Bepi Pezzulli on why Italy is a cautionary tale for Proportional Representation.
In the Parliamentary session of December 3, 2024, Sarah Olney MP (Liberal Democrats) introduced a bill advocating proportional representation (PR) for UK elections, citing issues with the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.
She argued that FPTP has led to disproportionate election results, reduced voter turnout, and disengagement, calling for the single transferable vote (STV) system to ensure fairness and stronger democratic legitimacy.
The bill passed its initial stage by a narrow majority (138 to 136) and will be debated further in January 2025. Supporters include MPs from various parties and public advocates of electoral reform.
PR vs FPTP
Electoral systems influence democratic governance, directly shaping both stability and effectiveness of governments. Proponents of PR argue it better reflects voter preferences. In contrast, detractors observe that majoritarian systems like FPTP have a stronger track record of providing durable and accountable governments.
Italy serves as a compelling case study of the pitfalls of PR. Its experience highlights how the PR system can breed dysfunctional governance and hinder effective leadership. While PR offers broader inclusivity across the political spectrum, it often does so at the cost of government stability. The resulting governing coalitions, forged through backroom deals and political horse-trading, can undermine electoral momentum and yield fragmented, ineffectual leadership. In contrast, FPTP amplifies the mandate of the winning party, delivering decisive majorities that promote stability and accountability. By favouring a streamlined, typically bipartisan system, FPTP minimises fragmentation and ensures clearer lines of accountability to the electorate.
The Italian “Prima Repubblica”: PR and persistent instability
From 1948 to 1993, Italy’s “Prima Repubblica” (First Republic) was governed under a PR system. In theory, PR ensured that even minor parties had representation in parliament. However, in practice, this system produced decades of political turbulence. Between 1946 and 1993, Italy experienced 48 governments in just 47 years—an average duration of below one year per government. This was a clear consequence of PR, which incentivised fragmentation and unstable coalitions.
Statistics speak volumes: Italian governments during the PR era rarely completed full terms. As soon as coalition tensions arose or minor parties sought more power, they would withdraw their support, triggering yet another government collapse. Consequently, policy-making was sluggish, and Italian citizens grew accustomed to a revolving-door government that struggled to address pressing national issues with coherence and consistency.
The shift to majoritarian rule: Stability and effective governance
By the early 1990s, Italy’s instability under PR reached a tipping point, leading to sweeping electoral reform. In 1993, the system was shifted towards a more majoritarian model. The “Mattarellum” law introduced a “mixed-member” system where 75% of seats were elected by plurality, and only 25% by proportional representation. The move ushered in the “Seconda Repubblica” (Second Republic) and its impact was immediate and positive: Italy entered a period of unprecedented political stability. Governments under this system averaged closer to four years in office, giving elected leaders the time to carry out their agendas. Italian politics became less fragmented, encouraging larger and more durable coalitions and reducing the influence of small, extremist parties on national policy. The shift saw Italy’s first stable governments in decades, allowing leaders like Silvio Berlusconi (Atlanticist, right wing) and Romano Prodi (Internationalist, left wing) to implement reforms and promote sustained economic growth. For nearly two decades, this stability supported Italy’s recovery and modernization efforts, contrasting starkly with the chaos of the Prima Repubblica.
Reverting to PR Elements: A Return to Instability
In 2017, under Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, Italy reintroduced a proportional component to its electoral system through the “Rosatellum” law, diluting the majoritarian rule that had brought stability. This change has resulted in a resurgence of political instability. Since then, Italy has seen four Prime Ministers in just six years, and coalition parties frequently clash, leading to policy deadlock. Once again, the nation finds itself in the throes of governmental instability, with coalitions forming and dissolving at a pace reminiscent of the Prima Repubblica.
The advantages of FPTP
Italy’s political history illustrates that PR, while theoretically inclusive, often comes at the cost of stability and effective leadership. By contrast, majoritarian systems like FPTP encourage the formation of majority governments capable of lasting full terms, ensuring policy continuity and reducing the influence of minor parties with narrow agendas. Italy’s experience serves as a cautionary tale: PR often fails to provide the stable governance that modern democracies require. FPTP, on the other hand, stands as a proven system for achieving electoral effectiveness and governmental stability.
This difference in systemic outcomes underscores a crucial consideration: FPTP favours incumbency. Consequently, disruptive leaders should have an incentive to attempt to take over existing party structures rather than splintering off with start-up parties. This incentive further strengthens the system’s capacity to deliver lasting policy and continuity.
