Vanuatu 2015

Vanuatu is a small nation in the Pacific Ocean, with a population of 200,000-300,000. Like most nations in the region, it is spread across various islands, and is ethnically varied. In recent years, it has suffered from a variety of natural disasters, which has left it relatively poor.

The islands were first discovered by the Portuguese, who thought it was Australia. Finding out that it was smaller than they expected, they left. It was rediscovered in 1768 by Louis Bougainville (a French explorer), and was also visited by James Cook in 1774, who named it the New Hebrides (the old Hebrides being cold and damp Scottish islands). These two explorers represented the two conflicting interests on the island.

The islands attracted colonists from both countries, because of its fertile land which was suitable for growing a wide variety of crops. With increasing population, however, came increasing conflict between the two countries. In 1907, the British and French finally agreed to form a joint government, called a Condominium. This formalised the arrangements of having two separate government systems, with both government systems being overseen by appointed Commissioners: one commissioner coming from the French, and one from the British. No legislative body was established.

It took until 1957 for an Advisory Council to be established, which would be comprised of 16 members. There would be four appointed members from each ethnic group (four French, four British and four indigenous). The Treasurer and Commissioner of Public Works (one French, one British) would also sit on this council, as well as both Commissioners. This Council had purely an advisory role, and did not sit especially often.

In 1964, a number of changes were made to the second Advisory Council. Four of the indigenous members were elected by Local Councils (I cannot tell whether these were elected or not), and four of the European members were elected by the Chamber of Commerce. The 1969 Advisory Council was elected in a similar manner, but with four extra indigenous members.

Controversies over European usage of land led to increases in nationalist sentiment amongst the indigenous population. Both colonial partners therefore made steps towards making the islands independent, though the British were more enthusiastic about independence than the French. A pro-independence party, called the New Hebrides National Party, was formed, and led sometimes violent protests against the Condominium. It was viewed as having more pro-British views.

The French were still antagonistic to movements for greater autonomy. However, the election of
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, considered a liberal, as President of France, as well as the formation of Francophone political parties in favour of autonomy, eventually led to the French agreeing to the establishment of a directly elected Representative Assembly with 'new powers'; however, at the meeting of ministers in late 1974 that agreed to this, a statement was issued saying that "there was no indication of the New Hebrides becoming independent yet".

The electoral system for this assembly was a topic for much debate. There were two Francophone parties, but only one Anglophone party. This meant that under a single-member (or, indeed, multi-member) plurality system, the Anglophone party would be advantaged, as the Francophone vote would be split.

As a result, the single non-transferable vote was adopted, with a district magnitude between one and six (although it appears that special arrangements applied in the Port Vila and Santo districts; see below). This appears to be more out of ignorance of proportional alternatives and a desire for simplicity (single non-transferable vote is more of an East Asian electoral system, and is not used in either Britain or France) than out of a desire to place the traditions of the colonial powers into the political system. 

One concession to French tradition (although, as before, this appears to be more out of a desire for simplicity) was the usage of a ballot and envelope system, where voters receive a ballot for each candidate (which was printed with party names, symbols and a photograph of the candidate), place one in an envelope, and put that envelope in the ballot box.

Other than the 29 directly elected members, there would be six members elected from the Chamber of Commerce, three members from indigenous co-operative societies, and four tribal chiefs. While there was no ethnic voting in most districts, the urban districts of Port Vila and Luganville had ethnic quotas (2 each for the British, French and indigenous in Port Vila and one for each group in Luganville) and for a vote to be formal, it had to be cast for one candidate in each ethnic group.

This would violate the principle of SNTV, but I don't know if those principles were kept. Indeed, judging by the vaguely reported results from the Luganville council election (18-1 seat win for an anti-National alliance off slightly more than 50%, with only one district), I would suspect this is a case of multiple non-transferable vote, and that voters had as many votes as there were seats to be filled.

Elections to the Representative Assembly took place in November 1975, and were staggered over the month. The final result of the directly elected districts was seventeen for the National Party, ten for the francophone conservative Union of Communities of the New Hebrides (UCNH) and two for the alliance of Nagriamel, a traditionalist party based on the island of Espiritu Santo and the Movement for the Autonomies of the New Hebrides (MANH), another Francophone conservative party.

With a substantial number of co-operative and chief members supporting the National Party, it looked likely that the Nationals would win a majority. However, the loss of a seat in a by-election caused by the annulment of an election meant that they did not have a majority. Election arrangements for the Representative Assembly were chaotic, and a number of members could not be elected.

Pro-independence sentiment gained steam, and in 1977, it was agreed that independence had to happen. A referendum on the subject was scheduled for 1980, with independence to follow directly after.  The elections of the year were boycotted by the Vanua'aku Party (the renamed Nationals), and the Francophone conservative parties won all of the seats unopposed.

Nonetheless, independence was prepared for, and a Constitution needed to be drawn up. This constitution established a parliamentary system of government, with a unicameral parliament. The Parliament would have a four-year term, but could be dissolved by the President on advice of the Cabinet or by majority vote of parliament.

The President of the nation would hold a mostly ceremonial role, as executive power was formally vested in the Prime Minister and Cabinet. He or she would be elected by an electoral college comprised of the Parliament and the leaders of the local council. The Prime Minister would be elected by Parliament, and he or she would be able to appoint ministers. No-confidence motions were not constructive. Amendment of the Constitution would require a two-thirds vote of parliament, except changes to the electoral, parliamentary and language systems.

Following the adoption of the Constitution (although it would not be in place until independence in 1980), an election was held to what would be the Parliament after independence. The result was a decisive win for the VP, which won 62.3% of the vote and 26 of 39 seats. The Moderate party won 10.9% and 5 seats, the Federal Party won 7.1% and two seats, and independents won 8.1% and two seats. Other seats, along with the named parties, were won by parties mostly opposed to the VP. However, the VP won a majority, and seems to have been able to declare independence without a referendum.

Independence did not go entirely smoothly, however. Francophones and supporters of the Moderate Party attempted to secede from the new Republic of Vanuatu, while the Nagriamel movement, with the support of the libertarian Phoenix Foundation and the Francophone political parties on the island, declared indepedence for the island of Santo. These rebellions were quashed by Papua New Guinean troops, though.

With independence approved, George Sokomanu, a VP member, was elected President. The office of Prime Minister, where most of the power was concentrated, was taken by Walter Lini, another VP member. The VP, however, was not especially unified; during this first parliament, a number of ministers were sacked from their positions. In fact, three members of the VP, including two former ministers, resigned from the party out of dissatisfaction with Lini's leadership, though this party's support was still relatively weak (it only won 5.6% in a Luganville by-election in 1982). Indeed, the opposition was even weaker, and some of its MPs were ineligible to attend parliamentary sittings.

The first elections under independence took place in November 1983. The Independent Alliance teamed up with the Union of Moderate Parties, the conservative Francophone group (UMP) in some manner, but to no avail. The VP won 24 seats to 12 for the UMP, and one seat each for three minor moderate parties. As is important under a SNTV system, the VP were very effective at dividing their vote, and they only missed out on one seat due to poor vote division. Lini was re-elected as Prime Minister.

The next election took place in 1987. These were considered to be a more competitive election, following leadership  in the VP caused by Prime Minister Lini having a stroke in that year. The nation's economy was performing poorly, too, with GDP contracting by 2.9% in that year and inflation reaching 16.4%. While a number of other parties contested the election, including the National Democratic Party (which was a split from the VP) it was considered to be a two-party contest between the VP and UMP.

During the campaign, the UMP attacked what they said was a failure of the VP to combat the recession, while the VP attacked alleged connections between the French government and the UMP. The result was a significant loss for the VP. While they did win 25 seats, which is a gain of one on paper, Parliament's size had increased by seven, meaning that their share of seats went down from 61% to 54%. This left the government with a two-seat majority. The UMP won 19 seats, a gain of seven. This presented them as a serious opposition to the government.

Their election victory, however, was not the end of the VP's woes. Prime Minister Lini was weakened by his stroke, and party secretary-general Barak Sope decided to challenge him for the party leadership. A party congress in December 1987 re-elected Lini party leader 59-29 against Sope. In an attempt to mend fences, Sope was given a cabinet portfolio.

In an attempt to reduce Sope's power, the government abolished the urban land management authority which gave Sope substantial influence. This led to substantial riots against the decision from landowners, in May 1988, which led to Sope being sacked from the cabinet by Lini.

