winner) of the four reform options in Question II would, in effect, compete against the existing plurality system in a binding run-off race. Information regarding the number of invalid votes cast in this referendum is not available.

Year

a

% –

1993a Total number 2,321,664 1,917,883 — 1,917,883 1,032,919 884,964

% – 82.6 — 100.0 53.9 46.1

1995b Total number 2,419,958 652,394 — 652,394 79,475 572,919

% – 27.0 — 100.0 12.2 87.8

On whether to adopt a mixed member proportional (MMP) representation electoral system. This was a binding referendum and was held in conjunction with the 1993 general election. On whether the number of professional fire-fighters should be reduced. This was New Zealand's first non-binding Citizens' Initiated Referendum (CIR). It was not held in conjunction with a general election. Information regarding the number of invalid votes cast in these referendums is not available.

724

PALAU

Year

1997a Total number 2,475,220 1,988,650 4,938 1,983,712 163,309 1,820,403


On whether there was a support for a compulsory retirement savings scheme. This was a Government-sponsored referendum. It was conducted by means of a postal ballot and was not held in conjunction with a general election.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a

b

% – 80.3 0.2 99.8 8.2 91.8

1999 Total number 2,509,365 Question Ia 2,077,647 17,699 2,059,948 1,678,054 381,894

% – 82.8 0.9 99.1 81.5 18.5

Total number

%

Question IIb 2,079,253 22,849 2,056,404 1,886,705 169,699

82.9 1.1 98.9 91.7 8.3

On whether the number of Members of Parliament should be reduced from 120 to 99. This was New Zealand's second non-binding Citizens' Initiated Referendum (CIR), and was held in conjunction with the 1999 general election. On whether there should be tougher penalties for ‘serious violent offences’. This was New Zealand's third non-binding Citizens' Initiated Referendum (CIR), and was held in conjunction with the 1999 general election.

725

NEW ZEALAND


2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1890–1999 Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lib Con Others a b

b

1890a Total number 183,171 73,332 — 136,337 76,548 39,338 20,451

% – 40.0 – – 56.1 28.9 15.0

1893 Total number 302,997 220,082 — 304,176 175,814 74,482 53,880

% – 72.6 – – 57.8 24.5 17.7

For this election, only universal male suffrage applied. From 1890 to 1949 there were no rolls for Maori voters, so they are not included in the statistics for registered voters. However, Maori votes are included in these tables in the rows for ballots and votes cast.

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lib Con Others Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lib Opp Lab Others Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes

1896 Total number 339,230 258,254 — 359,404 165,259 134,397 59,748 1902 Total number 415,789 318,859 — 416,962 215,845 85,769 10,501 104,847 1908a Total number 537,003 428,648 4,596 424,052

% – 76.1 – – 46.0 37.4 16.6

1899 Total number 373,744 279,330 — 387,629 204,331 141,758 41,540

% – 74.7 – – 52.7 36.6 10.7

% – 76.7 – – 51.8 20.6 2.5 25.1

1905 Total number 476,473 396,657 5,468 391,189 209,731 117,118 3,623 60,717

% – 83.2 1.4 98.6 53.6 29.9 0.9 15.5

% – 79.8 1.1 98.9

1911a Total number 599,092 492,912 4,143 488,769

% – 82.3 0.8 99.2

726 Lib Opp Lab Ref Others a

242,261 114,245 17,492 – 36,508

59.0 27.8 4.3 – 8.9

191,323 – 40,759 164,627 68,859

41.1 – 8.8 35.4 14.7

The votes for the political parties in the lower part of the table do not equal the number of valid votes in the top half of the table. This is a result of the fact that both 1908 and 1911 were two round elections. The data in this table are based on Lipson's calculations of the results. He included first round votes when they were decisive and second round votes when first round votes were not decisive. See Lipson (1948: 187–188); see also Mackie and Rose (1974: 292).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Ref Lib Lab Others Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Ref LLP Lab Rat Nat (1) Others a

PALAU

1914 Total number 616,043 521,525 5,618 515,907 243,122 222,299 49,482 1,004 1922 Total number 707,717 641,308 6,580 634,728 272,436 178,421 152,490 4,331 – 27,050

% – 84.7 1.1 98.9 47.1 43.1 9.6 0.2

1919 Total number 683,420 560,468 7,587 552,881 207,371 173,220 150,684 21,606

% – 82.0 1.4 98.6 37.5 31.3 27.3 3.9

% – 90.6 1.0 99.0 42.9 28.1 24.0 0.7 – 4.3

1925 Total number 761,541 694,191 6,906 687,285 339,141 – 187,378 – 148,563 12,203a

% – 91.2 1.0 99.0 49.3 – 27.3 – 21.6 1.8

% – 90.5 1.1 98.9 35.7 31.6 26.3 1.6 0.7

1931 Total number 874,787 719,466 4,955 714,511 189,951 120,801 245,145 16,710 3,051

% – 82.2 0.7 99.3 26.6 16.9 34.3 2.3 0.4

CP 2,398 votes.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Ref Uni Lab CP Rat

1928 Total number 844,633 764,631 8,300 756,331 269,965 239,134 198,930 11,990 4,924

727

NEW ZEALAND

Coa Others

– 31,388

Year

1935 Total number 919,798 859,524 6,887 852,637 392,321 290,129 66,695 18,707 9,308 75,477

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lab Nat (2) Dem (1) CP Rat Others Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lab Nat (2) DSL Others a

1943 Total number 1,000,197 951,785 9,957 941,828 448,740 402,056 40,569 50,463

– 4.2

110,165 28,688

15.4 4.0

% – 93.4 0.8 99.2 46.0 34.0 7.8 2.2 1.1 8.9

1938 Total number 955,173 952,766 6,373 946,393 528,290 377,179 – 1,564 – 39,360

% – 99.7 0.7 99.3 55.8 39.9 – 0.2 – 4.2

% – 82.8a 1.0 99.0 47.6 42.7 4.3 5.4

1946 Total number 1,081,898 1,055,204 7,999 1,047,205 536,994 507,139 – 3,072

% – 97.5 0.8 99.2 51.3 48.4 – 0.3

This calculation is based only on the civilian votes that were cast in 1943. See Electoral Commission (2000: 155).

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Nat (2) Lab Others Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Nat (2) Lab

1949 Total number 1,148,748 1,079,878 6,724 1,073,154 556,805 506,073 10,276 1954 Total number 1,209,670 1,105,609 8,716 1,096,893 485,630 484,082

% – 94.0 0.6 99.4 51.9 47.2 1.0

1951 Total number 1,205,762 1,074,475 3,632 1,070,843 577,625 491,200 2,018

% – 89.1 0.3 99.7 53.9 45.9 0.2

% – 91.4 0.8 99.2 44.3 44.1

1957 Total number 1,252,329 1,163,061 5,696 1,157,365 511,699 559,096

% – 92.9 0.5 99.5 44.2 48.3

728

PALAU

Soc Others

122,573 4,608

Year

1960 Total number 1,310,742 1,176,963 6,460 1,170,503 557,046 508,179 100,905 4,373

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Nat (2) Lab Soc Others Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Nat (2) Lab Soc Others Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lab Nat (2) Soc Val Others Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lab Nat (2) Soc

1966 Total number 1,409,600 1,212,127 7,032 1,205,095 525,945 499,392 174,515 5,243 1972 Total number 1,583,256 1,410,240 9,088 1,401,152 677,669 581,422 93,231 27,467 21,363 1978 Total number 1,967,527a 1,721,443 11,270 1,710,173 691,076 680,991 274,756

11.2 0.4

83,498 3,072

7.2 0.3

% – 89.8 0.5 99.5 47.6 43.4 8.6 0.4

1963 Total number 1,345,836 1,205,322 7,277 1,198,045 563,875 524,066 95,176 14,928

% – 89.6 0.6 99.4 47.1 43.7 7.9 1.3

% – 86.0 0.6 99.4 43.6 41.4 14.5 0.4

1969 Total number 1,519,889 1,351,813 11,645 1,340,168 605,960 592,055 121,576 20,577

% – 88.9 0.9 99.1 45.2 44.2 9.1 1.5

% – 89.1 0.6 99.4 48.4 41.5 6.7 2.0 1.5

1975 Total number 1,953,050 1,612,020 8,287 1,603,733 634,453 763,136 119,147 83,241 3,756

% – 82.5 0.5 99.5 39.6 47.6 7.4 5.2 0.2

% – 87.5 0.7 99.3 40.4 39.8 16.1

1981 Total number 2,034,747 1,860,564 59,261 1,801,303 702,630 698,508 372,056

% – 91.4 3.2b 96.8 39.0 38.8 20.7

729

NEW ZEALAND

Val Man Others a b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lab Nat (2) NZP SCP Man Dem (2) Others b

2.4 – 1.3

3,460 8,332 16,317

0.2 0.5 0.9

Figure taken from James and McRobie (1993: 310). From 1981 to 1999, invalid votes include Special Votes that have been disallowed (because people who have tried to cast a Special Vote—in effect, an absentee, hospital, or overseas vote—have been judged to have failed to have qualified to cast such a vote). In 1981, disallowed Special Votes accounted for 50,263 (84.8%) of the country's invalid votes. The remaining 8,998 invalid votes in 1981 were cast by people qualified to vote, but their votes were informal votes because their ballot papers had not been marked in the correct manner (See E.9, 1982: 106–107). This accounts for the sudden increase in the number and proportion of invalid votes cast in New Zealand general elections.

Year

a

41,220 – 22,130

1984 Total number 2,111,651 1,978,798 49,597 1,929,201 829,154 692,494 236,385 147,162 5,968 – 18,038a

% – 93.7 2.5 97.5 43.0 35.9 12.3 7.6 0.3 – 0.9

1987 Total number 2,114,656 1,883,394 51,617 1,831,777 878,448 806,305 5,306 – 9,789 105,091 26,838b

% – 89.1 2.7 97.3 48.0 44.0 0.3 – 0.5 5.7 1.5

% – 85.2 2.8 97.2 47.8 35.1 6.8 5.2 1.7 0.6 0.5 – – 2.2

1993 Total number 2,321,664 1,978,092 55,296 1,922,796 673,892 666,759 – – – – 38,749 350,064 161,481 31,851

% – 85.2 2.8 97.2 35.0 34.7 – – – – 2.0 18.2 8.4 1.7

% – 88.3

1999 Total number 2,509,365 2,127,265

% – 84.8

Val 3,826 votes. Val 1,709 votes.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Nat (2) Lab Gre NLP Dem (2) Man ChH Aln NZF Others Year Registered voters Votes cast

1990 Total number 2,202,157 1,877,115 53,023 1,824,092 872,358 640,915 124,915 94,171 30,455 10,869 9,591 – – 40,818 1996 Total number 2,418,587 2,135,175

730 Invalid votes Valid votesa Nat (2) Lab NZF Aln Act ChC ALC UNZ Gre ChH FNZ Others a

PALAU

62,816 2,072,359 701,315 584,159 276,603 209,347 126,442 89,716 34,398 18,245 – – – 32,134

2.9 97.1 33.8 28.2 13.3 10.1 6.1 4.3 1.7 0.9 – – – 1.6

61,771 2,065,494 629,932 800,199 87,926 159,859 145,493 – 22,687 11,065 106,560 49,154 23,033 29,586

2.9 97.1 30.5 38.7 4.3 7.7 7.0 – 1.1 0.5 5.2 2.4 1.1 1.4

The votes shown in this table are the second votes cast for party lists, which—under the rules governing the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system used for the 1996 and the 1999 general elections—are the votes that determine the overall distribution of seats in the House of Representatives.

731

NEW ZEALAND


1890 Seats 74a Lib 38 Con 25 Independ- 11 ents a b

% 100.0 51.4 33.8 14.9

1902 Seats 80a Lib 47 Opp 19 Lab 0 Ref – Independ- 14 ents b

% 100.0 58.8 23.8 0.0 – 17.5

1914 Seats 80a Ref 41 Lib 33 Lab 6 LLP – Nat (1) – Independ- 0 ents b c d

1896 Seats 74b 39 25 10

% 100.0 52.7 33.8 13.5

1899 Seats 74b 49 19 6

% 100.0 66.2 25.7 8.1

1905 Seats 80b 55 15 0 – 10

% 100.0 68.8 18.8 0.0 – 12.5

1908 Seats 80b 47 25 1 – 7

% 100.0 58.8 31.3 1.3 – 8.8

1911 Seats 80a 33 – 4 37 6

% 100.0 41.3 – 5.0 46.3 7.5

The four Maori SMCs were won by an independent and 3 Liberal Party candidates respectively. The four Maori SMCs were won by 3 Liberal Party candidates and a Reform Party candidate respectively.

Year

a

% 100.0 68.9 17.6 13.5

The four Maori single-member constituencies (SMCs) were won by 3 independents and a Liberal Party candidate respectively. The four Maori SMCs were won by an independent and 3 Liberal Party candidates respectively.

Year

a

1893 Seats 74a 51 13 10

The The The The

four four four four

Maori Maori Maori Maori

SMCs SMCs SMCs SMCs

were were were were

% 100.0 51.3 41.3 7.5 – – 0.0 won won won won

by by by by

2 2 3 3

1919 Seats 80b 45 21 11 – – 3

% 100.0 56.3 26.3 13.8 – – 3.8

1922 Seats 80c 38 – 17 23 – 2

% 100.0 47.5 – 21.3 28.8 – 2.5

1925 Seats 80d 55 – 12 – 12 1

Liberal Party and 2 Reform Party candidates. Reform Party candidates, a Liberal Party, and an independent candidate. Reform Party candidates and a Liberal-Labour candidate. Reform Party candidates and a National candidate.

% 100.0 68.8 – 15.0 – 15.0 1.3

732

PALAU

Year

1928 Seats 80a Uni 28 Ref 26 Lab 20 CP 1 Rat 0 Coa – Nat (2) – Independ- 5 ents a b c d

The The The The

four four four four

Maori Maori Maori Maori

SMCs SMCs SMCs SMCs

were were were were

1943 Seats 80a Lab 46 Nat (2) 33 Independ- 1 ents

% 100.0 35.0 32.5 25.0 1.3 0.0 – – 6.3 won by won by won by won by

2 3 2 3

1938 Seats 80d – – 53 0 – – 25 2

% 100.0 – – 66.3 0.0 – – 31.3 2.5

% 100.0 42.5 57.5 0.0

1951 Seats 80a 30 50 0

% 100.0 37.5 62.5 0.0

% 100.0 57.5 42.5

1963 Seats 80a 45 35

% 100.0 56.3 43.8

% 100.0 – – 66.3 2.5 2.5 – 23.8 5.0

% 100.0 57.5 41.3 1.3

1946 Seats 80a 42 38 0

% 100.0 52.5 47.5 0.0

1949 Seats 80a 34 46 0

The four Maori SMCs were all won by Labour Party candidates.

Year Nat (2) Lab a

% 100.0 23.8 35.0 30.0 1.3 0.0 6.3 – 3.8

1935 Seats 80c – – 53 2 2 – 19 4

Reform Party and 2 United Party candidates. Reform Party candidates and a United Party candidate. National Party and 2 Ratana candidates. Labour Party candidates and a National Party candidate.

Year

a

1931 Seats 80b 19 28 24 1 0 5 – 3

1954 Seats 80a 45 35

% 100.0 56.3 43.8

1957 Seats 80a 39 41

% 100.0 48.8 51.3


1960 Seats 80a 46 34

733

NEW ZEALAND

Year Nat (2) Lab Soc a

Nat (2) Lab Soc SCP

Nat (2) Lab NLP Gre Aln NZF Act UNZ b c d

% 100.0 53.6 46.4 0.0

1972 Seats 87a 32 55 0

% 100.0 36.8 63.2 0.0

1975 Seats 87a 55 32 0

% 100.0 63.2 36.8 0.0

1978 Seats 92a 51 40 1 –

% 100.0 55.4 43.5 1.1 –

1981 Seats 92a 47 43 2 –

% 100.0 51.1 46.7 2.2 –

1984 Seats 95a 37 56 – 2

% 100.0 38.9 58.9 – 2.1

1987 Seats 97a 40 57 – –

% 100.0 41.2 58.8 – –

% 100.0 36.7 30.8 – – 10.8 14.2 6.7 0.8

1999 Seats 120d 39 49 – 7 10 5 9 1

% 100.0 32.5 40.8 – 5.8 8.3 4.2 7.5 0.8


Year

a

% 100.0 55.0 43.8 1.3

1969 Seats 84a 45 39 0


Year

a

1966 Seats 80a 44 35 1

The The The The

1990 Seats 97a 67 29 1 0 – – – –

% 100.0 69.1 29.9 1.0 0.0 – – – –

1993 Seats 99b 50 45 – – 2 2 – –

% 100.0 50.5 45.5 – – 2.0 2.0 – –

1996 Seats 120c 44 37 – – 13 17 8 1

four Maori SMCs were all won by Labour Party candidates. four Maori SMCs were won by 3 Labour Party candidates and a New Zealand First candidate. five Maori SMCs were all won by New Zealand First candidates. six Maori SMCs were all won by Labour Party candidates.

734

PALAU

2.9 Presidential Elections Presidential elections have not been held. The Queen of the United Kingdom (also formally known since 1974 as the Queen of New Zealand) is the Head of State.

735

NEW ZEALAND

2.10 List of Power Holders 1890 –2001 a

Head of State Queen Victoria

Years [1840]b–1901

Remarks Represented by the following Governors of New Zealand: Earl of Onslow (1889c–1892), Earl of Glasgow (1892–1897), Earl of Ranfurly (1897–1904).

a

b

c

King Edward VII

1901–1910

King George V

1910–1936

King Edward VIII

1936

King George VI

1936–1952

Queen Elizabeth II

1952–

Represented by the following Governors of New Zealand: Earl of Ranfurly (1897–1904), Lord Plunket (1904–1910). Represented by the following Governors and Governors-General of New Zealand: Lord Plunket (1904–1910), Lord Islington (1910–1912), Earl of Liverpool (1912–1920, last Governor of New Zealand and first Governor-General 1917–1920), Viscount Jellicoe (1920–1924), Sir Charles Fergusson (1924–1930), Viscount Bledisloe (1930–1935), Viscount Galway (1935–1941). Represented by the Governor-General, Viscount Galway (1935–1941). Represented by the following GovernorsGeneral: Viscount Galway (1935–1941), Sir Cyril Newall (1941–1946), Lord Freyberg (1946–1952, Commander of New Zealand forces in World War II). Represented by the following GovernorsGeneral: Lord Freyberg (1946–1952), Lord Norrie (1952–1957), Viscount Cobham (1957–1962), Sir Bernard Fergusson (1962–1967, son of Sir Charles Fergusson), Sir Arthur Porritt (1967–1972, first New Zealand-born Governor-General), Sir Denis Blundell (1972–1977), Sir Keith Holyoake (1977–1980, former Prime Minister), Sir David Beattie (1980–1985), Sir Paul Reeves (1985–1990, first Maori GovernorGeneral), Dame Catherine Tizard (1990–1996, first female Governor-General), Sir Michael Hardie Boys (1996–[2001]).

In common with the other tables in this chapter, 1890 has been chosen as the starting point because it was the date of New Zealand's first party-based general election. Queen Victoria assumed the throne in 1837, but the Treaty of Waitangi—which saw New Zealand formally ceded to the United Kingdom—was signed in 1840. The Earl of Onslow had been installed as the tenth Governor of New Zealand in May 1889. Head of Government Sir Harry Atkinson

Years [1887]a–1891

John Balance Richard Seddon

1891–1893 1893–1906

Remarks Last non party-based Premier of New Zealand. First Liberal Premier; died in office. Second Liberal Premier; New Zealand 's longest serving Head of Government; died in office.

736

PALAU

William Hall-Jones

1906

Sir Joseph Ward

1906–1912

Thomas MacKenzie

1912

William Massey Sir Francis Dillon Bell

1912–1925 1925

Gordon Coates

1925–1928

Sir Joseph Ward

1928–1930

George Forbes

1930–1935

Michael Joseph Savage Peter Fraser

1935–1940 1940–1949

Sidney Holland

1949–1957

Keith Holyoake

1957

Walter Nash

1957–1960

Sir Keith Holyoake

1960–1972

John Marshall

1972

Norman Kirk

1972–1974

Wallace (Bill) Rowling

1974–1975

First Prime Minister of New Zealand; stopgap Liberal leader after death of Seddon. First of two periods in office as Liberal leader. Liberal Prime Minister for three-and-a-half months after Ward 's resignation. First Reform Prime Minister; died in office. Stop-gap Reform leader after death of Massey. Massey's real successor; defeated in the 1928 general election. As leader of the United Party—a direct descendent of the Liberal Party—Ward became Prime Minister for the second time when his party unexpectedly won the most seats in the 1928 election; stepped down from office six weeks prior to his death. United Prime Minister during the depths of the depression; formed an electoral coalition with Reform in order to fight both the 1931 and 1935 elections; heavily defeated in the latter. First Labour Prime Minister; died in office. Savage's successor; under Fraser, Labour retained office in 1943 and 1946 but was defeated in the 1949 general election. National Party's first Prime Minister; successfully called snap-election in 1951; retained office in 1954; stepped down as National leader as a result of illness and party pressure shortly before 1957 election. National 's second Prime Minister; could not stem the 1957 election tide to Labour. Led the second Labour government for its sole term in office. National 's longest-serving Prime Minister; successfully fought the 1960, 1963, 1966, and 1969 elections; stepped down as National leader as a result of party pressure ten months before 1972 election. Appointed Governor-General in 1977 for a three-year term. National 's third Prime Minister; could not stem the 1972 election tide to Labour. Led the third Labour government to power; died in office. Took over as Labour leader after the death of Norman Kirk; defeated by National in the 1975 general election.

NEW ZEALAND

a

Sir Robert Muldoon

1975–1984

David Lange

1984–1989

Geoffrey Palmer

1989–1990

Michael (Mike) Moore

1990

James (Jim) Bolger

1990–1997

Jennifer (Jenny) Shipley

1997–1999

Helen Clark

1999–

This was Atkinson's fourth and final period as Premier of New Zealand.

737 Led the National Party to sweeping victory in 1975 and to much closer calls in 1978 and 1981; Prime Minister for the third National government 's entire term; defeated by Labour in the 1984 general election. Led the fourth Labour government to victory in 1984; easily re-elected in 1987; infighting amongst his colleagues led to Lange 's resignation as Prime Minister in 1989. Chosen as Labour's leader after Lange resigned; unable to halt Labour's slide in the polls; stepped down seven weeks before the 1990 election. Became Prime Minister when Palmer retired, but Labour was heavily defeated in the 1990 general election. Prime Minister of the 1990–1996 National Party government, the 1996 NationalUnited New Zealand coalition government, and post 1996 election National-New Zealand First coalition government; defeated in a contest for the leadership of the National Party in November 1997, Bolger stepped down as Prime Minister the following month. New Zealand's first female Prime Minister. Toppled Bolger as leader of the National Party and, as a result, became Prime Minister of the National-New Zealand First government; it broke up in August 1998. Continued to be Prime Minister, leading a coalition government comprising her National Party and a group of independent MPs, until the 1999 election. Clark became New Zealand 's second female Prime Minister when the Labour Party (which she has led since late 1993) and the Alliance formed a coalition government after a swing to the left in the 1999 general election.

738

PALAU

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (H.33 and E.9 series). Wellington: Government Printer. (These are usually dated the year after that in which an election was held. For example, ‘The General Election 1957’, H.33, was issued in 1958.) Electoral Commission (1997). Electoral Brief (Issue 8). Wellington: Electoral Commission. —— (2000). The New Zealand Electoral Compendium. 2nd edn. Wellington: Electoral Commission. Royal Commission on the Electoral System (1986). Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System: Towards a Better Democracy. Wellington: Government Printer. Statistics New Zealand (2000). New Zealand Official Yearbook 2000. 102nd edn. Auckland: David Bateman Ltd.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Bassett, M. (1982). Three Party Politics in New Zealand, 1911–1931. Auckland: Historical Publications. Bergman, T. (1993). ‘Constitutional Design and Government Formation: The Expected Consequences of Negative Parliamentarism’. Scandinavian Political Studies, 16/4: 285–304. Boston, J., Church, S., Levine, S., McLeay, E., and Roberts, N. S. (eds.) (2000). Left Turn: The New Zealand General Election of 1999. Wellington: Victoria University Press. Boston, J., Levine, S., McLeay, E., and Roberts, N. S. (1996). New Zealand Under MMP: A New Politics? Auckland: Auckland University Press. —— (eds.) (1997). From Campaign to Coalition: New Zealand's First General Election Under Proportional Representation. Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press. —— (eds.) (1999). Electoral and Constitutional Change in New Zealand: An MMP Source Book. Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press. Jackson, K., and McRobie, A. (1998). New Zealand Adopts Proportional Representation: Accident? Design? Evolution? Aldershot: Ashgate. James, C., and McRobie, A. (1993). Turning Point: The 1993 Election and Beyond. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books. Lijphart, A. (1987). ‘The Demise of the Last Westminster System? Comments on the Report of New Zealand's Royal Commission on the Electoral System’. Electoral Studies, 6/2: 97–102.

NEW ZEALAND

739

Lipson, L. (1948). The Politics of Equality: New Zealand's Adventures in Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mackie, T. T., and Rose, R. (1974). The International Almanac of Electoral History. London: Macmillan. McRobie, A., and Roberts, N. S. (1978). Election ‘78: The 1977 Electoral Redistribution and the 1978 General Election in New Zealand. Dunedin: John McIndoe Ltd. Mulgan, R. (1997). Politics in New Zealand. 2nd edn. Auckland: Auckland University Press. Nelson, G. (1975). ‘Biogeography, the Vicariance Paradigm, and Continental Drift’. Systematic Zoology, 24/1: 494. Reynolds, A., and Reilly, B. (eds.) (1997). The International Idea Handbook of Electoral System Design. 2nd edn. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Taagepera, R., and Shugart, M. S. (1989). Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press. Vowles, J., and Aimer, P. (eds.) (1994). Double Decision: The 1993 Election and Referendum in New Zealand. Wellington: Department of Politics, Victoria University of Wellington. Vowles, J., Aimer, P., Catt, H., Lamare, J., and Miller, R. (1995). Towards Consensus? The 1993 Election in New Zealand and the Transition to Proportional Representation. Auckland: Auckland University Press. Vowles, J., Aimer, P., Banducci, S., and Karp, J. (eds.) (1998). Voters' Victory? New Zealand's First Election Under Proportional Representation. Auckland: Auckland University Press.


