Administration under Coalition Government

A coalition government, or coalition cabinet, is a cabinet of a parliamentary government in which several parties cooperate. The usual reason given for this arrangement is that no party on its own can achieve a majority in the parliament. A coalition government might also be created in a time of national difficulty or crisis, for example during wartime, to give a government the high degree of perceived political legitimacy it desires whilst also playing a role in diminishing internal political strife. In such times, parties have formed all-party coalitions (national unity governments, grand coalitions). If a coalition collapses a confidence vote is held or a motion of no confidence is taken.
To deal with a situation in which no clear majorities appear through general elections, parties either from coalition cabinets, supported by a parliamentary majority, or minority cabinets which may consist of one or more parties. Cabinets based on a coalition with majority in a Parluament, idleally, are more stable and long-lived than minority cabinets. While the former are prone to internal struggles, they have less reason to fear votes of non-confidence. Majority governments based on a single party-are typically even more stable, as long as their majority can be maintained.
The reality of the party-system determines whether the one-party or coalition government, minority or majority governance does emerge in a country. The real political limits for the government and the Prime Minister are first set by the own party, or by the coalition partner, not by the opposition. The relations between the government and the opposition are regulated in the Parliamentary House Rules, but the operation of the coalition, is not regulated by any legal staff, while the consequences of tensions and conflicts in the coalition usually have impacts on the work of the government.

An important political experience is that in one-party government the power is concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister, but in a coalition the power is more shared among the partners. It is not necessarily true that the coalition is inherently weakening the political efficiency of the government. A one-party government may have troubles because of the competition of the leading politicians or factions in the government party. Some authors state that the coalition reconciliation, the complicated organizational and personal relations in the coalition, the slower Decision-making threatens the effectiveness of the governance. It is true that the one-party government seems to be more unified and has less slowing down obstacles. A coalition government requires more considerations, compromises and mixed program, but it does not necessarily mean lower political effectiveness and acceptance in the society. On the contrary, the coalition makes possible more flexibility in following the changes in the support of the parties between the elections, and also the coalition may force ripen corrections in the government policies.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Coalition governments

Coalition government leads to more consensus-based politics, in that a government comprising differing parties (often based on different ideologies) would need to concur in regard to governmental policy. Another stated advantage is that a coalition government better reflects the popular opinion of the electorate within a country.

Those who disapprove of coalition governments believe that such governments have a tendency to be fractious and prone to disharmony. This is because coalitions would necessarily include different parties with differing beliefs and who, therefore, may not always: agree on the coned path for governmental policy. Sometimes the results of an election are such that the coalitions which are mathematically most probable an: ideologically gically in casible, such as in Flanders Of Northern lreland. A second difficulty might be the agility of minor parties to play "Kingmaker" and particularly, in close elections, gain tar more fix their support than their mime would other indicate
Coalition government have also been criticized of sustainiug a consensus On issue when disagreement and the consequent discussion would he more fruitful. To forge a consensus, the leaders of ruling coalition parties can agree to silence lieu disagreements on an issue to unify the coalition against the opposition. The coalition partners, it they control the parliamentary Majority cut collude to make the parliamentary discussion on the issue irrelevant by consistently disregarding the arguments of the opposition and voting against the opposition's propposals - even if there is disagreement within the ruling parties about the issue.

Powerful pieties can also act in an oligarchic way to form an unholy alliance to stifle the grow tit of emerging parties. Of course, such an eventt is rare in coalition governments when compared to two-party systems, which typically exists because of stifling the growth of emerging parties, often through discriminatory ballot access regulations and plurality voting systems, etc.

A single, more powerful, party can shape the policies of the coalition disproportionately. Smaller or less powerful parties can be intimidated to not openly disagree. In order to maintain the coalition, they will have to vote against the party's platform in the parliament. If they do not, the party has to leave -the government and loses executive power.

Coalition Making

The basis of a coalition is an agreement about the common responsibilities in the governance. This is not only a single act. This is a wish of permanent collaboration. In order to maintaining the collaboration, the partners should establish a disciplined mechanism for the Decision-making and the conflict resolution. Principally, the concept of the coalition government may be one of the next two: "Common governance" - is based on the common Decision-making process. "Joint governance" - is based on the distribution of power. This type of the coalition is based on a minimal community of the partners. The governments' party factions vote together for the budget and the tax-laws, otherwise they follow their own principles in controlling their policy fields.

One ministry is controlled by only one single party in this coalition model. The distribution and the separation of the policy fields among the partners makes the control difficult for the Prime Minister over the portfolios belonging to the coalition partner. Critical question is the policy coordination and the coherence of the governance, despite the junior partner has no chance to revise the decisions of the Prime Minister - who is representing the senior party.

