MP Z.Enkhbold,
Head of the Standing Committee on Security and Foreign Policy, answers
questions on the proposed changes to the law on elections.

 Which of the two drafts will be
discussed?

It is most
likely that Parliament will decide to discuss the two draft laws simultaneously.

Have the party groups agreed on adopting
the proportional system?

In general,
yes, but it is too early to say that it will be fully proportional. Maybe a
mixed system will be favored.

 If a mixed system is chosen, how many seats
will be elected proportionally and how many by the present majority system?

It is too
early to say anything about this.

A working group of Parliament studied
the issue; what conclusion did it reach?

No system can
be flawless. There can be no absolute good or absolute bad and every country has
to choose a system that best suits its conditions and requirements. The goal is
to ensure that results of an election truly reflect the voters’ choice. In the
election of 2000, the MPRP got just 51 percent of the total votes, but won 72
seats in Parliament. A  Swedish organization
later called this “an example of an extremely bad election” as party with just
about half the votes got 93-94 percent of seats.

 What about the suggestion that a party
announces the full list of its candidates before voting?

L.Bold’s draft
allows voters to choose both the party and the candidate.   

 Will the law about political parties have
to be changed if the election system is changed?

If the system
is changed, this is likely. If there is just one nationwide constituency, it will
have the names of 76 candidates from each party. If there are 10 constituencies,
the number of candidates will be 7 or 8. The party will decide whose name will
be placed higher in its list. There must be a new law to have the same rules
for every party.

Does this mean a party cannot have its
own procedures?

These
internal procedures also come under the political party law. This way, the fairness
of the candidates’ list will be assured.

Bold’s draft proposing circling the
name of the candidate and the party is said to be following the Constitution’s
reference that “voters have the right to choose the representative directly”.
How is this different from the other draft?

Both drafts suggest
this. The working group’s draft proposes a list of 76 candidates while L.Bold’s
will have, say,10.

 Some feel choosing from 76 names given
by each party would be cumbersome.

This is true.
If there are 10 parties, there may be 760 candidates and the viter will find it
difficult to choose one. Bold’s draft appears to be more practical.  Making the constituencies bigger than they are
now is a way to control the role of money.

What are the other benefits of the proportional
system? Will it make the parties more responsible?

Elements from
the proportional system must be used to make political parties more responsible.
If there were no parties and anyone can stand for election, 76 individuals will
be chosen. Everywhere, political parties select the candidates and take the
final responsibility for their performance. By choosing the proportional
system, we are getting closer to this way.

What do you mean by getting closer?
Wouldn’t it be better to just implement the proportional system, instead of losing
time getting closer?

There is the
Constitution to think of. This has to be changed, if the best option is chosen.
Both drafts worked with the assumption that the State Constitution will not be
changed.  

 Why must the two drafts be discussed
together?

They have
good ideas that must be combined. If we really want to improve the election
system, we shall have to amend the Constitution. Making the constituencies
bigger is a way to utilize the experience of a candidate chosen from a small
soum who will not work only in that region. Bold’s draft proposes a brand new
thing – election geography. This will allow those elected to work for the
entire country, not just for the constituency that chose him. MPs are chosen to
solve the problems of Mongolia.
We have the civil representatives’ assemblies to solve the problems of regions.

If this is the general thinking, why
cannot we amend the State Constitution now?

We cannot
anticipate what Parliament will finally decide.

 Let’s say there will be a need to
change the Constitution. Will this be possible?

If we adopt a
system that will not “directly choose” MPs, then amending the Constitution will
be necessary. But this can be done only after taking the opinion of the people.