Palau by Donald R. Shuster

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview The Palau archipelago is a small island state located in the north-western corner of the north Pacific. Having been a Spanish, German, and Japanese colony, Palau became part of the US-American Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) in 1947. In July 1980, with the ratification of the Republic's Constitution by the people of Palau, the Republic of Palau came into being as a self-governing territory subject to the authority of the High Commissioner of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Since then, separate legislative and executive offices have been popularly elected. After the ratification of a Compact of Free Association agreement with the United States, the Republic of Palau declared its independence and full sovereignty in 1994. Palau had been governed since 1947 by a High Commissioner appointed by the President of the United States, who reported to the Secretary of the Interior (a position in the President's cabinet). Even though its Constitution was in place, Palau remained subject to the 1947 Trusteeship Agreement and the orders of the Secretary of the Interior, to the extent that the Palau Constitution or laws enacted by the Palau National Congress did not conflict with such Agreement or secretarial orders. The High Commissioner position was abolished in 1987, and the higher authority of the trusteeship agreement and Secretary of Interior ended when Palau established a new political relationship of free association with the United States on 1 October 1994. In response to the United Nations' criticism and a high level review of the TTPI during the Kennedy Administration (1961–1963), the U.S. established the Congress of Micronesia, a bicameral assembly of representatives from the six major ethnic areas of Micronesia: Palau, Yap, the Northern Mariana Islands, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and the Marshall Islands. In 1978 the population of Palau (as the Marshall Islands before) decided not to ratify the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia

742

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

which had been elaborated by the Congress since 1975. Instead, in August 1978 the Palau legislature set up a new Constitutional Convention in order to draft a Constitution for a future sovereign state of Palau. After various legal disputes and fresh elections to the legislature, this Constitution was submitted to and approved by the Palauan electorate in July 1980. Since the Constitution of the Republic was ratified, Palau has had seventeen national voting exercises, elections, or referendums. There have been five national elections to Presidency, Vice-Presidency and the National Congress, one special election for President and Vice-President, eight referendums on the compact of free association and three referendums on constitutional amendments. The Constitution of the Republic of Palau has established a presidential and federal form of government with a bicameral legislature and thus—among all former trust territories—comes closest to the US model. The most significant departure from the US system of government is the direct and popular election of the President and the Vice-President on a separate ballot, as well as the right of the National Congress to recall the President for political reasons by referendum following affirmative resolutions of at least three-quarters of the federal states. In order to be adopted, resolutions need a two-third majority of the vote cast in the relevant state. Some 6,425 Palauans went to the polls in November 1980 and elected Haruo I. Remeliik and Alfonso R. Oiterong as first President and Vice-President of the new Republic, respectively. Also in 1980, thirty-four congressmen were elected, sixteen to the House of Delegates, and eighteen to the Senate. These two houses made up the Olbiil Era Kelulau or National Congress, Palau's law-making body. The seats in the National Congress are contested every four years on the same day as the presidential and vice-presidential elections. No organized political parties existed at the time, yet it was common for parties to appear and disappear continuously for short intervals. The Liberal and Progressive parties formed in the era of the Congress of Micronesia faded away with this US-sponsored institution in the late 1970s. Despite the absence of sustained political parties, Palau's politics is nonetheless highly competitive and centers on key individuals and the alliances they develop. The six national elections to the National Congress (1980–1996) have been important due to their high degree of coveting and because they provide economic opportunities and prestige to their participants. In 1984, Remeliik and Oiterong were re-elected, but six months after the beginning of their second term, on 30 June 1985, Remeliik was assassinated

PALAU

743

by gunmen hired by a political opponent, John O. Ngiraked (now serving a life term in Palau's only jail). A special election was held in August 1985 and Lazarus Salii, a presidential candidate in 1980, defeated interim President Oiterong by nearly 600 votes out of 7,561 cast. Salii and Vice-President Remengesau were elected to complete the terms begun by Remeliik and Oiterong. However, that was not to be. In August 1988, President Salii committed suicide in his home, one day before the date scheduled for the announcement of his candidacy for that year's national election. In a span of just three years, the small republic had lost two Presidents in violent episodes. In the national presidential contest of November 1988, Ngiratkel Etpison, a successful Palau businessman, gained an unexpected victory over Roman Tmetuchl, a seasoned politician and favorite in the contest, by some 31 votes. Interim President Remengesau finished third. In the race for the Vice-Presidency, the national congressman Kuniwo Nakamura won easily with 62% of the vote. In contrast, Etpison was elected President by just 26% of the vote, due to the sevencandidate field and the plurality rule. For the 1992 elections the presidential electoral formula was changed from plurality to absolute majority rule. Nakamura defeated Johnson Toribiong, a lawyer, former national congressman and nephew of Tmetuchl, in an extremely narrow contest. Tommy Remengesau Jr., former national congressman, won the Vice-Presidency, defeating Sandra Pierantozzi, a cabinet minister in the Etpison administration (the first woman to hold a ministerial portfolio in Palau) by some 320 votes out of 9,092 cast. In 1996, both incumbents, Nakamura and Remengesau Jr., were reelected. A dominating issue throughout most of the period of constitutional government had been Palau's future political status. The Constitution of the Republic of Palau was written on the premise that Palau's status would change. This happened in 1993 when the voters of Palau finally accepted the compact of free association agreement (hereafter ‘compact’) with the United States. The compact agreement was the subject of an unprecedented series of eight referendums, 1983, 1984, 1986 (twice), 1987 (twice), 1990, and 1993. Since Palau was the last trusteeship and a responsibility of the council, the referendums were held under the observation of the United Nations Trusteeship Council. The compact agreement between Palau and the United States provides the Republic with long-term economic assistance in exchange for options on land for U.S. military use and a 50-year denial right for the U.S. whereby foreign military forces are not allowed into Palau's islands and territorial waters. Free association is a political status recognized by the

744

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

United Nations. Thus, Palau declared its independence and reclaimed its sovereignty in 1994, and that year it gained admission to the United Nations as its 185th member. Palau's Constitution-writing experience, its regular elections to high offices and the numerous referendums on the Constitution and the new political status of free association have been keen expressions of self-determination and nation-building.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Franchise was first instituted by the United States Naval government in 1946. At that time some forty-six men, then employed by the U.S. Navy, were called on to elect individuals from amongst themselves to hold six executive offices: general affairs, education, industry, police, finance, and judiciary. In 1947, just two years after the violence of the Pacific War had subsided, the U.S. military government issued a directive calling for the establishment of local municipal governments. For these elections to magistrate and municipal councils Palauans introduced the one-person, one-vote principle for the first time. Ever since then, such elections have been held regularly under that principle. Nevertheless, questions about the cultural validity of universal franchise have arisen now and then among the elite clans of Palau, as the former has generally contributed to erode the power and influence of the latter. Such criticism has not had any significant impact, however. Since the introduction of suffrage there has never been any discrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex, or religion. Traditionally, the age of maturity had been 26 years, and was established as voting age in the late 1940s. In 1958, the main elected legislative body (Palau Congress) reduced it to 21, and at that time a committee was studying the possibility of lowering it again to 18 years. In 1968, the United States government, through the Secretary of Interior, issued a nationwide executive order (order number 2918) which set universal suffrage at 18 years. The order provided that no property, language, or income qualification could ever be imposed or required of any voter, nor could any discrimination in qualification be made or based upon literacy, tribal custom or social position, nor upon differences in race, color, ancestry, sex, or religious belief. With over 30 years of experience in suffrage (inter alia seven elections to the Congress of Micronesia), Palauans defined this principle in a separate article in their 1979 Constitution. The right to vote was granted to all Palauan citizens aged eighteen or over, provided they did not serve

PALAU

745

a sentence for felony or had been determined by a court to be mentally ill. The National Congress established the period of residency and registration procedures for national elections, and the individual states (formerly the municipality) did the same with respect to local elections for governors and state legislators. Finally, the Constitution of the Republic of Palau requires that voting shall be by secret ballot. The regulations concerning candidature and electoral organization have remained unchanged since 1980 (see 1.3). For parliamentary elections the plurality system, in force already in the elections to the Congress of Micronesia, was maintained. Yet the Senate has been reapportioned on two occasions: the first reapportionment reduced the number of seats from 18 to 14 and the second one reduced the number of multi-member constituencies from six to three. The first presidential elections were held in 1980, there being no previous historical precedents. Palauan legislators had initially opted for an absolute majority system, but one month before the elections, the Electoral Law was amended in a singular decision of the legislature, and plurality replaced the majority system. The decision was justified by the costs of a run-off election and by the need to appease the political passions, awoken by the participation of many prominent candidates. Thus, plurality rule remained valid for the presidential elections of 1980, 1984, the special election of 1985, and 1988. In the 1980s the plurality system brought individuals with small shares of votes, i.e., 25–26%, into high offices. Prior to the 1992 election, the National Congress passed legislation introducing the absolute majority system. In Palauan terminology this was called a ‘primary system’, as the decisive run-off of the two best-placed candidates took place simultaneously with the elections to the National Congress. However, the ‘primaries’ were technically not an intra-party selection procedure, but the first round of a general popular contest for the highest executive positions.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Title 23 of the Republic of Palau National Code (PNC) with amendments constitutes the Republic's Election Law. Voting rights are comprehensively defined, as are residency, reapportionment, candidature, the national election commission and the conduct of elections, voter registration, ballots, absentee voting, recounts and appeals, and special elections. Since 1992, two amendments have been introduced into Title 23 establishing the legislation for the new presidential electoral formula.

746

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are included in Palauan law. Every citizen who has reached the age of 18 and resides in Palau may register as a voter. In fact, the Palau National Code prohibits any type of interference with respect to suffrage. Voting is not compulsory. Elected national institutions: The offices of President and Vice-President of the Republic are elected separately for four years. According to the Constitution of Palau, no President may hold his office for more than two consecutive terms. Such limitation does not apply for the Vice-President. The bicameral Olbiil Era Kelulau (Palau National Congress) consists of thirty members, fourteen make up the Senate and are elected by district according to population size; the other sixteen members make up the House of Delegates, one seat for each of Palau's sixteen small states. National elections are held every four years.

Nomination of candidates - presidential elections: The candidatures for Presidency and Vice-Presidency are not technically linked, i.e. two separate contests take place simultaneously. The nomination of a candidate to Presidency or Vice-Presidency requires a petition made by a candidate or by any five qualified registered voters with the concurrence of the candidate. For the candidate's name to appear on the ballot for the office of President or Vice-President, a nominating petition with at least 100 signatures of qualified voters of the Republic of Palau must be filed with the Election Commissioner. Candidates (for the two highest executive positions) must be citizens of the Republic of Palau, not less than 35 years of age and residents in the Republic for the five years immediately preceding the election for which they have been nominated. - National Congress elections: Nomination of a candidate for a seat in the National Congress of the Republic of Palau, the Olbiil Era Kelulau, is done by a petition made by a candidate or by any five qualified registered voters with the concurrence of the candidate. For the candidate's name to appear on the ballot for a seat in the Congress, a nominating petition with at least 25 signatures of qualified voters of the state (one of 16) is required for the House of Delegates, and 50 signatures of qualified voters of the senatorial district for the Senate. The requirements for candidacy to the National Congress are Palauan citizenship, 25 years of age, residency in Palau for not less than five years immediately before the election and residency in the relevant state or senatorial district for at least one year immediately before the election.

PALAU

747

Electoral system - presidential elections: Absolute majority system. The run-off—or single contest, if there are only two candidates—is held simultaneously with the elections to the National Congress. - National Congress elections: Plurality system in single- and multi-member constituencies. For the House of Delegates each of Palau's sixteen small states, which vary in size from 80 to 10,000 people, has one representative popularly elected via a plurality rule in single-member constituencies. The 14 Senators are also elected by plurality system in two multi- and one singlemember constituencies: four seats are distributed in the northern district; nine in the urban area of Koror-town; and one in the southern islands. In the multi-member constituencies voters have as many votes as there are seats to be distributed. The Palau Constitution mandates the establishment of a reapportionment commission every eight years—a third reapportionment of 1999 is pending. If instituted, it will further reduce the senate to 9 seats elected atlarge. Reapportionment is based on the shifts of population and aims at ensuring some semblance of equality in representation. Organizational context: Although the President of Palau is defined in the Palau National Code as the Republic's Election Commissioner, by law Palau's elections are carried out by a five-member Election Commission made up of respected career civil servants appointed by the President. While this may appear to be a conflict of interests, particularly in the case of national elections where the President is a candidate, the Election Commission operates according to a time-tested and proven set of election rules and regulations. Further, by Palau's electoral law, citizens may complain about irregularities, petition for a recounting of the vote and appeal when such petition is rejected. Finally, any serious irregularity can be taken to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Palau in the form of a suit. Such procedure, usual during the Salii Administration (1985–1988), has been generally successful. Thanks to such mechanisms, the election commission enjoys a considerable degree of independence and voters have an instrument to address election irregularities. Neither national elections nor constitutional referendums have been observed or monitored by international observers. On the contrary, each referendum on the compact of free association was observed by UN officials, and no irregularities were reported. This is evidence of the Election Commission's competence and professionalism.

748

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

1.4 Comment on the Electoral Statistics The tables below are based on the work of Palau's Election Commission. Its members—both full-time members and short-term appointees—have generally been career civil servants of integrity and honesty. Since 1947 Palau has gained a large experience in choosing representatives by the one-person-one-vote method. Apart from two exceptions, elections and referendums have generally been honest and fair. The first exception occurred before the balloting of the fifth compact referendum in 1987: President Salii had appointed Minister of State J. O. Ngiraked as Election Commissioner. Ngiraked then proceeded to establish off-island ballot service stations, although a Supreme Court appellate panel had declared them illegal as substitutes for the usual polling places and absentee ballot protections. The second incident concerned legal technicalities and resulted in the voiding of the results of the first constitutional amendment referendum and sixth compact referendum in August 1987. The Supreme Court decided that the public law establishing the two referendums had not achieved a 75% majority vote of support in neither the House of Delegates nor the Senate of the National Congress as required by the Constitution (see Shuster 1994). The presence of the United Nations Trusteeship Council observers for each of the compact of free association referendums (1983–1993) has guaranteed fairness and correctness. Thus, the electoral statistics reported below are a reliable and a fair representation of the people's will. Concerning presidential elections, Palauan electoral statistics indicate the so-called write-in candidates (actually invalid votes) on a separate line. For these elections the figures have been recalculated according to the guidelines of the data handbook. The elections to the seven legislatures of the Congress of Micronesia (1965–1976) and three referendums on the Constitution before 1981 have not been included in the tables. The data are provided by Meller (1985).

749

PALAU


1980 1983 1984 1985 1986

Presidential electionsa


1993 1996 a b

Referendums

Coups d'état

Lower Cham- Upper Chamber ber 04/11 04/11

04/11 30/11 28/08b

30/11

30/11

10/02 04/09 21/02 02/12 30/06 04/08 21/08

1987

1988 1990 1992


02/11

02/11

22/09 (1 ) 04/11 (2nd) st

24/09 (1 ) 05/11 (2nd) st

04/11

05/11

(I) (II) (I) (II) (III)

02/11 04/11

06/02 04/11

05/11

09/11 05/11

Direct and separate elections to Presidency and Vice-Presidency. After the assassination of President Haruo I. Remeliik on 30 June 1985, a special election was required by Article VIII of the Constitution of the Republic of Palau, 1979.

750

PAPUA NEW GUINEA


1980 1983 1984 1984 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1987 1988 1990 1992 1992 1993 1996 1996 a b

Type of electiona

Pr/Pa Ref Ref Pr/Pa Pr Ref (I) Ref (II) Ref (I) Ref (II) Ref (III) Pr/Pa Ref Pr (1st) Pr/Pa/Ref Ref Pr (1st) Pr/Pa/Ref

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

12,116 12,161 12,176 12,176 12,191 13,873 13,873 13,873 13,873 13,873 14,102 15,122 15,826 15,826 16,109 17,333 17,333

Total number 8,032 9,225 9,063 9,605 9,735 9,905 10,760 10,851 10,841 10,955 11,146 11,040 11,457 11,658 11,562 12,249 12,437

Total number 6,425 7,246 6,458 8,061 7,698 7,067 8,824 8,263 7,733 8,182 9,210 7,640 8,511 9,702 7,444 9,432 10,123

% pop. 66.3 75.9 74.4 78.9 79.9 71.4 77.6 78.2 78.1 79.0 79.0 73.0 72.4 73.7 71.8 70.7 71.8

% reg. voters 78.0 78.5 71.3 83.9 79.1 71.3 82.0 76.1 71.3 74.7 82.6 69.2 74.3 83.2 64.4 77.0 81.4

% pop. 53.0 60.0 53.0 66.2 63.1 50.9 63.6 59.6 55.7 59.0 65.3 50.5 53.8 61.3 46.2 54.4 58.4

Pr = President, Pa = National Congress, Ref = Referendum. Estimations.

2.3 /2.4 Abbreviations/ Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances At the urging of an American administrator, leading political figures in Palau formed the Liberal and Progressive political parties in 1963. Based more on personality than on ideology, these parties nevertheless flourished during the seven elections to the Congress of Micronesia held between 1965 and 1976 but faded as other alliances and key issues emerged. Replacing these parties were the Tia Belaud Party (1972) and the People's Party for the Constitution (1979), which faded as their issues were solved or their interest waned. The Sunshine Party Platform emerged and disappeared in 1984–85 and was replaced by the Ta Belau Party, formed to support the presidential aspirations of Salii and Eptison. This party disappeared and in 1995 the Palau Nationalist Party (PNP) appeared to back the 1996 presidential campaigns of Toribiong and Isechal. With their defeat the PNP became inactive. In 1992, the author asked 21 of the 30 congressmen their opinion about political parties. Some 71% stated that they supported the creation of political parties and 67% said they would join a party. At present there are not formally organized political parties in Palau.

751

PALAU

2.5 Referendums 1983a Total number Registered voters 9,225 Votes cast 7,246 Prop. Iab Invalid votes 79 Valid votes 7,167 Yes 4,452 No 2,715 Year

a b

c

d

e


c

d


b

Prop. Ibc 220 7,026 3,717 3,309

%

Total number

%

3.0 97.0 52.9 47.1

Prop. IId 3,196e 4,050 2,250 1,800

55.6 44.4

1984a Total number 9,063 6,458 Question Ib 65 6,393 4,290 2,103

% – 71.3 1.0 99.0 67.1 32.9

Total number

%

Question IIc 3,395d 3,063 2,127 936

52.6 47.4 69.4 30.6

Second compact referendum; consisted of two questions. The first question asked voters to vote approve (yes) or disapprove (no) the proposed compact of free association agreement between the Republic of Palau and the United States. The second question concerned voters' opinion regarding a political status other than free association. Voters were asked if they were in favour of closer relations with the United States, i.e. closer than the status quo of trusteeship (here: Yes-Votes), or in favor of total independence (here: No-Votes). On this question, a total of 3,378 ballots were left blank and 17 were void. This number of blank ballots clearly showed, as in the previous referendum but more so, that over 50% of the electorate could not take a position on a status other than free association. Year

a

1.1 98.9 62.1 37.9

Total number

First compact of free association referendum. Proposition Ia asked the voter to approve (yes) or disapprove (no) the Compact of Free Association agreement between the Republic of Palau and the United States. Proposition Ib asked the voters to approve (yes) or disapprove (no) an agreement which placed restrictions on the United States with respect to the storage or use of radioactive, chemical, and biological materials in Palau. Proposition II asked voters their preference regarding a future political status to be negotiated between Palau and the United States in the event that free association were rejected by the electorate. The choices available to the voters were: ‘a relationship with the United States closer than Free Association’ (here Yes-Votes) or independence (here No-Votes). Of this total, 3,178 were blank ballots (18 ballots were void). Clearly, over 43% of the voters were unable to take a position on the issue of a future political status other than free association. Year

a

% – 78.5

21/02/1986a Total number 9,905 7,067 31 7,036 5,079 1,957

% – 71.3 0.4 99.6 72.2 27.8

02/12/1986b Total number 10,760 8,824 49 8,775 5,789 2,986

% – 82.0 0.6 99.4 66.0 34.0

Third compact referendum. As with the previous two referendums and as would be the case for all later compact referendums, the ballot question asked of voters was, essentially, ‘Do you approve free association with the United States as set forth in the Compact of Free Association agreement signed on January 10, 1986, inclusive of its subsidiary agreements. . . ?’ Fourth compact referendum. Year

30/06/1987a

04/08/1987b

752

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a b



b


b

c

Total number 10,841 7,733 35 7,698 5,645 2,053

% – 71.3 0.5 99.5 73.3 26.7

21/08/1987a Total number 10,955 8,182 17 8,165 5,964 2,201

% – 74.7 0.2 99.8 73.0 27.0

1990b Total number 11,040 7,640 19 7,621 4,633 2,988

% – 69.2 0.2 99.8 60.8 39.2

1992a Total number 11,658 9,702 272 9,430 5,882 3,548

% – 83.2 2.8 97.2 62.4 37.6

1993b Total number 11,562 7,444 16 7,428 5,081 2,347

% – 64.4 0.2 99.8 68.4 31.6

Second Constitutional amendment referendum. The results of this referendum were declared valid by the Election Commission and the compact agreement was thus approved by a simple majority. Eighth and final compact referendum. Year

a

% – 76.1 0.2 99.8 67.6 32.4

Sixth compact referendum. Seventh compact referendum. Year

a

Total number 10,851 8,263 16 8,247 5,574 2,673

Fifth compact referendum. Constitutional amendment referendum. Because the voters of Palau in five referendums had failed to approve the Compact agreement by the 75% margin required by the Palau Constitution, the administration of President Salii passed a constitutional amendment to lower the approval percentage. The ballot contained both the English and Palauan language statements of the question with yes and no check-boxes. However, the results of this first constitutional referendum were declared null and void by the Supreme Court of Palau on the grounds that the enabling legislation did not achieve 75% majority of the affirmative vote neither in the House of Delegates nor the Senate of the Palau National Congress, as required by the Constitution. Year

a

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

1996a Total number 12,437 10,123 Question Ib 721 9,402 4,346 5,056

% – 81.4 7.1 92.9 46.2 53.8

Total number

%

Question IIc 612 9,511 4,582 4,929

6.0 94.0 48.2 51.8

The ballot for Palau's 1996 presidential and congressional elections contained two petitions regarding the amendment of the Constitution (Third Constitutional amendment referendum). The first proposal would allow the electorate to vote on a constitutional amendment at any time as set by law instead of only during a national election. The second question asked the voters if they wanted a constitutional convention for the purpose of revising the National Constitution.

PALAU

753

2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly Elections for delegates to a constitutional convention have not been held since the Constitution of the Republic of Palau came into effect on 1 January 1981.

754

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

2.7 Parliamentary Elections Elections to the bicameral National Congress (Olbiil Era Kelulau) have taken place regularly since independence. Candidature is individual.

2.7.1 House of Delegates 1980–1996 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes

1980 Total number 8,032 6,425 159 6,266 1988 Total number 11,146 9,210 553 8,657


% – 80.0 2.5 97.5

1984 Total number 9,605 8,061 — —

% – 83.9 — —

% – 82.6 6.0 94.0

1992 Total number 11,658 9,702 1,087 8,615

% – 83.2 11.2 88.8

1996 Total number 12,437 10,123 568 9,655

% – 81.4 4.6 95.4

% – 80.0 2.5 97.5

1984 Total number 9,605 8,061 — —

% – 83.9 — —

% – 82.6 4.7 95.3

1992 Total number 11,658 9,702 198 9,504

% – 83.2 2.0 98.0

2.7.2 Senate 1980–1996 Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballots

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballots Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballots

1980 Total number 8,032 6,425 159 6,266

1988 Total number 11,146 9,210 433 8,777

1996 Total number 12,437 10,123 736 9,487

% – 81.4 6.3 93.7

755

PALAU

2.8 Composition of Parliament Although the Republic of Palau does not have political parties at the present time, group-building and coalitionbuilding in the National Congress takes place as issues and challenges warrant it. It is based on kinship, friendship, importance of issues, and lobbying from the chief executive's office, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates.

2.9 Presidential Elections 1980–1996 2.9.1 Elections to Presidency

a

1980 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Haruo I. Remeliik Roman Tmetuchl Lazarus E. Salii John Olbedabel David Ramarui

Total number 8,032 6,425 159 6,266 1,955 1,608 1,453 992 258

% – 80.0 2.5 97.5 31.2 25.7 23.2 15.8 4.1

1984 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Haruo I. Remeliik Roman Tmetuchl Yutaka M. Gibbons

Total number 9,605 8,061 111 7,950 4,050 2,482 1,418

% – 83.9 1.4 98.6 50.9 31.2 17.8

1985 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Lazarus E. Salii Alfonso R. Oiterong

Total number 9,735 7,698 137a 7,561 4,077 3,484

% – 79.1 1.8 98.2 53.9 46.1

Total number 11,146 9,210 118a 9,092 2,392

% – 82.6 1.3 98.7 26.3

Including 99 so-called write-in candidates.

1988 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Ngiratkel Etpison

756 Roman Tmetuchl Thomas O. Remengesau John O. Ngiraked Yutaka M. Gibbons Moses Y. Uludong Santos Olikong a

2,361 1,773 769 731 590 476

26.0 19.5 8.5 8.0 6.5 5.2

Total number 11,457 8,511 93a 8,418 3,191 3,138 2,089

% – 74.3 1.1 98.9 37.9 37.3 24.8

1992 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Kuniwo Nakamura Johnson Toribiong

Total number 11,568 9,702 154 9,548 4,841 4,707

% – 83.9 1.6 98.4 50.7 49.3

1996 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Kuniwo Nakamura Johnson Toribiong Yutaka M. Gibbons

Total number 12,249 9,432 127 9,305 4,900 3,092 1,313

% – 77.0 1.3 98.7 52.7 33.2 14.1

1996 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Kuniwo Nakamura Yutaka M. Gibbonsa

Total number 12,437 10,123 715 9,408 6,052 3,356

% – 81.4 7.1 92.9 64.3 35.7


1992 (1st round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Johnson Toribiong Kuniwo Nakamura Ngiratkel Etpison a

a

PAPUA NEW GUINEA


Toribiong withdrew from the contest due on the one hand to his poor performance in the first round (in 1992 he had finished first in the first round) and on the other to the collapse of the huge bridge connecting Koror-town to Palau's largest island. Toribiong believed this natural disaster should receive the government's entire attention.