1. The existence of a Coalition Government diminishes the political position of Parliament and of the Government. The political decision making process shifts from clear procedures to rather informal conversations. In addition, one of the most important principles of a modern Constitution, namely the separation of powers, is circumvented under a Coalition Government.

2. Under a Coalition Government the political position of the party leaders is strengthened, whereas the position of the Party Organisations is weakened. Only a few members of the political parties involved are members of the Coalition Committees, which are established by the Coalition Agreements, with the task to solving problems, difficulties or disputes between the Coalition Partners.

3. The sittings of the Coalition Committee are not public. Negotiations in the Committee are, therefore, regarded as a form of secret diplomacy, whereas the principle of democracy demands transparency. The ordinary members of the political parties do not participate in resolving the disputes.

4. The existence of a Coalition Government requires the politics of compromises. The result of those compromises does not strengthen the Government in power. None of the partners of a Coalition Government is able to push through its own ideas without consent of the Coalition partner.

5. Due to the compromises, the political responsibility of the Coalition Partners is blurred. Each Coalition partner may say that the other Partner is the brake on the Coalition Government, hindering a good policy to be done by the Government.

Coalition Bargain

The crucial stake of the coalition bargain is the distribution of the government position among the partners. The numerical balance is important, but not exclusive objective. (Numerical balance suggests that the proportion of the government positions reflects the proportion of the Parliamentary mandates the parties may prefer certain portfolios because of special reasons. The tactics of the senior coalition party in the bargain has usually had the next main points:

• Not offering those positions to the partner which are vital for the efficient control over the main resources of the power.

• Offering the most conflictual-policy fields to the partner.

• Offering such ministry to the partner, which is closely depending on the state budget.

• Offering also such ministry which is very desired by the partner.

Coalition Agreement

Politicians and political analysts are usually agreed on that a written coalition agreement is useful and valuable thing. The mutual trust among the partners is much more important than any formal agreement. Moreover, the written agreement can create even more tensions between the partners if they want to follow closely the written norms. In sum, those elements of the coalition agreement concern the government personnel affairs and the institutional settings are very important. But the coalition agreement is political document, and any interference with the Constitution is not acceptable:

Coalition and Policy Process

Political scientists raised the next questions in connection with the impact of the coalition on the governance.

• How the coalition influences the work of the government?

• Whether the coalition is stabilizing or destabilizing the government?

• Is the coalition improving the efficiency of the governance?

• Is the transparency and accountability increasing or not in the coalition government?

The coalition government has wider background than a one-party government. If the coalition can use this advantage, the effectiveness may increase. Also the professional interests and supporters of the coalition parties are different, what can be useful in making the policies on more sensitive way. The key question is that how the coalition partners can enrich the policy reconciliation process with mobilizing their special resources?

ADMINISTRATION IN COALITION ERA

Indian political System though based on Westminster Model was modified there are 2 main characters of Westminster Model.

- Parliamentary System (2 tier of Administration system)
- Multi party system

• As far a government & legislation is concerned for a very long time we had one party dominance system & then.

Jumped straight to multi party system and not tow party systems

Coalition era

Post 1989 idea of coalition largely we refer to post 1989 but has been there prior to that as well
3 main phases:

1. 1967
   - For first time half of states become non Congress
   - Primarily coalition government led by Ram Manohar Lohia & his ‘Catch all’ policy
   - diverse political colour limited political Stability 1969 – congress regained power

2. 1977: At State government level many non Congress coalition governments sprang up
   Eg. Kerala, WB & Tripura
   - even at Centre Janata party come to power which was also a coalition led by Jai. Prakash Narain
   - While at Central government level, it was short lived it continued at State level with similar Political colour

3. 1989 onwards became a Permanent feature
   - number of political Parties came together & no single party could form government thus Coalition politics is here to stay
   - 1989 onwards is referred to as Coalition Era.

IMAPACTS

1. Impact increasing weakening of Parliamentary Power @ Central & state level Political Interest lies in state not nation using coalition to maximise State interest - Weakening of Central Executive & legislative power led to Judicial activism hence.

2. has also weakened capacity of Central Governments to take care of legitimate interest of minority or ethnic groups.
   - Earlier it had considerable leverage
   - States fall prey to majoritarian interest

3. repeated instability:
   1989 onward – 7 elections till 2010 elections
   - Very fast Indian polity has matured & accommodated well

4. Policy failures or entropy divergent views on many issues

5. unholy nexus of All India Services losing all India character. With coalition these are becoming more & more State services loyalty lies more with State.

  Go Back To Main Page