In July 1988, Prime Minister Lini requested that the Speaker sack Sope and four other members of Parliament who supported him. Under Vanuatu law, MPs can be sacked if they leave their parties. Lini claimed that the five were expelled from the VP, and were thus eligible to be sacked. Four days later, after the UMP MPs had boycotted Parliament, Lini also asked the Speaker to remove them from Parliament, under legislation that allows MPs that stay away from their seats for three or more days to be sacked. This left only Lini's VP MPs left in Parliament, after the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against the decision made by the sacked MPs.

Lini, in an attempt to fill the seats, called by-elections for December 12 of that year. However, in October, his plans were somewhat derailed by an appeals court reinstating Sope and his four supporters as members of Parliament. However, shortly after, the five formally resigned. They had joined a new political party, led by Sope, called the Melanisian Progressive Party (MPP).

The by-elections went ahead, though, with the MPP and UMP boycotting. In the end, the VP won most of the seats, some unopposed, thus placing them in a massively dominant position in the new Parliament.

December 16, however, saw a surprising intervention by President Sokomanu, who announced that he would dissolve the parliament, swear in an interim government led by Sope and UMP leader Maxime Carlot, and hold elections in February. Lini reacted quickly: he sought a judgement from the Supreme Court, which declared Sokomanu's actions to be unconstitutional. Members of the interim government, as well as president Sokomanu, appeared before the courts on charges of administering unlawful oaths.

Various members of the interim government were arrested, and trialled on charges of sedition. The President himself was removed by the Electoral College on January 12. He was replaced by Fred Timikata, Lini's Minister for Health, who won 41 out of 42 votes. Now ex-president Sokomanu was placed on trial, and sentenced to six years in prison, while Sope and Carlot received five years each. The VP were now in a dominant position, and Lini was head of the party.

However, Lini himself was not too dominant. He dismissed his Health Minister, Donald Kalpokas, who promptly left the government and led a no-confidence motion against him. Kalpokas became Prime Minister, but at the cost of Lini forming a new party, the National United Party (NUP) with the support of 20 VP MPs.

The election saw three factions of the VP contesting: the actual party, under the leadership of PM Kalpokas, the NUP, under the leadership of Lini, and the MPP, under the leadership of Sope with the support of Sokomanu. Compared to this, the UMP was unified, and it was therefore no surprise that they came first, although without a majority.

The MPP polled poorly, and worse than expected, while the UMP won the most seats by a substantial margin. The VP and NUP polled roughly equally. The substantial bonus for the UMP suggests tactical nomination, and that is also suggested by the fact that 61% of UMP candidates were successful, compared to 37% of VP candidates, 30% of UMP candidates and 17% of MPP candidates; this would suggest over-nomination on the part of the MPP.

The most interesting thing about this election is the dramatic increase in the number of parties. The best mechanism for testing this is the effective number of parties, which roughly measures how many parties there would be if all the parties were of the same size. The 1987 election had an effective number of parties in terms of seats of 2.14 and an effective number of parties in terms of votes of 2.59. This increased to 3.65 and 4.7 respectively, which represents a small but notable increase.

The coalition government formed was comprised of the UMP and NUP, with Maxime Carlot as Prime Minister and NUP member Sethy Regenvanu as deputy. The split between the two parties of 7-4 was proportional to their parliamentary support. Walter Lini did not join the cabinet, but his sister Hilda Lini joined as the Minister for Health, becoming Vanuatu's first female minister.

However, as seems to be not uncommon in Vanuatu, the NUP split, after it was thrown out of coalition. Four NUP MPs formed the new People's Democratic Party (PDP) and stayed in government (I'm sure you can start to see a pattern here).

The 1995 election resulted in another heavily divided parliament. The VP joined forces with the MPP and the Tan Union, and formed an alliance called the Unity Front. This makes Vanuatu look artificially more unified in the chart below.

Effective numbers of parties were, based on these results, 4.25 in terms of votes and 3.22 in terms of seats. However, this is misleading, as it counts the Unity Front as one party. While their vote results cannot be separated, 13 of the Unity Front seats were won by the VP, 5 by the MPP, and 2 by the Tan Union. Based on these figures, the effective number of parties in terms of seats increased to 4.36, a substantial increase.

Following the election, the Unity Front, the largest party, was unable to form government. The UMP faced factional splits, with one faction supporting coalition with the Unity Front (led by Maxime Carlot) and one faction supporting coalition with the NUP. The faction supporting a coalition with the NUP prevailed, and Serge Vohor of the UMP was sworn in as Prime Minister. However, he only served for fifty days. 

In February, a motion of no confidence was brought against Vohor's government, with the support of six UMP MPs. While the motion was delayed by a court challenge brought by Vohor and a boycott of Parliament by UMP and NUP MPs, on February 12, Vohor resigned as Prime Minister. Then followed a number of controversial events. The next day, the President signed a decree dissolving Parliament, but then revoked the decree and attempted to hide it.

The next session of parliament saw a violent argument, when health minister Hilda Lini strongly protested the installation of the oldest MP (the leader of the UMP dissident group) as Speaker. She was forcefully dragged from the chamber, the oldest MP was sat as Speaker. Carlot was elected as Prime Minister, but Vohor lodged a judgement against the proposal. On the first of March, the judgement was rejected and Carlot entered government in coalition with the Unity Party.

The UMP were still heavily split, though, and the government faced a myriad of problems. The UMP were split, and a scandal regarding an Australian businessman led to the government collapsing in September, and Vohor was re-elected as Prime Minister.

Elections in 1998 saw a resurgence for the Vanuaku Party. Candidate numbers increased dramatically, too, and Carlot formed a new political party called the Republicans. This split hurt the chances of the UMP, which slipped into second place.

The effective number of parties increased to 6.32 in terms of votes and 4.26 in terms of seats (to put this into perspective, the last Dutch election was 5.94 in terms of votes and 5.7 in terms of seats). The least squares index, a measure of proportionality, was 13.8 (a relatively 

The government formed was led by former VP Prime Minister Donald Kalpokas, with the support of the NUP. Kalpokas served as Prime Minister, though with a coalition with elements of the UMP and the John Frum movement after October 1998. He resigned as Prime Minister in 1999 to avoid a confidence vote,  and was replaced by Barak Sope of the Melanesian Progressive party, leading a coalition of his party, the UMP, the NUP, the Republicans and John Frum's party.

2001 saw another change of government, when, as the result of a scandal involving a Thai businessman and the national mint, the UMP joined the opposition VP, thus giving them a majority, and put down a motion of no confidence on 26 March. The incumbent government attempted to dissolve parliament to avoid the motion, but failed. The Speaker then rejected the motion due to errors in the typing, and closed Parliament, as it was the end of the session. The Supreme Court then declared that Parliament should reconvene, and while this was delayed, on the 13th of April the no-confidence motion was passed. The government was defeated, and replaced by a VP-UMP government led by Edward Natapei.

Elections took place in 2002, on the second of May. The result was, unsurprisingly, a more fragmented parliament. The UMP returned to first place, but only narrowly. The new Green Confederation contested its first election, and won some representation.

The effective number of parties, even using Adam Carr's numbers (which, despite my eternal gratefulness to Mr Carr for providing the only vote figures for this election, do not signify non-parliamentary parties as separate, instead clumping them up with the independents) is 5.9 in terms of votes and 5 in terms of seats, while the least squares index of disproportionality was 17.63.

The coalition government formed as a result of the election was a coalition between the VP and the UMP, as before, with Natapei as Prime Minister. During the next year, former Prime Minister and MPP leader Barak Sope was jailed for two years for forgery, but was pardoned by the president and won a by-election to succeed himself.

2003 saw a change in the coalition government, when the UMP was replaced in the coalition by the Greens and the National Unity Party, because a number of UMP ministers were involved in scandals and because UMP leader Vohor had been allegedly asking opposition members about the possibility of a new government.

However, 2004 was a rather more turbulent year. Presidential elections were scheduled for that year on the 23rd of March. While the voting was initially deadlocked, the opposition got together with the government to support opposition preferred candidate Alfred Maseng. Unfortunately, it turned out after the election that Maseng was a convicted criminal, and his conviction had been missed by the Electoral Commission, though he refused to step down of his own accord. He was formally removed from office in May, and the Speaker sat in as President until August, when Kalkot Mataskelekele was elected President

In the wake of this, a motion of no confidence was put down, also in May. Natapei, not wanting to face it, asked the acting President to dissolve Parliament. This request was granted, and an election was scheduled for 6 July.

