In the Westminster-style parliamentary tradition of democracy, with a first-past-the-post electoral system, the candidate who wins his constituency is the one who will represent the people in parliament. He or she is “the winner who takes it all”. General elections in such polities usually translate the people’s will into comfortable majorities in legislative chambers. This is so despite the fact that often only about 35 to 40 % of all voters elected this “winner” (or winning party) and is still short of a majority.

General elections in the UK continued to produce these kinds of results for the last 50 years. A single party with 35 to 40% of total votes could command 55 to 60% of the seats in parliament. The second party, with 25 to 30% of the votes, would get about 28 to 31% of the seats and the third party with 20 to 25% of the votes would get 8- 9% of the seats. The winning party would govern with a comfortable majority in the legislative chamber. This political system suggests stability. One party rules, the others are in opposition. There is no need for compromise and coalitions, at least not between parties even if the need for compromise within parties and coalitions might be common and as widespread as ever. The outside world, however, is left with the impression that coalescing and compromising either do not exist at all or have no tangible value in this type of democracy. Competition is the main political value; competition between political parties and their ideologies for the support of the voters.

So far so good, one would think. That’s how far the myth goes. In reality things are usually more complicated. We find first-past-the-post electoral systems producing multi-party landscapes. And we find coalitions, some of them rather long-term, between parties (Australia) and party alliances as well (Malaysia). Even in presidential systems coalitions and coalition governments can be found. With the exception maybe to the United Kingdom until very recently, coalitions and coalition government were judged and assessed in this light. The depictions of coalitions speak for themselves. One talks of ‘coalescing’, and of coalitions as a ‘necessary evil’, and a ‘marriage of convenience’, which suggests the inferior quality of such arrangements and the values they are based on. The nature of such government is deemed a ”compromise” which is also derogatorily called ‘false’, ‘foul’ and even ‘very fishy’. Moreover, coalition governments are usually described as ‘weak’ and ‘unstable’, very much in contrast to one-party governments, which are naturally seen as ‘strong’, ‘united’ and ‘stable’. With this value- charged view, two of the most important democratic values, compromise and coalescing, which are at the heart of any political democratic behaviour, are desecrated and derogated.

That the above negative stereotypes dominate public thinking and debate was obvious during the press conference of May 12, 2010 by David Cameron and Nick Clegg, when the two men announced and explained the rationale and functioning of the first British coalition government since the end of the Second World War. Representatives of international news agencies and senior journalists and political commentators alike demonstrated to the viewers their own narrow understanding of the concept behind ‘coalitions’ and ‘coalition government’. The very fact that two previously fiercely competing political parties could now form and unite behind one government was inconceivable to the journalists. And doubts that such an arrangement could work were vividly expressed. Could two opposing camps of political ideology unite behind a coalition program of government with shared responsibilities and joint action? Could this government speak with one voice to the public and share duties? Here is the beauty of coalition politics, which shows the voters that divides can be bridged, an agreement can be reached by compromise and that out of a process of negotiations a coalition government can arise. This coalition government unites former foes and binds them to common objectives. For this to happen, major shifts in the political culture and mores of a polity are prerequisites. Political actors have to learn the rules, strategies and tactics necessary for such an arrangement to work. The public has to accept that their political representatives translate the people’s mandate into practical politics through negotiation. In the process rivals become partners who govern based on broad agreements of a new coalition.

That such government can be stable is convincingly demonstrated by Germany, where coalition governments between very different political parties have reigned almost uninterrupted for the last 60 years. How such governments come into being and what mechanisms they create in order to become operational is described in this essay by Sebastian Braun. Usually the professional preparation of a coalition is an important factor in the success of a coalition government. However, it is in no way a guarantee that the subsequent government will in effect work and endure. The latest governing coalition in Germany is maybe a case in point. However, clear is also that without careful preparation and no professional set-up of the mechanisms and structures coalition governments need, coalitions are certainly doomed to fail. I hope that the readers of this text gain some insights into coalition politics as practiced in Germany. I also hope that this analysis inspires and encourages people to think beyond the current frontiers and thereby change the paradigms pertaining to the assessment of continental parliamentary democracies. Coalescing and compromising are values which we democrats should treasure, and not loathe.

Download the publication here.

Dr. Rainer Adam

Regional Director for Southeast and East Asia

Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom