Newspapers, both left and right, and broadcasters all seem to agree: the 2010 UK General Election is going to be a close one. There has been much comment on the likelihood of a hung parliament and, if so, what sort of coalition might be formed. But other countries have minority governments and it works for them. How could this work? Would this work?
Minority Governments
Because most democracies use some form of proportional representation voting system and have more than two parties contesting elections, there are far more world-wide examples of coalition government than single-party majority government.
The norm is also for democracies to have fixed-term parliaments and therefore if a minority government is elected it has only three options: it can form a coalition, allow others to form a coalition (and therefore remain in opposition) or attempt to govern without a majority coalition.
New Zealand's Minority Governments
New Zealand has a proportional voting system (a variety of hybrid, additional member system known as the mixed member proportional system). Like other proportional systems, it is more likely to produce minority government than majority government (no single party has had a majority in New Zealand since the adoption of the MMP system in 1996; there had been no minority governments under the previous 'first past the post' elections).
In New Zealand, Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark was able to govern with minority coalitions for three terms from 1999. A term in New Zealand is three years. For most of this period, her coalitions (with the Alliance Party and then Progressive Party) did not command a majority. Temporary alliances were needed for individual pieces of legislation (including deals with even the National Party (a centre-right party).
This in itself is not unusual. Countries with some level of separation of powers are used to independent legislatures having to be persuaded to form temporary alliances. But in New Zealand, like in the UK, the Prime Minister and Cabinet are members of Parliament. Countries with fixed-term parliaments are used to having to muddle through with whatever coalitions can be reached until the next General Election. But in New Zealand, like in the UK, the Prime Minister can call a 'snap' election.
On the face of it then, there are clear points of comparison between the New Zealand situation and the UK. What did Helen Clark do to remain in power, and could David Cameron or Gordon Brown do the same thing?
She made 'supply and confidence' alliances with other parties. In other words, she got parties to agree to support her on the budget and on any motion of confidence. Because they were, otherwise, not in her coalition, they could vote as they liked on other bills.
A minority Prime Minister in the UK could do the same, in theory. If they could reach the same alliance with Nick Clegg, it might be possible for them to govern without a formal coalition. But of course, Nick Clegg would still have a price for such an alliance, even though it would be a lower price than for a full coalition.
The UK and Minority Government
The superficial similarities between the two systems fall down somewhat on closer scrutiny. Although New Zealand does not have fixed-term parliaments, it is the norm in New Zealand for General Elections to be three years apart and snap elections are rare and frowned upon. In the UK, on the other hand, 2010 is quite a rare example of a parliament lasting a full term. The norm is for early elections to be called.
Furthermore, UK political culture - and certainly its parliamentary culture - is adversarial. In 2005, David Cameron declared, 'I'm fed up with the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster, the name calling, backbiting, point scoring, finger pointing. I want and I will lead a Conservative party that when the government does the right thing, we will work with them, and when they do the wrong thing we will call them to account and criticise them.' But the clearest example of that 'Punch and Judy' politics is at Prime Ministers Question Time, where David Cameron has been as adversarial as any of his predecessors. When asked about this, on the BBC Today programme in 2008, he replied, “I will absolutely hold up my hands and say this is a promise I have not been able to deliver.”
Could political parties and party leaders in the UK deliver an end to 'Punch and Judy' politics and make minority government work? The signs are not good:
- Ramsay MacDonald led two minority governments in the UK - the first for 9 months before confidence motions saw a dissolution, the second (from a stronger position and with more support from the Liberals) lasted two years.
- In 1974, Harold Wilson led a minority government for only a few months before calling another election to consolidate his position and gain a majority.
- In 1976, James Callaghan led a minority government and took a different approach to Wilson, hanging on until 1979 (with a Lib-Lab pact for some of the period) when he lost of a motion of confidence.
- In 1996 John Major lost his majority (he lasted a full term, as the election had to be called in 1997 anyway.)
There is not an encouraging history of minority government in the UK. The evidence suggests that Prime Ministers either call another election very quickly, or they lose the confidence of coalition partners very quickly. Either way, a hung parliament could easily lead to two elections in the UK in 2010.
Fixed-Term Parliaments
A fly in the ointment is Gordon Brown's proposal to adopt fixed-term parliaments in the UK. If elected, he promises a referendum on this by 2011. Fixed-term parliaments change the picture considerably as the most common way a minority government is defeated - the dissolution of parliament - is taken out of parliament's hands. Coalitions would have to be made in order to allow effective government to continue until the 2015 election...
Duncan Hall - Duncan Hall is a semi-professional acoustic musician and lecturer in Government & Politics
Join the Conversation