The election was notable for the factional struggles of the VP, when the faction supporting former Prime Minister Donald Kalpokas decided to contest the election as the Vanua K group. The election was also contested by the People's Action Party (PAP), another VP breakaway group. The People's Progressive Party, a centre-left group, also contested this election for the first time; this party was led by Sato Kilman, who is now Prime Minister.

At the moment, I don't have time to collate Adam Carr's constituency results into vote shares, and nationwide vote shares, so seat shares will have to do. As far as I can tell, the Vanua K group did not win any seats, though they may have rejoined the VP after the election and have not shown up on the seat counts.

The government formation process after the election was long and complicated, but in the end Serge Vohor, the UMP leader, formed government, with a broad coalition encompassing the Republicans, Independents and the MPP, However, Vohor did not last long as Prime Minister. A controversy involving Vohor establishing a diplomatic relationship with Taiwan (to be accurate, the Republic of China, which claims to be the legitimate government of all of China, despite only controlling the island of Taiwan). While Vohor viewed this as a clever idea to start an aid bidding war between the Republic and People's Republic (both countries have been accused of using 'chequebook diplomacy' to buy the support of Pacific countries), it led to a no-confidence motion in his government, which led to him being replaced as Prime Minister by NUP leader Ham Lini.

By Vanuatu's standards, Lini lasted a very long time as Prime Minister. He served until the 2008 election, which was another heavily fragmented contest. I've given up on bar graphs, by the way, and the below chart has the results of this election, only in terms of seats, as a pie graph.

As you can see, the parliament was heavily fragmented (the exact effective number of parties is 8.24), and it took same weeks to form a government. In the end, a coalition between the VP and the NUP, with some smaller parties and independents, was formed, and Edward Natapei was returned to the Prime Ministership, with a razor-thin majority of 27-25.

However, as is normal in Vanuatu, this government was hardly stable. A bewildering mix of reshuffles, confidence votes and defections eventually led to the NUP being dropped from the government and replaced by the People's Progressive Party, Greens and some other minor parties.

Natapei stayed in office until early December 2010, when after controversies regarding Vanuatu's support for West Papua , a number of members of the coalition crossed the floor. A motion of no confidence in Natapei's government passed 30-15, and PPP leader Sato Kilman was chosen as Prime Minister, in a coalition with the Greens, the NUP, the Republicans, a faction of the VP and other small parties.

With the government's thin majority, though, a no-confidence motion was eventually introduced, and passed 26-25. UMP leader Serge Vohor was elected Prime Minister. While you might think that would be the end of it, Kilman filed a motion in the Supreme Court to declare the motion void, on the basis that only 26, and not an absolute majority of 27, of the members had voted for it. The Court initially rejected the claim, but on 13 May, the appeal court found in favour of Kilman, who returned to office.

This did not end the legal wrangling around Kilman's election. Opposition leader Natapei filed a motion in the Supreme Court to have Kilman's original election as Prime Minister declared invalid. This motion was successful, and Natapei was appointed interim Prime Minister. This did him little good, and ten days later Kilman returned to office.

Kilman led Vanuatu up until the 2012 election. This election was even more fragmented than the previous one, and, while vote shares are available (collated by Wikipedia), they are too difficult to put into a chart, and so only seat figures are displayed below. It saw the conservative Land and Justice, the Union for Reunification and Change (a UMP split-off), and the Iauko Group (dissidents from the Vanuaku Party) contest for the first time, as well as a variety of other new parties.

The effective number of parties in terms of seats went up to a staggering 8.24, higher than Israel at all but one of their elections, and far higher than the Netherlands (both countries with pure party-list proportional representation with a single national district).

Following the election, Kilman remained in office, with the support of the Movement for Unification and Change, the National United Party, the Iauko Group and some other small parties. He served until 20 March 2013, when he resigned to prevent a motion of no confidence. He was replaced by Greens Confederation leader Moana Carcasses.

Carcasses' government lasted until May 2014, when he himself was defeated in a parliamentary vote by Joe Natuman, with a relatively comfortable majority. Natuman, too, did not last in the job; he was brought down by Kilman. This was a period of not just political turbulence for Vanuatu; under Natuman's leadership, Vanuatu had been hit by Cyclone Pam, which had displaced thousands and caused hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage, and the distribution of the aid money to rebuild was listed as a reason for the no-confidence vote against Natuman.

Kilman's government was hit by dramatic events in October 2015, when fourteen MPs, including former Prime Minister Carcasses, were convicted of bribery and were sent to prison. This meant that they lost their seats in Parliament. With Vanuatu's politics paralysed, President Baldwin Londsdale dissolved Parliament, and, with his dissolution approved by the Supreme Court, Vanuatu's election took place.

Outlook

Already, media reports say that a record number of parties will contest this election (28). It is not going to be one for consolidation, and the likely result of the election will be more instability, and no party with even close to a clear majority.

But why is this? Well, the surface issue is factionalism. We have seen how the parties have split (for example, three of the new parties in the 2012 election were led by former UMP members), and how this has contributed to the transformation of Vanuatu from a two-party system to a dramatically fragmented multi-party one. 

Where does this come from, though? Well, the root issue, in my view, is the single transferable vote. This system encouraged factionalism when it was in use in Taiwan and Japan, as it encourages political clientelism (MPs are encouraged to build support networks through small sectors of the electorate), and it has clearly done the same in Vanuatu. It has failed to discourage party splits, too, as it actually rewards splits (it is much easier for a small party with 10% of the vote in a district to put up one candidate and encourage support for them than it is for a large party to split its votes between multiple candidates.).

So, why isn't it done away with? Well, that's the issue. It is a true maxim that those with power under an electoral system don't wish to change it, and those who wish to change it often don't have the power. In New Zealand, it took two wrong winners in elections and massive amounts of public support to change the electoral system. In Vanuatu, those who prosper are the small parties, and virtually all political parties in Vanuatu are small. To some extend, Vanuatu is addicted to the single non-transferable vote.

Electoral reform would be difficult indeed, and, in fact, the only talk of reform is in terms of changing to a presidential system. Perhaps this will happen if voter support is high enough. I have seen nothing suggesting that electoral reform is even discussed, and the evolutionary nature of this change means that it will probably not be much of a national political movement compared to presidentialism, which can be consolidated behind a popular figure.

If Vanuatu tells us anything, it is the importance of getting first decisions right when designing an electoral system. As avid readers will recall, the people who invented SNTV for Vanuatu (colonial officials) were not provided with any information on proportional representation systems. This decision has had, as you can see, dramatic repercussions.

Author's Note: For reasons unrelated to the election, I will be travelling to Vanuatu on the 12th and returning to Australia on the 22nd (polling day!). I will not be staying in the cities, but I hope to get in to have a look at the campaigning, and I will be in the capital of Port Vila for most of polling day (again, not on purpose; due to flight timing). Anyone interested in the matter can follow me on Twitter (all opinions my own, are left at the door when I write my blog and opinions will not come into my Vanuatu observations).

Electoral systems of the world-France (Part 3 of 3)

Previous posts in this series

Electoral Systems of the World-France (Part 1 of 23)

Part 2 of 3

The end of the Fourth Republic had brought with it an anti-parliamentary spirit to France. However, some were doubtful that the new government could survive, especially considering that France still faced many problems.

De Gaulle had taken the office of President, but he had not been elected directly. Instead, he was voted in by an Electoral College, an assembly of 80,000 Members of the French Parliament and local elected officials. This college had given him 79% of the vote to 13% for the Communist candidate and 8% for the candidate of the leftist Democratic Forces.

However, De Gaulle felt that him being responsible to an Electoral College would not provide the Presidency with the legitimacy that it would need in order to control the Government. He decided that direct elections to the Presidency would be the only means by which he could get this legitimacy. Direct presidential elections had not been done in France for 110 years at that time.

The electoral system for the Presidency would be broadly similar to that used for the National Assembly. In order to become a candidate, a person needed to have 500 signatures from local politicians. In the first round, voters would vote for one candidate. If one candidate won a majority of the votes in this round, they would be elected.

If no candidate won a majority, a second election would be held 14 days later. Unlike the electoral system for the National Assembly, only the top two candidates would be permitted to contest the second round. This appears to stem from a desire to ensure that the President received majority support from the public.

The President would serve a term of seven years, and could only serve two terms in a row. A seven-year term is fairly long by international standards, but clearly De Gaulle wanted the President to be in office for a long term; perhaps he viewed this as important for long-term planning.

