Is Coalition Government better than Single Party Government?

While there are many people who believe that a coalition government is better than the single party government, there are many who believe that a coalition government has a number of weaknesses. The points in favor of a coalition government can be summarized as follows:

Points in favor of coalition government:
1. A number of persons believe that a coalition government is more democratic. As a result, this type of government is fairer as it represents a much wider spectrum of public opinion as compared to the government that is run by a single party. In case of almost all the coalition governments, the majority of citizens of the country have voted for the parties that are part of the government. As a result, the views and interests of these persons are appropriate and represented in the decision-making process of the country.

2. It is also believed by many that a coalition government is able to provide more dynamic and honest political system in the country as it allows voters to have a clear choice at the time of elections. On the other hand, in countries where the coalition governments are not, like the USA and the UK, the spectrum of public opinion is startled by the main parties and there is a coalition of opposing ideologies and interest groups. However during elections, these parties come before the voters as being united behind certain policies and views but when these parties are in power, the internal divisions that are present between these parties become serious, although they have not seen from the outside but they do have a significant impact on decision making. On the other hand, in case of the countries where coalition governments are present, the higher number of political parties allows the voters who have a better choice. Similarly in this case, the differences of opinions are also debated openly. As a result, it becomes easier for parties to split and also to create new political parties if the opinion is divided by the new political issue as the new parties also have a chance to have a share of political power.

3. It is also believed that the government can be provided by coalitions as the decisions taken by the coalition government are taken in the interest of the majority of the people. As a wide consensus of opinion is related in this case, all the policies are debated thoroughly by the government before they are implemented. On the other hand, it is much more likely in case of a single party government that badly thought policies could be implemented by the government, probably due to narrow ideological reasons. In the same way, when historical or difficult decisions need to be taken, like during the wartime, the consent of the politicians who represent a wide range of opinions and interests is important so that the country and its people may be committed to a difficult but vital course of action.

4. The coalition government is able to provide more continuity to the administration of the country. In case of the countries where a tradition of coalition government is not present, it is also possible that a particular party may remain in government for a long time and it may result in the creation of an adversarial political culture. On the other hand, when a change takes place, in such a case, generally the new administration does not have any experience regarding the running of the government and many times they are also involved in the wholesale reversal of the policies adopted by the previous regime. This is not in the interest of the public. On the other hand in case of the countries with coalition politics, generally there are certain ministers who have significant experience during the earlier government. At the same time, the consensual style of coalition politics provides for a constructive and gradual shift in the policy in case of a change in administration.

Points against:
1. But at the same time, there are a number of people who believe that the coalition government is not the best form of government. According to these people, in reality the coalition government is less democratic. The reason is that in most of the cases, the balance of power is held by the small parties who are in a position to barter their support for concessions from the majority group. In such a case, even a party that has very little public support may also impose its policies on the majority by resorting to political blackmail. There are a number of examples present of such a situation in many countries like Germany, France and Israel. At the same time, democracy may also be undermined if the coalition making process is subjected to the whims of the president or a monarch who has the ability to decide who is going to try to make the government or to put the country to new elections.

2. It is also believed that there is less transparency in case of a coalition government. As nobody is in a position to form a government on its own, the manifestoes that have been presented to the public by these parties also become irrelevant and are generally unrealistic. The real decisions related with the political programs are generally made only after the elections have taken place and in backroom negotiations in which the members of general public are not included. As a result of this situation, accountability is undermined as the voters are not in a position to expect that the individual parties that are a part of the coalition will deliver the promises that have been made by them in their particular manifestos as compared to the single party governments. Similarly, accountability is not present in case of the fall of a coalition government, either after the elections have taken place or in case some of the supporters of the coalition government have left it. In such a case, generally any new administration includes most of the parties and the politicians that are also a part of the earlier government and there is only a little change in the coalition partners and their ministerial profiles.

3. It is also widely believed that a coalition government provides bad governance as such governments are not in a position to adopt a long-term view. In some cases, it is necessary for the government to have an ideological compass so that it can navigate through the troubled economic and political waters but such unifying philosophy is not present in case of a coalition government. Moreover, in order to plan for the long term, generally it is required that even the decisions that are unpopular in short term may also have to be made. But the coalition government cannot pass this test as due to the temporary unpopularity, some of the member parties of the coalition may be encouraged to defect, while looking for political advantage. Although in some exceptional cases like that of a war, a coalition government may be required but on the account of this reason alone, it cannot be said that the coalition government is better in normal conditions also.

4. It is also said that the coalition government is not stable and it generally collapses at frequent intervals. For example, after 1945, the average tenure of a government in Italy is around one year only. In this way, the short tenure of the coalition government restrict its ability to introduce major reforms. It also means that very few politicians stay in a particular ministerial berth for a long time so that they can have a grip over the issues faced by that particular department. Similarly, the squabbling that is present between the member parties of the coalition, the competence of the general public is also decrease in the political system of the country and also in the representatives elected by them. In the end it also needs to be noted that the creation of a coalition may also take such a long time that a country may drift with a caretaker government without any authority for months.