PR promises inclusion but delivers exclusion
PR is a double-edged sword. While it promises inclusivity, it can also produce governments that fail to reflect electoral outcomes. On this count too Italy serves as a warning example. During the Cold War, the “conventio ad excludendum”—an unwritten pact to exclude the Italian Communist Party (PCI) from power—led democratic forces to form coalitions not to govern for a shared vision but to block the communists. Despite consistently securing significant electoral support, often exceeding 30% of the vote in national elections, the PCI was never allowed to govern. While sidelining a party with such dangerous affiliations was justified and praiseworthy in that context, the precedent highlights how PR systems can marginalize challenger parties even when they achieve substantial backing in the ballot boxes.
By contrast, FPTP did not prevent the rise of a challenger party in the UK. The 1920s marked a dramatic transformation in British politics, as the Labour Party supplanted the Liberal Party to become the main opposition to the Conservatives. This shift was the result of profound social, economic, and political changes that Labour skillfully navigated while the Liberals faltered.
The end of World War I ushered in a new political landscape. The Representation of the People Act 1918 significantly expanded the electorate, enfranchising millions of working-class men and some women. Labour, with its strong ties to trade unions and a clear focus on social reform, appealed directly to these newly empowered voters. By contrast, the Liberal Party, traditionally rooted in free trade and classical liberalism, struggled to adapt to this new, more egalitarian political environment.
Compounding this was the internal strife within the Liberal Party, which had been a dominant force in British politics for decades. Divisions between the factions led by David Lloyd George and H. H. Asquith rendered the Liberals increasingly ineffective and fragmented. This lack of unity, combined with the party’s failure to address pressing post-war issues such as unemployment and industrial unrest, further eroded its support.
Labour seized this opportunity to establish itself as the real alternative to the Conservatives. Its platform, focused on addressing the needs of the working class through policies aimed at improving wages, housing, and welfare, resonated with voters disillusioned by the Liberal Party’s inability to deliver substantive change. Labour’s success in the general elections of 1922 and 1923 demonstrated its growing appeal, and its brief stint in government under Ramsay MacDonald in 1924 underscored that labour was now capable of rising to power.
By the end of the decade, Labour had cemented its position as one of the two dominant parties in British politics, relegating the Liberals to a marginal role. This transformation marked the end of a political era and the beginning of a new one, in which the Labour Party emerged as the standard-bearer of progressive politics in Britain.
In today’s political landscape, Reform UK might risk falling victim of a “conventio ad excludendum” of its own. Under PR, coalitions of mainstream parties could set aside their political differences and unite to keep it party out of government, prioritising political survival over ideological coherence. This strategic collaboration, often born from the need to maintain power, can occur regardless of the number of MPs Reform UK secures. In such a system, the drive for survival in a fragmented political landscape may lead to decisions that undermine true democratic representation, as coalition-building takes precedence over reflecting the will of the electorate.
By contrast, FPTP offers Reform UK a path to greater influence by focusing on territorial strongholds, where it can win decisively and translate local support into meaningful representation.
Unifying the right: Coalition vs. consolidation in Australia and Canada
The UK’s conservative vote is currently split between the Tories and Reform UK, a division not unprecedented in other countries and not fatal to the fortunes of conservative politics, regardless of the electoral system.
In Australia (with a mix of preferential voting and proportional representation – STV), the centre-right spectrum is represented by a coalition of two distinct parties—the Liberal Party and the National Party—that work together to consolidate conservative metropolitan and rural interests. This permanent coalition arrangement allows for a unified conservative front despite differences in ideology and policy focus between urban and rural areas. During elections, this coalition structure ensures a combined right-wing vote, often making it competitive against a predominantly left-leaning opposition.
In contrast, under Canada’s FPTP system, right-wing evolution took a different path under Stephen Harper, who first led the Reform Party, a movement primarily focused on internal Canadian issues. Recognising the need for a united conservative force, Harper worked to merge the Reform Party with the Progressive Conservatives, creating a broad-based Conservative Party that could appeal across regional and ideological lines. This unity under a single conservative banner ultimately allowed the party to grow its base, forming a cohesive alternative to the liberal-leaning parties.
Both cases demonstrate how different strategies can unify the right regardless of the voting system, although Australia maintains separate identities under a coalition model, while Canada achieved a more integrated conservative identity through consolidation.
Bepi Pezzulli is a Solicitor specialised in Governance & Leadership as well as the Political Director of Italia Atlantica.
Follow Bepi on X here.