The above proposal was endorsed in October 1962 in a referendum. This referendum was controversial, as the National Assembly had not endorsed it. However, despite this, 62.2% voted Yes, thus meaning that De Gaulle had a strong mandate for the changes.

Following this, a legislative election took place in November. The National Centre of Independents and Peasants, a centre-right party, had split, with a group leaving to join Charles de Gaulle's Union of the New Republic to provide De Gaulle with a presidential majority.

The result was a convincing win for the Gaullists, who came very close indeed to a majority. In their agreement with the Independent Republicans, they controlled about 54% of the seats. Another impact of the electoral system was that the Communists were still under-represented, as they struggled to form alliances in the second round. De Gaulle could not count on support from the other centre-right parties, due to their opposition to presidential government.

Three years later, De Gaulle went to his first presidential election. He was still fairly popular, and it was generally expected that he would comfortably win re-election. He was still a polarising figure, however, and the two-round system would be expected to work against him if he faced a moderate opposition candidate.

Francois Mitterand was chosen as the candidate of the united left, excluding the Communists, who nonetheless endorsed him. He put up a fairly strong performance, and deprived De Gaulle of a victory in the first round.

This result was confirmation of the idea that presidential elections encouraged alliance-building. The left, fearing the possibility of not making the second round, ran a united candidate, which reduced fragmentation.

Another legislative election took place two years later, in 1967. Mitterand had installed himself as Socialist leader, and the Independent Republican party had merged into the Gaullist party, while the two centre-right to centre parties merged into the Democratic Centre.

The Gaullists came very close to a majority, although presumably the centrists were willing to offer support to the government, or at least abstain to prevent the left-wing from controlling the Assembly. 

The next year in France saw significant social conflict. The left had made small gains at this election, especially the Communists. This result meant that the Socialists felt the need to form an alliance with the Communists, thus creating a left-wing alternative to the De Gaulle government.

In May, small student protests began against De Gaulle's government. These ballooned into a strike (not unusual in France), which was unusually large and independent of the traditional trade unions. Despite a fairly generous wage deal, the protests continued, and became so large and so destructive to the French economy that the nation began to collapse.

Late in May, De Gaulle was so concerned about the progress of the protests that he decided to leave for Germany. Once there, he gave a speech calling an election, and for workers to return to work. Hopeful of a victory, the Communists agreed to an election.

The movement subsided over the next few months, and by June, France's economy had returned to normal. The legislative election was marred by the left-wing parties (the Socialists and Communists) agreeing to an effective coalition deal, which was not especially popular with a public concerned about a Communist-dominated government.

The result was a landslide win for the Gaullists, mostly at the expense of the left. The Communists lost more than half their seats, while the Socialists won their lowest share of the seats since 1958. The centre also lost a significant number of seats.

But, more importantly, this election showed that the two-round system can be very, very disproportional. The Communists and Socialists only lost 2% of their vote from 1967, but the disproportional nature of the system meant that both parties were massively unrepresented.

By this point, however, De Gaulle was aging, and pressure was mounting on him to step aside for a younger candidate. However, in 1969, he pressed ahead with a proposal for reforming local government and the Senate.

The proposed reforms had dramatic consequences for the Senate. Half of its members would be elected by local government, and half would be appointed by representative bodies for social groups, in a similar manner to the Irish Seanad. This new body, however, would have a purely consultative function.

Power to declare war would be moved to the National Assembly only. Laws would only be allowed to be proposed by the National Assembly, and proposals only had to be forwarded to the Senate 'for advice' after passage of the National Assembly. Finance bills, too, would only require vague 'consultation'. Constitutional amendments only had to be 'subject to the opinion of the Senate', and only National Assembly approval and passage at a referendum would be required. In the event of the death of the President, the Prime Minister would become President (the original Constitution would have made the President of the Senate President)

Passage of these reforms would turn France into a nation that was bicameral, but in name only. This was perceived by local authorities as a power grab, and was fiercely opposed by them. The centrists, who had their power base in the local authorities, declared their opposition too.

The left-wing opposition parties, too, had their concerns; they felt that a Gaullist-dominated lower house could ram through legislation that they opposed, and seeing as government was so far away from them, they did not feel that this disadvantage would be outweighed by the advantage of complete power if they won.

Combined with this was a proposal for decentralisation. It would create regional government, which would have control over housing, as well as all the other issues that French local government controlled. These would be governed by regional councils, which would be indirectly elected.

De Gaulle had staked his reputation on the referendum, and had threatened to resign if it did not pass. This was a dangerous gamble, although as De Gaulle was elderly at the time, it was not especially unlikely (in fact, De Gaulle would not live out his presidential term).

When the votes were counted, 52.4% of the electorate had voted No. This was a fairly narrow defeat, but De Gaulle kept his promise, and resigned on 28 April 1969. In an interim capacity, he was replaced by Senate President Alan Pohler. But, unlike the United States, Pohler would not replace him for the entire term; he would only serve until new presidential elections could be held.

Pohler ran for President as a centrist candidate. He was opposed by former Prime Minister Georges Pompidou as the candidate of the Gaullist Union for the New Republic. The Communists ran Jacques Duclos, and Gaston Defferre ran as the Socialist candidate.

The first round result was a comfortable lead for Pompidou, while Pohler managed a narrow second. The second round was a more comfortable win for Pompidou, but it demonstrated a problem with the system. Left-wing voters, who comprised the largest opposition to Pompidou, were not given much of a choice.

Some of the more moderate leftist voters preferred Pohler, as the 'lesser of two evils'. Others just didn't turn out, or cast informal votes; turnout in the second round went from 77% to 68%, and the informal vote went up from 1% to 6%. This feature of the two-round system in presidential elections was to have serious ramifications later.

Legislative elections took place in 1973. In the period leading up to it, the Socialist Party, once again led by Mitterand, signed an agreement with the Communists outlining what a Communist-Socialist government would do. It called for mass nationalisations, the introduction of proportional representation, the dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and unilateral nuclear disarmament.

This was a double-edged sword; on one hand, the Gaullists could raise fears about the Communists now that it was official that any left-wing government would include them, but the agreement could potentially lay out exactly what the left proposed, thus showing some transparency. The advantage for Mitterand was that he would be able to moderate and tame the Communists, and hopefully reduce their relevance and cement the Socialists as the major leftist force.

The agreement split the left, however. Certain members of the Radicals opposed it, and formed an alliance with the centrists, while the left of the radicals stayed with the left, becoming the Union of the Radical Left and signing the Common Programme. This division persists to this day.

The centre-right won a fairly comfortable victory, although it was a loss from the heights of 1969. The left made fairly substantial gains, and both parties benefited from the alliance. The centrists had minor losses.

The election showed the weak relationship between votes and seats in the two-round system. The Gaullists only lost 1% of the second round vote from 1969, but thanks presumably to greater coordination between the Socialist and Communist parties, lost about 17% of their seats. Of course, their vote share was still lower than their seats share, thus making them beneficiaries of the system, but it was a weaker benefit.

At this point, President Georges Pompidou had fallen ill. He had been suffering from cancer, and on the second of April, 1974, he died. He was replaced, once again, by Senate President Alan Pohler, for the interim period up until the election.

The next presidential election saw the widest field of candidates yet. The Independent Republicans, a centre-right pro-Gaullist party, ran Valery Giscard d'Estaing, while another Gaullist, Jacques Chaban-Delmas, ran as the Union of Democrats for the Republic. Giscard was more moderate than Chaban-Delmas. The UDR was much larger than the Independent Republicans, but, as you will see, this did not necessarily guarantee their candidate a lead within the centre-right.

The 1974 presidential election was the first one for the left running under the Common Programme, and this presented a dilemma. The Communist Party were (narrowly) the largest party on the left, but they were ideologically extremist, and a Communist candidate for the presidency would give the centre-right a useful angle of attack on the left. In the end, it was decided to nominate the more moderate Francois Mitterand, who you may remember as the candidate of the Socialists who had pushed De Gaulle into a second round in 1969. This was evidence that the two-round presidential system was removing extremism and encouraging moderates.

French presidential election candidate ballot symbols for the overseas district

Other than these three, the rest of the presidential field was fairly minor. Jean Royer, a Minister and Mayor, ran as an independent for social conservatism (with a minimalist campaign), while Arlette Laguiller ran as the Trotskyist candidate (she was the first woman ever to run for a presidential election in France). Rene Dumont ran as an environmentalist candidate, and Jean Marine Le Pen (whose name you will hear again) ran as the far-right candidate.

