Coalition governments are commonplace of political cultures around the world. They are constitutional, legal, morally acceptable, politically justifiable and accommodate more political spectra into a large single view. But how does a party do justice to a vote it received for itself and not for a coalition? A vote cast in favour of one party also means a vote against other parties. But if all parties join hands after election for the sake of power, will the resulting coalition’s mandate will be as legitimised as the mandate of a single party? When we go to vote, we vote for a party, not for a coalition. How does a party know that its voters will be happy with whatever coalition it forms to get power?
For instance, if I vote for PTI and it enters into a coalition with PMLs to form government, where does my vote stand? When I voted for PTI, it also meant that I was voting against PMLs, but now as PTI and PMLs are sitting together, what will happen to my electoral say as I had voted for PTI against PMLs?
Also, if a coalition government is formed, it remains vulnerable to blackmailing by its political components and needs to do everything to keep everyone into the fold. Its internal bickering will never allow it to perform according to a specific agenda because every coalition partner will have different priorities.
Why we cannot have a system whereby party with the highest number of seats or votes form the government, even if it has only 50 seats or 1 million votes throughout the country? If coalitions are prohibited, no party will need to go any extra mile to form a coalition and then do everything right or wrong to keep it intact. There will be no room for ‘coalition blackmailing’ and the ruling party will be able to pursue its manifesto with single-mindedness.
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
I agree with you but we don't live in ideal world where a party will win two thirds majority or even a simple majority in some cases. Politics is the name of working with people from other parties. If the parties share a common agenda for the country there should be no problem in joining them to go forward. The parties will have to make minor adjustments to accommodate others, but if it's a coalition of plunder and black mail then it's better to let the others run the course provided the remaining parties are able to cobble a government or in the worse scenario go for re election.
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
This is a very valid point, as the concept of coalitions has at times brought together some of the most odd couples we have ever seen. PPP joined hands with PML-Q, the guys who they had been directly blaming for Benazir's murder, till the day PML-Q decided to support PPP in their quest for governance. How did this sit with PPP supporters? Specially with Benazir's kids? Its hard to determine, as there is widespread blind patronage of parties across Pakistan.
The solution you suggested does make sense, otherwise democracy simply seems to be widely accepted dictatorship, nothing else.
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
If the parties share a common agenda for the country there should be no problem in going ahead.
If two parties have "a common agenda", then how come they are two different politicial entities? Why every single individual must construct a mosque of its own?
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
Who ever wins the next elections I don't think will have a simple majority, therefore the government would be of the party which is good in forming alliances maybe ppp from the current lot.
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
Who ever wins the next elections I don't think will have a simple majority, therefore the government would be of the party which is good in forming alliances maybe ppp from the current lot.
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
I agree with you but we don't live in ideal world where a party will win two thirds majority or even a simple majority in some cases. Politics is the name of working with people from other parties. If the parties share a common agenda for the country there should be no problem in joining them to go forward. The parties will have to make minor adjustments to accommodate others, but if it's a coalition of plunder and black mail then it's better to let the others run the course provided the remaining parties are able to cobble a government or in the worse scenario go for re election.
The point is, all parties (claim to) want betterment for Pakistan. They all want to eradicate illiteracy, solve the electricity crisis, and create more provinces. It is the 'how' part they disagree on. And any coalition effectively means, putting the 'how' part aside for the length of the government, and working on bland issues that dont help the country on a broader scale. eg, when it comes to electricity, a PPP-ANP coalition will never go for Kalabagh dam.......a PPP-PML coalition will never agree on the provinces in southern Punjab, a PPP-MQM coalition will never agree on the division of Karachi/Sindh. These issues are the vote banks for at least one of the parties involved in the coalition, and they will never budge on that.
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
So we are basically heading for more of the same?
I think the vote would be more divided then before, as PTI will be in the equation as well. As things stand now PTI might be the winner in KP but ANP, PPP, PMLN and religious parties would have considerable seats. PMLN might be the winners in Punjab with PTI being second (as of today things might change as we near the elections) and PPP will have seats as well. Sindh will again be PPP and MQM, and maybe PMLN and PTI may chip in a few seats. In Balochistan JUI and nationalists will get their seats maybe PTI might get a few, but overall it will be a mixed house and I don't see anything wrong with that. The parties should have the capability to work with each other on one common agenda that's the betterment of the country (not plundering and looting the country). If PMLN and PTI are able to agree to some sort of arrangement before the elections the next elections are theirs.
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
look if the coalition is not working, and the lead party feels as if it is deviating away from its election goal (which is betterment of the country) or is being blackmailed then I think its reasonable to bid goodbye to the government and sit in opposition. In many countries coalition do work, even in Pakistan its working if we see it from the common objective (of plundering the country/black mailing) of the ruling coalition.
