Coalition Governments: Parliamentary Democracy in Dilemma?
Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
October 07, 2009
A coalition government is a cabinet of a parliamentary government in which several parties work together. The usual reason given for this arrangement is that no party on its own can achieve a majority in the parliament. A coalition government might also be created in a time of national difficulty or crisis. Coalition cabinets are common in countries in which a parliament is proportionally representative, with several organized political parties represented. It usually does not appear in countries in which the cabinet is chosen by the executive rather than by a lower house, such as in the United States. In semi-presidential systems such as France, where the president formally appoints a Prime Minister but the government itself must still maintain the confidence of parliament, coalition governments occur quite regularly.
Countries which often operate with coalition cabinets include Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Turkey, Israel, New Zealand, Kosovo, Pakistan and India. Switzerland has been ruled by a coalition of the four strongest parties in Parliament from 1959 to 2008, called the "Magic Formula."
Before further discussion on "coalition government", we should argue the necessity of coalition government. In Parliamentary systems, when no one political party has an outright majority then a hung parliament came into being. A hung parliament will force a coalition government, a minority government or dissolution of parliament. Hung parliaments can also arise when slim government majorities are eroded by by-election defeats and defection of Members of Parliament to opposition parties.
There are two schools of thoughts regarding the stability of coalition government and single majority party government. Political Think Tanks and experts say that cabinets based on a coalition with majority in a parliament, ideally, are more stable and long-lived than minority cabinets because of most of the political parties are on board and they have no fear of vote of confidence against government. Majority governments based on a single party are typically even more stable, as long as their majority can be maintained without the blackmailing of their coalition partners.
Advocates of proportional representation suggest that a coalition government leads to more consensus-based politics, in that a government comprising differing parties (often based on different ideologies) would need to harmonize in regard to governmental policy. Another stated advantage is that a coalition government better reflects the popular opinion of the electorate within a country.
Those who disapprove of coalition governments believe that such governments have a tendency to be fractious and prone to disharmony. This is because coalitions would necessarily include different parties with differing beliefs and who, therefore, may not always agree on the correct path for governmental policy. Sometimes the results of an election are such that the coalitions which are mathematically most probable are ideologically infeasible. A second difficulty might be the ability of minor parties to play "kingmaker" and particularly in close elections, gain far more for their support than their vote would otherwise indicate.
Coalition governments have also been criticized of sustaining a consensus on issues when disagreement and the consequent discussion would be more fruitful. To forge a consensus, the leaders of ruling coalition parties can agree to silence their disagreements on an issue to unify the coalition against the opposition. The coalition partners, if they control the parliamentary majority, can collude to make the parliamentary discussion on the issue irrelevant by consistently disregarding the arguments of the opposition and voting against the opposition's proposals — even if there is disagreement within the ruling parties about the issue.
Powerful parties can also act in an oligocratic way to form an alliance to stifle the growth of emerging parties. Of course, such an event is rare in coalition governments when compared to two-party systems, which typically exists because of stifling the growth of emerging parties, often through discriminatory nomination rules regulations and plurality voting systems, etc.
A single, more powerful party can shape the policies of the coalition disproportionately. Smaller or less powerful parties can be intimidated to not openly disagree. In order to maintain the coalition, they will have to vote against the party's platform in the parliament. If they do not, the party has to leave the government and loses executive power.
Coalition governments in Pakistan
Pakistanīs current political arrangement represents the broadest-ever coalition of political parties in Pakistanīs history. After the election 2008, Pakistan's two main opposition parties agreed to form a coalition government after they won the most seats in general election. It included the Pakistan Peoples Party, Pakistan Muslim League-N, Awami National Party, Jamiat Ullema Islam-F and independents. Three provinces (NWFP, Balochistan and Punjab) were installed coalition governments. Finally the PPP and MQM were setting up a coalition government in Sindh. The coalition government in Pakistan finally had their way and ended the nine year rule of President Pervez Musharraf. On 18 August 2008, he resigned in the face of an impending impeachment by Parliament.
