Electoral systems, constitutionalism and conflict management in Southern Africa

Contextual Influences on Voting Decision: Mapping the Neighbourhood Effect in a Multi-Ethnic Rural Setting in Kenya

“…They shape political cleavages and party systems, and influence the behaviour of political parties and individual candidates during and between elections, both at the national and local levels. It is generally agreed that no particular system is perfect and that each country adopts a system that suits its particular circumstances (Barkan, 1995;Reynolds, 1995;Matlosa, 2004;Molomo, 2004).…”

“…It also ensures accountability of elected representatives to their respective electorates to the extent that the electorate not only has a specific representative to turn to whenever they have problems and issues to resolve, but can also recall their representative in subsequent elections. More over, even when candidates are nominated by political parties to contest elections, they do so in their own right (Matlosa, 2004), sometimes leading to instances whereby the electorate rejects a candidate imposed on them by their preferred political party. According to Barkan (1999, this accountability aspect of FPTP system constitutes vertical dimension of democracy -i.e.…”

“…With a few exceptions (see Barkan, 1995), the FPTP electoral system has generally tended to favour dominant parties, squeeze out smaller parties, under-represent minority interests, and produce minority governments and presidencies. In the case of Botswana, Matlosa (2004) has argued that the FPTP electoral system has converted the polity into a near de fact0 one party affair, excluded opposition parties and other key players from effective participation in governance thereby engendering feelings of bitterness and discontent on their part. In 2001, the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) won Zambian parliamentary elections to form government with 44 percent of the national vote (Matlosa 2004).…”

“…In the case of Botswana, Matlosa (2004) has argued that the FPTP electoral system has converted the polity into a near de fact0 one party affair, excluded opposition parties and other key players from effective participation in governance thereby engendering feelings of bitterness and discontent on their part. In 2001, the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) won Zambian parliamentary elections to form government with 44 percent of the national vote (Matlosa 2004). On the other hand Bakili Muluzi won the 1994 Malawian presidential poll with 47.2 percent of the vote.…”

The Interplay between Party Coalitions and Electoral Systems in Lesotho: Imperatives for Party Reforms

“…It refers to institutional arrangements governing the method each country uses to translate votes cast during elections into seats won by parties and candidates for the formation of government at various levels. It encompasses procedures, rules and regulations for the electorate to choose their leaders and guides how the votes determine the distribution of political power (Mahao, 1997;Matlosa, 2002;Matlosa, 2003;Makoa, 2004;Matlosa, 2004;Reynolds, et al, 2005;Matlosa, 2006).…”