In the early days of the first round campaign, Mitterand was winning 35-40% of the vote, while Giscard and Chaban-Delmas were on about 25% each. However, as the campaign wore on, Giscard began to pull out a lead, while Chaban-Delmas fell back in to the high teens.

In the end, it was not even close. Giscard won an easy lead over Chaban-Delmas. This showed that presidential elections were becoming more personalised; while Chaban-Delmas's party was much larger than Giscard's, this did not help him.

The second round campaign was very, very tight. Polls generally gave Giscard a very narrow lead, or showed him tied with Mitterand, but the leads were narrow. 

The result was a very narrow win for Giscard, based off strong flows from Chaban-Delmas. This showed a clear advantage of the two-round system; the candidate with the broadest support could win, rather than just the largest minority.

Giscard's government style was fairly liberal and centrist. This provoked controversy amongst certain sectors of the UDR, which the Socialist-Communist alliance exploited. In 1977, a local election resulted in a significant number of left-wing gains, a fair few of which were made at the expense of UDR-centrist splits. At this point, the centrist movement had renamed themselves the Union for French Democracy (UDF), and Giscard had joined the party. The Gaullist right reacted by reforming themselves into a new party, called the Rally for the Republic.

Legislative elections were scheduled for 1978, and it was felt that the Socialist-Communist alliance would win, based off their success in the local elections. However, the Common Programme was not renewed in the lead up to the election, thus meaning that the cooperation that had given the group such a strong result in 1973 would not be quite as evident. The reason that the agreement was not renewed was that the Communists were concerned that the Common Programme was sapping their electoral support; not an unreasonable concern.

The result was the first since the end of the Third Republic where the Socialists were larger than the Communists, thus showing that the Socialist strategy was working. The RPR won the most seats and votes on the right, thus exacerbating the conflict between RPR leader Jacques Chirac and Giscard.

Giscard was the first president to serve out his entire term and run for re-election in 1981. He was opposed by Francois Mitterand, who ran as the Socialist candidate, Jacques Chirac, who ran as the RPR candidate, and Georges Marchais, who ran as the Communist candidate.

Giscard won a narrow first, but came comfortably ahead of Chirac. The same went for Mitterand, who finished comfortably ahead of his leftist rival.

Relations between the candidates in the runoff and the candidates who had dropped out would be vitally important to determining the winner. Marchais, Crepau and Laguiller all wholeheartedly endorsed Mitterand, but Chirac, whose relationship with Giscard was rocky at best, only offered his personal support, and did not endorse Giscard. There were even allegations from certain political figures that Chirac had made a pact with Mitterand.

Whatever happened between the parties, Mitterand won narrowly. He became the first Socialist president since 1954, and the first one to be directly elected.

His presidency, however, did not start auspiciously. The next year, local elections took place, which resulted in a loss of 35 seats in the cantons for the Socialists, and 47 seats for the Communists. More local elections in the next year, in which the right won 61% of councillors.

In the 1984 European Parliament elections. The joint RPR-UDF list won 43% of the vote, while the Socialists only managed 20%, and the Communists crashed to 11.2%. This election was also notable for the strong performance of the National Front, who won 10.9% and the same number of seats as the Communists.

Seeing that he would likely lose the next legislative elections, scheduled for 1986, Mitterand decided to introduce proportional representation, a belated manifesto promise. While he ostensibly did it in order to make French elections fairer, the timing made many political figures suspicious that he was doing it in order to avoid a landslide loss in the legislative elections.

The proposed proportional representation system was not especially proportional. It was party-list proportional representation. It used 2-24 member districts, with an average magnitude of 5.5 seats. Voters voted for parties only; lists were closed. Seats were distributed by the D'Hondt method, with a 5% threshold in districts to win seats, which would not be relevant in most districts. This was a fairly disproportional system that would not quite be fair to the smaller parties, but this would not matter too much to Mitterand; his interest was only in ensuring that his Socialists would be under-represented.

The electoral system was criticised by the right, who not only viewed it as a cynical attempt to reduce potential losses in the upcoming election, but as an attempt to split the right by allowing the National Front to win seats.

The result was a narrow win for the centre-right, who won 51.2% of the seats. While this was far from a comfortable majority, the presence of the National Front meant that the left were also far from a majority. This meant that, in order to avoid political gridlock, Mitterand would have to deal with the right, an effective coalition deal known as cohabitation. This was the first time under the Fifth Republic that the legislature and presidency were controlled by different parties.

The election also saw the further decline of the Communist Party, who won their lowest vote share since 1932. The National Front won a very strong result, and to this day the result is the best. However, the district-based PR system meant that they were under-represented, as were the Communists and other small parties.

President Mitterand appointed RPR leader Jacques Chirac as Prime Minister. The deal was tense, and Chirac was forced to use the National Assembly's power to pass laws without presidential approval a number of times. However, importantly, the proportional representation system was repealed, and was replaced by the two-round system, virtually unchanged from the pre-PR system. The only change was that the threshold for entry into the second round was raised to 12.5%.

Mitterand was not happy with this arrangement, however, and the 1988 presidential election resulted in the unhappy scenario of the two heads of government facing each other as the major candidates. Other candidates included Union for French Democracy candidate Raymond Barre (nominally independent, but strongly supported by the UDF), National Front candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen, and Communist candidate Andre Lajoinie. Polls showed Mitterand in a comfortable first in the first round, followed by Chirac and Barre in the high teens.

The result was a comfortable lead for Mitterand, followed by a somewhat less comfortable second place for Chirac ahead of Barre. The big surprise was the strong result for Le Pen, who won the strongest ever result for the National Front; it was felt that part of this was due to the increased status that the large National Front caucus in the National Assembly had given the party. The Communist Party managed a disastrous 6.76%; Mitterand's mission to make the Socialists the largest party on the left had overwhelmingly succeeded. 

Mitterand had won a second term, and the fairly comfortable win emboldened him to call a new legislative election. This election saw a strong President, as leader of the largest party on his political faction, facing a right-wing divided between the National Front, the RPR and the UDF. The abolition of proportional representation meant the government had the upper hand, as they could exploit this division.

The result was a narrow win for the parties of the left. Leftist candidates won 52.71% of the seats, while the right won the remaining seats. While it was a narrow result, it did give the Socialists the option of a deal with the UDF if the Communists opposed their legislation.

The disproportionality of the system was even clearer with the rise of the National Front, who won 9.66% of the first round results, almost the same as in 1986. However, they only won a single seat (which is not visible on the graph, it's so small) instead of the 35 they managed under proportional representation. This was because of their status as a 'pariah party', whose ideology was so repugnant to the other parties that they could not form the alliances needed to win seats under the two-round system.

Mitterand appointed Socialist Michel Rocard as Prime Minister, who led the party into a midterm election for the European Parliament. This saw a complicated result, that is an interesting demonstration of the impact of the two-round system

The result was a narrow win for the Rally for the Republic-Union for French Democracy list, but it was a very weak win. Both major parties were weakened by the presence of two new parties; the Greens on the left and the Centre of Social Democrats (a centrist group that was originally part of the Union for French Democracy). The strong Green result meant that the Socialists, who had initially ignored the Greens as a fringe party, were pressured to do a deal with the Greens. The disastrous result for the Communists made it clear that the party was dead as a major political force.

In 1991, Rocard left office and was replaced by Edith Cresson. She turned out to be massively unpopular. The Socialist Party won control of only one regional government in the 1992 elections, compared to one for the Greens and 22 for right-wing candidates.

Cresson was replaced by Pierre Begovoy, who failed to improve the waning support for the left. In 1993, a legislative election took place that resulted in a hammering for the Socialists and a landslide win for the right.

The result was a disaster for the Socialists, and by extension President Mitterand, who was once again forced into cohabitation with the right. Once again, the National Front managed a strong result in the first round, and a fairly decent result in the second, but once again only one seat. The ecologists won less than half a percent in the second round, and no seats. As the Communists lost support, they also shed their pariah status. Mitterand appointed Edouard Balladur, a RPR politician, as Prime Minister.

Presidential elections took place in 1995. Mitterand, who had spent two tiring years in cohabitation and had contracted cancer, was in no position to run for another term. The Socialist Party nominated Lionel Jospin, a former minister who lost his seat in 1993, in a primary election where he won 65% of the vote. Chirac ran again, but he was opposed on the right by Balladur, who ran as a RPR candidate with support from the UDF. Early polls showed Balladur leading Chirac, but as the campaign wore on, Chirac entered into the lead.