757

PALAU

2.9.2 Elections to Vice-Presidency

a

1980 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alfonso R. Oiterong Tosiwo Nakamura Isidoro Rudimch Raymond Ulochong Haruo N. Willter

Total number 8,032 6,425 291 6,134 1,953 1,706 1,364 567 544

% – 80.0 4.5 95.5 31.8 27.8 22.2 9.2 8.9

1984 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Alfonso R. Oiterong Sadang N. Silmai John S. Tarkong

Total number 9,605 8,061 570 7,491 4,252 2,373 866

% – 83.9 9.3 90.7 56.8 31.7 11.6

1985 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Thomas O. Remegesau Tosiwo Namamura F. Kazuo Asanuma Joshua Koshiba Sadang N. Silmai Haaruo N. Willter John S. Tarkong

Total number 9,735 7,698 125a 7,573 1,968 1,353 1,168 1,152 901 756 275

% – 79.1 1.6 98.4 26.0 17.9 15.4 15.2 11.9 10.0 3.6

Total number 11,146 9,210 400a 8,810 5,482 3,328

% – 82.6 4.3 95.7 62.2 37.8

Total number 11,457

% –

Including 13 write-in candidates.

1988 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Kuniwo Nakamura F. Kazuo Asanuma a

Including 57 write-in candidates.

1992 (1st round) Registered voters

758 Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Tommy Remengesau Sandra Pierantozzi Minoru Ueki Moses Y. Uludong a

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

8,511 148 8,363 2,832 2,038 1,861 1,632

74.3 1.7 98.3 33.9 24.4 22.3 19.5

1992 (2nd round) Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Tommy Remegesau Sandra Pierantozzi

Total number 11,658 9,702 412 9,290 4,805 4,485

% – 83.9 4.2 95.8 51.7 48.3

1996 Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Tommy Remegesau Kione Isechal

Total number 12,437 10,123 413 9,710 6,672 3,038

% – 81.4 4.1 95.9 68.7 31.3

Including seven write-in candidates.

PALAU

759

2.10 List of Power Holders 1980–2001 Head of State Adrian P. Winkel

Years 1980–1981

Haruo I. Remeliik

1981–1985

Alfonso R. Oiterong

1985

Lazarus E. Salii

1985–1988

Tommy Remengesau

1988–1989

Ngiratkel Etpison Kuniwo Nakamura

1989–1992 1992–

Remarks High Commissioner appointed by the US-President. First elected President; re-elected in 1984; assassinated on 30 June 1985. Vice-President since 1981; Interim President until new elections. Elected President, died in office of self-inflected gun-shot wound, 20 August 1988. Vice-President, took over after Salii's death. Elected President. Vice-President since 1989; elected President in 1992 and re-elected in 1996.

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Palau Constitutional Convention (1979). Constitution of the Republic of Palau. Koror, Republic of Palau. Palau National Code Commission (1986). Republic of Palau National Code (PNC). Koror, Republic of Palau. U.S. Department of State (1969). Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 22nd Annual Report Transmitted by the United States of America to the United Nations Pursuant to Article 88 of the Charter of the United Nations. Washington, D.C. Palau Election Commission, Counting and Tabulation Committee (1980). Results of November 4, 1980 General Election for Officials of the First Constitutional Government of Palau. Koror, Republic of Palau. Republic of Palau, Election Commission, Counting and Tabulation Committee (1984). General Election, Nov. 30, 1984, Results. Koror, Republic of Palau.

760

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Republic of Palau, Office of the Special Election Commissioner (1985). Certification of August 28, 1985 Special Election Results and Declaration of Winning Candidates. Koror, Republic of Palau. Republic of Palau, Office of the Election Commission (1988). Certification of 1988 Third General Election Results and Declaration of Winning Candidates. Koror, Republic of Palau. —— (1992). Certification of Election Results and Declaration of Winning Candidates, First Primary Election, September 22, 1992. Koror, Republic of Palau. —— (1992). Certification: Referendum on the Constitutional Amendment held on November 4 and 5, 1992. Koror, 14 November 1992. Remeliik, H. I. (1983). Presidential Announcement 1-83 ‘Certification of Referendum and Plebiscite Ballot Results on the Compact of Free Association, 22 February 1983. —— (1984). Presidential Proclamation No. 25-84 ‘Certifying Results of the Plebiscite and Referendum on the Compact of Free Association held September 4, 1984. The Palau Gazette (1986). ‘Counting and Tabulation Sheet for Plebiscite on the Compact, February 21, 1986’. No. 21 of 28/02/1986: 6–7. —— (1986). ‘Results of the December 2, 1986 Compact Referendum’. No. 33 of 22/12/1986: 4–5. —— (1987). ‘Improved Compact Referendum, June 30, 1987: Summary of Results by States’. No. 43 of 29/07/1987: 4. —— (1987). ‘Results of the August 4 Referendum on Constitutional Amendment’. No. 44 of 17/08/1987: 4–5. —— (1987). ‘Results of August 21 Compact Referendum’. No. 45 of 01/09/1987: 5–6. —— (1990). ‘Seventh Referendum on the Compact of Free Association (February 6, 1990)’. No. 66 of 26/02/1990: 10.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Meller, N. (1985). Constitutionalism in Micronesia. Honolulu: The Institute for Polynesian Studies. Richard, D. (1957). United States Naval Administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. (3 volumes), Washington, D. C.: U.S. Office of Naval Operations. Shuster, D. R. (1983). ‘Elections in the Republic of Palau’. Political Science (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand), 35/1: 117–132. —— (1988). ‘Elections, Compact, and Assassination in the Republic of Palau’. Pacific Studies, 12/1: 23–48.

PALAU

761

—— (1994). ‘Palau's Compact: Controversy, Conflict, and Compromise’. ISLA: A Journal of Micronesian Studies, 2/2: 207–236. ‘Unofficial Results, Fourth General Election for the National Congress, November 4, 1992’. Tia Belau News, 1/12, 14 November 1992: 7. ‘4th General and Referendum (Nov. 4, 1992) Summary Results of States and Koror’. Tia Belau News, 1/13, 29 November 1992: 12. ‘Unofficial Election Results, Primary, 24 September 1996’. Tia Belau News, 5/24, 5–12 October 1996: 1. ‘Results of the 1996 General Election (unofficial)’. Tia Belau News, 5/29, 17–30 November 1996: 3. ‘Results of the eighth plebiscite on the Compact of Free Association with the United States of America (1993)’. Tia Belau News 2/23, 20 November 1993: 9.


Papua New Guinea by Benjamin Reilly

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Papua New Guinea (PNG) has one of the longest records of continuous democracy in the developing world, with highly competitive national elections being held without interruption since 1964. In fact, on some indicators—notably its five post-independence elections, eight transitions of government and over 30 years of continuous democratic experience—PNG is one of the Third World's most successful democracies, being a very rare case of an economically underdeveloped and ethnically fragmented country which has nonetheless been able to maintain democratic government and meaningful elections. The state of PNG comprises roughly half of the world's second largest island, New Guinea, and about 600 smaller islands. It shares its western border with Irian Jaya, a province of Indonesia. PNG was formed by the merger at independence of the Territory of Papua, which had been under Australian rule from 1906, with the Trust Territory of New Guinea, which had been a German colonial territory from 1884 to 1914, and had thenceforth been administered by Australia—first under military rule, then under a League of Nations mandate granted in 1920, and later under United Nations trusteeship from 1945. The two territories were jointly administered by Australia as an administrative union until 1975. The Territory of Papua New Guinea became self-governing in December 1973 and attained full independence on 16 September 1975. PNG is home to approximately four million people, predominantly of Melanesian race. Modern representative politics has always been influenced by the highly fragmented nature of PNG traditional society, which is based around competing clans—extended family units—which form the primary (and sometimes the only) unit of political loyalty. With no common history of statehood, PNG society is fragmented into hundreds of often mutually antipathetic ethnic groupings. At the latest count approximately 840 distinct languages were spoken in PNG, around a

764

SAMOA

quarter of the world's stock, reflecting enormous cultural divisions. Given this, PNG is almost certainly the world's most ethnically heterogeneous state in terms of the sheer numbers of independent ethnolinguistic groups. PNG's political arrangements generally follow the Westminster model. The PNG legislature, the National Parliament, was created by the transformation of the colonial House of Assembly at independence. The national executive (i.e. cabinet) is formed by and responsible to the legislature. All Parliaments have so far run their full term, despite several changes of government on the floor of Parliament. The Head of State is the British monarch, represented locally by a Governor-General. Parliament is effectively sovereign: the Constitution can be amended by two successive super-majority votes of parliament, not by referendum. Deviations from a classic Westminster system include the presence of a written Constitution, adopted in 1975, and a quasi-federal system of 19 provinces which (until 1995) featured their own elected assemblies. In 1995, however, a marked shift back towards centralization of power followed the abolition of provincial governments in all provinces save the secessionist eastern islands of Bougainville, where provincial government continues to operate under special arrangements. The practice of representative democracy in PNG is characterized by a diffuse and fragmented party system, high candidacy rates, very low support levels for some successful candidates, vote-splitting, low party identification on the part of the electorate, high turnover of politicians from one election to the next, and frequent party-hopping on the part of MPs. Political parties are weak and tend to coalesce around personalities rather than issues or ideologies, although they do play a limited role in mobilizing and campaigning at election time and in the formation of governments following elections.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions PNG's choice of electoral systems has been influenced by colonial rule: for its three pre-independence elections in 1964, 1968, and 1972, PNG used a majority electoral system—the alternative vote, inherited from Australia. Known as optional preferential voting, electors were required to express a first preference (defined as the number 1) for a candidate, and as many further preferences (2,3,4 etc) for other candidates as they so chose. In practice, low literacy rates meant that many electors were not capable of independently numbering preferences themselves, so the

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

765

institution of the whispering ballot—electors verbally expressing their preferences to a polling officer, who would mark the ballot paper for them—was extensively used. Similarly, the Australian system of compulsory voting was not introduced. Although the principal raison d'être for its introduction was that it was the system used in Australia, by 1970 official documents were arguing that the alternative vote was particularly well-suited to PNG's fragmented social structure. Under this system, elections in many seats were determined by the distribution of secondary preference votes, which encouraged bargaining for support across ethnic lines and appears to have assisted the consolidation of PNG's nascent democracy. This system was changed to a plurality system at independence in 1975. In the context of PNG's highly-fragmented society, this led to a very different kind of electoral competition, with little incentive for cross-ethnic voting and increasingly high levels of dummy candidature, vote splitting, and electoral violence. Since independence, mass-suffrage national elections have been held in 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1997. The membership of the National Parliament has been determined by section 101 of the Constitution, which provides for three different types of members: candidates elected from local constituencies, from provincial constituencies, and nominated members. The most common form of members are those from open electorates. Since the first and (so far) only post-independence boundary determination in 1977, there have been 89 open electorates. These electorates were demarcated on the basis of census figures from 1971, and have not been revised to take account of changes in population, leading to high degrees of malapportionment between seats in recent years due to population movements. The 20 provincial electorates have their origins in ten Special Electorates reserved for expatriate candidates at the 1964 elections. The nominated seat provision—under which up to three members may be nominated to office by a two-third majority of the parliament, rather than elected to it—has never been used and there is little prospect of it being used in the foreseeable future. There is a history of official and non-appointed members in PNG legislative bodies, going back to the colonial legislative councils of the 1950s, and this provision reflects this history, being intended to give the PNG parliament the opportunity to include expertise from outside the legislature within its ranks. Other early innovations in Papua New Guinea include the progressive step of reducing the voting age from 21 to 18 years in 1971 (a reform that predated similar moves in many Western countries), the entrenchment of an Electoral Commission in the Constitution, and the use of mobile

766

SAMOA

polling and helicopters to reach remote areas. Since 1972, photographs have been used on the ballot paper wherever possible to identify candidates for illiterate voters. In 1987, this practice was expanded to also show photographs of the relevant party leader next to the names (and photographs) of all endorsed candidates on the ballot paper. This provision was introduced with the express purpose of fostering a greater level of party identification both by the electorate and on the part of elected politicians, who are notoriously prone to switching party allegiances once elected. The introduction of party leader photographs was an overt attempt by the Electoral Commission to encourage the development of a meaningful party system in PNG. Prior to 1987, candidates were not identified by any party affiliation on the ballot paper, and once elected successful members would simply align themselves with their chosen party in parliament. Parties have no formal role in candidate nomination, and most candidates stand as independents or align themselves with several prospective parties. Parties may sometimes pay nomination fees, contribute to campaign expenses, and provide the paraphernalia of electoral campaign material. Candidates who receive financial assistance from a party are presumed more likely to remain faithful to that party in the post-election horse-trading process of building parliamentary majorities, where parties routinely extend financial support to tempt potential partyswappers to gravitate to their camp. PNG elections to date have featured large numbers of candidates and high turnout of voters, and have long been characterized by remarkably high rates of candidature. The first post-independence elections in 1977 saw an explosion in candidate numbers—881 candidates standing for 109 seats, representing an average of over eight candidates per seat. By 1997, this number had grown to 2370 candidates, an average of 21.7 candidates standing in each electorate. One consequence of this combination of very high candidature levels with plurality voting is that candidates can (and do) get elected on remarkably small vote shares. In one electorate in 1992 featuring 48 candidates, for example, the winner gained only 6.3% of the total vote. In 1997 only four members of parliament actually gained a majority of the vote in their constituency, and most of the parliament was elected with vote shares of under 20%, including 15 members who won their seats with less than 10% of the vote.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

767

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1975); Organic Law on National Elections (1976).

Suffrage: Suffrage is universal for all citizens aged 18 years and over. All citizens who have resided in an electorate for at least six months, are not under sentence of death or imprisonment for at least nine months, and have not been convicted within the preceding three years of an election-related offence, have the right to vote and stand for public office. Enrolment for electors is technically compulsory, although this has never been enforced in practice.

Elected National Institution: PNG has a unicameral National Parliament composed of 109 members elected by a two-tier system from 89 open electorates of approximately equal population size, and 20 regional electorates based on the boundaries of the 19 provinces and the National Capital District (the area around Port Moresby, the capital). Parliament may nominate to office three additional members by a two-third majority. Parliamentary terms last for five years. Vacancies arising between general elections are filled through by-elections.

Nomination of Candidates: A nominating candidate must be at least 25 years old, be a qualified voter and be born in the electorate for which he/ she is nominating, or have been continuously resident there for the two years prior to nomination or for five years at any time. Prior to the 1992 election the nomination fee for prospective candidates was increased to 1000 kina (then about $US 1000), making it one of the highest financial hurdles to contesting elections in place anywhere in the world. Only the winning candidate has this amount refunded, all losers forfeit their fee. Candidates also need to display the support of 100 enrolled voters from their electorate before they can nominate.

Electoral System: A two-tier plurality system is applied. Each voter casts two votes: one for a local (open) candidate, and one for a provincial candidate. Eighty-nine MPs are elected from single-member open electorates which should be approximately equal in population, within a tolerance of plus or minus 20%, and must not cut across provincial boundaries. The remaining 20 MPs are elected from single-member provincial electorates. These provincial electorates follow the boundaries of PNG's 19 provinces and the National Capital District around Port Moresby.

768

SAMOA

Since 1995, members elected from provincial electorates also automatically become the chair of the provincial assembly and head of the provincial government. Because most provincial electorates are much larger and consequently require wider support to gain election than open electorates, some commentators argue that they play a useful role in encouraging a more representative legislature. Provincial electorates also represent an acceptance of the special needs and interests of PNG's provinces. One consequence of this is a regional weighting in favour of the smaller provinces, particularly the island provinces, into a unicameral legislature—a relatively unusual arrangement by world standards.

Organizational Context of Elections: PNG elections are conducted by an Electoral Commission headed by an Electoral Commissioner. The Commission has a high degree of independence in most aspects of its work. PNG elections have been internationally observed, most recently by a Commonwealth Observer Mission in 1997. Elections appeals and disputes are dealt with by the National Court. The judiciary is one of the more respected arms of the PNG polity, and has overturned numerous election results on petition in recent years.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics In documenting the results of general elections in PNG, the major problem for traditional academic analysis is one of reliable data. Only since the 1987 election have the official election statistics included information on party support levels. This makes the traditional calculation of the relationship between a party's vote share and its seat share difficult in practice and largely meaningless as a measure of electoral support. Nonetheless, with some creativity it is possible to look at the relationship between a party's seat and vote shares for all PNG elections since independence. In the following tables, information comes from a variety of official and academic sources. Since no party labels appeared on ballot papers until 1987, information on party affiliations from the 1977 and 1982 elections comes mostly from knowledgeable academics and observers making their own estimates of which candidates were associated with particular parties, and using this figure to calculate a crude estimate of a party's overall vote share. For the 1977 elections the best information comes from Hegarty (1983) and Premdas (1978). Unfortunately no statistics of a national party vote for the 1977 elections were published, but it is possible to make some

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

769

informed estimates for comparative purposes. Using the sample of fifteen studies from Hegarty's volume, I have attempted to estimate the overall support levels for the major parties. Concerning the 1983 elections, data given are based on the estimations of Jackson and Hegarty (1983) and King (1989). At the 1987 election, the Electoral Commissioner for the first time attempted to identify candidates by their party affiliation wherever possible—a difficult task where some parties endorsed multiple candidates in a single constituency or where candidates claimed a party allegiance which was not necessarily shared by the powers-that-be of the party itself. None the less, for the 1987, 1992, and 1997 elections the Electoral Commission has published data on both party allegiance and overall levels of party support. When combined with the estimates of total vote share from the 1977 and 1982 elections, this enables us to compare the percentage of votes gained by each party and by independent candidates, and in most cases their raw vote totals as well, for all PNG elections since independence. Additionally, Oliver (1989), Saffu (1996), Reilly (1997, 1999), and The Independent (25 July 1997) have been used for the 1987, 1992 and 1997 elections respectively. It must be emphasized, however, that this type of information can be quite deceptive when attempting to analyze PNG electoral politics, as it can give the impression that some kind of meaningful party system exists, when in reality the data is simply the combined total of each party-endorsed candidate's vote in each seat tallied up and presented, as far as possible, as some sort of national party vote figure. National factors and candidates' party allegiance, while not necessarily irrelevant, are often of extremely limited importance. In addition, both the questionable veracity of many official statistics and the high occurrence of multiple voting in recent years further complicates statistical analysis. Mindful of this caveat, the following tables present an indication of party seat and vote shares for each election since independence in 1975.

770

SAMOA


a

Year

Presidential elec- Parliamentary tions electionsa

1977 1982 1987 1992 1997

18/06–09/07 05/06–26/06 13/06–04/07 13/06–27/06 14/06–28/06


Referendums

Coups d'état

Elections to Lower Chamber. Due to the size of the country and the difficulty of the terrain, PNG elections are held over several weeks.


1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 a b

Type of electiona

R R R R R

Population

Registered votersb

Ballots cast

2,808,000 3,094,000 3,482,000 3,847,000 4,107,000

Total number 1,607,635 2,309,621 1,843,128 1,987,994 3,414,072

Total number 970,172 1,194,114 1,355,477 1,614,251 2,244,531

% pop. 57.3 74.7 52.9 51.7 83.1

% reg. voters 60.3 51.7 73.5 81.2 66.0

% pop. 34.6 38.6 38.9 42.0 54.7

R = House of Representatives (Lower Chamber) The standard of the electoral register in PNG is notoriously poor, and is generally considered to greatly over-estimate the actual voting age population due to multiple enrolments and non-deletion of deaths and movements. This means that the true turnout figures are probably higher than those presented here. Multiple voting on a large scale took place at the 1997 election.

771

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

2.3 Abbreviations CP IG LNA MA MIG NatA NP Pangu PAP PB PDM PP PPP UP

Country Party PNG Independent Group League for National Advancement Melanesian Alliance Morobe Independent Group National Alliance National Party Pangu Pati Peoples Action Party Papua Besena Peoples Democratic Movement Papua Party Peoples Progress Party United Party

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1977–1997 Party / Alliance CP NP Pangu PB PPP UP IG MA PP MIG LNA PAP PDM NatA a

Years 1977, 1987–1992 1977–1997 1977–1997 1977, 1987 1977–1997 1977–1997 1982 1982–1997 1982–1987 1987 1987–1992 1987–1997 1987–1997 1997

Only parliamentary elections. Total number: 5.

Elections contesteda 3 5 5 2 5 5 1 4 2 1 2 3 3 1

772

SAMOA



2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1977–1997 Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid votes Valid votes Pangu PPP UP PB Country NP MA IG PP Others Independents a

b

1977a Total number 1,607,635 970,172 — — — — — — — — – – – – —

% – 60.3 — — 35.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 – – – – 30.0

1982b Total number 2,309,621 1,194,114 — — — — — – – — — — — — —

% – 52.0 — — 34.0 10.0 7.2 – – 10.0 8.6 6.9 1.6 0.8 20.9

As party labels did not appear on ballot papers, the number of total party votes are not available. Percentages of party's overall vote share are estimations by the author on the basis of Hegarty (1983). As party labels did not appear on ballot papers, the number of total party votes are not available. Percentages of party's overall vote share are estimations by Jackson and Hegarty (1983). Some totals add to over 100% due to rounding.

Year Registered voters Ballots casta Invalid votes Valid votes Pangu PDM PPP MA NP LNA PAP

1987 Total number 1,843,128 1,355,477 — 2,732,390 408,082 298,715 168,280 153,611 135,761 132,001 87,836

% – 76.0 — — 14.9 10.9 6.4 5.6 5.0 4.8 3.2

1992 Total number 1,987,994 1,614,251 — 3,159,803 294,738 247,379 90,465 134,903 26,303 68,188 147,538

% – 81.2 — — 9.3 7.8 2.9 4.3 0.8 2.2 4.7

773

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

UP MIG PP PB Country Others Independents a

3.2 2.2 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.7 40.9

2,539 – – – 18,646 134,972 1,994,132

In the two-tier plurality system of PNG every voter has two votes.

Year Registered voters Ballots casta Invalid votes Valid votes NatA PPP Pangu PDM PAP MA UP NP Others Independents a

87,243 60,922 34,636 17,122 10,743 19,803 1,117,635

1997 Total number 3,414,072 2,244,531 — 4,459,899 288,965 288,634 237,028 197,331 182,845 81,303 77,917 16,009 351,347 2,738,520

In the two-tier electoral system of PNG every voter has two votes.

% – 66.0 — — 6.5 6.5 5.3 4.4 4.1 1.8 1.8 0.4 7.9 61.4

0.1 – – – 0.6 4.2 63.1

774

SAMOA

2.8 Composition of Parliament 1977–1997

a

Year

1977 Seats 108b Pangu 40 UP 24 PPP 20 PB 6 NP 2 MA – PP – IG – PDM – PAP – MIG – LNA – CP 0 Others 5 Independ- 11 ents

a

b

% 100.0 37.0 22.2 18.5 5.6 1.9 – – – – – – – 0.0 4.6 10.2

1982 Seats 108b 61 6 13 – 19 6 3 0 – – – – – – –

% 100.0 56.5 5.6 12.0 – 17.6 5.6 2.8 0.0 – – – – – – –

1987 Seats 106b 27 2 10 0 10 7 3 – 26 14 4 3 0 – –

% 100.0 25.5 1.9 9.4 0.0 9.4 6.7 2.9 – 24.5 13.2 3.8 2.9 0.0 – –

1992 Seats 109 22 0 10 – 2 9 – – 15 13 – 5 0 3 30

% 100.0 20.2 0.0 9.2 – 1.8 8.3 – – 13.8 11.9 – 4.6 0.0 2.8 27.5

These figures are the declared party allegiances of individual MPs at the first sitting of parliament following an election, which can often be different to the party labels under which individual members were elected. For example, in 1987 all the members elected as independents—22 in all—assigned themselves to a party once in parliament. Not surprisingly, such party attachments are often notoriously unreliable, with many members changing their allegiances several times over the course of one parliament. The election for one seat in 1977 and 1982 and three seats in 1987 were postponed due to the death of candidates during the campaign period.

Year

PPP Pangu PDM MA PAP UP NP Others Independents

1997 Seats 109 16 13 8 5 4 3 1 23 36

% 100.0 14.7 11.9 7.3 4.6 3.7 2.8 0.9 21.1 33.0

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

775

2.9 Presidential Elections Presidential elections have not been held.

2.10 List of Power Holders 1975–2001 Head of State Queen Elizabeth II

Years 1975–

Remarks Under the PNG Constitution, the British monarch (and her successors) is personally named as the Queen and Head of State of Papua New Guinea.

Head of Government Michael Somare

Years 1975–1980

Julius Chan Michael Somare Paias Wingti

1980–1982 1982–1985 1985–1988

Rabbie Namaliu Paias Wingti Julius Chan

1988–1992 1992–1994 1994–1997

Bill Skate Mekere Morauta

1997–1999 1999–

Remarks Somare became PNG Prime Minister at Independence in 1975 and retained Prime Ministership after General Election in 1977. No-confidence vote in parliament. General election. No-confidence vote in parliament. Wingti retained Prime Ministership after the 1987 General Election. No-confidence vote in parliament. General Election. Wingti's own appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in August 1994 forced a new election by the parliament which enabled Wingti's former deputy, Sir Julius Chan, to return to the prime ministership. General Election. Elected by Parliament on 14/07/ 1999.