After few months, Nawaz Sharif pulled his party out of the government, though he said his PML (N) party would continue to support the PPP-led government in Parliament, rather than sit in outright opposition. Similarly PML-N and PPP mutually benefit from government in Punjab.
This ushers in an era of coalition-based and cooperative politics. Stability under this system depends on power-sharing among the political parties on the basis of a common agenda rather than unanimity of views.
This dilutes the individual party programmes and moves the parties towards an agreed political agenda which may expand as they learn to work together. The īon the jobī experience of coalition partners is crucial to shaping the future of their partnership.
The differences among coalition partners can be resolved or kept within manageable limits as long as they work toward consensus-building as members of a team whose success is viewed as dependent on the contribution of each member. However, if a partner in the coalition develops an aura of self-righteousness or comes to the conclusion that he can pursue his political agenda by himself, coalition arrangements will run into trouble.
Pakistan has had coalition governments in the past. During 1954-58, Pakistan had coalition governments at the federal level. A similar pattern existed during 1988-1999. Some of the provinces had two or more parties forming the government during 1954-58, 1972-77 and 1988-99.
The PPP and the PML-N appear to have learnt from their bitter experience under the Musharraf rule. PML-N is acting as an Opposition in Federal Government but still the strong bond among the two parties is based on the realisation that their cooperation will rehabilitate civilian political rule while their split will benefit the military, the bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies. The lessons of the years of political wilderness impel them to work together. Even if they contest the next elections independently, they will compete with each other within the limits of the constitution and law. They may develop differences on policy issues but as long as they view partnership as serving their cause, they can resolve these differences.
Another dimension, that of intra-party issues, pertains to group politics in each party. These problems have been more noticeable in the PPP than the PML-N. The delay in the selection of Prime Minister and the cabinet members was indicative of this. Similarly the PML-N is likely to face internal pressure on the distribution of rewards of power. But as long as the leadership of both parties maintain close interaction with its activists and second line leaders and pay attention to their concerns the parties may not face serious internal problems.
The principal partners of the current coalition want this experiment to succeed in order to initiate new politics of cooperation, accommodation and sharing of power. This goal can be achieved only if the top leadership recognises that coalitions do not succeed without a sustained conscious effort on the part of its partners to make it a success. They should also recognise that coalitions often falter due to excessive use of patronage. As far as Pakistanīs case is concerned, we may say that Coalition Governments will not creating any dilemma in Parliamentary Democracy of Pakistan.
Countries which often operate with coalition cabinets include Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Turkey, Israel, New Zealand, Kosovo, Pakistan and India. Switzerland has been ruled by a coalition of the four strongest parties in Parliament from 1959 to 2008, called the "Magic Formula."
Before further discussion on "coalition government", we should argue the necessity of coalition government. In Parliamentary systems, when no one political party has an outright majority then a hung parliament came into being. A hung parliament will force a coalition government, a minority government or dissolution of parliament. Hung parliaments can also arise when slim government majorities are eroded by by-election defeats and defection of Members of Parliament to opposition parties.
There are two schools of thoughts regarding the stability of coalition government and single majority party government. Political Think Tanks and experts say that cabinets based on a coalition with majority in a parliament, ideally, are more stable and long-lived than minority cabinets because of most of the political parties are on board and they have no fear of vote of confidence against government. Majority governments based on a single party are typically even more stable, as long as their majority can be maintained without the blackmailing of their coalition partners.
Advocates of proportional representation suggest that a coalition government leads to more consensus-based politics, in that a government comprising differing parties (often based on different ideologies) would need to harmonize in regard to governmental policy. Another stated advantage is that a coalition government better reflects the popular opinion of the electorate within a country.
Those who disapprove of coalition governments believe that such governments have a tendency to be fractious and prone to disharmony. This is because coalitions would necessarily include different parties with differing beliefs and who, therefore, may not always agree on the correct path for governmental policy. Sometimes the results of an election are such that the coalitions which are mathematically most probable are ideologically infeasible. A second difficulty might be the ability of minor parties to play "kingmaker" and particularly in close elections, gain far more for their support than their vote would otherwise indicate.
