The core principle of democracy is to reflect the will of the people of a country. Representatives are elected by voters and, acting as the people’s voice, make laws and set policies in the national parliament. But if an electoral system distorts the true preferences of the majority or fails to reflect the people’s will that system cannot rightly be called democratic. One such controversial system is Proportional Representation (PR).
The PR is an electoral method in which parliamentary seats are allocated according to a political party’s share of the national or regional vote. That means, if a party receives 40 percent of the vote, it is allocated roughly 40 percent of the constituencies. Candidates are not directly elected by voters; instead, parties submit predetermined lists of candidates and members of parliament are appointed from those lists in proportion to the votes each party receives.
At first glance, the method may seem fair because it roughly aligns votes and seats. But a closer look shows that PR progressively reduces direct people’s participation and accountability.
In democracy, voters expect their elected representative to speak up in parliament for the problems of their constituency. In countries like Bangladesh or India, voters turn to their members of parliament (MPs) with demands for roads, schools, hospitals, agricultural support and so on. Under PR, voters do not vote for a specific candidate but for a party. Therefore, we often do not know whom they are effectively sending to parliament. The MP becomes accountable to the party rather than to the people. This distance weakens democratic accountability.
Under the PR system, the names of candidates come from party lists. The party leadership decides who will go to parliament. If a small party worker or a locally popular candidate does not have the favour of the leadership, they have little chance of being selected. This reduces internal democracy within parties and increases party autocracy. Instead of the people’s voice, the wishes of party bosses or a small elite dominate.
The PR often allows small parties with modest vote shares to enter parliament and become kingmakers in government formation. This can undervalue the preferences of the broader public. It does mean, one party might win 45 percent of the vote and can be the largest party, while a small party with 10 percent also enters parliament and forces the larger party into concessions to form a government. As a result, policies shaped by a party supported by millions of voters can be swayed by the demands of a much smaller party. In the way, the will of the majority can be suppressed under the PR system.
Because a single party rarely wins an outright majority under the PR, coalition governments become the norm. Coalition politics often bring frequent disagreements, breakups and political instability. Such instability hampers national development and erodes public confidence. Many countries have experienced the problem repeatedly. If democracy is unstable, people may gradually lose faith in it. Our neighbors Nepal and Sri Lanka have also seen similar instability.
In a democracy, voters judge an MP’s performance at the next election and reward or punish them accordingly. But under PR, since candidates are not standing directly for election by the people, citizens have limited means to hold them accountable. MPs are effectively accountable to the party, not the voters. This weakens the very idea of “people’s representatives.”
In a country like Bangladesh, where democratic institutions have yet to become fully robust, adopting PR could exacerbate problems. Party leaders’ authority would grow. Internal democracy in Bangladesh’s two major parties is already weak. Under PR, the party leader’s lists would replace voters’ choices as the main determinant of who becomes an MP, turning parliament into an assembly of leader‑approved individuals.
Regional issues would be neglected. Each area has distinct problems–ports in Chittagong, river erosion in Rangpur, tea workers in Sylhet, fish farming in Khulna. A directly elected MP from a specific constituency speaks for those local concerns. Under the PR there is no area‑based relationship between candidate and voter. Political instability would increase. In Bangladesh, government changes already trigger instability; add frequent coalition shifts and the disproportionate influence of small parties, and stability would further erode.
The PR proponents argue that the system better matches votes to seats and represents all opinions, allowing small parties to enter parliament. But the question is: is the aim of democracy to give every party a seat in parliament, or to ensure effective representation of the people? If the people do not strongly support a small party, that party’s disproportionate influence in parliament weakens rather than strengthens democracy.
Another argument is that the PR prevents ‘wasted votes’: even if a candidate narrowly loses, the party’s total vote share is still reflected in parliament. But in reality, even if votes are not wasted, the direct bond between voter and representative is broken—and that bond is a core strength of democracy.
Democracy is not only a game of numbers; it is about accountability, direct representation and reflecting the people’s will. While the PR may look fair from above, in practice it can undermine democracy’s foundations: it severs the voter’s representative link, concentrates power in party leaders, creates disproportionate influence for small parties and increases political instability.
In countries like Bangladesh, where citizens place high value on direct representation and democratic institutions are not yet strong, the PR is more likely to destabilise democracy than to consolidate it. Therefore, PR is not democratic rather, it gives democracy a hollow form.
The writer is an associate professor at the Department of Communication and Media Studies at UODA and a journalist at Times of Bangladesh
(The views expressed this article are of author’s own)
