Collaborative government: Are coalitions the answer?

When the possibility of a coalition government sprang up before Christmas, many Canadians reacted with fear and outrage. Stoked by incendiary rhetoric of treason and coup d’état, they argued vehemently that they had not voted for a coalition, and that this represented an undemocratic and indefensible power grab. The opposition parties had not been elected to government, and they had no right to seize the power and responsibility of government, some Canadians said.

Meanwhile, other countries regarded the Canadian response with amazement. Coalitions as undemocratic? Coalitions as wrong? They have coalition governments all the time!

On March 12, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung sponsored several international visitors, including a German and a Dutch member of parliament, to share their view of coalition governments in a conference entitled “Till Elections Do Us Part: What Makes a Coalition Government Work?”

The European perspective provides quite a different point of view on coalition governments. Voters in Germany and the Netherlands expect coalition governments. In the Netherlands, the proportional representation system has no threshold for winning seats, meaning that less than 1% of the total vote is needed to win a seat in parliament. In practice, this makes majority governments impossible.

In Germany, which has a mixed member proportional system, only one party has governed by itself since World War II, and only after other parties declined its invitation to join a coalition.

But not only do German and Dutch voters expect coalition governments, they appreciate them. They believe that two parties governing together moderate each other. The Dutch believe that compromises create better policy, according to Berend Jan van den Boomen, a former MP from the Dutch Labour Party. In modern, complex societies, it’s rare that one political party is completely right and all others are completely wrong, he argues. Accommodating more than one view thus results in better public policy.

The German and Dutch experiences provide lessons that can be learned for Canada. First of all, coalition governments can work well. While opponents of electoral reform in Canada often claim that coalition governments are inherently unstable, governments in the Netherlands and in Germany have been remarkably stable. Only one coalition government in Germany has been felled by a vote of non-confidence since World War II. Canada’s track record of minority governments has been much more unstable.

They also provide good governance. Coalitions are based on detailed, written, contractual agreements that commit the coalition government to a specific legislative agenda. As a result, rather than one party imposing its will and other political parties opposing its policies and taking no responsibility for them, political parties are actively involved and invested in the good governance of their country.

This can include coalitions between parties from different parts of the political spectrum. Germany’s current coalition is composed of the largest political parties on the right and the left: the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats. These so-called “grand coalitions” are an exception, rather than the rule, but Niels Annen, a Social Democratic MP, insists that the grand coalition has been important in responding to the financial crisis. It would not have been good for the country to have the two largest parties, representing two important viewpoints, fighting over the response to the crisis, he says.

The lessons from Europe also provide the opportunity for reflection on Canada’s experiment with a coalition. Although coalitions are legitimate within Canada’s Westminster parliamentary traditions, some of the conventions on which our political system depends are not clear to Canadians. The Governor-General’s role in granting the request of prorogation, as well as her right to say no and invite the coalition to govern was poorly understood.

Her decision is also shrouded in secret – no one but the Governor-General and the Prime Minister know why she made the decision to grant prorogation.

Our conventions can also have negative consequences for our governance. Because forming the government depends on a negative definition of confidence, in which the opposition parties don’t vote to choose the prime minister but could vote to remove him or her, the mandate for government is limited while the role of other parties is restricted to opposing.

Here again, the European experience could provide useful alternatives. In Germany, the government is selected by the legislature through a vote, following the adoption of a coalition agreement. The result is a government that has the confidence of the legislature on the basis of a positive platform for governance, including a specific agenda for legislation.

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, the Queen invites certain parties to form a government, much like our Governor-General does. However, all political party leaders have the right to give her their advice beforehand. While the Queen doesn’t publicize her reasoning, the party leaders do, achieving the same effect. The result is greater public transparency.

Canada may or may not be ready for coalition governments yet. But experience from other countries suggests that Canadians have nothing to fear from coalition governments, and may in fact have much to gain.