The design of an election system matters. That’s the advice of Michael Rubin, my American Enterprise Institute colleague, and an Arabic- and Farsi-speaking expert on the Middle East. Rubin criticized the Bush administration’s decision to allow Iraq’s first elections to be conducted with voters choosing from national lists of candidates which, he writes, “privileged Islamists and ethnic nationalists over more pragmatic politicians more eager to engage in local issues.” Why did we favor the national lists? The reason, I was told at the time by someone in the administration, is that it guaranteed the election of a certain number of women. A brilliant trade: we sacrificed workable government in favor of gender quotas.
Rubin’s subject this time, in his Commentary Contentions blogpost and in one for Fox News, is the election design in Egypt, which he argues unduly favors the Muslim Brotherhood. His specific recommendations:
“If Egypt holds elections according to a winner-takes-all system (as in the United States), the Brotherhood might leverage its minority support to achieve a dominating grip on government.
“However, if Egypt adopts proportional representation, then even the most fractious and disorganized secular leaders can form a coalition after elections to quarantine or balance populists whose commitment to democracy is tactical and fleeting.
“Likewise, the White House should demand that Egypt embrace open lists. Corrupt politicians should not hide behind unconditional American aid. Nor should American tax payers help fund any country afraid to allow international dignitaries to observe elections.”
I hope the Obama administration pays more attention to Rubin’s electoral system advice than the Bush administration did.