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
Coalition governments are commonplace of political cultures around the world. They are constitutional, legal, morally acceptable, politically justifiable and accommodate more political spectra into a large single view. But how does a party do justice to a vote it received for itself and not for a coalition? ....
Just a thought here. A wonderful topic. I was thinking to raise a similar topic in WA. Can we move this to WA and give a more global perspective. how do coalitions work across the globe. India for that matter had a single party rule for almost a long time. The coalition experiment in 1977 was a disaster and paved the way back for the congress. But these days coalitions are here to stay atleast in India. Have coalitions worked. I do not know. I would certainly prefer one single party to have absolute majority. Then there are other people who say that coalitions bring its own checks and balances.
Hope I have not derailed the topic. A brilliant topic. Just thought I would add my 2 cents.
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
coalition government works fine in other parts of the world, but if two parties are not based on same ideology, I just fail to understand how do they form coalition government. like PPP and PMLN did earlier, and it just didnt worked out because both were not on the same path. I think one party with absolute majority should be a given a chance to run the country, but chances are slim that in upcoming elections we will have one party with absolute majority of seats in the parliament. we might end up with the same parties again.
when was the last time Pakistan had majority government?
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
Even if a party gets a simple majority but still for passing constitutional amendments they will need the support of other parties (for getting the two third majority).
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
.....Why we cannot have a system whereby party with the highest number of seats or votes form the government, even if it has only 50 seats or 1 million votes throughout the country?....
that's something of a presidential system.
Political parties around the world lie along a spectrum of ideologies and parties with similar ideologies form coalitions. For example, a leftist party might form coalition with a center left party or a socialist party forms coalition with a labor party.
Our political parties change ideologies all the time and can shake hands with any other party that is convenient for them. Example is PPP's coalition with MQM and ANP. If you take a look at TV programmes one year ago when violence in Karachi was in full swing, these three parties were calling each other terrorist parties but for the sake of power, they are in coalition governments.
There is no harm in forming coalitions, IMO, as long as you do not compromise on your very basic ideologies and electoral promises. You have to live with people in a country with differing opinions and a coalition would provide input from a majority of those opinions.
Other option is presidential system which has been discussed in another thread.
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
Even if a party gets a simple majority but still for passing constitutional amendments they will need the support of other parties (for getting the two third majority).
If coalition governments are constitutionally prohibited, then new amendments will come into effect and condition of two-third majority will also be taken care of then.
But for the time being, we are talking about if, given our peculiar politicial practices, will it be of any use to do away with coalition government system?
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
Coalition governments are reality around the world and works pretty OK but those are nothing like coalition in Pakistan. Pakistani parties follow "saath luto tay saath phuto" model
Coalitions in Pakistan are made up of any gains by party leaders etc while in other parts of the world, parties make coalition to implement their agenda (or part of it) in which case voters get some closure.
For example, in Ontario, Liberal govt needed 1 vote to pass the budget and they have to look for other party for support. What did NDP do? they provided the vote given that Liberal modified the budge bill and added few items items that NDP ran in elections on (like additional tax for certain pay bracket etc) . So both parties got some of their agenda go through. However in Pakistan, party would have struck deal for getting 3 Ministers, 2 Advisers and Chairman post for he son of the leader of the party
Re: Coalition governments — contradiction in terms?
In the example that you gave, you vote for the PTI because you like its people and policies and your vote is against PML because you dislike PML's people and policies.
Now let's say PML wins 30% of the vote, more so than any other party, but not enough to form a government. It needs a coalition and approaches the PTI.
The PTI has a number of options.
1) Reject the offer, because the PTI voters voted for PTI policies and people, and they did not want to see the PML in power.
Advantages:
Remains true to PTI's voter base
Disadvantages:
a)By not being in government, PTI will have no opportunity to bring any of the policies that its voters want into existence, because the opposition not control policies.
b) If the PML finds like-minded allies and makes a coalition, it will be able to easily pass laws that PTI voters would hate.
2) Join the coalition to influence government
Advantages
a) By being in government, the PTI will have an opportunity to take control of certain ministries and run those ministries in a way that PTI voters want
b) By being a critical part of government, the PTI would be able to force the PML to dilute PML policies in a way that brings them closer to the type of policies that PTI voters want.
Disadvantages
PTI would not be able to deliver to PTI voters the exact same policies that the voters wanted; but it would enable the government's policies to be closer to what PTI voters want than if the PTI was not in the government.
3) Join the coalition to avoid some national politico-economic disaster
This is very rare and only happens when there is a crisis that must require a government to stave off disaster, but where elections don't lead to one party being able to govern on its own. An example of this is how Belgium did not have a government for 7 years as they couldn't agree to form a coalition, and under the existing legal arrangement, all government workers including the police and medical workers were about to stop getting paid.