776

SAMOA

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources ‘Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1975)’, in Pacific Constitutions. Vol. 2. Suva: University of the South Pacific, 175–314. Electoral Commissioner (1987). Report by the Electoral Commissioner on the 1987 National Elections. Boroko: PNG Electoral Commission. —— (1992). Total Votes Polled by Candidates. Boroko: PNG Electoral Commission. —— (1997). Report to the Sixth Parliament on the 1997 National Election. PNG Electoral Commission, Boroko. Organic Law on National Elections (1976). PNG Electoral Commission (1983). Report: First National General Elections 1977. Port Moresby: Government Printer.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Deklin, T. (1992). ‘Culture and Democracy in Papua New Guinea: “Marit Tru or Giaman Marit?’ ”, in R. Crocombe, U. Neemia, A. Ravuvu, and W. vom Busch (eds.), Culture and Democracy in the South Pacific. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, 35–48. Electoral Commission of Inquiry into Electoral Procedures (1970). Report of the Electoral Commission of Inquiry into Electoral Procedures. Port Moresby: Government Printer. Hegarty, D. (1979). ‘The Political Parties’, in A. Amarshi, K. Good and R. Mortimer (eds.), Development and Dependency: the Political Economy of Papua New Guinea. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 187–204. —— (ed.) (1983). Electoral Politics in Papua New Guinea: Studies in the 1977 National Elections. Port Moresby: University of Papua New Guinea Press. International IDEA (1997). Voter Turnout from 1945 to 1997: A Global Report on Political Participation. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Jackson, R., and Hegarty, D. (1983). ‘From Geography to Ideology? The 1982 Elections in Papua New Guinea’. Australian Geographer, 15/5: 334–336. King, P. (ed.) (1989). Pangu Returns to Power: the 1982 Elections in Papua New Guinea, Political and Social Change Monograph 9. Canberra: Department of Political and Social Change, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

777

Oliver, M. (ed.) (1989). Eleksin: the 1987 National Election in Papua New Guinea. Port Moresby: University of Papua New Guinea. Premdas, R. (1978). ‘Papua New Guinea: the First General Elections after Independence’. The Journal of Pacific History, 13/1: 77–90. Reilly, B. (1997). ‘The Alternative Vote and Ethnic Accommodation: New Evidence from Papua New Guinea’. Electoral Studies, 16/1: 1–11. —— (1999). ‘Party Politics in Papua New Guinea: A Deviant Case?’, Pacific Affairs, 72/2: 225–246. Saffu, Y. (ed.) (1996). The 1992 PNG Election: Change and Continuity in Electoral Politics. Canberra: Department of Political and Social Change, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Turner, M., and Hegarty, D. (1987). The 1987 National Elections in Papua New Guinea. Occasional Paper No. 6. Canberra: Institute of International Affairs.


Samoa by Asofou So'o

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Since their independence in 1962 the Pacific islands of Samoa have held regular parliamentary elections under limited franchise based on indigenous socio-political structures. Universal suffrage was introduced in 1991. The formation of a party system, which began in the 1980s, went along with the change from the traditional elite consensus to more competitive politics. The islands of Samoa were settled by Polynesian exponents of the lapita culture three thousand years ago. A specific type of socio-political rule—generally referred to as the matai (chiefly) system—evolved in the period preceding European contact, in the late 1700s. Under this system the state was divided into independent political units, where matai of various ranks and categories resided, as well as members of their respective families. These units (or political divisions) were in turn divided into sub-districts, and, at the lowest level, into villages. Families were headed by matai who represented the family in the local council of matai, which was the legislative, judicial, and executive authority of the village. When required, as in matters of general concern to all people, different political units convened meetings following traditionally established procedures and protocols. The arrival of the Europeans brought new political ideas, institutions and practices which blended with the indigenous matai system. The first such blend was the 1873 Constitution, elaborated after the settlement of a civil war which had begun in 1869. This text established the first Samoan central government in the modern sense. The new political system provided for a bicameral Parliament with an Upper House (Ta'imua) and a Lower House (Faipule), both comprising high ranking matai who were chosen by their fellow matai in traditional territorial constituencies. Elections to both chambers involved discussions among matai until unanimity was reached on their choice of candidate. Among the criteria considered

780

SOLOMON ISLANDS

in the selection process were traditional influence and rank. Since 1875 the matai also formally appointed a King. Each of the two main lineages, Sämälietoä (Mälietoa family) and Sätupuä (Tupua family), chose one of its members to hold the office of King for a term of four years on a rotating basis. Enduring conflicts over candidature for kingship gave birth to the traditional concept tama-a-aiga (literally, the sons of the [royal] families). The tama-a-aiga were the candidates their respective supporters wanted installed as King, and thereafter became the four highest-ranking titles of modern Samoa. The newly-acquired status of tama-a-aiga was officially recognized for the first time in 1913, during Germany's colonial administration (1900–1914), when the new office of Fautua (advisor) was created; to this office only the tama-aaiga were appointed. The German administration retained the house of Faipule but the latter acted as a purely advisory body to the Governor and his officials. After World War I the fusion of European-introduced and indigenous political institutions continued under the New Zealand administration during both the League of Nation's Mandate System (1919–1939) and the United Nations' Trusteeship System (1946–1961). Yet, after strong criticisms by the Mau (literally opinion) nationalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s, the Fono Council was reformed and constituencies were given more say in the election of the candidates of their preference. The main concern of New Zealand and the Trusteeship council during this period was to prepare Samoa for the eventual granting of self-government. During the 1954 Constitutional Convention, whose membership comprised Samoan matai and various representatives of associational groups, the delegates decided to continue with an electoral system where only matai could stand as candidates and vote in parliamentary elections. It was argued that since families elected their matai through internal discussions, the matai system of parliamentary elections would secure popular participation and uphold Samoan values and philosophy. In addition, the Convention decided to design a political system in accordance with the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. After the approval of the Constitution by a popular referendum (extended also to non-matai voters) in May 1961, Samoa reached independence on 1 January 1962. The 1962 Constitution of the independent state, though widely acknowledged to be based on Samoan custom and tradition, in fact incorporated some provisions for the realization of liberal democracy: bills are initiated and passed in the Legislative Assembly, which elects the Prime Minister in its first session after the general elections. The Premier

SAMOA

781

appoints eight MPs to his cabinet (12 after a Constitutional Amendment in 1993). At least one of the cabinet ministers must be a representative of the so-called individual voters, the Samoan citizens of European origin who had been granted suffrage since 1962. The two incumbent holders of the Fautua office upon independence became Joint Heads of State for life. Thereafter, the Head of State will be elected by the Legislative Assembly for a term of five years. The first decade after independence may be referred to as a period of consensus politics. The overriding concern of MPs and the country in general was to remain united. A large proportion of MPs were elected unopposed in their constituencies, or by the traditional way of village discussions leading to the unanimous decision on a single nominee or by agreements on rotating candidates among the villages in a constituency. The freshly elected legislature of 1970 was the beginning of what may be termed the period of parliamentary factional politics. It was the first time rival candidates contested the office of Prime Minister since independence, and one of the three competitors, Tupuola Efi, was not a holder of the royal tama-a-aiga title. The incumbent Premier Mata'afa lost in the second ballot when his two rivals joined forces. Mata'afa regained the Prime Ministership in the next Parliament but passed away unexpectedly in May 1975. When in 1976 Tupuola Efi won the Prime Ministership by 32 votes to 15, a clear oppositional faction emerged. Three years later his critics lost the 1979 elections, which induced them to form the first post-independence political party, the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP), soon after the 1979 prime ministerial election. The HRPP mustered its first parliamentary majority in 1982. Its example in establishing a political party was soon followed by others: the Christian Democratic Party was formed a few weeks before the 1985 general elections, and the Samoa National Development Party after the 1988 elections. More parties appeared in the period leading up to the 1996 general elections, yet they still appear to be centered more around personality than around issues. Along with the increasing general competition for ministerial posts and power among parliamentarians, constituency seats became ever more contested. One noticeable effect of this trend was the drastic decrease in the number of candidates who were elected unopposed. Gradually all seats were contested by candidates of rival parliamentary groupings. The establishment of political parties and the active competition among candidates for parliamentary seats culminated in the granting of universal suffrage, decided through a referendum in 1990. Whilst giving

782

SOLOMON ISLANDS

non-matai the right to vote, the introduction of universal suffrage greatly curbed the number of matai titles granted for election purposes (from 1865 new appointments in 1991 to only 375 in 1993). The right to contest parliamentary elections, however, remained restricted to matai. The late Prime Minister and HRPP leader Tofilau Eti Alesana maintained that his government had also resorted to universal suffrage in order to improve their chance of winning the 1991 general elections. They succeeded. In 1995, Parliament passed an electoral amendment act aimed at consolidating the political party system. Party identification of candidates was officially introduced, and was applied for the first time in the 1996 general elections. Political parties decide their candidates for the general elections. The leader of the caucus section of the party will also be the Prime Minister if the party wins the majority of parliamentary seats. Now, most constituencies vote along party lines in parliamentary elections.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Elections to the traditional bicameral Parliament had been held since 1873. During the period of the New Zealand administration, the Samoa Amendment Act of 1947 abolished the Fono of Faipule and enlarged the existing Legislative Council—renamed Legislative Assembly—to include 11 Samoan members representing each of the country's traditional political districts. The traditional districts were eventually subdivided into electoral constituencies. Before independence, the membership of the Legislative Assembly was increased to 41 seats, one to each of the country's 41 electoral constituencies. Afterwards the four biggest constituencies were allocated one additional seat each. Voters in the two-member constituencies had two votes. In order to provide parliamentary representation for the descendants of the local European community, a so-called Individuals Voters Roll was created. Initially they were allocated five seats but because of their declining population their number of seats was reduced to two in the 1964 general elections (thus bringing the total of parliamentary seats to 47). All individual voters aged 21 years or over were allowed to register as voters and to stand as candidates in parliamentary elections. In the 41 electoral constituencies, on the other hand, only matai could vote and candidate for parliamentary elections. Elections were held every third year until the Constitutional Amendment of 1993, which increased the parliamentary term to five years. In the same year, two other constituencies

SAMOA

783

were added a second seat, thus bringing the overall number of parliamentary seats to the current 49. During the 1990s two major changes were introduced into the electoral provisions: first, universal suffrage, granted for the 1991 general elections, gave all adults aged 21 and over the right to vote at parliamentary elections. The right to stand as candidates in parliamentary elections, however, remained restricted to matai. Second, the 1995 Electoral Amendment Act ordered parliamentary candidates contesting seats under party tickets to identify the political party to which they belonged. They still had the possibility to register as Independents.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Independent State of Western Samoa 1962; Electoral Act 1963; Electoral Amendment Act 1991; Electoral Amendment Act 1995, Nos. 1 & 12.

Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct and secret vote are applied. Citizens aged 21 or over are entitled to vote provided they have registered their names in the electoral rolls. In order to be eligible as a voter one must have family connections to the candidates. Voters who hold matai titles have to register in the constituency where the village of origin of the matai is included. Special booths are available around the capital Apia to those who, for various reasons, prefer to cast their votes there. Voting is not compulsory. External voting is not possible.

Elected National Institution: Unicameral Parliament (Fono) with 49 elected members (47 matai and two representatives of the so-called Individual Voters (citizens of European origin), elected on separate rolls). The term of office is five years. Casual vacancies are filled through by-elections.

Nomination of Candidates: Only matai can stand as candidates in the regular district constituencies. In 1993 there was a total of 24,664 matai titles, some of which are held by more than one person. Regarding the election of the two Individual Voters' seats, anyone registered on the individual voters roll can stand as a candidate for the elections. Candidates may run either as representatives of political parties or as independents. A candidate has to be officially nominated by at least two electors and pay the election registration fee of 300 Samoan tala in 2001. Matai can

784

SOLOMON ISLANDS

only be candidates in the constituencies of their titles' origin. Holders of more than one title have to select one constituency. There are no age requirements.

Electoral System: Plurality system in 35 single- and seven two-member constituencies (TMCs). In TMCs electors have two votes, but they may cast only one vote, which in Samoa is called bloc-voting.

Organizational Context of Elections: The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) and the Registrar of Voters and Electors (RVE), both appointed by the Public Service Commission, are responsible for the electoral process. The CEO and RVE are assisted by the Returning Officers (RO), Deputy Returning Officers (DRO), polling officers, and candidate scrutineers. The RO have the overall supervision of each polling booth, staffed by the polling officers and candidate scrutineers. As responsible positions, the DROs are usually heads of government departments and organizations. The lower-rank positions are occupied by other reliable public servants, all of whom are appointed by the Public Service Commission on a temporary basis for the purpose of the elections. The official recounts of election ballots are held in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and Registrar of Voters and Electors, where all candidate scrutineers are present. Dissatisfied candidates can challenge the results of the elections by lodging an election petition with the Supreme Court, provided the number of votes they polled is superior to 50 percent of the winning candidate's total. As there have not been any serious allegations against the electoral process in Samoa, there has never been any need to call in international electoral observers.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The data presented in the following tables are based on official statistics. They include the official records of the Legislative Assembly office and The Western Samoa Gazettes, the official government publication where official election results are published. The compilation of the tables posed several problems due to the particular standards in the official presentation and elaboration of electoral data used in Samoa. (i) Since independence plurality system is applied in single-, but also in some (five, later seven) two-member constituencies, where voters have two votes. Official data as published in the Western Samoa Gazette provide only the numbers of valid votes for candidates, but no figures

785

SAMOA

for the number of voters. Therefore, it was not possible to calculate the voter turnout. (ii) Since the 1979 elections Samoa has seen the rise of parties and groups. But affiliation of candidates to parties did not become general until 1991 and registration procedures providing for official designation of party affiliation were introduced in 1995. Therefore, for the four elections between 1979 and 1988 the information concerning candidate affiliation to parties and factions used for tables 2.7 and 2.8 is based on the (unpublished) records of the Legislative Assembly, compiled ex post sometime after the beginning of the parliamentary term. These data should thus be considered with caution, as during these initial years of party formation MPs switched their allegiance to parties and factions rather often.

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups D'etat Year 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1990 1991 1996 2001



Referendums

04/04 25/02 07/02 24/02 21/02 24/02 27/02 22/02 26/02 12/11 05/04 26/04 02/03

Coups d'état

786

SOLOMON ISLANDS


1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1990 1991 1996 2001 a b

c d

Type of electiona

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Ref Pa Pa Pa

Populationb

Registered votersc

Votes castd

124,166 134,202 143,045 148,528 151,983 154,597 156,505 156,975 158,797 161,298 161,298 165,371 170,000

Total number 6,979 8,184 9,968 10,076 12,254 13,863 15,567 19,013 23,160 54,002 59,301 77,964 92,791

Total number – – – – – – – – – 40,134 – – –

% pop. 5.6 6.1 7.0 6.8 8.1 9.0 9.9 12.1 14.6 33.5 36.8 47.1 54.6

% reg. voters – – – – – – – – – 74.3 – – –

% pop. – – – – – – – – – 24.9 – – –

Pa = Parliament; Ref = Referendum. Population figures are given according to the official Censuses of Population and Housing 1961, 1966, 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1991. For 1990 and 1991 census figures from 1991 are given. There are two separate rolls, the figure is the added total. Universal suffrage was introduced in 1991. Electoral statistics in Samoa give only the number of votes cast, which does not equal the number of voters, as there have always been some two-member constituencies. Additionally, during the 1960s and 1970s many constituencies were uncontested and no elections were held. No turnout could thus be calculated. In the 1990 referendum every elector had one vote for two questions respectively. The table above provides the number of votes cast for the first question (for the data on the second question see below 2.5). The total number of votes cast for the parliamentary elections are the following: 1964: 5,050; 1967: 7,458; 1970: 7,133; 1973: 7,305; 1976: 9,301; 1979: 10,209; 1982: 11,926; 1985: 13,686; 1988: 14,065; 1991: 60,265; 1996: 67,706; 2001: 76,811 votes cast.

2.3 Abbreviations CDP Coalition HRPP SAPP SCPP SLP SNDP SUPP TUP VAF

Christian Democratic Party Supporter Group of CDP/HRPP alliance Human Rights Protection Party Samoa All People's Party Samoa Conservative Progressive Party Samoa Labor Party Samoa National Development Party Samoa United People's Party Tupuola‘Efi Supporting Group Va'ai Faction

787

SAMOA

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1979–1996 Party / Alliance TUPb VAFc HRPPc CDPb Coalitiond SNDP SAPP SCPP SLP SUPP a b

c

d

Years 1979–1982 1979 1982–2001 1985 1988 1991–2001 1996–2001 1996 1996 2001

Elections contesteda 2 1 6 1 1 3 2 1 1 1

Only parliamentary elections. Total number: 12, seven with the participation of groups and parties. Before the 1985 elections and the establishment of the Christian Democratic Party, TUP identifies members who supported Tupuola ‘Efi as Prime Minister. Tupuola ‘Efi was Prime Minister for two consecutive terms from 1976–1978 and 1979–1981. VAF represents the parliamentary faction that contested the prime ministerial election in 1979 against Tupuola Efi's group. VAF established itself as HRPP after its unsuccessful bid for the prime ministership in 1979. Candidates of the Coalition Government comprising CDP- and some HRPP-members who switched allegiance to support Vaai Kolone as Prime Minister at the end of 1985.

2.5 Referendums Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Yes No a b

1990 Total number 54,002 Question Ia 40,134 1,844 38,290 20,149 18,141

% – 74.3 4.6 95.4 52.6 47.4

Total number

%

Question IIb 39,785 3,331 36,454 14,335 22,119

73.7 8.4 91.6 39.3 60.7

The first question asked voters to approve the introduction of universal suffrage (approved). The second question concerned the introduction of a second house of Parliament (disapproved).


788

SOLOMON ISLANDS

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1964–2001 From 1964 to 1976 Parliament was elected on a no-party basis. Year Registered voters Ballots cast Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Year Registered voters Ballots cast Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes

1964 Total number 6,979 — 5,050 83 4,967 1970 Total number 9,968 — 7,133 95 7,038

Year

Registered voters Ballots cast Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes TUP VAF/ HRPPa Independents a

% – — — 0.9 99.1

% – — — 1.3 98.7

1973 Total number 10,075 — 7,305 64 7,241

% – — — 0.9 99.1

1976 Total number 12,254 — 9,301 98 9,203

Registered voters Ballots cast Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes Year

% – — — 1.6 98.4

1967 Total number 8,184 — 7,458 64 7,394

1979 Total number 13,863 — 10,209 95 10,114 2,465 2,160 5,489

% – — — 1.1 98.9

% – — — 0.9 99.1 24.3 21.4 54.3

1982 Total number 15,567 — 11,926 75 11,851 2,186 3,482 6,193

% – — — 0.6 99.4 18.4 29.3 52.3

% – — — 0.6 99.4

1988 Total number 23,160 — 14,065 83 13,985

% – — — 0.6 99.4

In 1979 as VAF, in 1982 as HRPP.

Year Registered voters Ballots cast Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes

1985 Total number 19,013 — 13,686 86 13,600

789

SAMOA

HRPP CDP Coalition Independents

4,698 2,052 – 6,850

Year

1991 Total number 59,299 — 60,265 229 60,036 29,768 12,756 – – – 13,729 3,783

Registered voters Ballots cast Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes HRPP SNDP SAPP SLP SCPP Others Independents Year Registered voters Ballots cast Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes HRPP SNDP SUPP SAPP Independents

34.5 15.1 – 50.4

5,017 – 2,300 6,668

35.9 – 16.4 47.7

% – — — 0.4 99.6 49.6 21.2 – – – 22.9 6.3

1996 Total number 77,964 — 67,706 294 67,414 29,353 17,586 889 773 359 – 18,454

% – — — 0.4 99.6 43.5 26.1 1.3 1.2 0.5 – 27.4

2001 Total number 92,791 — 76,811 360 76,451 34,262 17,966 1,898 10 22,315

% – — — 0.5 99.5 44.8 23.5 2.5 0.0 29.2

790

SOLOMON ISLANDS

2.8 Composition of Parliament 1964–2001 From 1964 to 1976 the Legislative Assembly was elected on a non-party basis. From 1979 to 1988 no official records are held regarding the party or group affiliation of candidates and members. The data are based on the Records of Legislative Assembly or Prime Ministers' election on the first session of the respective Parliament. Year TUP HRPP CDP Coalition a

1979 Seats 47 24 23 – –

1982 Seats 47 23 24 – –

% 100 50.9 49.1 – –

% 100 49.1 50.9 – –

1985 Seats 47 – 32 15 –

% 100 – 68.1 31.9 –

1988 Seats 47 – 23 – 24a

% 100 – 49.1 – 50.9

On the day of the prime ministerial election, one of the Coalition members switched allegiance, thereby providing the HRPP with the vote it badly needed to win government.

Year HRPP SNDP SLP SUPP Independents

1991 Seats 47 27 15 – – 5

% 100 57.4 31.9 – – 10.6

2.9 Presidential Elections No presidential elections have been held.

1996 Seats 49 24 11 1 – 13

% 100 49.0 22.4 2.0 – 26.6

2001 Seats 49 23 13 – 1 12

% 100 46.9 26.5 – 2.0 24.5

SAMOA

791

2.10 List of Power Holders 1962–2001 Head of State Years Tupua Tamasese 1962–1963 Mea'ole

Mälietoa Tanumafili II

1962–

Head of GovernYears ment Matä'afa Fiamë Fau- 1962–1970 muinä Mulinu’ü II

Tupua Tamasese Lealofi IV

1970–1973

Matä'afa Fiamë Fau- 1973–1975 muinä Mulinu'ü II Tupua Tamasese 1975–1976 Lealofi IV Tupuola ‘Efi 1976–1981 Va'ai Kolone

1982

Tofilau Eti Alesana

1982–1985

Va'ai Kolone

1986–1987

Tofilau Eti Alesana

1988–1998

Tuila 'epa Sa'ilele

1998–

Remarks The title Tupua (which since the late nineteenth century has been associated with the other title Tamasese) is one of the four highest ranking chiefly titles of modern Samoa (tama-a-aiga). Its holder, Tupua Tamasese Mea 'ole, was one of the Joint Heads of State when Samoa became independent in 1962. He died in April 1963 leaving Mälietoa Tanumafili II sole Head of State. The Constitution states that when the term of the Joint Heads of State expires, the Legislative Assembly shall elect the next Head of State for a term of five years. The title Mälietoa is one of the tama-a-aiga. Its holder, Mälietoa Tanumafili II, was one of the two joint-holders of the office of Head of State when Samoa became independent in 1962. The Constitution provides for the Joint Heads of State to hold the office for life. Mälietoa Tanumafili II celebrated his 85th birthday in January 1999. Remarks The title Matä'afa is another one of the four tama-a-aiga. This was one of the

main reasons why Mulinu'ü II, who also held two other high-ranking titles from different villages, was elected first Prime Minister in October 1959 and then re-elected unopposed in the next three parliamentary terms. On 24/02/1970, he lost office to another tama-a-aiga title-holder. Succeeded his uncle Tupua Tamasese Mea 'ole to the Tupua Tamasese titles. He was elected to Parliament for the first time on 24/02/1970 and defeated the incumbent Head of Government in the Prime Ministerial election. Re-elected on 14/03/1973. Governed until his sudden death on 20/05/1975. Re-appointed by the Head of State on 21/05/1975 to see out the last seven months of Matä'afa 's prime ministerial term. Son of Tupua Tamasese Mea'ole, one of the Joint Heads of State at the time of independence. Was Prime Minister for two consecutive terms. First holder of the office without a tama-a-aiga title. First leader of the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP). Elected Premier on 13/04/ 1982 when HRPP won a one-seat majority in Parliament. After only seven months his seat was invalidated by an election petition. Took over the HRPP leadership and the Premiership on 30/12/1982 when Va'ai Kolone lost his seat. Was re-elected after the 1985 parliamentary polls. Subsequently ousted by a vote of no-confidence. Was re-elected Premier when a coalition with the supporters of Tupuola ‘Efi defeated the HRPP's budget on 17/12/1985. Re-elected Prime Minister on 6/04/1988 after the HRPP won the polls in the same year by a one-seat majority. Resigned from office on 23/11/1998 because of health problems. Died on 19/05/1999. Deputy leader of the HRPP (and also Deputy Prime Minister) since 1993. Was unanimously endorsed by the HRPP to succeed Tofilau Eti Alesana as party leader and Prime Minister in November 1998. Re-elected Prime Minister in 2001. On the day of the prime ministerial election, five Independents had joined the HRPP to give that party the support of 28 Members of Parliament.

792

SOLOMON ISLANDS

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Government of Western Samoa (w.y.). Constitution of the Independent State of Western Samoa. Apia: Government Printing. —— (1963). Electoral Act. Apia: Government Printing. —— (1964–). The Western Samoa Gazettes 1964, V 4, No. 22; 1967, V 4, No. 42; 1970, V 5, No. 6; 1973, V 6, No. 15; 1976, V 6, No. 40A; 1979, V 9, No. 3; 1982, V 11, No. 2; 1985, V 14, No. 3; 1988, 22, No. 4; 1991, V 25, No. 5; 1996, V 30, No.13; 2001, V 38, No. 9. Apia: Government Printing.

SAMOA

793

—— (1991). Electoral Amendment Act of 1991. Apia: Government Printing. —— (1992). Annual Report of the Land and Titles Court, 1991 and 1992. Apia: Government Printing. —— (1993). Annual Report of the Land and Titles Court, 1993. Apia: Government Printing. —— (1995a). Electoral Amendment Act of 1995, No.1. Apia: Government Printing. —— (1995b). Electoral Amendment Act of 1995, No.12. Apia: Government Printing. Legislative Assembly. Number of Registered Matais and Individual Voters, 1961–1988. Unpublished records of the Legislative Assembly of Western Samoa. —— Rolls of Registered Voters for Parliamentary Elections: 1964–1996. Unpublished records of the Legislative Assembly of Western Samoa. —— Numerical Register of Registration Certificates, Plebiscite Western Samoa, 29 October 1990. Unpublished records of Legislative Assembly of Western Samoa. —— 1991/1996 General Elections: Summary of Electors and Voters. Unpublished records of the Legislative Assembly of Western Samoa. —— Ballot Papers 1996. Unpublished records of the Legislative Assembly of Western Samoa.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Political Party Breakdown of the 1991 General Election Results. Unpublished Copy in Author's Possession. Legislative Assembly of Western Samoa (1987). Report of the Electoral Commissioner to the Head of State, November 1987. Unpublished records of the Legislative Assembly. Ala'ilima, F. C., and Ala'ilima, V. J. (1966). ‘Consensus and Plurality in a Western Samoa Election Campaign’, Human Organisation, 25/3: 240–255. Ma'ia'i, A. (1974). ‘Western Samoa's General Election 1973’, The Journal of Pacific History, 9: 146–152. So'o, A. (1993). Universal Suffrage in Western Samoa: The 1991 General Elections. (Regime Change and Regime Maintenance in Asia and the Pacific, Discussion Paper Series, No. 10, Political and Social Change). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.