The result was a fairly comfortable win for Chirac. Nonetheless, Jospin polled fairly well considering the poor economic situation. Le Pen won the strongest result ever for the National Front.

In an attempt to cut the deficit, Chirac introduced a number of controversial changes to the pension system. These included an increase in the period public sector workers were required to contribute to pension funds by 2.5 years, increases in health insurance contributions for the elderly and unemployed, and increases in the retirement age for public sector workers. This led to a strike of public sector workers; a strike on the railways lasted three weeks.

Despite these, the government did pass some of the changes, and Chirac, who was hoping to catch the left off guard, called a legislative election in 1997. While the RPR-UDF did have a lead in the early days of the campaign, this was worn away through the campaign.

The result was a win for the left-wing parties, who won 55% of the seats. The result saw the Greens, who had been accepted into the leftist camp, enter the National Assembly for the first time. The result showed the importance of entering an alliance with major parties; had the Greens stayed outside the left, as they had done up to now, they would have had no seats.

This represents an interesting dilemma for small parties in France; do they stay ideologically pure and have few seats in the National Assembly (the course taken by the National Front), or do they soften their ideology (the initial intention of the Greens was to stay outside both major parties) and win influence in the National Assembly?

Following the result, President Chirac appointed Lionel Jospin, the Socialist leader, as Prime Minister. This meant that the third period of cohabitation under the Fifth Republic would begin; the increasing number of different parties controlling the Presidency and National Assembly was beginning to frustrate Chirac.

European elections two years later resulted in a deeply fragmented result. The Socialist Party came first, but with just 22% of the vote, this was hardly a resounding victory. Coming up to this election, a new party called the Rally for France had split out of the Rally for the Republic. This party was led by controversial former minister Charles Pasqua, and ran on a Eurosceptic platform, and won 13%. The original Rally for the Republic won 12.8%, the Greens won 9.7%, the UDF won 9.2%, the Communists won 6.8%, a new centre-right party called Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Tradition won 6.7%. The National Front won just 5.7%; their vote had been split by the new entrants on the centre-right.

One year later, a referendum took place on a change in term limits. The frustration at mid-term legislative elections, which were caused by presidential and legislative terms being different. The referendum abolished this by reducing presidential terms to five years. This would mean that legislative elections could follow presidential elections, thus meaning that the results would be less likely to change.

The proposal was supported by RPR, UDF and the Socialists. It was opposed by the Communist Party and by some RPR members. On the day 73.2% voters voted Yes, and the proposal passed. However, turnout was pathetically low, at just 30%, thus suggesting that voters were disinterested.

Presidential elections were scheduled for 2002, and as the election neared, Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin was in the lead. However, the large number of leftist candidates was to have an unfortunate effect on this lead.


The result put Chirac in the lead, but his main opponent Lionel Jospin did not win first place. Instead, Le Pen won second place, thus meaning that the second round would be between Chirac and Le Pen. The issue for Jospin was that leftist voters, feeling certain that Jospin would win second place, voted for minor parties in the first round.

Almost all the other candidates endorsed Chirac over Le Pen, and polls showed that Chirac would win a landslide victory over Le Pen. Leftist voters reluctantly supported Chirac, and he won the biggest victory for presidential elections in the Fifth Republic.

The result demonstrated a problem with the two-round system; while vote-splitting and the 'spoiler effect' were less of a problem, it could still be an issue.

The legislative elections later that year were another win for the forces of the right. Chirac had renamed his party the Union for a Popular Movement, and was successful in taking some support from the UDF.

The result was a comfortable majority for the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), which gave President Chirac complete control over the legislature. Importantly, the election showed that France had progressed towards a two-party system; the UDF and Communists had been marginalised and the National Front was irrelevant in terms of seats. In total, the UMP and Socialists had 86% of the seats.

The law for electing the European Parliament was changed in 2003. Previously, a national list system was used, with a 5% threshold. However, the system was changed to create eight national constituencies, with an average magnitude of 9. No threshold applied in these constituencies. The goal of this was to improve relations between members of the European Parliament and their constituents.

The result was a comfortable win for the forces of the left, although you could hardly take the results as a prediction of the presidential election. The National Front polled fairly poorly, perhaps due to the presence of the Movement for France, a new Eurosceptic party.

President Chirac chose not to run for re-election in 2007, and he was replaced as UMP candidate by Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy was a fairly right-wing candidate within the UMP, and the UDF chose to nominate an alternative candidate, who was Francois Bayrou. The Socialist Party chose Segoilene Royal, a member of the National Assembly and a minister under Mitterand, following a ballot of party members in which she won 60.6%. Jean-Marie Le Pen ran as the National Front candidate, but he lost support to Sarkozy, and was polling in fourth place. Sarkozy was in first, with Royal and Bayrou fighting for second and a place in the runoff.

Following this result, the two candidates in the runoff were clamouring for the endorsement of the most prominent candidate in the second round, Bayrou. It was generally expected that he would endorse Sarkozy, as most previous UDF presidential candidates had done. However, he decided not to endorse either candidate, and further announced that he would form a new party. Sarkozy decided to run heavily to the right in the runoff, in the hope of picking up some of Le Pen's votes (Le Pen had called for an abstention).

Following this result, opinion polls showed the UMP on course for a landslide win in the legislative elections. While Bayrou's political party (called the Democratic Movement, or MoDem) was fairly strong, its position outside the two major parties put it in a similar position to the National Front. While the party did have fairly strong support, it was rarely enough to make it into the second round in districts, thus meaning that despite their moderate ideology they would not win too many seats.

Sarkozy's move to the right had an obvious effect, with the National Front vote tanking, and the party winning no seats. MoDem polled fairly well in the first round, but the low second round vote shows that few candidates ran in the second round, and even fewer were elected (the party won only 3 seats). This result showed that the two-round system did not just disadvantage extreme parties; it disadvantaged all parties outside the two major blocks.

Over the next five years, the Global Economic Crisis unfolded, and Sarkozy's popularity took a hit. However, there was an important start to a change in France's constitution. Sarkozy proposed an amendment to the Constitution to introduce a two-term limit for the Presidency, the right for the President to address the National Assembly, and allowed some more parliamentary control over the government. The amendment was passed in a joint sitting of the National Assembly and Senate, with 539 votes out of 538 needed.

The crisis meant that Sarkozy was put into a tight race for re-election in 2012. The Socialist Party held an open primary to choose their presidential candidate. Francois Hollande, a former leader of the party, was elected, winning 39.1% in the first round and 56.6% in the second (interestingly, Hollande was up against Segolene Royal, who was not only the Socialist presidential candidate in 2007, but Hollande's former wife. She won 7%, and did not make it to the second round).

There was also something of a change in the National Front. For the first time ever, the National Front presidential candidate was not Jean-Marie Le Pen. Instead, his daughter Marine Le Pen was the candidate. Marine was viewed as something of a new image for the party, which she hoped to turn away from the cranky fundamentalism of her father.

Following the first round, the candidates who did not make it into the second round made their endorsements. Melenchon, Bayrou, Joly and Poutou all endorsed Hollande, while only Dupont-Aigian endorsed Sarkozy. Le Pen did not endorse.

This put Sarkozy in a position of needing to chase after National Front votes. He was fairly successful at this, and the polls tightened up in the runoff race. However, Hollande was able to win, albeit narrower than what was expected in the early days of the election.

The legislative elections scheduled for a month later were expected to result in a win for the Socialists. The increase in the National Front obviously would have little affect on the seat distribution, but it would be concerning for the major parties.

The Fifth Republic

The Fifth Republic has been fairly stable, as French governments go. Exactly what impact the power of the president has had on this is not clear, but certainly France has had longer-lasting and more stable government. Of course, the change to a presidential system is not the only issue, but it has clearly had some impact.

The impact of the two-round system on the party system is fairly clear. Political scientist Maurice Duverger is well known for Duverger's Law, a hypothesis where he claimed that the two-round system would lead to a party system with two large groups comprised of smaller parties. France certainly has this, with a few client parties on the left (Greens, Radicals) and a few on the right (Centrist Alliance, right-wing Radicals).

The existence of the National Front, and its strong performance in recent elections, has put pressure on this system. The most recent European election resulted in the National Front being the largest party (albeit with only 24.8% of the vote) and they look likely to make significant gains in recent times.

What impact has the two-round system had on the National Front? Its proponents say that it has reduced extremism in French politics, and has kept the National Assembly moderate. However, it could also be claimed that the system has meant that politicians from the major parties are unresponsive to political change, which has led to dissatisfaction with politicians, which has led to the rise of extremism.

