Actually I didn't deal with regional top-up seats in my particular end section or observations. What I did was point out that the basic dichotomy was between the political systems of these three countries, which tend to centralize power, and the nature of electoral reform, which is to decentralize it. So there is a basic conundrum at work, I suggested, with regard to electoral reform, because we have two different directions going at the same time—centralization and decentralization.
What I'm saying is that this conundrum has to be dealt with, and it's especially concerning, I think, for national leaderships that have to deal with this issue especially in their external or foreign relationships, because in no other area, perhaps, is the need for concerted, coherent direction as necessary as in external or foreign relations. You have electoral reform, which has the ability to decentralize the power structure at the national level, and what you have, therefore, is a collision course between the electoral reform and the all-over direction of political leadership, which is to centralize.
I go through a list of items in my paper that point out the nature of such centralization and the need to cohere power among parties or other bodies, so I posed a question. I think that is the nature of the contribution of this paper.