794

SOLOMON ISLANDS

—— (1996). O le fuata ma lona lou: Indigenous Institutions and Democracy in Western Samoa. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Canberra: The Australian National University. —— (1998). ‘The Price of Election Campaigning in Samoa’, in P. Larmour (ed.), Governance and Reform in the South Pacific, Canberra: National Center of Development Studies, The Australian National University, 289–304. Va'a, F. (1982). ‘General elections in Western Samoa, 1979-1982’, Political Science, 35/1: 78–102.

Solomon Islands by Jeffrey S. Steeves

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview This Melanesian South-West Pacific country composed of six major islands—Choiseul, New Georgia, Santa Isabel, Guadalcanal, Malaita, and Makira—has maintained a continuous commitment to a democratic political system since independence from Great Britain on 8 July 1978. Since then, national elections have been held regularly—in 1980, 1984, 1989, 1993, and 1997. Each election has featured multi-party competition supplemented by the skillful use by parties of shadow independent candidates as well as genuine independents. Only in 1993 did one party win a majority of seats in Parliament. Otherwise, coalition governments have been constructed. With fluid party affiliations and a significant number of independent MPs, no-confidence motions have become a potent weapon in the continuous struggle for power. In the 1976 pre-independence elections, three political parties—Solomon Mamaloni's Rural Alliance Party (RAP), Bart Ulufa'alu's National Democratic Party (NADEPA), and a tenuous Melanesian Action Party (MAP) contested 38 parliamentary constituencies, but in the end, the Independent Group (IG) emerged as the strongest group with 15 seats and supported Peter Kenilorea to be Chief Minister. Kenilorea, who had formed in the meanwhile the Solomon Islands United Party (SIUP), successfully maintained a plurality of 16 seats in the first post-independence elections in 1980 against Mamaloni's recast People's Alliance Party (PAP), the NADEPA and 10 independents. Once assembled, the elected Parliament became embroiled in party maneuvering to craft a winning coalition. Bargaining then as now revolves around four crucial items: (1) the offer and allocation of cabinet positions; (2) perceived leadership ability for the prime ministership; (3) regional balance among provinces/island communities in cabinet assignments; and, (4) future parliamentary and thus governmental longevity. A coalition of SIUP and the Independent Group

796

TONGA

(IG) led by Francis Billy Hilly proved predominant and re-elected Kenilorea to Prime Minister. Within a year, the governing coalition unraveled and the IG's six ministers left the government. Opposition leader Mamaloni proved an astute tactician in fostering key policy debates designed to fracture the coalition and in poaching wavering independents. The SIUP/ IG government fell in a no-confidence vote and a new PAP/ IG coalition under Prime Minister Mamaloni ruled until the 1984 elections. They saw the return to power of a SIUP-led coalition including NADEPA, Independents and a new political formation, the Solomon Agu Segu-Fenua (SAS). In the election in Parliament for Prime Minister, Kenilorea won with 21 votes to Mamaloni's 13. Halfway through his term, Kenilorea resigned over a financial scandal and his Deputy Prime Minister, Ezekiel Alebua, became Head of Government. The 1989 contest featured five parties—PAP, SIUP, new break-away parties National Front for Progress (NFP), Liberal Party (LP) and Labour Party (LAB)—and, once again, a large number of independents. The elections ended with the PAP gaining an absolute majority of 23 seats. The magnitude of the PAP victory was startling, but helped by the plurality electoral system, as PAP got actually less votes than in the 1984 elections, when they had obtained 12 seats. Once again, victory at the polls did not translate into governmental stability. Mamaloni had to face an internal challenge from PAP extra-parliamentary leaders, who sought his censure and removal. To survive, Mamaloni quit the PAP, declared himself an independent and a non-partisan Prime Minister. He fired 5 recalcitrant cabinet ministers and created a new coalition, the Solomon Islands Government of National Unity and Reconciliation (SIGNUR), that was supported by 15 of the 23 PAP and part of the SIUP, NFP and LP Members of Parliament. Mamaloni led this SIGNUR government until the May 1993 national elections. In the 1993 elections, besides SIGNUR seven political parties were vying for power—the PAP, SIUP, NFP, LAB, LP, and two new additions, the National Action Party of Solomon Islands (NAPSI) and the Christian Fellowship Group (CFG). Over half the candidates for the 47 seats were independents. Strikingly, 21 candidates listed two party affiliations on the ballot. Two candidates claimed three party affiliations. Eleven women ran up from 3 in 1989. SIGNUR won a plurality of 20 seats. The PAP began its restoration winning 9 seats after being rent in October 1990 by Mamaloni's defection. SIGNUR seemed well-placed to form the next governing coalition. But the crafting of a new grouping in Parliament, the

SOLOMON ISLANDS

797

National Coalition Partnership (NCP), assured the surprise victory of NCP leader Hilly in the secret parliamentary vote for prime ministership on 18 June 1993. The NCP government endured a year until PAP leader Dennis Lulei defected to the opposition, followed quickly by two other ministers. On 7 November 1994 the inevitable occurred with Mamaloni defeating the NCP's candidate Devesi, by a vote of 29 to 18. Hilly had refused to stand. In the 1997 elections Mamaloni's governing group now named the SI National Unity and Reconciliation Party (SINURP), again assured the majority of 21 seats. PAP came in second with 7 seats, followed by NAPSI, LP and SIUP. Mamaloni's re-election, however, was again blocked by the ad hoc formation of an alternative coalition, the Alliance for Change comprising five political parties—LP, PAP, SIUP, NAPSI, and LAB—and the Independents' Group. Many new MPs were disillusioned with the SIGNUR government's poor economic record, its alleged corruption, uncontrolled foreign logging and the passage of a new Provincial Government Act in 1996 which saw a massive recentralization of power. On 27 August 1997, in the parliamentary ballot, the Alliance for Change nominee, Bart Ulufa'alu assured a narrow victory against the SINURP candidate. Almost immediately, Ulufa'alu's government embarked on a major economic adjustment program to address the Solomon's moribund economy and large debt. This meant downsizing the powerful public service. The impact of adjustment led 6 MPs to defect to the opposition in July 1998. Sensing disarray and disunity, SINURP's Tausinga moved a motion of no-confidence on 12 September 1998. The motion produced a tie-vote, 24 to 24. The GovernorGeneral declared Ulufa'alu's Alliance for Change government still in power. Intense ethnic confrontation (from October 1998 on) led to a mini coup on 5 June 2000. Ulufa'alu resigned within ten days. Opposition leader Sogavare was elected PM by parliamentary vote. Within ten days, three former Alliance ministers joined Sogavare's ruling coalition. In Solomon Islands Melanesian culture and the single-member plurality system have generated an unbounded model of politics. Party affiliation and solidarity disappear if a political actor and his supporters can benefit more aligned elsewhere. In effect, there are two electoral competitions—national elections determine MPs who then engage in a second election by secret ballot within Parliament to select from contending coalition leaders for the post of Prime Minister. The second competition among Melanesian big men for the ultimate prize—power—is the real electoral struggle. The first election is merely the prelude to the more critical prologue. A

798

TONGA

successful Solomons politician must establish electoral durability and demonstrate an ability to maneuver astutely over the long-term. Aspiring big men use their electoral record and their party strength in seats won to bargain for a cabinet post. A strong portfolio can be the lever to woo other MPs to one's circle. Over time, the Melanesian politician builds both party success in seats won and establishes credibility among elected independents sufficient to become the leader of an alternative, contending coalition for power. The ultimate goal, the prime ministership, may be several elections away. Should one party generate too many ambitious aspirants for the top post, it may be necessary for a big man to break-away and form a new party. Hence party identification and party loyalty are ephemeral.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Since independence, the principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage have been applied for parliamentary elections. The electoral provisions have remained essentially the same until today (see 1.3). In the 1976 pre-independence elections, a unicameral parliament (National Legislature), consisting of 38 members, was directly elected in single-member constituencies by plurality. Parliament sits ordinarily for terms of four years. No limitation then or now was placed on the number of candidates allowed to contest a constituency. The ballot consisted of a photo of the candidate, a chosen symbol from an approved list, party affiliation (if any) and the candidate's name. Candidates had to be Solomon citizens, 21 years of age or older, nominated by three electors registered in the constituency and having paid a fee of SI$ 200. Electors had to be Solomon citizens, 18 years of age or older and normally resident in the constituency. At the March 1977 Constitutional Conference, a statement of principles was adopted which, in the Preamble, committed the Solomons to a democratic system based on universal suffrage under the Westminster model of government. The basic elements of the electoral system were outlined including the proviso that there shall be from 38 to 50 seats in the legislature. By the Solomon Islands Independence Order which came into effect at independence on 7 July 1978, the then existing electoral regulations were to continue as before. In 1980, the inherited electoral provisions were collated and detailed in The National Parliament Electoral Provisions Act.

SOLOMON ISLANDS

799

An independent Electoral Commission administers national elections in constituencies determined by an independent Electoral Boundaries Commission. The latter, when appointed, is to review the parliamentary constituencies within ten years of the coming into force of the Act. Its recommendations could be either accepted or rejected by Parliament but not revised. This Act was reissued as it is in 1990. The original 38 constituencies from 1976 were adopted in the 1980, the 1984 and the 1989 elections. In 1992, the Constituency Boundaries Commission, appointed in September 1991, increased the constituencies from 38 to 47. Under Section 54 (3) of the Constitution, the Commission ‘shall have regard to the principle that the number of inhabitants shall be nearly equal as is reasonably practicable.’ The Commission had the power to move off the ‘representation by population’ principle in light of the distribution of the population, the means of communication and ethnic affiliation. The Commission established numerical ranges for the degree of constituency variability in population: at the Lower range—2,800 people; in the Average range—8,000 people; and, at the Upper range—13,200 people. In 1995, another Constituency Boundaries Commission was struck which increased the number of parliamentary constituencies to the upper constitutional limit of 50.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: The Constitution of Solomon Islands, especially Chapter VI, The National Legislature, Part I—Parliament, sections 46 through 58; The National Parliament Electoral Provisions Act 1980; and, Constituency Boundaries Commission, Review Report 1995/96. Suffrage: Persons are entitled to be registered as electors if they are Solomon Islands citizens of not less than 18 years. No person shall be entitled to be registered as an elector in more than one constituency, and in any constituency in which he is not ordinarily resident. No person can be registered as an elector if under sentence of death or imprisonment for greater than six months; if certified to be insane or of unsound mind; or if one has committed an election offence. Elected national institution: Unicameral parliament (National Parliament), consisting of 50 members. The ordinary parliamentary term is four years.

800

TONGA

National elections must be held within four months of a dissolution of parliament. By-elections are held as necessary. Nomination of candidates: Candidates are nominated in writing by three electors ordinarily resident in the constituency. No candidate can be nominated for more than one constituency nor can an elector nominate more than one candidate. Nominations papers must be accompanied by a deposit of SI$ 2,000. Returning officers must validate the nomination of a candidate and allot a symbol and colour to each candidate. Political parties are required to submit lists of their official candidates to the Electoral Commission. Unless on these party lists, one is regarded as an independent candidate. Electoral system: Plurality system in 50 single-member constituencies. Constituencies are distributed on a ‘representation by population’ basis with the constitutional rider that the Electoral Boundaries Commission is to define constituencies according to the principle of distribution of the population, the means of communication and ethnic affiliation. The current distribution of constituencies across the eight provinces and the capital city, Honiara, is as follows: Malaita (14); Western (9); Guadalcanal (8); Makira/Ulawa (4); Choiseul (3); Temotu (3); Honiara (3); Central Islands (2); and, Rennell/Bellona (1). Organizational Context of Elections: An independent Electoral Commission administers national elections. The Commission is composed of the Speaker as chair and two other members appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission for three-year terms.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics The following data are based on official sources (Government Gazette or information given by the Electoral Commission Office), accessible in the Solomon Islands. However, the official results indicate only the votes cast for each candidate, but neither the candidate's party affiliation nor the votes cast for each party at the constituency or national levels, nor the number of valid and invalid votes. Indeed, there are official party candidates and a range of shadow independents combined with cases where independents declare themselves to be joining a contending party after the electoral

801

SOLOMON ISLANDS

results are known. Thus, it is extremely difficult to accurately determine the votes cast for party and the effective party standings following the announcement of the electoral results. Hence, a convoluted procedure had to be undertaken to construct the party results at constituency and national levels and party standings in terms of total seats won. There is the strong possibility that errors will have occurred in this effort. Thus, the electoral data should be treated with caution. In addition, the population figures for Solomon Islands are tenuous, as national censuses have only been conducted in 1976 and 1986. To calculate the national population for each election year, the 1976 census results were taken as a base and then re-calculated for each year forward on the basis of an annual rate of population increase of 3.5 per cent. This covered the population calculation for the 1980 and 1984 elections. The same recalculation process was used taking 1986 as the base year for the population in the 1989, 1993, and 1997 election years.



1980 1984 1989 1993 1997


Referendums

Coups d'état

06/08 24/10 22/02 26/05 06/08


1980 1984 1989 1993 1997 a b c

Type of electiona

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes castc

223,505 255,734 316,179 362,823 416,348

Total number 99,843 110,339 128,830 165,298 166,280

Total number 57,664 68,449 80,930 123,581 140,522

Pa = Parliament Estimations by author on the base of the census in 1976 and 1986. Number of valid votes.

% pop. 44.6 43.1 40.7 45.5 39.9

% reg. voters 58.0 62.0 63.0 74.7 84.5

% pop. 25.8 26.7 25.6 34.1 33.7

802

TONGA

2.3 Abbreviations CFG IG LAB LP NAPSI NADEPA NFP NP PAP SAS SIGNUR

Christian Fellowship Group Independent Group Labour Party Liberal Party National Action Party Solomon Islands National Democratic Party National Front for Progress National Party People's Alliance Party Solomon Agu Segu-Fenua Solomon Islands Gov't of National Unity, Reconciliation & Prog. Pati Solomon Islands National Unity & Reconciliation Pati Solomon Islands United Party

SINURP SIUP

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1980–1997 Party / Alliance IG NADEPA PAP SIUP SAS LAB LP NFP CFG NAPSI SIGNUR NP SINURP a

Years 1980–1997 1980–1984 1980–1997 1980–1997 1984 1989–1997 1989–1997 1989–1997 1993–1997 1993–1997 1993 1997 1997

Only parliamentary elections. Total number: 5.

Elections contesteda 5 2 5 5 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1

803

SOLOMON ISLANDS



2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1980–1997 Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes SIUP PAP NADEPA SAS Others Independents Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes PAP SIUP NADEPA NFP SIGNUR NAPSI Independents

1980 Total number 99,843 — — 57,664 10,437 9,085 4,878 – – 33,264 1989 Total number 128,830 — — 80,930 15,562 14,703 4,870 699 – – 45,096

% – — — 57.8 18.0 15.7 8.4 – – 57.6

1984 Total number 110,339 — — 68,449 14,661 15,923 4,870 6,128 2,683 24,184

% – — — 62.0 21.4 23.2 7.1 8.9 3.9 35.3

% – — — 62.8 19.2 18.1 6.0 0.8 – – 55.7

1993 Total number 165,620 — — 123,581 20,267 12,973 – 11,922 28,473 16,169 33,777

% – — — 74.7 16.4 10.5 – 9.6 23.0 13.1 27.3

For the 1997 elections no detailed data were available. For number of registered voters and votes cast please refer to table 2.2.

804

TONGA

2.8 Composition of Parliament 1980–1997 Year SIUP PAP NADEPA SAS NFP LP LAB Independents Year SIGNUR PAP CFG NAPSI SIUP NFP LAB LP SINURP NAT Others Independents

1980 Seats 38 16 10 2 – – – – 10

%100.0 42.1 26.3 5.3 – – – – 26.3

1993 Seats 47 20 9 4 3 3 3 1 0 – – – 4


1984 Seats 38 13 12 1 4 – – – 8 %100.0 42.6 19.1 8.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 2.1 0.0 – – – 8.5

%100.0 34.2 31.6 2.6 10.5 – – – 21.1 1997 Seats 50 – 7 – 5 4 – – 4 21 1 2 6

1989 Seats 38 4 23 – – 3 2 2 4

%100.0 10.5 60.5 – – 7.8 5.0 5.0 10.5 %100.0 – 14.0 – 10.0 8.0 – – 8.0 42.0 2.0 4.0 12.0

SOLOMON ISLANDS

805

2.10 List of Power Holders 1978–2001 Head of State Years Queen Elizabeth 1978–

Remarks Solomon Islands became independent on 7/07/1978, with the British Queen as symbolic Head of State, represented by the following GovernorGenerals: Sir Baddeley Devesi (1978–1989), Sir George Lepping (1989–1994), Sir Moses Pitakaka (1994–1999), and Father John Lapli (1999–present).

Head of Government Peter Kenilorea

Years

Remarks

1978–1981

After being Chief Minister under British rule, Kenilorea became Prime Minister at independence. In the 1980 elections, his United Party and the Independent Group joined to form a ruling coalition. His government was defeated in a motion of no-confidence in October 1981. Mamaloni, former Chief Minister (1974–76) and MP (1970–77), became Prime Minister after crafting a new governing coalition joining his PAP with NADEPA and independents until the 1984 elections. Kenilorea returned as Prime Minister on 14/11/84 leading a United Partybased governing coalition. He was forced to resign in 1987 due to a financial scandal. Alebua became Prime Minister upon Kenilorea's resignation. He served as Prime Minister until the 1989 elections. Mamaloni returned as Prime Minister after having led his PAP to a majority government in the 1989 elections. He served the complete parliamentary term until the 1993 elections. Hilly led a new coalition to power on 18/06/1993. Lacking parliamentary support, Hilly resigned as Prime Minister on 31/10/1994. Mamaloni crafted a new governing coalition returning as Prime Minister on 7/11/1994. Mamaloni and his coalition (SIGNUR) remained in power until national elections on 06/08/1997. Ulufa'alu, trade unionist and veteran politician, having founded one of Solomons earliest parties (NADEPA), Member of Parliament (1976–89 and 1993 to the present), became Prime Minister on 27/08/97. Ulufa'alu's shaky coalition, the Alliance for Change, fell under extreme pressure from a prolonged ethnic crisis. He resigned on 14/06/2000. Sogavare, a career public servant, former Finance Secretary, entered Parliament in 1997. He became Finance Minister in Ulufa'alu's government but was sacked in August 1998. He became Opposition leader and then Prime Minister on 30/06/2000 as head of the Coalition of National Unity, Reconciliation and Peace.

Solomon Mama- 1981–1984 loni Peter Kenilorea

1984–1987

Ezekiel Alebua

1987–1989

Solomon Mama- 1989–1993 loni Francis Billy 1993–1994 Hilly Solomon Mama- 1994–1997 loni Bart Ulufa'alu

1997–2000

Manasseh Sogavare

2000–

806

TONGA

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Solomon Islands, Constitutional Committee (1976). Report of the Constitutional Committee 1975. Honiara: Government Printing Office. Solomon Islands (1977). Constitutional Conference 1977 Principles. Honiara: Government Printing Office. —— (1978). The Solomon Islands Independence Order 1978. No. 783, Honiara: Government Printing Office. —— (1980). The National Parliament Electoral Provisions Act 1980, No. 5 of 1980. Honiara: Government Printing Office. Solomon Islands, Electoral Commission (1980). National Election 1980. mimeo. —— (1980a). General Election 1980: Guides for Returning Officers. mimeo. —— (1980b). Candidate Lists by Party. EC/GE/2. Honiara: Electoral Commission Office.

SOLOMON ISLANDS

807

—— (1980). SYMBOLS, EC/GE/2. Honiara: Electoral Commission Office. —— (1980). Register of Voters By Constituency in Each Province. Honiara: Electoral Commission Office. —— (1980). Jone goes voting. Honiara: Government Printing Office. Solomon Islands, Information and Public Relations Office (1980). Government Fact Sheet: General Election 1980—Registration. No 1/80. Honiara: Information and Public Relations Office. Solomon Islands (1980). Boundaries of the Electoral Districts 2101. Honiara: Maps Division. Solomon Islands, Electoral Commission (1980). Results of the 1980 General Election. Honiara: mimeo. —— (1984). Results of the 1984 General Election. Honiara: Electoral Commission Office. Solomon Islands, Statistics Office, Ministry of Finance (1989). Report on the Census of Population 1986. Report 2B: Data Analysis. Honiara: Government Printing Office. Solomon Islands, Electoral Commission (1989). 1989 General Election Report. Honiara: Electoral Commission Office. Solomon Islands, Constituency Boundaries Commission (1992). Report of the Constituency Boundaries Commission 1992. Honiara: Ministry of Home Affairs. Solomon Islands, Electoral Commission (1993). 1993 General Election Report. Honiara: Electoral Commission Office. Solomon Islands, Constituency Boundaries Commission (1996). Review Report 1995/1996. Honiara: Ministry of Home Affairs. Solomon Islands (1996). The Provincial Government Act 1996, No. 3 of 1996. Honiara: Government Printing Office. Solomon Islands, Electoral Commission (1997). 1997 General Election Report. Honiara: Electoral Commission Office.

3.2 Books and Articles Alasia, S. L. (1988). ‘Big Man and Party Politics’. Pacific Perspective, 13/2: 72–84. Asipara, J. (1979). The Emergence of Political Parties. Waigani: Department of Political and Administrative Studies, The University of Papua New Guinea (typescript). Bennett, J. (1987). Wealth of the Solomons: A History of a Pacific Archipelago, 1800–1978. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

808

TONGA

Betu, W. (1983). ‘The Origins of the Independent Group’, in P. Larmour and S. Tarua (eds.), Solomon Islands Politics. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, 107–113. Chapman, M. (1992). ‘Population Movement: Free or Constrained?’, in R. Crocombe and E. Tuza (eds.), Independence, Dependence, Interdependence: The First 10 Years of Solomon Islands Independence. Honiara: Government Printing Press, 75–97. Chick, J. (1978). ‘Electoral Politics in the Solomons’. Pacific Perspective, 9/2: 21–30. —— (1983). ‘The 1976 General Election’, in P. Larmour and S. Tarua (eds.), Solomon Islands Politics. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, 63–79. Ghai, Y. (1983). ‘The Making of the Independence Constitution’, in P. Larmour and S. Tarua (eds.), Solomon Islands Politics. Suva: IPS, USP, 9–52. Grocott, P. H. (1974). Political Parties in the Solomon Islands. Waigani: Department of Political Studies, The University of Papua New Guinea (Typescript). Hegarty, D. (1983). ‘The Change of Government, 1981’. in P. Larmour and S. Tarua (eds.), Solomon Islands Politics. Suva: IPS, USP, 238–250. Kausimae, D. (1983). ‘The Origins of the People's Alliance Party’, in P. Larmour and S. Tarua (eds.), Solomon Islands Politics. Suva: IPS, USP, 114–116. Larmour, P. (1983). ‘The Mamaloni Government, 1981–3’, in P. Larmour and S. Tarua (eds.), Solomon Islands Politics. Suva: IPS, USP, 251–278. Paia, W. (1975). ‘Aspects of Constitutional Development in the Solomon Islands’. The Journal of Pacific History, 10/2: 81–89. Premdas, R., and Steeves, J. (1981). ‘The Solomon Islands: First Elections After Independence’. The Journal of Pacific History, 16/4: 190–202. —— (1983). ,The 1980 General Election', in P. Larmour and S. Tarua (eds.), Solomon Islands Politics. Suva: IPS, USP, 80–100. —— (1995). ‘The Solomon Islands in Transition: Aspects of the 1993 Elections’. The Round Table, 333: 33–52. —— and Larmour, P. (1983). ‘The Western Breakaway Movement’, in P. Larmour and S. Tarua (eds.), Solomon Islands Politics. Suva: IPS, USP, 164–195. Steeves, J. (1996). ‘Unbounded Politics in the Solomon Islands: Leadership and Party Alignments’. Pacific Studies, 19/1: 115–138. Ulufa'alu, B. (1983). ‘The Development of Political Parties’, in P. Larmour and S. Tarua (eds.), Solomon Islands Politics. Suva: IPS, USP, 101–106.