Coalition governments have also been criticized of sustaining a consensus on issues when disagreement and the consequent discussion would be more fruitful. To forge a consensus, the leaders of ruling coalition parties can agree to silence their disagreements on an issue to unify the coalition against the opposition. The coalition partners, if they control the parliamentary majority, can collude to make the parliamentary discussion on the issue irrelevant by consistently disregarding the arguments of the opposition and voting against the opposition's proposals — even if there is disagreement within the ruling parties about the issue.
Powerful parties can also act in an oligocratic way to form an alliance to stifle the growth of emerging parties. Of course, such an event is rare in coalition governments when compared to two-party systems, which typically exists because of stifling the growth of emerging parties, often through discriminatory nomination rules regulations and plurality voting systems, etc.
A single, more powerful party can shape the policies of the coalition disproportionately. Smaller or less powerful parties can be intimidated to not openly disagree. In order to maintain the coalition, they will have to vote against the party's platform in the parliament. If they do not, the party has to leave the government and loses executive power.
Coalition governments in Pakistan
Pakistanīs current political arrangement represents the broadest-ever coalition of political parties in Pakistanīs history. After the election 2008, Pakistan's two main opposition parties agreed to form a coalition government after they won the most seats in general election. It included the Pakistan Peoples Party, Pakistan Muslim League-N, Awami National Party, Jamiat Ullema Islam-F and independents. Three provinces (NWFP, Balochistan and Punjab) were installed coalition governments. Finally the PPP and MQM were setting up a coalition government in Sindh. The coalition government in Pakistan finally had their way and ended the nine year rule of President Pervez Musharraf. On 18 August 2008, he resigned in the face of an impending impeachment by Parliament.
After few months, Nawaz Sharif pulled his party out of the government, though he said his PML (N) party would continue to support the PPP-led government in Parliament, rather than sit in outright opposition. Similarly PML-N and PPP mutually benefit from government in Punjab.
This ushers in an era of coalition-based and cooperative politics. Stability under this system depends on power-sharing among the political parties on the basis of a common agenda rather than unanimity of views.
This dilutes the individual party programmes and moves the parties towards an agreed political agenda which may expand as they learn to work together. The īon the jobī experience of coalition partners is crucial to shaping the future of their partnership.
The differences among coalition partners can be resolved or kept within manageable limits as long as they work toward consensus-building as members of a team whose success is viewed as dependent on the contribution of each member. However, if a partner in the coalition develops an aura of self-righteousness or comes to the conclusion that he can pursue his political agenda by himself, coalition arrangements will run into trouble.
Pakistan has had coalition governments in the past. During 1954-58, Pakistan had coalition governments at the federal level. A similar pattern existed during 1988-1999. Some of the provinces had two or more parties forming the government during 1954-58, 1972-77 and 1988-99.
The PPP and the PML-N appear to have learnt from their bitter experience under the Musharraf rule. PML-N is acting as an Opposition in Federal Government but still the strong bond among the two parties is based on the realisation that their cooperation will rehabilitate civilian political rule while their split will benefit the military, the bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies. The lessons of the years of political wilderness impel them to work together. Even if they contest the next elections independently, they will compete with each other within the limits of the constitution and law. They may develop differences on policy issues but as long as they view partnership as serving their cause, they can resolve these differences.
Another dimension, that of intra-party issues, pertains to group politics in each party. These problems have been more noticeable in the PPP than the PML-N. The delay in the selection of Prime Minister and the cabinet members was indicative of this. Similarly the PML-N is likely to face internal pressure on the distribution of rewards of power. But as long as the leadership of both parties maintain close interaction with its activists and second line leaders and pay attention to their concerns the parties may not face serious internal problems.
The principal partners of the current coalition want this experiment to succeed in order to initiate new politics of cooperation, accommodation and sharing of power. This goal can be achieved only if the top leadership recognises that coalitions do not succeed without a sustained conscious effort on the part of its partners to make it a success. They should also recognise that coalitions often falter due to excessive use of patronage. As far as Pakistanīs case is concerned, we may say that Coalition Governments will not creating any dilemma in Parliamentary Democracy of Pakistan.
Print
Email
