Dear Editor,
I want to address the difference between a simple majority vote and an absolute majority vote as argued in the Court of Appeal ruling on last Friday, 21st March.
Some say that the Constitution ‘loosely’ or ‘prescriptively’ defines what a simple majority is and what an absolute majority is. They reason that because certain articles speak to the number of present members required to cast a vote, that is what determines a distinction between a simple and an absolute majority. For example, Article 168 (1) calls for “a majority of the votes of the members present and voting” (said to be loosely as a simple majority), while in contrast, Article 106 (6) calls for “a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly” (said to be loosely as an absolute majority). This deduction is inaccurate for the following reasons.
What needs to be understood is that majorities pronounced in Constitutions are deciding rules of what it takes to pass a decision, not rules that stem from the number of representatives that should be present—that itself is a necessary condition for the deciding rule to execute. In other words, we are confusing member composition with the electoral system required to decide winner from loser. More generally, that electoral system is called a majority vote, except, where necessarily, there is another qualification required, such as an ‘absolute’ or ‘super’ majority vote—the threshold values of which are arbitrarily determined by country or electoral system.
Furthermore, we see that both Articles, namely 168 (1) and 106 (7) demands the presence of “all the elected members.” The difference between the two is the deciding factor, i.e. ‘a majority’ vote and ‘two-thirds’ majority vote. So how can an absolute majority be determined based on the number of members present, i.e. “all the elected members”? If we examine closely both Articles, the constitution does prescribe the deciding factor or electoral system—that is, a majority vote. If there is anything to be considered ‘absolute’, it would be regarding member composition, not the deciding factor which is ‘a majority.’
To summarize, my view is that the Constitution is only making a distinction between the necessary conditions required to pass certain votes, i.e. how many members should be present. Some may want to define scenario one, ‘members present and voting’, a simple majority, or scenario two, ‘all members’, an absolute majority, but that is up to them and, indeed, for the courts to decide on. But it would be grossly inaccurate to do so because the only deciding factor or rule in both scenarios is prescribed, clearly and unambiguously, as “a majority” vote, i.e. ‘greater than half’, also known as a simple majority vote. So, it is important that clarity is emphasized in our rational, deductive arguments.
Yours faithfully,
Ferlin Pedro
