The perils of proportional representation: From 541 days of no govt in Belgium to 12 govts in Nepal in 17 years, instability reigned supreme
From Israel to Italy, proportional representation has empowered fringe parties and fuelled political instability. As Bangladesh advocates for reforms, political parties first need to have a look at global lessons that warn of instability, gridlock, and the unintended rise of extremists.
Two far-right parties in Israel's Knesset are blocking a ceasefire in Gaza, enabling the ongoing genocide. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir are two far-right politicians with considerable power in Israel's current government. They have repeatedly threatened to bring down Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government if he agrees to a "surrender agreement" with Hamas.
These two parties have 6 and 7 seats, respectively, out of 120. With 10% of the vote, the two parties are keeping a war alive. This is one extreme case of how the government can be paralysed by a handful of extremists under the proportional representation (PR) system.
Globally, PR systems have led to chronic instability. Even countries with strong democratic institutions struggle under PR, as consensus-building becomes painfully slow and often paralyses governance. Yet, in Bangladesh, political parties like Jaamat-e-Islami and Islami Andolan Bangladesh seek a PR electoral system in the upcoming election.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Global experience with PR
Italy's revolving doors
Since World War II, Italy has had over 65 governments in 79 years, averaging just over a year per cabinet. The Italian Chamber of Deputies, elected through proportional representation, has consistently produced fragmented parliaments where small parties hold the balance of power. Between 1946 and 1992, no single party ever secured more than 38% of the vote, forcing unstable coalitions that often collapsed over narrow ideological or even personal disputes.
The 1976 general election, for instance, gave the Christian Democrats 38.7% of votes, the Communists 34.4%, and a scatter of small parties the rest. No party was able to govern alone, and coalition haggling plunged Italy into repeated crises. Despite constitutional reforms in the 1990s, Italy's governments still rotate at dizzying speed—Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's administration is the 68th since 1946.
Belgium's extreme case—541 days without an elected government
Belgium offers another striking case. Its proportional system, combined with linguistic and regional divides, has made government formation a nightmare. Following the 2010 federal election, Belgium went 541 days without an elected government. The 2019 election produced another deadlock: it took 493 days before a seven-party coalition could finally form a cabinet.
"The PR system can lead to unstable governments. It doesn't have practicality in the lower house; hence, we didn't suggest it in two of our reform commissions, we suggested it for the upper house only. That is why it wasn't on the agenda." ELECTORAL REFORM COMMISSION CHIEF BADIUL ALAM MAJUMDAR
For much of these interregnums, Belgium was technically governed by caretakers, leaving major policy decisions suspended. If such paralysis can happen in a wealthy European state with strong institutions, what would prevent far greater dysfunction in Bangladesh, where political institutions are weaker and adversarial politics is entrenched?
Netherlands' stability came at a cost
Even in highly institutionalised democracies, PR systems create prolonged instability. The Netherlands, despite having strong institutions and a consensus-orientated culture, took 271 days in 2021 to form a government—the longest in Dutch history. Coalition agreements are so complex that policymaking often becomes watered down and overly slow.
Nepal—a regional lesson in dysfunction
If global cases show PR's flaws in advanced democracies, Nepal provides a sobering regional example. Nepal introduced proportional representation in 2008 after the monarchy's abolition, adopting a mixed system: 60% of parliamentary seats by PR and 40% by FPTP. The intent was noble—to ensure inclusion of marginalised groups, women, and ethnic minorities—but the outcome has been political volatility.
Since 2008, Nepal has seen 12 governments in just 17 years. Prime ministers rarely complete their terms. In the 2017 election, the Nepal Communist Party secured a near-two-thirds majority through a pre-poll alliance, but the coalition splintered within three years. In 2021 alone, the country cycled through three governments amid constitutional crises.
PR has also enabled the survival of fringe parties, including monarchists and ethnonationalists, who use their small seat shares to leverage outsized influence in coalition bargaining. In effect, Nepal's lower house has become a marketplace of shifting alliances rather than a forum for stable governance.
How PR would have looked in previous Bangladeshi elections
Applying PR to Bangladesh's past elections illustrates how dangerous it would be. Take the 2001 election: under first-past-the-post (FPTP), BNP secured 193 seats and formed a clear government. Under PR, BNP would have just 123, AL 120, and the Jatiya Party 22—no party close to a majority. In 1996, PR would give AL 112 seats and BNP 101, leaving a hung parliament.
Even the 2008 landslide, where AL's FPTP majority ensured decisive governance, would shrink to 144 seats under PR—well short of a majority. Every election from 1991 to 2008 would have produced weak coalitions, more constant bargaining, and even more instability.
Electoral Reform Commission Chief Badiul Alam Majumdar said, "The PR system can lead to unstable governments. It doesn't have practicality in the lower house; hence, we didn't suggest it in two of our reform commissions, we suggested it for the upper house only. That is why it wasn't on the agenda."
PR also risks opening parliament to extremist forces. Small radical groups can gain seats simply by passing a low vote threshold, as seen in Israel, where far-right parties with just a few percentage points of votes influence government policy. In Bangladesh, where extremist outfits have significant underground support, PR could inadvertently hand them parliamentary legitimacy.
The proponents of PR in the lower house have been talking about creating more balance and representation in the parliament. Under our current system, the winner takes all. So, there is a high incentive for smaller parties to demand PR in the lower house.
Dr Sadik Hasan, Professor of Public Administration at the University of Dhaka, opines, "The smaller parties think that they can get 3-4 seats under the PR system. But the problem is, it has not been tested in Bangladesh ever. Bangladeshis have no idea what PR really is or how it works. That is a problem."
"The main argument for PR is curtailing the power of the prime minister," Dr Hasan said. "The same argument holds for NCC. However, this should not be the priority; the priority should be whether a system would be more democratic or not," he added.
For a polarised and institutionally fragile democracy like Bangladesh, PR would not only worsen gridlock but also invite unmanageable fragmentation.