Tonga by Ian C. Campbell

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview Tonga has been an independent constitutional monarchy since 1875. In traditional times, the various islands and lineages which make up the Tongan archipelago recognized the over-riding authority and status of a semi-divine chief, known by the title Tu'i Tonga. In the late eighteenth century, political rivalries and personal jealousies amongst the highest chiefs led to the disruption of the traditional polity. A period of inter-tribal and inter-island warfare followed, and was not finally quelled until 1840. Peace and unity were re-imposed by a chief from the central group of islands (Ha'apai) whose personal name was Taufa'ahau, but was known to foreigners as King George since his conversion to Christianity in 1830. In 1845 Taufa'ahau succeeded to the senior title of Tu'i Kanokupolu, and was acknowledged as King throughout the archipelago. This date is regarded as the foundation date of the modern Kingdom of Tonga. At this time he took the additional name Tupou which has also been used by his successors. Taufa'ahau's authority was based on traditional rank and prerogatives, backed up by his having conquered all dissident or separatist factions. He saw himself as restoring the former order and unity that Tonga had previously enjoyed, although with modifications to accommodate new circumstances. One of these was the almost universal adoption of Christianity during the 1830s. As early as 1838 Taufa'ahau asked the Wesleyan missionaries to advise him on matters of law, leading to the first law code being promulgated in 1839. The traditional tribal polity under the government of chiefs, however, continued, modified only by Christian principles of which some were given the status of law. A second law code, elaborated in 1850, defined the authority of the King as absolute, and the source of all law. Over the next few years, Taufa'ahau continued to give thought to the requirements of his people for law and government, and in 1859 instituted a rudimentary parliament

810

TUVALU

or council of state, which consisted simply of annual meetings of the more prominent chiefs. In 1862, the so-called Edict of Emancipation abolished many of the traditional obligations that people owed to their chiefs. It was, however, a further step towards the comprehensive regulation of public and private life under a central authority, and for the first time placed some limitation on the power of the King. His authority was still described as absolute, but it required him to obey his own laws, and to consult the chiefs (hereditary local rulers over their own lineages) and governors (appointed by the King to rule various territories) on important matters. The new limitations on the authority of the King were less an acknowledgement of any principle of power-sharing than an attempt to ensure that Taufa'ahau's reforms would survive into the next reign. The threat of political intervention by one or other European power motivated the next, and last, major structural change. In 1875 a true constitution was promulgated, establishing a modern framework for the conduct of government. It began with a declaration of rights, and asserted the supremacy of law. It created a Legislative Assembly, Cabinet and Privy Council. It defined the role of the King, and the principles of succession. An aristocracy of 20 nobles was created to replace the traditional chieftainship, and those chiefs who were not thus ennobled were reduced to the legal status of commoners. The legislature that it established was unicameral but included hereditary members, nominated members and elected members. Elections were held every five years, and parliament was to meet at least once every two years. Government was exercised by the Privy Council which consisted of the four ministers, the governors of Ha'apai, Vava'u, Niuafo'ou and Niuatoputapu, and the King. Resolutions of the Privy Council were promulgated as ordinances having the force of law, but did not become law until approved by parliament and signed by the King. During the 1880s the limit on the size of cabinet was lifted, the governors became members of parliament ex officio, and the Chief Justice became a member of the Privy Council. The Legislative Assembly was also enlarged in 1880 by the creation of 10 more nobles to placate the frustrated ambitions of disappointed chiefs. This automatically increased the number of people's representatives by a like number. During the following reign (Taufa'ahau Tupou II, 1893–1918), two more nobles were created, thus increasing the size of parliament by that number and two more people's representatives. In 1915, the expense and clumsiness of a large parliament induced the government to make a major amendment. The representatives of the nobles and people were reduced to seven each, while all Privy Councillors

TONGA

811

(except the King) became members of the assembly. The ministers and governors were four each, and the Chief Justice made a ninth. The King and his government had been embarrassed many times over the years by hostile parliaments, but henceforth parliamentary management would be more coherent. Elections now were to be held every three years, but parliament would henceforth have annual meetings to consider ordinances, new bills and the government's estimates of income and expenditure. With all Privy Councilors having become members of the Legislative Assembly, the Privy Council was not always distinguished from cabinet and membership varied over the years between seven (1932) and twelve (with the last reforms of 1990). Thus, the nominated members (ministers) who until 1915 were only four out of perhaps 70, have come to be the largest of the three groups in the legislature. The structure of Tongan politics has been therefore neither authoritarian nor democratic. While it is parliamentary, it is not Westminster because the executive is not responsible to the legislature. Nor is it presidential because the executive is not separated from the legislature. It is a constitutional monarchy in which the power of the King is real, but which depends also on the co-operation of representative elements of both the public at large and the hereditary aristocracy. The twelve-person ministry (including the governors of Ha'apai and Vava'u) is appointed and chosen by the King. There is no requirement that he seek advice on these appointments. There is no term on them, and appointees normally serve until retirement. There are those in Tonga who have been saying, particularly since the mid-1980s, that the power of the King is excessive. The Constitution, however, leaves open the question of who has the greatest influence. The 1915 amendments took place because the power of the King was insufficient vis-à-vis the nobles. The present formula is more balanced, which means that ability, force of character and other intangibles can make a large difference. These variables have certainly weighted power towards the monarch in the latter part of the twentieth century. There have never been political parties in Tonga. This is not because of any explicit legislative or constitutional impediment but rather because parliament is not a forum for a contest between interest groups. Nor are elections an opportunity for the public to choose between alternative potential governments. Because the Prime Minister and cabinet are appointed directly by the King from outside parliament and sine diem, elections have no effect on the composition of government. Moreover, the people's representatives are so few that parties are impracticable. Nor are there any institutions, either formal or informal,

812

TUVALU

which perform the function of parties: churches, defense forces, lineages, corporations, professional, and business associations, are all per se apolitical. Candidates therefore stand merely as individuals, and mostly seek election on the basis of personal reputation. Family name or lineage affiliation or local identification will attract votes as they will anywhere, but will not secure election for a candidate who relies on those alone. Since 1989, an ad hoc association has attempted to mobilize public opinion for political purposes. Referred to simply as the Pro-Democracy Movement, it has neither formal membership nor articles of association. It arose from activities by a civil servant, ‘Akilisi Pohiva, to raise public awareness of corruption and other forms of official misconduct. In 1987, Pohiva was elected to parliament in the wake of sensational revelations about parliamentary allowances. Gradually, those associated with him began to be known as a pro-democracy movement. Accountability in government was the principal issue. Street marches and petitions were organized, and particular abuses targeted for publicity. After the 1990 election, the movement became more coherent though still without formal organization. In 1992 a steering committee was formed that organized a week-long public forum, the Convention on the Tongan Constitution and Democracy, to discuss the Constitution and alternative constitutional models. This in effect launched the 1993 election campaign in which candidates speaking about the need for democracy and accountability were perceived to have an advantage. To combat the influence of the pro-democrats the government proposed to church leaders that they organize a conservative Christian Democratic Party. The most eminent church leaders, however, were associated with the pro-democracy movement themselves, and the proposal came to nothing. The pro-democracy committee, however, did not regard itself as a party in any sense, even refusing to endorse parliamentary candidates. On Tongatapu, however, Pohiva and two associates ran as a team in 1993, as in 1990. The lack of parliamentary discipline, however, encouraged Pohiva's associates to form a party. This was launched in August 1994, and called the People's Democratic Party, but it foundered almost immediately on continued disunity among the parliamentarians, and among those from whom they expected support. The pro-democracy committee itself found it difficult to maintain momentum, and failed to achieve many of the objectives set at the 1992 Convention on the Tongan Constitution and Democracy. Subsequently, in 1995 there was a split (soon patched over) in the pro-democracy committee itself, and therefore, for the 1996 election, even less than for the 1993 election, did it want to nominate a ticket. It re-grouped after the

TONGA

813

1996 election, reorganized itself towards the end of 1998 under the name of Human Rights and Democracy Movement, and held a public convention on the Constitution in January 1999. For the following general election, it now declared certain candidates to be members of the movement, to prevent others claiming to be, but it still fell short of formal endorsement in that it did not attempt to control nomination by members for election. Thus, the number of pro-democracy candidates continued to be higher than the number of vacancies. The significance of this movement is as an index of public opinion on the issues raised by the reformist politicians themselves. Since there is no constitutional way for these politicians to form a government, and no convention or even precedent of either nobles or ministers conceding to them on matters of high public feeling, their ability to influence either policy or procedures is extremely limited. However, the issues of concern to the reformists from the mid-1980s to the 1999 general election have been matters of honesty, procedure, and government accountability rather than matters of policy. Failure to make any impression on government through parliamentary debate, or extra-parliamentary petitions and marches has led to proposals for constitutional reform which have received no sympathy from the government or the nobles. The proposals are generally conservative, amounting to constitutional amendment rather than wholesale replacement. A wholly or largely popularly elected legislature, and a ministry responsible to the elected representatives would satisfy the most radical of the reformists.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The electoral history of Tonga begins with the 1875 Constitution. The legislature that it established was elected every five years and included hereditary members, nominated members, and elected members. All nobles were automatically members, and Tongan citizens who were tax-payers aged 21 or over (i.e. all adult males not disqualified by insanity or criminality) elected an equal number of representatives. There were four cabinet ministers (a premier and three others) who might be appointed from outside parliament, in which case they too became members of the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly was thus of uncertain size, with a minimum of 40 members, but possibly 44 if all ministers were non-title holders. The subsequent amendments increased it to between 64 and 72 members until its reduction to 23 in 1915.

814

TUVALU

Since 1915, elections were to be held every three years. The franchise remained unchanged. Only commoners could vote for representatives of the people, and only nobles for the nobles’ representatives. Otherwise, each group voted according to the same electoral system. The nation was divided into three constituencies of different size, each returning a plurality of members. Tongatapu, the largest island in the Kingdom (with associated islets) elected three nobles and three people's representatives; Ha'apai, the central archipelago, elected two of each, and Vava'u, the northern group, also elected two of each. Proposals to increase the numbers of representatives to equal the numbers of ministers were made unsuccessfully in 1968 and 1972. It was not until 1981 that the numbers of people's and nobles' representatives were increased to nine (taking effect from the 1984 election), by giving separate representation of one member each to the island of ‘Eua (formerly part of the Tongatapu district) and the far northern islands of Niuafo'ou and Niuatoputapu (formerly included in the Vava'u district). Subsequent attempts by the People's Representatives to have their numbers further increased have been supported neither by the Nobles’ Representatives nor by the ministry. In 1951 the franchise was widened to include women aged 21 and over, although this change did not come into effect until 1960. Only three women have been elected to parliament, the first of them in 1968. None has served more than one term. Under the inheritance laws encapsulated in the Constitution, only men hold noble titles, and no woman was ever been appointed to the ministry.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Elections are held under specific legislation, ‘An Act to regulate Elections of Representatives to the Legislative Assembly and for Related Matters,’ No. 22 of 1989. Suffrage: Two-class suffrage. Nobles vote only in the nobles' election; the people vote only in the election for people's representatives. Otherwise, the principles of universal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. Voters have to be Tongan citizens by birth or naturalization, aged 21 years and over. Voter registration is compulsory, but voting is not. The Electoral Act appears to allow Tongans normally resident abroad to vote, but they would need to be in Tonga at the time of the election to be able to do so.

TONGA

815

Elected national institution: Only the unicameral Legislative Assembly is elected nationally. The people elect nine representatives, the nobles (numbering 29 although there are 33 titles) elect nine also. Members serve a three-year term. Casual vacancies are filled by by-election. Candidature: Only nobles can be elected as representatives of the nobles; any person eligible to vote for the people's representatives can be a candidate for election. Candidates for both groups are self nominated. Each candidate stands as an individual. There is no limit on how many terms a candidate may serve or nominate for. Foreign residents and non-citizens are ineligible for all appointments. Tongans living abroad seeking election must return to Tonga for the purpose. Electoral system: For both Nobles' and People's elections, a plurality system is applied in constituencies of different size. There are five constituencies, and they are the same for both People and Nobles, with representation as follows: Tongatapu: three members; Vava'u: two members; Ha'apai: two members; Niuatoputapu-Niuafo'ou: one member; 'Eua: one member. Each voter casts as many votes as there are candidates to be elected. The members are thereafter distinguished by their ranking. For example, the candidate who achieved the highest number of votes on Tongatapu is referred to formally as the ‘No. 1 People's Representative for Tongatapu’. The same mutatis mutandis applies for the Nobles. A noble, however, votes according to the region to which his title is attached. Nobles holding plural titles therefore exercise plural voting. Organizational Context: Elections are conducted by the Prime Minister's Department. The question of national or international supervision or observation has never been raised, nor has there been any reason why the question should be raised. Any candidate may apply to the Supervisor of Elections for a re-count within one week of the declaration of the poll. Any candidate seeking to overturn the election of another, by reason, for example, of ineligibility or commission of an electoral offence such as bribery, may petition the Supreme Court within 28 days of the declaration of the poll. In the knowledge of the present writer, there have never been any public allegations of dishonest vote-counting.

816

TUVALU

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics At the declaration of the poll, the Supervisor of Elections releases a statement indicating the total number of valid votes cast for each candidate. Break-down by polling booth is usually available. News sources have given detailed information about votes and voting patterns only since 1990 as public interest has been increased by the issues. The statistics which appear hereunder have been compiled from a combination of both news and official sources. Neither the Prime Minister's Office nor the news media have provided consistent and comparable figures for each election. The electoral office is, however, efficiently managed. Efforts are made to maintain a complete and accurate electoral roll, especially for the last three elections (1993, 1996, and 1999), and increasing efforts in this connection are probably responsible for the increase in registered voters between the 1996 and 1999 elections. Emigration has been maintained at high levels in Tonga since the late 1970s, so that the population size is fairly stable, but the electoral roll is probably inflated by numbers of overseas Tongans who do not have the means or intention of coming home to vote at election times, but who nevertheless do not have their names withdrawn from the roll. In the tables below, statistics are sometimes given in terms of the numbers of voters casting votes (i.e. number of ballots), and sometimes in terms of the number of votes exercised. Thus, for Tongatapu, the number of votes is three times the number of voters.

817

TONGA

2. Tables 2.1 Dates of National Elections, Referendums, and Coups D'etat Elections have been held regularly since the adoption of the Constitution in 1875, and triennially since 1915 when the Constitution was amended to provide for triennial parliaments. Year

Presidential elec- Parliamentary tions electionsa

1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 a


Referendums

Coups d'état

18–19/02 14–15/02 03–04/02 24–25/01 10–11/03

Legislative Assembly, partly elected.

2.2 Electoral Body 1987–1999 Yeara

1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 a b c d e

Type of electionb

LA LA LA LA LA

Populationc

Registered voters

Ballots castd

94,962 96,305 98,170 97,784e 98,758

Total number 42,496 41,880 48,487 49,830 54,912

Total number 25,281 26,227 28,505 27,935 27,867

% pop. 44.9 43.5 49.4 51.0 55.6

% reg. voters 59.5 62.6 58.8 56.1 50.8

No data have been obtained for elections earlier than 1987. LA = Legislative Assembly. Official estimates. Censuses of the population are held every ten years, the last two being 1986 and 1996. As some voters dispose of several votes, the number of ballots cast is given. Actual population according to the 1996 census. The official estimate at the time of the election was 100,100.

2.3 /2.4 Abbreviations/participation of Parties and Alliances There are no political parties.

% pop. 26.6 27.2 29.0 28.6 28.2

818

TUVALU


2.6 Elections for Constitutional Assembly Elections to Constitutional Assembly have not been held.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections 1990–1999 Data until 1984 have not been available. Number of registered voters and valid votes for the 1987 elections are reported in table 2.2. Year Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballotsa Votes for Reform candidates Non-reform candidates a

b

Registered voters Ballots cast Invalid ballots Valid ballotsa Votes for Reform candidates Non-reform candidates b c

26,127

% – 65.4 4.2 95.8 57.3b

1993 Total number 48,487 28,743 238 28,505 44,499

% – 59.3 0.8 99.2 64.9b

42.7

24,102

35.1

As the voters in the two- and three-member constituencies dispose of two and three votes respectively, the number of valid votes exceeds the number of valid ballots. Percentage of votes cast for candidates identifying themselves as favoring democratic reforms.

Year

a

1990 Total number 41,880 27,381 1,154 26,227 35,116

1996 Total number 49,830 27,948 13 27,935 38,196 28,517

% – 56.1 0.1 99.9 57.3c

1999 Total number 54,912 — — 27,867 26,342

% – — — 50.8b 39.4c

42.7

40,605

60.6

As the voters in the two- and three-member constituencies dispose of two and three votes respectively, the number of valid votes exceeds the number of valid ballots. As data for votes cast are missing, percentage refers to the number of registered voters. Percentage of votes cast for candidates identifying themselves as favoring democratic reforms.

819

TONGA

2.7 a) Parliamentary Elections: Constituency Level (Absolute Numbers) Region Tongatapu Vava'u Ha'apai ‘Eua Niuas Total

1990 Valid Votes 38,802 11,918 8,580 1,923 1,121 61,243

Region Tongatapu Vava'u Ha'apai ‘Eua Niuas Total

1996 Valid Votes 42,608 12,768 7,994 2,208 1,125 66,713

Pro-Reform 26,102 3,893 6,221 0 0 35,116 Pro-Reform 25,338 5,558 5,214 1,943 143 38,196

Non-Reform 12,700 8,025 2,359 1,923 1,120 26,127

1993 Valid votes 44,178 12,528 8,760 2,037 1,098 68,601

Pro-Reform 30,665 6,628 5,604 1,287 315 44,499

Non-Reform 13,513 5,900 3,156 750 783 24,102

Non-Reform 17,280 7,210 2,780 265 982 28,517

1999 Valid votes 42,543 12,390 8,054 2,194 1,764 66,947

Pro-Reform 18,569 2,902 2,808 1,668 395 26,342

Non-Reform 23,976 9,488 5,246 526 1,369 40,605

2.7 b) Parliamentary Elections: Constituency Level (% Of Valid Votes) Region Tongatapu Vava'u Ha'apai ‘Eua Niuas Nation-wide a

1993 Non-Reform 33.0 67.4 27.5 100.0 100.0 42.7

Valid Votesa 63.4 19.5 14.0 3.1 1.8 100.0

Pro-Reform 68.0 53.0 64.0 63.0 28.0 64.9

Non-Reform 32.0 47.0 36.0 37.0 72.0 35.1

Valid votesa 51.7 22.0 15.4 7.1 3.9 100.0

Valid Votes 50.8 22.9 14.3 7.9 4.0 100.0

1999 Pro-Reform 43.7 23.4 34.9 76.0 31.1 39.4

Non-Reform 56.3 76.6 65.1 24.0 68.9 60.6

Valid votesa 50.0 21.8 14.2 7.8 6.2 100.0


Region Tongatapu Vava'u Ha'apai ‘Eua Niuas Nation-wide a

1990 Pro-Reform 67.3 32.6 72.5 0.0 0.0 57.3 1996 Pro-Reform 59.5 43.5 65.2 88.0 12.7 57.3

Non-Reform 40.5 56.5 34.8 12.0 87.3 42.7


a

820

TUVALU

2.8 Composition of Parliament 1987–1999 Although there are no parties in Tonga, the reform movement created a polarization of candidates in the manner of a two-party system. The 1987 and 1990 elections showed unequivocally rising public support for candidates who were associated with the protest movement which gathered behind ‘Akilisi Pohiva (Tongatapu) and Teisina Fuko (Ha'apai). The principal issue was accountability, but from 1989 onwards, this was increasingly seen as being attainable only with democratic reforms. By 1993, the groundswell of criticism of government was so strong that many candidates called themselves democratic or pro-democratic whatever their real sentiments, because it was believed to be impossible to achieve election otherwise. This both diffused the real pro-reform vote, and inflated the apparent popular support for reform. At the 1996 election the same tendency was visible. The reform cause held its vote overall in 1996, but the large fluctuations at regional levels reflect the importance of individual voter appeal rather than ideological volatility. In 1999, the pro-democracy movement (by this time formally named the Tonga Human Rights and Democracy Movement) identified those who were members to minimize vote-leakage through opportunistic self-identification. This resulted in a reduced apparent support for reform. However, there was also a real loss of reform support, apparent in the regional figures. This erosion of voter support, however, is not the effect of a conservative counterattack (which was strongest in 1993) but of disillusionment and weariness with reform rhetoric which could not be converted into pragmatic programs. Region

Favoring Reformsa Non-Reform Forces a

1987 Seats 9 5

1990 Seats 9 7

1993 Seats 9 6

1996 Seats 9 6

1999 Seats 9 5

4

2

3

3

4

Number of candidates identifying themselves as favoring democratic reforms.

821

TONGA

2.8 a) Composition of Parliament: Constituency Level Number of seats for pro-democracy candidates are given. Distribution of seats to constituencies has remained stable: Tongatapu: 3 seats; Vava'u and Ha'apai 2 seats each; ‘Eua and Niuas 1 seat each. Region

Tongatapu Vava'u Ha'apai ‘Eua Niuas Nation-wide

1987 Seats 9 2 1 2 0 0 5

1990 Seats 9 3 2 2 0 0 7

1993 Seats 9 3 2 1 0 0 6

1996 Seats 9 3 0 2 1 0 6

1999 Seats 9 2 0 1 1 1 5


2.10 List of Power Holders 1845–2001 Head of State King Taufa'ahau Tupou I King Taufa'ahau Tupou II Queen Salote Tupou III King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV

Years 1845–1893 1893–1918 1918–1965 1965–

Head of GovYears ernment Rev. S. W. Baker 1880–1893

Remarks

Uiliame Tuku'aho Jiosateki Tonga

1893–1895 1895–1904

Sione Mateialona 1904–1912 Tu'ivakano 1912–1923 Tungi Mailefihi 1923–1940 Solomone Ata 1940–1949 Tupouto'a-Tungi 1949–1965 Fatafehi Tu'i Pe- 1965–1992 lehake ‘Alipate Vaea 1992–2000 Lavaka-Ata-‘Ulu- 2000– kalala

Remarks Founder of the dynasty. Great-grandson of Tupou I. Daughter of Tupou II. Son of Tupou III; current reigning monarch.

All prime ministers appointed by the crown. Baker removed by the British High Commissioner for the Western Pacific. Died in office. Later became the noble Veikune. Removed by the British High Commissioner for the Western Pacific. Later became the noble Tupouto'a. Resigned to avoid impeachment. Polutele Kaho, succeeded to the Tu'ivakano title before becoming Prime Minister. Died in office. Prince Consort. Died in office. Previously succeeded to the Ata title. Died in office. Crown Prince; became King in 1965. Known at the time by these nobility titles. Brother of the King; previously succeeded to the Tu'i Pelehake title. Retired for reasons of ill-health and advanced age. King's cousin; previously succeeded to Vaea title. Youngest son of the King and incumbent of the three titles of nobility named.

822

TUVALU

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Tonga (1988). The Constitution of Tonga. Nuku'alofa. 1988 edition. —— ‘An Act to regulate Elections of Representatives to the Legislative Assembly and for Related Matters’, No. 22 of 1989. —(Prime Minister's Office), Press Release No. 99/3/3 Results of the Parliamentary Election for 1999–2001. 15 March 1999.

3.2 Books and Articles Campbell, I. C. (1992). Island Kingdom. Tonga Ancient and Modern. Christ-church: University of Canterbury Press. —— (1992). ‘The Emergence of Parliamentary Politics in Tonga’. Pacific Studies, 15/1: 77–97. —— (1994). ‘The Doctrine of Accountability and the Unchanging Locus of Power in Tonga’. Journal of Pacific History, 29/1: 81–94. —— (1996). ‘Fakalelea Filo and Pepetama in Tongan Politics.’ Journal of Pacific History, 31/3: 44–52. —— (1999). ‘The Democracy Movement and the 1999 Tongan Elections.’ Journal of Pacific History, 34/3: 265–272. Latukefu, S. (1974). Church and State in Tonga. Canberra: Australian National University Press. —— (1975). The Tongan Constitution. A Brief History to Celebrate its Centenary. Nuku'alofa: Tonga Traditions Committee.

Tuvalu by Alexander Somoza

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview The island state of Tuvalu (‘cluster of eight’ or ‘eight together’) is situated in the central Pacific Ocean, north of Fiji and south of Kiribati. It consists of nine small atoll-islands—eight of which are permanently inhabited—and has an overall population of only about 10,000. Since its independence from British rule in 1978, the country has experienced an uninterrupted period of democratic government with regular parliamentary elections. Political parties do not exist. The colonial history of Tuvalu began in the 1890s, when Great Britain started to install protectorates in the area of the Pacific Ocean. In 1916 it united two of these Protectorates in order to establish the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony. The Colony then comprised today's Kiribati (Gilbert Islands) and Tuvalu, then known as Ellice Islands. It brought together populations of Polynesian (Ellice Islanders) and Micronesian origin (Gilbert Islanders). Gilbert Islanders outnumbered by far the Ellice Islanders. Until the 1960s, this constellation had no particular impact on the colony's politics, since all administrative duties were performed by the British. In 1967, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Order established a House of Representatives (re-named Legislative Council in 1971 and House of Assembly in 1974) and a Chief Minister as head of the colony's administration. Subsequently, first popular elections to the House were held. With the establishment of the new institutions the Ellice Islanders became growingly aware of their minority position in the colony: of 23 seats in the new legislature they occupied only four. Many Ellice Islanders were convinced that they would never be able to influence government policy, that their islands would be starved of funds and their people denied opportunities for social and economic development. These sentiments fostered growing demands for separation from the Gilbert Islands. The British colonial administration made several concessions to the Ellice

824

VANUATU

Islanders; among others, in 1970 they rose their number of seats in the Legislative Council to eight. Nevertheless, independence remained on the agenda of the Ellice Islanders, who eventually forced the British Government to change its attitude. Between July and September 1974 a referendum was held among the Ellice Islanders on the issue of separation. The result was an overwhelming majority of 92 percent in favor of autonomy. On 1 October 1975 the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony was divided, and the new Tuvalu Colony established. At the first meeting of the Tuvalu House of Assembly Toaripi Lauti, the former spokesman of the Tuvalu faction in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands House of Assembly, was elected Chief Minister. Although the Tuvalu Colony was newly established, Great Britain started pushing forward plans to release its remaining Pacific territories—including Tuvalu—into independence. These plans enjoyed the support of Chief Minister Lauti, who presented a draft constitution and a time-schedule for the independence process to be accomplished by October 1977. His constitutional proposals were closely modeled on Nauru's, where he had lived and worked for several years: a republican form of state with a directly elected legislature and a Head of State and Government, elected by Parliament. To foster a wider discussion among the population, a Constitutional Committee consisting of all House members was appointed in December 1976. The Committee eventually agreed on a traditional Westminster system of government with a Prime Minister as Head of Government and the British Monarch as Head of State. After the general elections to the House of Assembly in August 1977 the Committee's report was adopted, and in the London Conference of February 1978 the final Constitution was drafted. Tuvalu achieved independence on 1 October 1978, with Toaripi Lauti as its first Prime Minister. Since then, Tuvalu has enjoyed a high degree of political stability. General elections to Parliament have been regularly held. No formal political parties emerged, however, although the Constitution explicitly provides for the possibility to found them (Art. 25). Nevertheless, Members of Parliament usually gather in groups either supporting or opposing the government, bound together by friendship or rewards. This is especially true for the election of a new Prime Minister. On the basis of these very loose affiliations, smooth changes of government occurred in 1981 and 1989. In 1982, only four years after independence, the Parliament convened a Committee to review the Constitution and to adjust it to the specific cultural values of Tuvalu better than the original Constitution had done. On 1 May 1986 Parliament approved the amendments,

TUVALU

825

which included a preamble and a new chapter on constitutional principles, containing basic statements on the Tuvaluan culture and customs as foundations of the state. In the 1990s, the functioning of the political institutions were put to a test, when two Prime Ministers were ousted from office via motions of no-confidence and early elections became necessary. Following the general election of 2 September 1993 the legislature was divided on its selection of Prime Minister by six to six members. Having Parliament failed twice to resolve the issue, Governor-General Toaripi Lauti dissolved the legislature on 22 September and scheduled new elections for 25 November. The political deadlock was dissolved and Kamuta Laatasi was elected new Prime Minister on 10 December. Once in office, he dismissed the Governor-General Tomu Sione, nominated shortly before, on the grounds that he was a political appointee of the previous government, and replaced him by Tulaga Manuella. On the Independence Day celebrations in October 1995 Laatasi also presented a new flag, in substitution of the traditional Union Jack. His advocacy of republicanism for Tuvalu, however, which would have implied severing links with Great Britain, met with little enthusiasm, and resulted in a growing opposition in parliament. A political crisis began in late 1996 when, fearing to be dismissed from office, he refused to call Parliament into session. When the legislature finally met in December, he was indeed defeated in a motion of no-confidence by seven to five votes and replaced by former Prime Minister Bikenibeu Paeniu. Paeniu restored the Union Jack as the national flag and put an end to the discussion over the republican form of state. In the March 1998 parliamentary elections, Paeniu was easily elected along with ten supporting MPs, while former Prime Minister Laatasi lost his seat. Frequent changes of government—there were three further changes of Prime Minister until February 2001—have not compromised the overall stability and legitimacy of the political system so far. In 2000, the country became the 189th member of the United Nations.