In terms of presidential power, the powers given to the President are fairly broad compared to the other countries of Europe, which are mostly parliamentary. However, the National Assembly still has control over the instruments of government, as the Prime Minister requires its confidence. The National Assembly also has supreme legislative power, because the President does not have a veto. The shortening of legislative terms has meant that different parties controlling houses is rare, but in the event that it happens, there is a change in the people who hold executive power.

United Kingdom election 2015

The United Kingdom will be holding a parliamentary election on the 7th of May. The incumbent government is a coalition between the centre-right Conservative Party, led by Prime Minister David Cameron, and the centre to centre-left Liberal Democrats, led by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. The opposition Labour Party, which is led by former Secretary for State for Energy Ed Miliband. A number of smaller parties, including the Greens, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), and the Scottish National Party.

Background

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, and has had universal suffrage since the 1920s. Before 1910, elections were mostly between the centre-right Conservatives (Tories) and the centrist Liberals (Whigs). These two parties alternated in government. However, in 1895, the Independent Labour Party contested 28 seats, but only won 1% of the vote. In 1900, Labour improved their vote slightly, and won two seats.

Over the subsequent years, the Labour Party improved their vote consistently. However, this was rarely at the expense of one single party. The Liberal Party split in 1918, with some members joining the Conservatives and some staying independent. This led to the Liberals declining dramatically over that period, to the benefit of both other parties. The Conservatives formed government after this, but lost their majority in 1923. Because neither of the other two parties wanted to deal with the Conservatives, the first Labour government was formed in coalition with the Liberals, under the leadership of Ramsay McDonald.

The McDonald government did not last, and an election was called later that year. The result was a dramatic loss for the Liberal Party, and a somewhat smaller loss for Labour. The Conservatives won a landslide majority.

While the Liberals made slight gains at the next few elections, the party split again coming up to the 1931 election. At this election, the Labour Party also split into factions supportive of a coalition with the Conservatives (led by Ramsay McDonald) and an independent party. The independent party won only 46 seats (out of 615), down from 287 at the last election.  The Liberals did poorly, winning only 33 seats; this was the first step in what would be a long decline for the party. The Conservatives, running in coalition with the various Labour and Liberal spinoffs (under the banner of 'National Government'), won a landslide 554 seats.

At the 1935 election, Labour made some gains under the leadership of Clement Atlee, while the Liberals continued their decline. General elections were postponed because of the Second World War, but an election was held in 1945. To some surprise, the wartime government of Conservative Winston Churchill was handily defeated, with Labour winning 393 seats (out of 640). The Conservatives won only 197, while the Liberals continued to decline.

The Atlee government was controversial, and lost some seats in 1950. In 1951, an election was held due to the slim majority of the government. The Conservatives won this relatively comfortably. This election was also notable for the poor Liberal performance; the Liberals only managed 6 seats, later reduced to 5. If a political party in a 625 member assembly can hold its meetings in one car, that party has serious problems.

In the next few elections, the Labour Party lost seats, and the Conservatives gained some. A significant change took place in 1964, when a hard-fought campaign resulted in a narrow Labour win, with a 2-seat majority. Harold Wilson, the Labour leader, became Prime Minister. The Liberals gained three seats, meaning that a large people mover would be required for party meetings.

Wilson was unsatisfied with his narrow majority, and called an election for 1966. This resulted in significant gains for Labour, at the expense of the Conservatives. Labour won a 46-seat majority. The Liberals gained three, while the Conservatives lost 52. One seat was won by a 'Republican Labour' candidate in Northern Ireland, one of the predecessors to Sinn Fein.

An election was called by Wilson for 1970. This election took place against a relatively gloomy economic background, and the Wilson government was defeated. Conservative leader Edward Heath took office with a majority of 14. This election was also notable for a halved Liberal seat tally of 6, and the first Scottish National MPs elected in a general election. Northern Ireland elected four members from local parties.

The 1974 election was somewhat remarkable. Strikes, trouble in Northern Ireland, and a stagnant economy reduced support for the government. Both parties were led by the same leaders as in 1970. Labour won 301 seats, becoming the largest party; however, 318 seats were needed for a majority. The Conservatives won 297. The Liberals won 14 seats, the SNP won 7, the Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru party won 2, and one independent was elected. All Northern Ireland seats were won by local parties.

The resulting government was a minority Labour government, led by Wilson. This government did not last, and Wilson called another election for later that year. He won this, with 319 seats: a majority of 1.

Poor economic conditions reduced support for this Labour government, and even after Wilson resigned and was replaced by Chancellor (Treasurer) James Callaghan, the government continued to tank in the polls. Conservative leader Edward Heath was defeated by Margaret Thatcher, and Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe was brought down due to a scandal. After the Labour Party failed to form a coalition with the Liberals, a no-confidence motion brought down the Callaghan government, and an election was called for 1979.

The Conservatives won the 1979 election comfortably, with 339 seats. Labour won 269, the Liberals won 11, the SNP won only 2, Plaid Cymru won 2, and as before, all Northern Ireland seats were won by local parties.

During the 1979 parliament, the Labour Party elected a left-wing leader, Michael Foot. This led to certain members of the party leaving and creating the new Social Democratic Party, which formed an alliance with the Liberals. This alliance did relatively well in the polls due to the lack of support for the Thatcher government. However, as the 1983 election approached, the Thatcher government gained support, and won comfortably. The Labour Party polled poorly, winning just 27.6% and 209 seats. The SDP-Liberal Alliance polled relatively well, winning 25.4%, but won only 23 seats.

The Conservatives won re-election comfortably in 1987, with Labour under the leadership of Neil Kinnock. However, in 1990, Thatcher resigned due to a number of policy controversies. By this point, the Conservatives were relatively unpopular. Thatcher was replaced by John Major, the Chancellor. Major led the Conservatives to the 1992 election, which he was expected to lose. However, Major won, but with a reduced majority in the Commons of 10.

The 1992 parliament went very badly for the Conservatives. A number of scandals, a poor economic situation, and divisions over Europe dramatically reduced Conservative support. At the same time, Labour was led by popular Tony Blair, who was successful in removing the more stridently socialist bits of the Labour policy. The 1997 election resulted in a Labour landslide, with Labour winning 418 seats out of 659. The Conservatives won just 168, and the Liberal Democrats won 46.

The Labour Party's first term in office was relatively successful, and Conservative leader William Hague failed to make much of a mark. Labour only lost 6 seats in the 2001 election.

However, the second term of Labour government was somewhat more controversial. The Iraq War, a number of scandals, and controversies regarding Labour's handling of immigration and healthcare led to the first significant increase in Conservative representation since 1983. Labour won 355 seats, the Conservatives won 198, and the Liberal Democrats won 62.

Blair resigned in 2007, and was replaced by his Chancellor, Gordon Brown. While Brown polled relatively well in his first months, a number of scandals involving ministers and a serious economic downturn dramatically reduced the support of his government. In the 2009 European elections, the Labour Party came third, behind the Conservatives and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP); Labour won only 15.7%. In the Henley by-election to fill the seat of London mayor Boris Johnson, the Labour candidate won 3% and came fifth, behind not only the Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates, but the candidates of the Greens and the far-right British National Party.

In the leadup to the 2010 election, Conservative leader David Cameron was widely expected to become Prime Minister. However, after a televised debate (the first of its kind) which didn't go as expected, the Liberal Democrats received a polling surge. While the surge was relatively short-lived, it took enough momentum away from the Conservatives to prevent them from winning a majority.

The results were 306 for the Conservatives (with 326 needed for a majority), 258 for Labour, and 57 for the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats chose to go with the Conservatives, seeing that a Labour-led government would be relatively unstable.

This has dramatically reduced Liberal Democrat support. Opinion polls have put them behind UKIP, and the 2014 European election resulted in them winning no seats. In the Rochester and Strood by-election, (which resulted in UKIP winning a seat), the Liberal Democrat candidate won 0.9%.

The electoral system

The electoral system of the United Kingdom is the 'first-past-the-post', or single-member plurality system. It is relatively simple: voters have one vote, and they cast it for a party candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins. This happens in every district nationwide.

