TMP Online

The Electoral Reform Society’s Michael Calderbank explains how a major shake-up of our democratic system is necessary to see off the BNP threat. 

At the national conference of Unite Against Fascism (UAF) earlier this year, it was repeatedly claimed that ‘people know which party is best placed to defeat the BNP’. The conference was told that, when combined with grassroots campaigns to expose the ‘nazi’ character of the party, targeted campaigns to maximise the anti-racist vote can be used to mobilise the mainstream majority.

From this perspective the challenge facing anti-racist forces is clear: we must put all our energies into a mass campaign aimed at informing voters and encouraging them to cast their votes most effectively to keep BNP candidates out. It is possible to point to individual instances in which such action appears to have been effective. However, in general such a strategy holds only if certain assumptions are already in place. Sadly, the reality confronting anti-racist activists on the ground is more complex than this simple ‘educate and mobilise’ philosophy will allow.

For example, this takes for granted that the BNP successfully appeals to voters by managing to disguise its viciously racist core beliefs, and that voters only need reminding of the party’s ‘true’ face in order to persuade them of the need to switch away. It is of course true that BNP voters are not all ideologically paid-up fascists consumed solely by racist hatred. In the real world the motivations of far right voters are far more complex. The far right vote tends to grow in areas where people feel entirely neglected by, and alienated from, the mainstream political parties and see a party like the BNP as the best way of making the political establishment take notice.

So whilst people are not solely voting BNP because of their deeply objectionable racism, it does not appear that they entertain such views are in themselves sufficient to repel BNP voters. Indeed it is the very fact that voting for such a party has the power to scandalize the political establishment that seems to make a vote for the BNP a significant form of protest. The adoption of a ‘respectable’ media image is not simply an attempt to fool the voter, but a more sophisticated attempt both to facilitate an appeal to racist prejudice whilst disavowing the full scale of their anti-democratic extremism.

To some degree BNP voters know what the lies beneath the image, but are prepared to lend them credence in the short-term as a method of conveying the depth of their frustration with their traditional political representatives. Hence, not only does the ‘expose them as fascists’ tactic generally miss its target, but the whole approach fails to address the discontent felt towards mainstream politics and politicians. Asking people to vote for parties to which they presently feel a deep resentment feels like applying a sticking plaster to a gaping wound. We need to understand the forces which have produced this sense of isolation and alienation if we are to build a substantial political alternative to combat racist extremism. This involves recognising the flaws of our First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system which encourages mainstream political parties not to compete in seats they feel are unwinnable or can be taken for granted.

Many of the areas in which the BNP are now succeeding have traditionally been safe Labour strongholds, routinely electing Labour MP’s and local councillors over the course of many years. But with the outcome of general elections being determined by a few thousand swing voters in marginal seats, Labour has been far more concerned with capturing the congested ‘centre-ground’ attractive to Middle England voters, rather than address the concerns of voters in seats that are considered already ‘in the bag’. Our voting system is presently giving rise to ‘electoral deserts’ in which the parties feel they have no incentive to campaign and so voters are left feeling ignored and angry. This produces fertile territory for the BNP, since their brand of local activism contrasts with the attitude of parties for whom white working class voters don’t seem to appear on the political radar. Issues such as the lack of decent social housing (which blight the lives of people of all ethnicities) are seized upon by the BNP as ‘evidence’ that white voters are being unfairly disadvantaged. This creates serious difficulties for the efficacy of tactical voting. Often where there is an obvious challenger, this is the incumbent or previously incumbent party. Encouraging a tactical vote in such circumstances is effectively to ask people to swing behind the very same organisations responsible for presenting the far right with the opportunities they are now managing to exploit.

In any case, the belief that voters automatically know which party is best placed to defeat the BNP is true in some, but by no means all, instances. Even where there is still substantial local support for a particular mainstream party, in most local elections there is more than one non-BNP candidate on the ballot paper. So even where the UAF thesis is correct and most voters can successfully identify the candidate best placed to challenge the BNP, there is usually at least a small percentage of non-BNP voters who choose to ‘stick to their guns’ and vote for a candidate with no chance of winning. Given that most other candidates will express opposition to the BNP, this means that (given our First-Past-the-Post electoral system) some anti-BNP votes get effectively wasted.

FPTP allows the far right to win seats on a minority share of the votes cast, even where all indications suggest – if pressed – a clear majority of voters would regard the election of the BNP as the worst possible outcome. At its worst, the present system can produce manifestly unjust outcomes, such as in the Abbey Green Ward in Stoke at the 2006 Local Elections, where 3 out of every 4 electors cast votes for candidates other than the BNP, and yet since the opposition to them was split five ways they managed to take the seat just 24.9% of the votes. By any measure a substantial majority of the electorate chose to vote for candidates opposed to the BNP. And yet our electoral system allowed a substantial wastage of votes to occur and hence allow the far right to triumph.

It could be argued that the danger of split votes can already be overcome by more effective co-operation between the parties, perhaps even by less well-placed candidates agreeing to stand down. Whilst with a great deal of effort and goodwill across parties a measure of this might be achieved, experience suggests there will almost certainly be instances where such co-operation cannot be agreed. But aside from the practical difficulties, there are also problems in principle with such an attitude. This kind of tactical voting is effectively about limiting voter choice, re-aggregating the votes of smaller parties/independents around a single alternative. Tactical voting effectively means that some voters would feel obliged to trade-off their right to vote for their first preference as the price of ensuring their opposition to the BNP was not lost through a wasted vote. By contrast, under a system where voters can rank their preferred candidates in order of preference they are empowered to choose the candidate they feel best represents their views, safe in the knowledge that – if it becomes that they have no chance of winning the contest – then their vote can be transferred and still have some say in the overall outcome. This would give a more effective voice to the real opinions of the voters, and eliminate unintentional wastage of votes. The effect of split votes threatens to undermine the efficacy of attempts to raise the hurdle for the BNP by increasing voter turnout since, as the positive effect would be significantly dissipated. This could be overcome by moving to a preferential voting system which allowed votes of defeated candidates to transfer.

Until such a system is in place, whilst we should still be alert to those occasions in which a campaign for an anti-BNP tactical vote can be effective, we should nevertheless understand that to conclusively see off the BNP threat, a major shake-up of our democratic system will be necessary. We need a fair voting system which provides genuine choice and under which every vote counts. This will increase the diversity of candidates on offer and thus increase competition, and encourage the traditional parties to become more responsive to their electorates.

Michael Calderbank is political campaigns officer of the Electoral Reform Society.