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions The electoral history of Tuvalu began in 1967, when the House of Representatives (re-named Legislative Council in 1971 and House of Assembly in 1974) of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony was elected for the first time. Since then the principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage have applied to all Tuvaluans. Voting age has been set

826

VANUATU

down from 20 years to 18 in 1971. External or postal voting has not been possible, except for the 1974 referendum. After separating from the Gilbert Islands (Kiribati) in 1975, the Tuvalu House of Assembly was established, and the first elections to this organ were held in August 1977—re-named Parliament of Tuvalu after independence, in 1978 (Palamene o Tuvalu). Since then a total of seven parliamentary elections have been held; electoral regulations have remained nearly unchanged: parliament has had twelve elected members ever since, with the Attorney-General as additional ex officio member. The Members of Parliament have been elected by plurality in four single-member and four two-member constituencies. By-elections have been held to fill vacancies (for details see 1.3). Since 1981 voters have to register on their home islands, not on their resident islands any more. This meant a major increase of registered voters on the remote islands for the 1981 election. In 1986, the possibility of recalling MPs was introduced. If an MP is declared ‘infirm of body and mind’ by 50 percent of the registered voters in his/ her constituency, the Governor-General can declare this seat vacant, after having conducted additional medical tests by two or more independent doctors who confirm the infirmity. Since independence, elections have been organized by the Minister of Home Affairs, who appointed Returning Officers for each constituency in order to conduct the electoral process.

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of Tuvalu (1986); Electoral Provisions (Parliament) Ordinance (1980). Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, secret, and direct suffrage are applied. Every citizen of Tuvalu over the age of 18 is eligible to register as voter. Voter registration takes place on the voter's home island, i.e. where he/ she or his/ her parents were born. Voting is not compulsory. Persons being sentenced to death or imprisonment for more than one year or convicted for election-related offences are not eligible to vote. External voting is not possible. Elected national institutions: Unicameral Parliament of Tuvalu (Palamene o Tuvalu), consisting of 12 members elected directly for a legal term of four years. The Attorney General has also an ex officio seat and

TUVALU

827

vote in Parliament; the latter does not hold for prime ministerial elections. Vacancies arising between general elections are filled through by-elections. Voting is not compulsory. Nomination of candidates: Candidates running for parliamentary election must be at least 21 years of age, citizens of Tuvalu and proposed by a minimum of three registered voters in the constituency he/ she intends to stand for. No financial deposit is required. Persons holding certain public offices, sentenced to death or imprisonment for more than one year, convicted of any election-related offences, being undischarged bankrupts or serving under the allegiance of another state do not qualify as candidates. Electoral system: Plurality system in four single-member constituencies (SMCs) and four two-member constituencies (TMCs). Each of the eight main islands of Tuvalu represents one constituency, the ninth and scarcely inhabited island Niulakita belongs to the Niutao constituency. Those constituencies whose population is smaller than 1,000 (Namumanga, Nui, Nukufetau, and Nukulaelae) return one member, those with a population exceeding 1,000 (Funafuti, Nanumea, Niutao, and Vaitupu) return two members each to Parliament. Each voter can cast as many votes as seats are to be filled in the respective constituency (one vote in SMCs, up to two votes in TMCs). Members of Parliament can be removed from office if 50 percent of the registered voters file a petition with the Governor-General declaring him/ her ‘infirm of body and mind’. The Governor-General can declare the seat vacant after having conducted additional medical tests by two or more independent doctors who confirm the infirmity. Organizational context of elections: There is no independent electoral commission in Tuvalu. The Minister of Home Affairs appoints a Returning Officer for each constituency, who is always the present Island Executive Officer. He/ She is then in charge of voter registration, nomination of candidates and the actual conduct of the election. The Returning Officer nominates Presiding Officers for each polling station. Every candidate can nominate a Polling Agent to observe election at each polling station and a Counting Agent to observe the vote counting.

828

VANUATU

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics There is no continuous official electoral documentation in Tuvalu. Despite all efforts, no official data were available. The figures for the 1974 referendum were taken from Macdonald (1982); the figures for the 1977 and 1981 elections were drawn from International IDEA (1997).

829

TUVALU



1974 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993

Coups d'état

July–Septembera 27/08 08/09 12/09 27/09 02/09 (I) 25/11 (II) 26/03

1998 a

Referendums


For the referendum a rolling ballot was used. Voting began in July 1974 among Ellice Islanders in Tarawa (Gilbert Islands); thereafter the ballot box was taken by the Referendum Administrator in person to every Ellice Island. Ellice Islanders living overseas, on outer Gilbert Islands and the Line Islands had the opportunity to exercise their choice by means of postal vote.


1974 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1993 1998 a b

Type of electiona

Ref Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa (I) Pa (II) Pa

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

6,800 7,100 7,500 8,100 8,800 9,500 9,500 10,400

Total number 4,676 2,862 3,368 — — — — —

Total number 4,132 2,256 2,862 — — — — —

% pop. 68.8 40.3 44.9 — — — — —

% reg. voters 88.4 78.8 85.0 — — — — —

% pop. 60.8 31.8 38.2 — — — — —

Pa = Parliament; Ref = Referendum. Population data are estimates. Source: Statesman's Yearbook and Encyclopedia Britannica.

2.3 /2.4 Abbreviations/electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances There are no political parties in Tuvalu.

830

VANUATU


1974a Total number 4,676 4,132 40 4,092 3,799 293

% – 88.4 1.0 99.0 92.8 7.2

Separation of Ellice Islands from Gilbert Islands.


2.7 Parliamentary Elections The data for valid and invalid votes have not been available. The numbers of registered voters and votes cast are reported in table 2.2.

2.8 Composition of Parliament There are no political parties in Tuvalu. Temporary alliances in the 12-member Parliament are formed around specific issues or before prime ministerial elections.

2.9 Presidential Elections There are no presidential elections because the British Queen is the formal Head of State.

TUVALU

831

2.10 List of Power Holders 1978–2001 Head of State Elizabeth II

Years 1978–

Remarks Represented by the Governor-Generals Sir Fiatao Penitala Teo (1978–1986), Tupua Leupena (1986–1990), Toaripi Lauti (1990–1993), Tomu Sione (1993–1994), Tulaga Manuella (1994–1998), and Tomasi Puapua (since 1998).

Head of Government Toaripi Lauti

Years 1978–1981

Tomasi Puapua

1981–1989

Bikenibeu Paeniu Kamuta Laatasi

1989–1993 1993–1996

Bikenibeu Paeniu

1996–1999

Ionatana Ionatana

1999–2000

Lagitupu Tuilimu

2000–2001

Faimalaga Luka

2001–

Remarks Elected Chief Minister in October 1975. Became Prime Minister after independence on 01/10/1978. MP from Funafuti. Became later Governor-General. MP from Vaitupu. Became later Governor-General. MP from Nukulaelae. Elected Prime Minister on 10/12/ 1993. MP from Funafuti. Forced out of office on 18/12/1996 after a vote of no-confidence. Elected Prime Minister for the second time on 24/12/1996 and reelected on 08/04/1998. MP from Nukulaelae. Forced out of office after a vote of no-confidence on 13/ 04/1999. Continued to head a caretaker government until the new Prime Minister was elected. Elected Prime Minister on 26/04/ 1999. MP from Funafuti. Died of a heart attack while giving a speech on 08/12/2000. Head of caretaker government after Ionatana's death. MP from Nanumea. Elected Prime Minister on 23/02/ 2001. MP from Nukufetau.

832

VANUATU

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Constitution of Tuvalu Ordinance (1986). Funafuti: Government Printer. Electoral Provisions (Parliament) Ordinance (1980). Funafuti: Government Printer.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Anckar, D., and Anckar, C. (2000). ‘Democracies without Parties’. Comparative Political Studies, 33/2: 225–247. Ghai, Y. (ed.) (1988). Law, Government and Politics in the Pacific Islands States. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies/ University of the South Pacific. Inter-Parliamentary Union (1982). ‘Tuvalu’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections and Development. 1 July 1981–30 June 1982. Geneva: IPU, 127–128.. —— (1986). ‘Tuvalu’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections and Development. 1 July 1985–30 June 1986. Geneva: IPU, 131. —— (1994). ‘Tuvalu’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections and Development. 1 July 1993–30 June 1994. Geneva: IPU, 185–186. —— (1999). ‘Tuvalu’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections. 1 January–31 December 1998. Geneva: IPU, 215–217. International IDEA (1997). Voter Turnout from 1945 to 1997: A Global Report on Political Participation. Stockholm: International IDEA. Larmour, P. (1994). “ ‘A Foreign Flower”? Democracy in the South Pacific’. Pacific Studies, 17/1: 45–77. Levine, S. (1992). ‘Constitutional Change in Tuvalu’. Australian Journal of Political Science, 27: 492–509. Macdonald, B. (1982). Cinderellas of the Empire. Canberra: Australian National University Press. —— (1983). ‘Tuvalu: The 1981 General Elections’. Political Science, 35/1: 71–77. Murray, D. J. (1982). ‘Constitution Making in Tuvalu and Kiribati’, in P. Sack (ed.), Pacific Constitutions. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 125–134.

Vanuatu by Philip Stöver8

1. Introduction 1.1 Historical Overview The Melanesian archipelago state of Vanuatu, consisting of some 80 islands, is located in the Southwest Pacific, approximately 1300 miles Northeast of Sydney. Having been under French and British co-administration as the Condominium of the New Hebrides from 1906, Vanuatu became in independent Republic on 30 July 1980. The coadministration did not only create a bilingual society, but also originated a main political cleavage between the Anglophone majority and the Francophone minority of the population. Despite a tendency to fragmentation since the early 1990s, this linguistic cleavage has structured the Vanuatu party system since the first general and competitive elections, held in 1975. The colonial history of Vanuatu began in the 19th century with the arrival on the islands of French and British traders, settlers and missionaries. With the Condominium of 1906, France and Great Britain established formal administrative power, with the British High Commissioner of the Western Pacific and the French Gouverneur de la Nouvelle Calédonie et dépendence representing their national governments. The Protocol of 1914 for the Government of the Islands remained the basis for the unique form of joint government until 1980. The Condominium provided for separate governmental systems, currencies and budgets, linked only by a joint judicial authority. During this time, the ni-Vanuatu, as the Melanesian islanders are called, were excluded from administrative positions and political participation. The first moves toward ni-Vanuatu participation in the administration of public affairs came in 1957, with the establishment of an Advisory council with consultative functions. In response to continuous and

8

The author would like to thank Michael Morgan, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, for his help in the collection of electoral data for the 1998 elections.

834

GLOSSARY

growing demands for autonomy, a Representative Assembly was elected on 10 November 1975. In these elections the Anglophone pro-independence New Hebrides National Party (NHNP)—founded in 1971 as the first party in Vanuatu and later renamed Vanua'aku Pati (VP)—won a majority of 17 seats. The Representative Assembly was granted certain competencies in the administrative, economic, fiscal, and social field, but the colonial authorities reserved the right to cancel the decisions of the Assembly. In order to protest against the selection by appointment of some Assembly members, the NHNP decided to block the work of the Assembly, thereby provoking its premature dissolution. The NHNP also boycotted the early elections of 1977, and thus gave the victory to the Francophone political forces, united in the Moderate Party (MP). In 1978 the colonial authorities approved the introduction of internal self-government. Yet, the conflict between the ruling MP and the radical Anglophone opposition intensified. This led to the creation of a government of national unity in December 1978, comprising five Moderate and five Vanua'aku ministers. The government appointed a Constitutional Planning Committee to draft a Constitution, which was eventually accepted by France and Great Britain and adopted by Parliament in 1980. The last pre-independence elections, held in November 1979, brought the VP back to power. Despite a strong opposition against Anglophone dominance, and even an secession attempt of Frenchdominated islands, Vanuatu became officially independent on 30 July 1980. The independence Constitution provides for a unitary state with a parliamentary type of government. The Prime Minister is elected by an absolute majority from among the members of Parliament. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to Parliament. The Constitution provides for a President as Head of State with largely ceremonial functions. The President is elected by an electoral college (comprising the members of Parliament and eleven chairs of local government councils), and may only be removed by a motion passed by at least two-thirds of its members. The unicameral Parliament sits for a four-year term unless dissolved by majority vote of a three-fourths quorum or a directive from the President on advice of the Prime Minister. Under this constitution six national elections were held since 1979 every four years, with the exception of the early elections of 1998. On matters concerning ni-Vanuatu culture and language, the government is advised by the National Council of Chiefs. Composed of customary chiefs elected by the District Councils of Chiefs, this organ has the power to discuss all questions relating

VANUATU

835

to custom and tradition. The National Council of Chiefs has no legislative authority. The first post-colonial decade in a largely British-influenced system of government revealed important conflict patterns. As the legacy of 74 years of French-British administration, the party system reflected the fundamental social cleavage between the Anglophone and Francophone segments of the population, the latter representing approximately a 40% minority. Accordingly, after independence Francophone parties such as the MP continued to represent the interests of the French-speaking community in the Anglophone-dominated Parliament. Under its leader Walter Lini, the VP dominated Vanuatu politics from 1979, the year of its electoral victory, to 1991. This year Lini was ousted by his own party, as a result of which the party split into the VP and the National United Party (NUP), led by Lini. At the general elections held in December 1991 the VP, led by the newly elected Prime Minister Donald Kalpokas, won ten seats, the same number as Lini's NUP. For the first time since independence the Union of Moderate Parties (UMP), dominated by Francophone ni-Vanuatu, won a plurality of seats and formed a coalition government with NUP. The emergence of new parties in Parliament eroded the virtual monopolistic dominion of the VP and the UMP over the electorate. This fragmentation of the party-system was not only a result of party divisions provoked by power struggles—like the split of the Melanesian Progressive Party off the VP in 1987—but rather reflected the typical Melanesian cultural diversity. Still, the language cleavage remained crucial. The 1990s were largely characterized by political crisis and government instability, as reflected in six changes of government between 1995 and 2001—most of them triggered by charges of corruption. In November 1997, the country was plunged into a constitutional crisis, when 31 MPs, some from the UMP, filed a motion of no-confidence against UMP Prime Minister Serge Vohor. In order to avoid the motion, the government asked the President to dissolve Parliament, which he did on 27 November 1997. The signing MPs took the matter to the Supreme Court, which finally upheld the President's dissolution in January 1998. As a result of the fresh elections of 6 March 1998, the Kalpokas-led VP and the NUP formed a coalition government, including Lini as Deputy Prime Minister. The solid majorities of the past, however, had disappeared by the time this government started its tenure, and remained absent during later coalition governments.

836

GLOSSARY

1.2 Evolution of Electoral Provisions Franchise was introduced under Condominium administration with the establishment of a partly elected consultative Council in 1957. Out of twenty members, ten were ni-Vanuatu, four of them elected, and six appointed by the French and British authorities. Regular elections with general suffrage were introduced in 1975 to elect the first legislative body of the New Hebrides, the Representative Assembly, which was conferred the power to recommend regulations to the Resident Commissioners. Out of 42 seats in the Representative Assembly, 29 were distributed through popular elections. Nine members (three French, three British and three ni-Vanuatu) were elected by the Chamber of Commerce, four members were elected by traditional heads of villages. Every man or woman of 21 years or older, who had resided in the New Hebrides for at least the three years preceding the poll and were registered as voters, had the right to vote. Every man or woman of 25 years or older who was registered as voter could stand as representative. Plurality system was applied. Elections to the Representative Assembly were held twice, in 1975 and after an early dissolution by French and British authorities, on 29 November 1977. The electoral provisions introduced in 1979 and first applied in the 1979 elections, asked for ‘an element of proportional representation’ (Constitution Art. 17, 11), which was guaranteed through the system of single nontransferable vote (SNTV) in small multi-member constituencies. Voting age was lowered to 18 years. Most electoral provisions have basically remained to date and are described in detail in section 1.3. The number of multi-member constituencies (MMC) was adjusted to the growth and distribution of the population as reflected in the census. In 1979 and 1983, 39 MPs were elected in 14 constituencies (three single-member constituencies (SMC) and eleven 2- to 5member constituencies; average size 2.8). In 1987, the number of seats was increased to 46 (four SMCs, eight 2- to 5member constituencies, and three 6-member constituencies; average size 3.1). For the 1995 elections the number of seats rose to 50 (four SMCs, seven 2- to 4-member constituencies, and four 6- to 7-member constituencies; average size: 3.3), and in 1998 again to 52 (six SMCs, seven 2- to 4-member constituencies, and four 6- to 7-member constituencies; medium size: 3.1). The additional single-seat constituency of Noumea for ni-Vanuatu in New-Caledonia was abolished in 1987, and postal ballots were introduced for overseas ni-Vanuatu to participate in national elections.

VANUATU

837

1.3 Current Electoral Provisions Sources: Constitution of the Republic of Vanuatu of 30/07/1980; Electoral Law of 1982. Suffrage: The principles of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage are applied. Every citizen who has reached the age of 18 can be registered as voter. Undischarged bankrupts, people certified as insane, and persons sentenced to imprisonment are disqualified. If voters are not in their constituency on the polling day, they may vote by proxy. Only registered voters are entitled to stand proxy. Overseas ni-Vanuatu are given postal ballots to participate in national elections. Voting is not compulsory. Elected national institutions: National Assembly with 52 seats and a regular term of office of four years. By-elections are held in case of vacancies arising between general elections. Besides, the President of the Republic is indirectly elected by an electoral college for a term of five years. Re-election is not restricted.

Nomination of Candidates - presidential elections: Every ni-Vanuatu citizen, who is eligible to Parliament may stand as presidential candidate. - parliamentary elections: Every citizen who has reached the age of 25 is eligible. A seat in Parliament is incompatible with the office of President of the Republic, judge or magistrate, public officer, with membership of the police forces or the National Council of Chiefs, and membership of the teaching profession. Candidates need the support of at least five electors of their constituency and must deposit a sum of Vatu 20,000 (approximately US$ 147 in 2001), which is reimbursed if the candidate obtains at least 5% of the votes cast in his constituency. Parties present lists of candidates, but have no official role in the process of candidature.

Electoral System - presidential elections: Qualified majority system. The President is elected by a secret ballot of an electoral college made up of the members of Parliament and eleven chairs of local government councils. A two-thirds majority vote is required, and the vote may take place only if a quorum of three-fourths is present at the first meeting of the college. If

838

GLOSSARY

that quorum is not present, the college must meet forty-eight hours later and may then vote if two-thirds of the members are present. - parliamentary elections: (SNTV) Plurality system in 17 single- and multi-member constituencies (six single-member, four two-member, one three-member, two four-member, one six-member and three seven-member constituencies). Each voter has a single vote. Electors express their vote by putting the ballot paper of the candidate they want to elect into an envelope. Organizational context of elections: An Electoral Commission, consisting of a Chairman and two members appointed by the President, is responsible for the organization and supervision of the poll. Additionally, an Electoral Officer exercises powers and functions relating to registration of voters and elections. On election day, there is a functionary present in each polling station, assisted by employees. Furthermore, parties and independent candidates are entitled to send an observer to each polling station. The results of an election are broadcast on radio by the Electoral Commission and published in the Official Gazette. During the three weeks following polling day, petitions against the results may be addressed to the Supreme Court. A final report is drawn up by the Electoral Officer, in French and English language, and presented to Parliament by the Electoral Commission.

1.4 Commentary on the Electoral Statistics Full constituency data of parliamentary elections since independence in 1980 have been published in the Official Gazette of Vanuatu. National aggregates of party votes were calculated by the author. Figures for the 1979 elections were obtained from Zorgbibe (1981), who cites the Vanuatu newspaper Nabanga of 21/11/1979. The Composition of the 1979 Parliament is based on the Publication Officielle (1979) and differs slightly (in one constituency) from party affiliation as given by Zorgbibe. The Official Gazettes for the 1983 and 1987 elections document the valid votes cast for each candidate at the constituency level. For these elections the numbers of registered voters and votes cast were obtained from van Trease (1995). Since 1991, the Official Gazettes have also documented the numbers of registered voters and invalid votes on the constituency level. The results of the 1998 elections are drawn both from the General Election Report and from the Official Gazette (1998), because the second source contains slight arithmetical problems concerning

839

VANUATU

the numbers of votes cast, invalid and valid votes in the constituency of Malekula.



1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1998 a


Referendums

Coups d'état

14/11 02/11 30/11 02/12 30/11 06/03

Presidential elections have been indirect.


1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1998 a b

Type of electiona

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

Populationb

Registered voters

Votes cast

112,596 128,000 149,400 154,000 160,000 182,000

Total number 52,636 59,712 79,113 87,695 105,631 112,610

Total number 47,541 44,726 56,676 62,556 76,522 69,375

% pop. 46.7 46.7 53.0 56.9 66.0 61.9

% reg. voters 90.3 74.9 71.6 71.3 72.4 61.6

% pop. 42.2 34.9 37.9 40.6 47.8 38.1

Pa = Parliament. Except for the 1979 census, population data are based on official estimates. Further censuses: 1989: 142,63; 1999: 193,219 (provisional result).

840

GLOSSARY

2.3 Abbreviations FMP FP IF JFM LP LPV KAP KAS KIK MBY MP MPP NA NAG NAT NDP NPP NUP PDP UMP TAB TU UFa UMP VANWIP VIAP VIF VMR VP VRP a

Fren Melanesian Party Federated Party Independent Front Jon Frum Movement Liberal Party Leba Pati Blong Vanuatu Kapiel Kastom Kristian Independent Kandidet Movement Blong Yumi Moderate Party Melanesian Progressive Pati Namaki Aute Nagriamel Custom Federation Natatok National Democratic Party New People's Party Nasional Unaeted Parti Peoples Democratic Party Union of Moderate Parties Tabwemasana Tanunion Unity Front Union of Moderate Parties Vanuatu Women in Politics Vanuatu Independent Alliance Party Vanuatu Independent Francophone Vemarana Movement Vanua'aku Pati Vanuatu Republican Party

The UF consisted of the Vanua'aku Pati, the Melanesian Progressive Party, and the Tan Union.

2.4 Electoral Participation of Parties and Alliances 1979–1998 Party / Alliance JFM FP KAP KAS MP/UMPb NAT

Years 1979, 1998 1979 1979 1979 1979–1998 1979

Elections contesteda 2 1 1 1 6 1

841

VANUATU

TAB VPb,c FMP NA NAG VIAP LP NDP NPP MPPc NUP TUc VIF IF KIK LPV PDP UFc VANWIP MBY VMR VRP a b c

1979 1979–1998 1983–1995 1983 1983–1998 1983–1987 1987 1987 1987–1991 1991–1998 1991–1998 1991–1995 1991 1995 1995–1998 1995 1995–1998 1995 1995–1998 1998 1998 1998

Only parliamentary elections. Total number: 6. Contested in 1979 as MP, since 1983 as UMP. The UF contested in 1995 as an electoral alliance consisting of VP, MPP, and TU.

1 6 4 1 5 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1

842

GLOSSARY

2.5 /2.6 Referendums/ Elections for Constitutional Assembly Referendums and Elections for Constitutional Assembly have not been held.

2.7 Parliamentary Elections Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes VP MP/UMPb FP NA JFM KAP KAS NAT VIAP NAG FMP Othersc Independents a b c

1979 Total number 52,636 47,541 419 47,122 29,355 5,117 3,356 1,985 1,050 985 683 640 – – – 155 3,796

% – 90.3 0.9 99.1 62.3 10.9 7.1 4.2 2.2 2.1 1.4 1.4 – – – 0.3 8.1

1983 Total number 59,712 44,726 561a 44,165 24,313 12,647 – 1,159 – – – – 1,738 1,254 1,014 – 2040

% – 74.9 1.3 98.7 55.1 28.6 – 2.6 – – – – 3.9 2.8 2.3 – 4.6

% – 71.6 0.7 99.3 47.3 39.9 2.5 2.0 1.6 1.4 0.8 0.6 – –

1991 Total number 87,695 62,556 375 62,181 14,058 19,016 588 1,157 – 1,822 – – 12,672 9,562

% – 71.3 0.6 70.9 22.6 30.6 0.9 1.9 – 2.9 – – 20.4 15.4

Includes: TAB: 155 votes. Contested in 1979 as MP, since 1983 as UMP. Calculated by the author.

Year Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes VP UMP NPP FMP NDP NAG VIAP LP NUP MPP

1987 Total number 79,113 56,676 382a 56,294 26,626 22,443 1,418 1,119 879 766 442 313 – –

843

VANUATU

TU Othersb Independents a b

Registered voters Votes cast Invalid votes Valid votes UFb VP MPP UMP NUP FMP PDP NAG KIK IF LPV VANWIP VRP JFM MBY LP Others Independents b c

– – 4.1

2,852 77 377

4.6 0.1 0.6

% – 72.4 0.6 99.4 31.4 – – 27.4 23.4 2.7 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.2 0.2 – – – – – 6.6

1998a Total number 112,610 69,375 413 68,962 – 14,467 9,669 13,833 10,947 – 748 162 288 – – 488 5,232 1,539 656 567 299c 10,067

% – 61.6 0.6 99.4 – 21.0 14.0 20.1 15.9 – 1.1 0.2 0.4 – – 0.7 7.6 2.2 1.0 0.8 1.1 14.6

Calculated by the author. Includes: VIF: 77 votes.