A colour-coded map of the UK's electoral districts from the 2010 election (Wikimedia) Blue=Conservatives, Red=Labour. Orange=Liberal Democrat, Yellow=SNP, Light green=Plaid Cymru

This electoral system is fairly majoritarian, and tends to favour the two largest parties. The Liberal Democrats have had a consistent parliamentary presence, but their vote share has been consistently below their seat share. This goes for the other political parties, including the Greens. It also happens for the SNP and Plaid Cymru, but given that they are regionally based parties, they do better.

There have been proposals to replace the system with a more proportional one. The Electoral Reform Society has put forward proposals to replace FPTP with the Single Transferable Vote, a system already in use in Scottish local government and Northern Irish regional and local elections. As part of the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, a referendum took place on introducing the Alternative Vote; while the proposal led in the polls in the lead-up to the campaign, a Conservative-led fear campaign led to the proposal's defeat by a significant margin.

The electoral system is likely to have a significant impact on how the government is formed. In 2005, the Labour Party won a majority off just 35%, and it is possible that a majority government may be formed off a lower amount.

Another factor will be that the Labour Party is able to win more seats off fewer votes due to lower turnout in less well off safe Labour districts. This means that there is the possibility that the Labour Party can win a majority off a relatively small share of the vote.

Party prospects

Conservative Twitter account

Conservatives

The Conservatives have been accused of making overly harsh cuts to public services during their term in office, and generally trailed in the polls from early 2012 by significant amounts. During this period, they were not only losing votes to Labour, but also to the United Kingdom Independence Party; traditional eurosceptic Conservatives have been angered by Cameron's relatively conciliatory stance on Europe and immigration.

The Conservative opening party political broadcast (in the UK, TV political paid advertising is banned, and parties are given free airtime)

However, in recent months, Conservative polling has picked up, mostly at the expense of Labour. This may be due to somewhat more optimistic economic forecasts, or due to Labour losing support to the SNP. Nonetheless, it has made the 2015 election more competitive, and it looks unlikely at this point that either party will win by a significant margin.

Incumbent Prime Minister Cameron, the Conservative leader, is relatively popular personally. However, he has announced that he will not serve a second term as Prime Minister, providing reasonably fertile ground for a Labour campaign based around leadership candidate speculation

Labour

The Labour Party are likely to make gains at this election. The party has moved significantly to the left under the leadership of Ed Miliband, who defeated his brother David in a leadership ballot following the resignation of Gordon Brown after the 2010 election loss. The Labour Party led in the polls for a significant amount of time, but have recently dropped back.

One of the reasons that the forecast for Labour is looking less optimistic is the lack of support for Labour in Scotland. Traditionally a Labour heartland, the pro-independence Scottish National Party has increased their support significantly since the independence referendum in 2014, which, ironically, was a setback for the Scottish pro-independence community. This may be because the Labour Party has alienated their (not insubstantial) pro-independence wing by strongly backing the No campaign in the referendum.

However, Labour's task is not insurmountable. For a start, it is possible that they could deal with the SNP to form a government (the Conservatives are making hay with this, so their polling must be suggesting that it is unpopular). As discussed before, the Labour Party is able to win more seats with fewer votes, so that will work to their advantage. 

Miliband is not an especially popular leader, however. Opinion polls have put his approval rating consistently below 30%, and it looks unlikely that he is the main reason for his party's success.

Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats, a centrist liberal party, are going into the 2015 election with little chance of doing well. Five years of coalition with the Conservatives have dramatically reduced their support, and opinion polls have put them below both UKIP and the Greens. Leader Nick Clegg, who was the beneficiary of a polling boost going into the 2010 election, looks likely to lead the Liberal Democrats to an extremely poor result. Clegg's own seat of Sheffield Hallam is in peril, with opinion polls showing Labour ahead.

However, it looks unlikely that the Liberal Democrats will be wiped out. Incumbent MPs that have built up a personal profile might be able to hold their seats, and it looks likely that the Liberal Democrats will remain the largest nationwide party outside the Conservatives and Labour. Clegg is extremely unpopular, with opinion polls showing him to be the least popular UK party leader; however, he has been challenged for that title by Miliband several times.

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)

UKIP are a right-wing populist anti-EU party, whose main policy is the removal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. They were formed from the Referendum Party, a party supporting a referendum on EU membership which contested the 1997 election. They are opposed to immigration, but are left of centre on economic issues.

The party has performed well in European Parliament elections, coming first (albeit with only 27% of the vote) in the 2014 elections. Despite this, they have been weak in general elections. In the last general election, under the leadership of former Conservative Lord Pearson, the party managed just 3%.

In the 2010 parliament, traditional Conservative (and Labour) voters have become disenchanted with what some see as an unaccountable and opaque European Union intent on removing Britain's powers. These voters have switched to UKIP. However, UKIP voters are spread across the UK, meaning that they will struggle to win many seats under single member plurality.

UKIP hold two seats in the Commons; both are hold by former Conservatives, who defected to UKIP, resigned, and won by-elections in their old seats. Mark Reckless, the UKIP member for Rochester and Strood, won with a 7.3% majority, while Douglas Carswell holds Clacton on a 35% majority. Both seats are in the traditionally conservative South of England. Given that these MPs are incumbents, these results are not strictly representative, but they do suggest that when looking at UKIP polls, it is important to look at regional results.

Scottish National Party

The Scottish National Party is a left-wing nationalist party founded in 1934, after the merger of two nationalist parties. The party's influence was marginal until the 1970s, when the discovery of oil in the North Sea led to an upsurge in support for Scottish independence. This led the Labour government to be forced to hold a referendum on the establishment of a Scottish government. While a majority voted for devolution, a turnout requirement meant that the referendum was lost. The devolution issue went on the back burner for a decade, but in 1997, the Labour Party was elected, and a referendum to implement a Scottish government was won.

The SNP came second in the first Scottish Parliament elections in 1999: well ahead of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, with around 28% of the vote. However, they did not repeat this success in the general election in 2001, with only 20% and 5 seats out of 72.

In the 2007 Scottish Parliament election, the SNP won the most seats: 47 seats to 46 for Labour. The party formed a minority administration with the support of the Greens. Despite this success, the SNP's performance in 2010 was lukewarm; only 6 seats.

The SNP's support in the Scottish Parliament hit a high in 2011, with the SNP winning 69 seats. This was the first overall majority for any Scottish party in the Scottish Parliament. Even that did not give the SNP's national polling a significant boost. 

However, the independence referendum seems to have polarised Scottish politics. Labour's strong campaign against independence has meant that pro-independence Labour voters seem to have switched to the SNP. The party has relatively consistent support across Scotland, meaning that it will be likely that the SNP will be the largest party in Scotland, and it is possible that they will enter a coalition with Labour.

The others

The Greens have been a relatively marginal influence in UK politics for a long time, but they won a record 15% in the 1989 European elections. The usage of single-member plurality for these elections meant that they won no seats, and they failed to repeat this success in the 1992 general election. However, they have improved their support recently, and Caroline Lucas, the former party leader, was elected to be the member for Brighton Pavillion. Their leader, the Australian Natalie Bennett, is reasonably popular, but it looks unlikely that the Greens will win many more seats.

The far-right British National Party received a boost in the 2009 European election, winning 2 seats. However, they did not repeat any of this in the 2010 General elections, winning just 1.9%. They lost their seats in the European elections, and look almost certain to do very poorly in the general elections.

George Galloway's Respect Party is a rather odd outfit. Galloway is a former Labour MP from Scotland, who was expelled from Labour in 2003 after making controversial statements about the Iraq War. He formed a new party, called Respect, and won the immigrant-dominated seat of Bethnal Green and Bow from Labour. He contested the seat of Poplar and Limehouse in 2010, but lost. He managed to win the seat of Bradford West in a 2012 by-election with a large swing. No polling has been done in this seat, so it is uncertain if Galloway will be elected, especially considering his controversial comments on Israel and Julian Assange.

Plaid Cymru is a centre-left Welsh nationalist party that supports independence for Wales. They are a significant presence in the Welsh parliament, but are weaker then the Scottish nationalists. They hold three seats in the Westminster parliament, and their polling shows that they have little chance of winning many more.

Overall picture.

It is still far too early to make any solid predictions about the UK election. However, if the polls are correct, a significant amount of votes will be cast for parties that will win few seats. This does not bode well for the future of the UK two-party system, and suggests that a switch to proportional representation may be possible.

However, it is too early to say whether this will happen. A change that large would require a referendum, and judging by the campaign waged against AV in 2011, that would be a hard referendum to win.

Nonetheless, this election is one of the closest, and one of the most interesting elections in UK history. I will be posting further on this election in the future, so please follow this blog for updates.