Broad application of the Secret ballot system in the legislature does not promote legislative accountability

The concept of the secret ballot has been a long-held practice among democracies since 1856, when it was introduced in Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia.

This concept has since spread across the world and is accepted as an integral part of democratic political rights.

A ‘secret ballot’ is a method of voting in which the voter’s identity remains anonymous as the voter completes their vote in a public polling station where secrecy is observed to create an environment that discourages vote buying and coercion of the voter at the time of vote.

There are four shades of ballot secrecy: untraceable voting, anonymous voting, private voting, and confidential voting.

Untraceable voting is the strongest level of secrecy, in which no one can know the voter’s recorded vote. In anonymous voting, the voter’s recorded vote is visible to the voter but not to others. In private voting, the voter can keep their recorded vote a secret but choose to reveal their vote to others. Finally, confidential voting is when a voter can keep their recorded vote a secret, but they are visible to certain officials for the purposes of auditing the votes.

Secret voting in public elections is currently judged essential to ensuring that voters remain anonymous to allow for political privacy and to protect voters from any means of unfair voter influencing, threats, blackmail, scare tactics, or external attempts of bribery or coercion.

The 1992 constitution of Ghana, Article 49 (1) makes the secret ballot the system of voting for public election or referendum. The constitution under article 104 (4) also requires that where parliament is considering an amendment to the constitution or any other law or the removal of any person under the constitution the practice of secret ballot should prevail.

The standing orders of parliament orders 10(3) and 109 also make the secret ballot system the method of voting with respect to the election of the speaker of parliament, the amendment of the constitution, and the appointment or removal of any persons appointed under the constitution. Unlike in the case of the constitution where there is no implicit indication of a secret vote requirement for the appointment of persons under the constitution, except in the case of the speaker of parliament, the standing orders of parliament have included secret balloting for the appointment of persons under the constitution.

On the international stage Article 21 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both also set a requirement for the secret vote in public elections.

Clearly, the benefits of using the method of the secret ballot for public elections such as elections of the president, and the peoples’ representatives (members of parliament (MP)) and at the local level elections at the district level remains very clear, such as: enabling the voter to exercise their vote without fear, preserving voter anonymity so that votes cannot be linked to voters, respecting the individuality of voting, and enabling all voters to make their choices freely.

However, the use of secret balloting in parliamentary process is prone to the increased risk of corruption and should be applied for limited cases as per the provision of Article 104 (4) of the constitution. The secret ballot is subject to a higher risk of corruption since it makes it easier for an individual member of parliament to sell their votes to the highest bidder without fear of being caught. This can undermine the integrity of the legislative process and erode public trust in government.

In the context of possible erosion of public trust in government, legitimate questions arise on the prudence of broad application of secret balloting by the peoples’ representatives in parliament; Does the secret ballot system work well? How does it impact transparency and accountability? Would the open ballot system better promote transparency and accountability and be an important barometer for the citizens to assess their elected representatives?

Would the open ballot system better empower the citizenry to make informed choices at the next election while reducing the risk of corruption of individual MPs by interest groups since the MPs would have to own their voting records?

Having asked all these questions above let me bring your attention to some major shortfalls of the secret ballot concept and how it places the members of parliament in a position to make inappropriate legislative decisions hiding under the cover of the secrecy of the ballot.

The secret vote detaches the peoples’ representative identity from the legislative decision-making process often creating a wide window for taking irresponsible decisions as they handle it as a personal task rather than exercising a mandate on behalf of the people to whom they are ultimately accountable.

The principle of democracy requires that the people should be able to scrutinise the actions of all decision-makers. Making opaque decision under the veil of the secret vote makes public scrutiny impossible. In other words, as a matter of principle, any element of secrecy in the exercise of a peoples’ mandate cannot be reconciled with the concept of democracy. It also denies the MPs the opportunity to defend their votes.

From the above, it is clear that a secret ballot though a useful tool in general elections may not be that appropriate for use in the parliamentary decision-making process. Overall, open voting in a parliamentary democracy can be a useful tool for promoting transparency, accountability, and reducing the risk of corruption of MPs in the legislative process while enriching the democratic process.

The term 'open ballot system' also referred to as the recorded vote system is used to describe votes in which participants’ choices are not confidential. It is the opposite of a secret ballot. Most legislatures around the world where true democracy is practiced tend to use this method. This method is more suitable for the legislature as it enables voters to hold their representatives to account for what they voted for and against and provides the elected representative with the opportunity to defend the exercise of their votes.

Let me provide here some of the strong merits of open voting in a parliamentary democracy. Open voting promotes transparency in the legislative process by allowing the public to see how individual MPs vote on specific issues. This can help to hold MPs accountable to their constituents and promote public trust in the democratic process.

Secondly, open voting makes it easier for voters to hold their representatives accountable for their actions and decisions in Parliament. MPs who consistently vote against the interests of their constituents may face electoral consequences in the next election.

Also, open voting reduces the risk of corruption as it makes it more difficult for individual members of parliament to sell their votes and hide their voting under the veil of a secret vote.

Finally, open voting can help to promote party discipline, as MPs are more likely to vote in line with their party's position if their votes are public. This can help to ensure that the government's legislative agenda is carried out effectively.

Let me also share some possible drawbacks and risks of the open voting system. These include the pressure on MPs to vote a certain way, even if it goes against their personal beliefs.

Polarisation in the political system, as MPs may be more likely to vote along party lines rather than based on the merits of individual bills or issues. Last but not least, open voting can make MPs more vulnerable to intimidation and threats from interest groups and others who want to influence the legislative process.

Having provided the potential risk and drawbacks of open voting here are a number of suggestions to mitigate these risks.

Protection of MPs: Parliament can provide security measures to ensure the safety and security of MPs who may be vulnerable to intimidation or threats. This can include providing bodyguards, secure transportation, and the enactment and implementation of laws to prohibit harassment or violence against MPs.

Education and awareness: Parliament can promote a culture of independent decision-making among MPs and the public. This can include training programs, public forums, and campaigns to encourage critical thinking and independent decision-making.

Whistleblower protection: strengthen and operationalise the whistleblower act to encourage individuals to come forward with information without fear of retaliation. This can help to uncover corruption or other misconduct in the legislative process.

Independent oversight: Parliament can establish an independent parliamentary ethics body to monitor the legislative process and investigate allegations of misconduct or corruption. This can help to promote transparency and accountability and deter inappropriate behaviours by MPs.

Strengthening parliamentary rules and procedures: Parliament can strengthen its rules and procedures to ensure that MPs are free to vote according to their conscience without fear of retribution or punishment from their political parties.

Strengthening the role of parliamentary committees: Parliamentary committees can be strengthened to ensure that bills are thoroughly scrutinised and debated, and that committee reports are made public to ensure transparency and accountability in the legislative process.