Year

a

– – 2,288 1995 Total number 105,631 76,522 492 76,030 23,911 –b –b 20,865 17,795 2,019 1,786 1,337 1,207 1,000 884 172 – – – – – 5,054

Aggregated figures as given by the Election Report have been corrected by the author on the basis of constituency results given in the Official Gazette (constituency of Malekula). Electoral alliance consisting of VP, MPP, and TU. Others include: VMR.

844

GLOSSARY


1979 Seats 39 VP 26 a MP/UMP 5 FP 2 NA 2 JFM 1 Kapiel 1 FMP – NUP – MPP – NAG – TU – Independ- 2 ents a

1983 Seats 39 24 12 – 2 – – 1 – – – – 0

% 100.0 61.5 30.8 – 5.1 – – 2.6 – – – – 0.0

1987 Seats 46 25 19 – – – – 1 – – – – 1

% 100.0 54.3 41.3 – – – – 2.2 – – – – 2.2

1991 Seats 46 10 19 – – – – 1 10 4 1 1 0

% 100.0 21.7 41.3 – – – – 2.2 21.7 8.7 2.2 2.2 0.0

Contested in 1979 as MP, since 1983 as UMP.

Year UF UMP VP NUP MPP NAG FMP JFM VRP Independents a

a

% 100.0 66.6 12.8 5.1 5.1 2.6 2.6 – – – – – 5.1

1995 Seats 50 20 17 –a 9 –a 1 1 – – 2

% 100.0 40.0 34.0 – 18.0 – 2.0 2.0 – – 4.0

1998 Seats 52 – 12 18 11 6 – – 2 1 2

% 100.0 – 23.1 34.6 21.2 11.5 – – 3.8 1.9 3.8

Electoral alliance consisting of VP, MPP, and TU. In Parliament seats were allocated as follows: VP 13; MPP 5; TU 2.

2.9 Presidential Elections The President is elected by an electoral college made up of the members of Parliament and chairs of local government councils.

845

VANUATU

2.10 List of Power Holders 1980–2001 Head of State Ati George Sokomanu

Years 1980–1988

Frederick Timakata Alfred Masseng Jean-Marie Leye Edward Natapei John Bernard Bani

1988–1994

Remarks Former Deputy Chief Minister. Took office on 30/07/1980. Re-elected on 08/03/1984. After the constitutional conflict with Prime Minister Lini, Sokomanu was deposed and tried on charges of sedition and conspiracy to overthrow the government. Was freed when the Court of Appeal overturned the original decision in April 1989. Replaced Sokomanu on 30/01/1989. Died on 02/03/1994.

1994 1994–1999 1999 1999–

Interim Elected Interim Elected

President since 31/01/1994. on 28/02/1994. Took office on 02/03/1994. President since 02/03/1999. on 25/03/1999.

Head of Government Walter Lini

Years 1980–1991

Maxime Carlot Korman

1991–1995

Serge Vohor

1995–1996

Maxime Carlot Korman

1996

Serge Vohor Donald Kalpokas

1996–1998 1998–1999

Barak Sopé

1999–2001

Edward Natapei

2001–

Remarks Chief Minister since 29/11/1979. After independence, confirmed in office on 21/11/1980; removed on 06/09/1991. Vanuatu's first Francophone Prime Minister. Elected on 06/09/1991. UMP leader, Head of coalition government with NUP. Elected on 21/12/1995 as head of UMP/NUP coalition; Vohor resigned on 08/02/1996 in anticipation of a motion of no-confidence. Elected on 23/02/1996. Ousted by a motion of no-confidence. Elected on 30/09/1996. Elected on 06/03/1998. Resigned in the face of a possible no-confidence vote. Elected on 25/11/1999. Ousted by a vote of no-confidence on 13/04/ 2001. Elected on 13/04/2001 as head of coalition government of VP and UMP.

846

GLOSSARY

3. Bibliography 3.1 Ofcial Sources Autorité du Condominium des Nouvelles-Hébrides (1977). Journal Officiel. No. 377. Août. —— (1979). Journal Officiel. (Règlement conjoint). No. 22. —— (1979). Journal Officiel. No. 419 of 27/11/1979. ‘Constitution of the Republic of Vanuatu’, in P. Sack (ed.), Pacific Constitutions. Canberra: ANU/Research School of Social Sciences (1983). Electoral Commission of the Republic of Vanuatu (1998). 5th General Election Report. Port Vila: Electoral Commission. Republic of Vanuatu (1983). Official Gazette. No. 39. 14/11/1983. —— (1987). Official Gazette. Extraordinary Gazette. 10/12/1987. —— (1991). Official Gazette. Extraordinary Gazette. 9/12/1991. —— (1995). Official Gazette. Extraordinary Gazette. 8/12/1995.

3.2 Books, Articles, and Electoral Reports Ambrose, D. (1996). ‘A Coup that Failed? Recent Political Events in Vanuatu’. Journal of Pacific History, 31/3: 53–66. Bigard, A. (1984). Vanuatu – Chronique d'une décolonisation. Nouméa: Imprimeries Réunies. David, G. (1997). ‘L'indépendance d'un micro-Etat. Le pari du Vanuatu’. Revue Tiers Monde, 38/149: 121–138. Deckker, P. de, and Lagayette, P. (eds.) (1987). Etats et pouvoirs dans les territoires francais du Pacifique, Schémas d'évolution. Paris: L'Harmattan. Forster, R. A. (1980). ‘Vanuatu: the End of an Episode of Schizophrenic Colonialism’. The Round Table, 280: 367–373. Gundert, S. (1984). Der historische Rahmen der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Entwicklung von Vanuatu. München: Minerva Publikation. Inter-Parliamentary Union (1984). ‘Vanuatu’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections July 1, 1983–June 30, 1984. Geneva: IPU, 95–96. —— (1988). ‘Vanuatu’, in Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections July 1, 1987–June 30, 1988. Geneva: IPU, 125–126. Lini, W. (1983). Beyond Pandemonium: from the New Hebrides to Vanuatu. 2nd edition. Suva: IPS. Meller, N., and Fry, G. (1992). ‘Vanuatu’, in D. S. Lewis and D. J. Sagar, Political Parties of Asia and the Pacific. A Reference Guide. Harlow: Longman, 1087–1090.

VANUATU

847

Morgan, M. (1998). ‘Political Chronicles: Vanuatu 1995–1998’. The Journal of Pacific History, 33/3: 287–293. Ntumy, M. A. (ed.) (1993). South Pacific Islands Legal Systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Paterson, D. (1993). ‘Vanuatu’, in M. A. Ntumy, South Pacific Islands Legal Systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 365–394. Premdas, R. (1987a). ‘Melanesian Socialism: Vanuatu's Quest for Self-Definition’. Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 25/2: 141–160. —— (1987b). ‘Vanuatu, Melanesian Socialism and Political Change’. The Round Table, 304: 497–505. —— and Steeves. J. S. (1989). ‘Current Developments in the Pacific. Vanuatu: the 1987 National Elections and their Aftermath’. The Journal of Pacific History, 24/1: 110–117. —— (1990). ‘Political and Constitutional Crisis in Vanuatu’. The Round Table, 313: 43–64. Schellhorn, K. M. (1988). ‘Vanuatu—das Enfant terrible des Südpazifik’. KAS–Auslandsinformationen, 4/8: 37–49. Steeves, J. S. (1989). Politics and Government in Vanuatu. North Queensland: Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, James Cook University. —— (1992). ‘Current Developments in the Pacific’. The Journal of Pacific History, 27/2: 217–228. van Trease, H. (ed.) (1995). Melanesian Politics. Stael Blong Vanuatu. Christchurch: Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Canterbury. Zorgbibe, C. (1981). Vanuatu, Naissance d'un Etat. Paris: Economica.


Glossary The following glossary of key concepts of elections and electoral systems refers to those definitions only that are systematically applied in this handbook. Absentee voting: Under an absentee voting provision a person entitled to vote and unable or unwilling to go to the assigned polling station on election day may still cast his/ her vote. Voting takes place before election day by mail or before or on election day at a different and sometimes special polling station than the one originally assigned. In the special case of external or overseas voting, embassies and military bases function also as polling stations for absentees. In most cases there is an application deadline for absentee voting before the elections. In electoral systems with more than one constituency it deserves special attention to which constituency absentee and especially overseas ballots are added. Absolute majority system: An electoral system in which a candidate becomes elected if he or she has received more than half of the valid votes. If no candidate reaches the necessary absolute majority, run-offs usually ensue, often among a reduced number of candidates (e.g. the candidate with the lowest number of votes is excluded, or only the two candidates with the highest shares of votes participate). In the run-off, the plurality system may replace the absolute majority. In order to avoid a run-off, the winner can be determined by the alternative vote system. Alternative vote (system): An electoral system in which voters rank candidates according to their preferences. The decision-rule is the absolute majority of first preference votes. If no candidate obtains the necessary absolute majority, the candidate with the lowest number of first preference votes is eliminated, and his/ her votes are redistributed among the remaining candidates on the basis of the voters' second preferences. This procedure is repeated until one candidate obtains an absolute majority. Binomial system: An electoral system in which all MPs are elected in two-member-constituencies on a closed and nonblocked list of parties or electoral alliances, i.e. each elector has one vote. The decision rule is

850

GLOSSARY

plurality. This electoral system tends to favor the second largest political forces in a country: Only if the winning list receives twice as many votes as the list which finishes second, both seats will be given to the winning list (to the candidate with the second largest number of votes on this list). Candidacy: The form of candidacy is particularly important because the relationship between voter and representative can be influenced by different institutional arrangements. A fundamental distinction must be drawn between individual candidacies and party lists, i.e., between voting for certain candidates (in SMCs or small MMCs), or for lists of parties or independents (in MMCs). Closed and blocked list: A list system (also referred to as simply closed list) which allows the voter to cast his/ her vote only for one fixed list of party candidates, without being it possible for him/ her to express his/ her preferences within this list. See list. Closed and non-blocked list: A list system which allows the voter to decide who should represent the party in Parliament by letting him/ her choose between the candidates of a given list. See list. Combined electoral system: Generalized expression for electoral systems in which more than one principle of decision is applied (like in mixed-member proportional systems, compensatory systems or segmented systems). Compensatory system: A combined electoral system with more than one tier of seat allocation where the additional tier systematically favors those parties which were disadvantaged in the preceding step of seat allocation. Contrary to the segmented system, where the allocation of parliamentary seats takes place separately according to the majority principle and to proportional representation, the parts of a compensatory system are inter-connected insofar as the unsuccessful votes of the majority part are additionally taken into account in the allocation of the PR-seats. By this hyper-proportional procedure, smaller parties or alliances are partially compensated for their disadvantage in the distribution of the majority seats.

GLOSSARY

851

Constituency (or Electoral District): The territory in which elections are held is divided into constituencies in which candidates are elected. The number of constituencies in an election may range from one—all representatives are elected nationwide—to as many as there are representatives to be elected (i.e. parliamentary seats). Single-member constituencies (SMCs) where only one candidate is elected can be distinguished from multimember constituencies (MMCs) of small size (2–5 seats), medium size (6–10 seats) and large size (11 or more seats). The district magnitude is hence measured with reference to the number of seats to be distributed in the constituencies. The lower the number of constituencies, and the higher the number of seats awarded in each district, the stronger is the proportional effect of the electoral system. Decision rule: see Principle of decision. Deposit: Electoral laws frequently provide for candidates to pay a certain amount of money to get on the ballot. As a rule, a candidate will only be refunded after an election, if he/ she has achieved a minimum of the vote share or has won a seat. While deposits tend to reduce the number of frivolous candidacies, they may also be exclusionary for candidates who cannot pay or raise the money for the deposit. An alternative to the deposit is the requirement of a certain number of certified supporters. D'Hondt method: A highest average formula with the sequence of divisors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Favors larger parties. See Electoral formulae. Droop quota: The total number of valid votes cast (V), divided by the district magnitude (M) plus one (V/ [M+1]). Identical to Hagenbach–Bischoff quota. Electoral formulae: Where seats are distributed proportionally, a specific method of calculation has to be used. Although there are manifold methods, most of them can be classified into two basic categories, namely those based on average formula and those based on a quota. The typical feature of the highest average formula—the best known examples are the d'Hondt formula and the Saint-Laguë formula—is as follows: The votes gained by the various political parties are divided by a series of divisors (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. in the case of the d'Hondt formula) so that decreasing numerical series result for each party. The seats are allocated to the highest numbers of quotients. The advantages of this method of distribution are its simplicity and the fact that all seats are distributed in just

852

GLOSSARY

one step. Under quota systems, on the other hand, a quota is calculated. The number of seats the relevant parties will gain will be the same as the number of times their vote total can be divided by the quota. Examples are the Hare, Droop or Hagenbach–Bischoff quota, calculated by dividing the number of total votes cast by a certain divisor. These formulae do not allow for a one-step seat allocation, so the remaining seats have to be distributed in a second stage, often by the method of largest remainder of votes or by the greatest average method. The same effect on seat distribution as the Hare quota in combination with largest remainder has the Hare-Niemeyer formula. In comparison to average formula systems, the quota systems normally produce a more proportional outcome, thereby favoring smaller parties. Electoral system: Set of formal rules according to which voters may express their political preferences in elections and which enables the conversion of votes into parliamentary seats (in the case of parliamentary elections) or into executive positions (in the case of elections for President, governors, mayors, etc.). These rules affect the following spheres: constituencies, candidacies, voting procedures, and modes of seat allocation. External voting (or overseas voting): A provision which enables the voting age population living or staying abroad to cast their vote outside their home country. A special case of absentee voting. First vote: In a combined electoral system with two votes to be cast (e.g. segmented system), the first vote refers to the candidate vote (usually in SMCs) and the second vote to the party vote (in MMCs). Gerrymandering: The practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to suit the interests of political parties. It entails a deliberate political manipulation and exploits the varying spatial distribution of support for the various political parties. This tactic is named after Mr. Gerry, a governor who cut out a safe salamander-shaped district for himself in the city of Boston. Greatest average: Method for the allocation of remaining seats. The seats that cannot be distributed under the electoral quota are allocated later to those parties with the highest average number of votes per seat (parties that have suffered most from the application of the electoral

GLOSSARY

853

quota benefit most from the additional allocations). See Electoral formulae. Hagenbach–Bischoff quota: The total number of valid votes cast (V), divided by the district magnitude (M) plus one (V/[M+1]). See Electoral formulae. Hare quota: The total number of valid votes cast (V), divided by the district magnitude (M): (V/M). See Electoral formulae. Hare-Niemeyer formula: The number of seats for each party is calculated by dividing the valid votes of each party (PV) by the total number of valid votes (TV), and subsequently multiplying the result by the district magnitude (M): SP (seat portion) = ([PV/TV]*M). The greatest integer (GI) less or equal to the SP determines the number of seats given to each party. Remaining seats are given to the parties according to their largest remaining SP: (SP–GI). Technically identical with Hare quota in combination with Largest remainder. See Electoral formulae. Highest average formula: see Electoral formulae. Largest remainder: Formula used to allocate the remaining seats. The seats that cannot be distributed under the corresponding electoral quota are allocated successively to those parties with the largest remainder (total votes of the respective party minus its successful votes). See Electoral formulae. List, forms of lists: The different forms of party lists influence the relationship between the voter and the candidates or between the candidates and their parties. The strictly closed and blocked list permits only voting en bloc for a political party, and does not allow the voter to express his/ her preferences for or rejection of a given candidate. Instead, party committees decide the sequence of the candidates on the lists. Closed and blocked lists thus tend to increase the dependence of the representatives on the political parties. On the other hand, the parties can plan the composition of the party in Parliament (experts, minorities, women, etc.). On the contrary, preferential voting within a closed, (but) non-blocked list permits voters to decide who should represent the party in Parliament. This decision is only pre-structured by the party committees. A representative therefore feels less dependent on his/ her party. The open (i.e., non-closed and non-blocked) list allows voters to cross party

854

GLOSSARY

lines and enables them to compile their own lists. Consequently, an open list may be considered as a mere proposal by the parties. Majority principle: see Principle of decision. Majority representation: see Principle of representation. Majority system: see Absolute majority system. Mixed-member proportional system: An electoral system in which two votes are cast. Unlike the segmented system, the number of seats per party list is determined by the second vote according to proportional representation in national or regional multi-member constituencies. Yet, a fixed number of seats (lower than the seat total) is allocated directly to winning candidates according to the plurality system in single- or multi-member-constituencies determined by the first vote. The seats won by candidates—which are usually associated with a party and are also on this party's list—are subtracted from the party's seat total. If there are less seats per party than seats per (party) candidates, the elected candidates remain in Parliament as additional members (surplus seats). Usually, the mixed-member proportional system—also known as the German Model—does not cause many of such additional Members of Parliament and has therefore hardly no effect upon the proportionality of votes and parties: it is in effect a personalized system of proportional representation. MMC, Multi-member constituency: see Constituency. Multiple vote: see Vote(s). Negative vote: see Vote(s). Open (i.e., non-closed and non-blocked) lists: A list system which allows voters to cross party lines and enables them to compile their own list of preferred candidates disregarding their party affiliation. See List. Overseas voting: see External voting. Parallel system: see Segmented system.

GLOSSARY

855

Plurality system: An electoral system in which a candidate (in SMCs or MMCs) or a party list (in MMCs) is elected if he/ she/ it receives more valid votes than any other candidate or party list. Unlike in the absolute majority system, the plurality of valid votes—not the majority—is sufficient to get elected. Preferential voting: see Alternative vote system. Principle of decision: The decision principle is the formula that determines the winners and losers of an election. If the decision principle is the majority formula, it will be the majority of votes cast that will decide who wins and who loses the election (majority principle, i.e. either by plurality or by an [absolute] majority). If the proportional formula is the principle of decision, the result of an election is decided according to the proportion of votes cast obtained by each candidate or party (proportional principle). Principle of representation: There are two basic principles to classify electoral systems according to their impact they are intended to have upon the votes/ seats relationship: majority representation and proportional representation. The objective of majority representation is to produce a parliamentary majority for one party or for a coalition of parties; this is achieved by the disproportion between votes and seats inherent in majority electoral systems. Proportional representation, on the other hand, aims at reflecting the existing social forces and political groups in a given country as accurately as possible, i.e. a more or less proportional relation between votes and seats. Proportional principle: see principle of decision. Proportional representation> (PR): 1. see principle of representation. 2. An electoral system in which the share of seats reflects the share of votes in a constituency. The fewer the number of constituencies, and the larger they are, the more proportional is the overall effect of the system. The size of the constituencies creates natural thresholds which infringe proportionality, and legal thresholds have analogous effects. Furthermore, the electoral formula applied may have disproportional effects on the votes/ seats-ratio. An electoral system with only one (national) constituency and without a legal threshold is called pure PR. If there is more than one constituency the system is called PR in multi-member constituencies. In some countries, a part of Parliament is elected in (regional)

856

GLOSSARY

multi-member constituencies and another part in one national constituency (e.g. in Sri Lanka): the system is then labeled PR in multi-member constituencies with an additional national list. In contrast to the segmented system, only one principle of decision is applied and the vote counts twice. See also Combined electoral system. PR in multi-member constituencies: see Proportional representation. PR in multi-member constituencies with an additional national list: see Proportional representation. Pure PR: see proportional representation. Quota systems: see Electoral formulae and Droop, Hagenbach–Bischoff and Hare quota. Runoff: see Absolute majority system. Saint-Laguë formula: A highest average formula with the sequence of divisors 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 etc. In comparison with the d'Hondt formula it tends to favour smaller parties. See Electoral formulae. Second vote: In a combined electoral system with two votes to cast (e.g. in a segmented system), the second vote refers to the party vote (in MMCs) and the first vote to the candidate vote (usually in SMCs). Segmented system (or parallel system): Two electoral systems are used to elect members of a parliamentary chamber separately: for a fixed portion of seats, proportional representation in medium- to large-sized (often national) MMCs is applied; for another portion of seats, MPs are elected in SMCs by plurality or absolute majority. These two parts of the segmented system are not connected in any way and their respective electoral formulae are also applied separately. This is the basic difference to compensatory systems, where the different parts of the electoral system are inter-connected and the disproportional effect of the initial seat allocation by the majority principle is reduced by a hyper-proportional formula that favors smaller parties. A valuable indicator of the degree of proportionality of a segmented system is the ratio between the number of MPs elected by majority principle and the number of MPs elected by PR.

GLOSSARY

857

SMC, Single-member constituency: see Constituency. SNTV, Single non-transferable vote: A plurality electoral system in MMCs in which the voter can only cast one vote. Seats are distributed by plurality according to the number of votes for the single candidates. The larger the constituencies, the more SNTV tends to proportional representation. Unlike in STV, in SNTV there is no quota, additional preferences cannot be given, and there is only one count of the votes. STV, Single Transferable Vote (also PR-STV): An electoral system in which voters can rank candidates according to their preferences in MMCs. In a multiple-round counting process, surplus votes of candidates who have reached the STV Droop Quota are transferred to second preference candidates proportionally to all second preferences of the voters of the successful candidate. Likewise, candidates with the lowest share of votes are eliminated and the corresponding votes are transferred to the next preference. The counting process continues until all seats of the constituency are filled. STV is also called PR-STV to distinguish it from the alternative vote. STV Droop quota: One plus the greatest integer (GI) less than or equal to the total number of valid votes cast (V), divided by the district magnitude (M) plus one: 1 + (GI ≤ V/[M+1]). See Electoral formulae. Thresholds of representation: A legal threshold (or hurdle) of representation is a certain, legally fixed number of votes or seats that a political party (or candidate) has to reach in order to be allowed to participate in the allocation of seats. Legal (or artificial) thresholds differ from natural thresholds, which may result from districting, i.e. from the size of the constituencies. Vote(s): Depending on the electoral system, voters can either cast one, two or a series of votes. If there is one vote, this is usually either for a single candidate, a closed and blocked list of a party or a candidate on a closed and nonblocked list. Especially in former member states of the Soviet Union, there is sometimes the option of a so-called negative vote ‘against all candidates and/ or parties’. If the voter is entitled to two or more votes, he/ she may cast them in favor of one candidate on a closed and non-blocked list exclusively (cumulative voting), of more than one candidate on a closed and non-blocked list (preference voting) or of candidates on various lists (panachage; see open list). Two votes are also

858

GLOSSARY

the rule in combined electoral systems, where the first vote is to be cast for a candidate and the second vote for a party. The term multiple vote refers to an electoral system in which the voter may cast as many votes as seats are to be filled in the constituency.

Elections in Asia and the Pacific: A Data Handbook: South East Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific Volume 2

AIDS in East Asia and the Pacific

Islamic Banking And Finance in South-east Asia: Its Development And Future (Asia-Pacific Business) (Asia-Pacific Business)

The New Economy in East Asia and the Pacific

Europe and the Asia Pacific (Esrc Pacific Asia Programme (Series).)

Governance in the Asia-Pacific

Bush and Asia: America's Evolving Relations with East Asia (Routledge Security in Asia Pacific Series)

Social Policy in East and South East Asia: Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan (Routledge Advances in Asia-Pacific Studies)

Towards Recovery in Pacific Asia (ESRC Pacific Asia Programme Series )

Politeness in East Asia

Politeness in East Asia

Innovation: Asia-Pacific Readings

Asia-Pacific Transitions

Japan, China and Networked Regionalism in East Asia (Critical Studies of the Asia-Pacific)

Culture and Society in the Asia-Pacific (Pacific Studies)

Tiger Technology: The Creation of a Semiconductor Industry in East Asia (Cambridge Asia-Pacific Studies)

Asia-Pacific in Figures 2006 (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific)

Asia-Pacific Constitutional Systems (Cambridge Asia-Pacific Studies)

Asia-Pacific Constitutional Systems (Cambridge Asia-Pacific Studies)

Economic Development in Pacific Asia

Political Development in Pacific Asia

East Asia: recovery and beyond

International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific

Asia-pacific Trade and Investment Review, 2008 (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific)

Contemporary World Cinema: Europe, the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia

International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific

Medicinal Plants of Asia and the Pacific

Beyond Bilateralism: U.S.-Japan Relations in the New Asia-Pacific (Contemporary Issues in Asia and Pacific)

Economic and Social Development in Pacific Asia

The Island Melanesians (The Peoples of South-East Asia and the Pacific)

Cultural Governance and Resistance in Pacific Asia

Elections in Asia and the Pacific: A Data Handbook: South East Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific Volume 2

AIDS in East Asia and the Pacific

Islamic Banking And Finance in South-east Asia: Its Development And Future (Asia-Pacific Business) (Asia-Pacific Business)

The New Economy in East Asia and the Pacific

Europe and the Asia Pacific (Esrc Pacific Asia Programme (Series).)

Governance in the Asia-Pacific

Bush and Asia: America's Evolving Relations with East Asia (Routledge Security in Asia Pacific Series)

Social Policy in East and South East Asia: Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan (Routledge Advances in Asia-Pacific Studies)

Towards Recovery in Pacific Asia (ESRC Pacific Asia Programme Series )

Politeness in East Asia

Politeness in East Asia

Innovation: Asia-Pacific Readings

Asia-Pacific Transitions

Japan, China and Networked Regionalism in East Asia (Critical Studies of the Asia-Pacific)

Culture and Society in the Asia-Pacific (Pacific Studies)

Tiger Technology: The Creation of a Semiconductor Industry in East Asia (Cambridge Asia-Pacific Studies)

Asia-Pacific in Figures 2006 (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific)

Asia-Pacific Constitutional Systems (Cambridge Asia-Pacific Studies)

Asia-Pacific Constitutional Systems (Cambridge Asia-Pacific Studies)

Economic Development in Pacific Asia

Political Development in Pacific Asia

East Asia: recovery and beyond

International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific

Asia-pacific Trade and Investment Review, 2008 (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific)

Contemporary World Cinema: Europe, the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia

International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific

Medicinal Plants of Asia and the Pacific

Beyond Bilateralism: U.S.-Japan Relations in the New Asia-Pacific (Contemporary Issues in Asia and Pacific)

Economic and Social Development in Pacific Asia

The Island Melanesians (The Peoples of South-East Asia and the Pacific)

Cultural Governance and Resistance in Pacific Asia

Recommend Documents