We seem to want “democracy” in other countries, but not the classic Golden Age of Greece version but our current version.
Instead of everyone getting a voice, we seem to be happy when one party wins and dominates all aspects of a country’s policies. Fine for our megacorporations who want eternal leases on natural resources in exchange for bribes. But hard on the suppressed minorities that are constantly fighting for representation or breakaway provinces.
Maybe the better model is like the multi-party systems of Italy and others, where the prime ministers change with the new year calendar, but at least the whole country feels they have more to gain working within the system than splitting apart. Recall it was not that long ago that Italy was a dozen states like the Balkans.
The problem with multi-party states is that your government is always consumed by party politics rather than general governing. With no group having a secure base there’s always a struggle of forming and trying to break up coalitions.
Italy, the country you use as an example, is notorious for this. Politicians become more concerned about securing their personal connections than with serving the country.
First, it’s the British winner-take-all system. We stole it from them. That system puts a strong incentive for only two viable parties.
The other thing to consider is a parliamentary vs presidential system. In parliamentary system (British, again), the chief executive (i.e., the head of government) is chosen by the legislature. Combine that with a multi-party legislature and you can get unstable governments like Italy’s. Or, with presidential system, the chief executive is chosen independently of the legislature. Since only one person can be president, it’s going to be a winner-take-all system. This can lead to stable, multi-party governments, as in France. (Some “presidential” systems have only a weak head-of-state president–I’m not referring to those.)
As to what system to advocate for any particular country, it’s a hard problem. I think it ultimately depends on the particulars of the country. Any system can work, any can fail. A parliamentary executive with a winner-take-all legislature (Britain) leads to strong governments that can get things done faster. A president independent from the legislature permits the possibility of a divided government–that tends to slow things down. And a multi-party legislature that chooses the executive tends to be unstable.
Whether fast, slow, or unstable governments are good or bad depends on what the government is trying to do. Slow governments are great if they’re pillaging the nation’s resources, but bad if they’re trying to make reforms. And for fast, it’s vice-versa. Unstable governments might seem bad, but it allows for a rapid response to changes in the electorates. It’s all in the details.
If I could recommend one thing to a new democracy, it is to avoid ethnic, religious and regional parties (i.e., identity-based parties). Democracy works best when parties represent policies and ideologies. Basing it on other things can turn the system into an us-vs-them feud. It’s hard to avoid. Even a mature democracy like the US keeps slipping back into identity politics.
As distinct from the US system where no politicians engage in party politics and they get on with bipartisan governance of the country?
Like many Commonwealth countries, Australia uses the Westminster system of government with a parliament and we have plenty of stable governments either run by a single party or coalitions. In fact, the previous government was a coalition of 2 parties that won 4 elections and ruled the country for 11 years. I think your vastly overstating the problems of multi-party states without considering the benefits.
Yes, but most of the world’s democracies have multiparty systems and it works well enough for them. Italy and Israel have trouble with it, but I think that says more about those countries’ political cultures than their political systems.
I never said it wasn’t a problem in the United States. But taking the worst excesses of American politics and turning them into the central pillars of the system doesn’t seem like a good idea.
For example, people already complain about Congressmen who are constantly running for re-election throughout their two year terms and how early the Presidential election cycle begins. But the OP claims it would be great if there was a new Prime Minister every year.
And if we have difficulties getting two parties to work together, how are we supposed to get twenty parties to work together? Especially when there was no majority party and we needed parties to vote together just for routine business.
Actually, just the opposite is the case. In parliamentary systems, one party or one coalition wins and dominates “all aspects of a country’s policies”. “We” in the US have a bicameral legislature and an independently elected president, and it’s less common for one party to control both. One does right now, but that is not always the case.
Look up gerrymandering in Wikipedia or a more reputable source. The US and UK use the first past the post system, where you make an X or equivalent beside a person’s name. It permits a government to gerrymander the opposition with greater ease than any other system.
A tyrant can finagle any kind of vote by ballot box stuffing - that’s basic practice for a tyrant who wants to maintain power. However, gerrymandering is a prettier way to do it, and often goes unrecognised. It is very common in the USA, with the object of allowing existing representatives to remain in office.
The first past the post system automatically gerrymanders any third party. That’s why there are only two parties in USA national politics. Any party with less than about 30% of the vote usually fails to receive a fair share of seats. If you doubt that, look at the UK’s Liberal Democratic Party, which is supported by about one in six voters in the UK, but gets a derisory seat count.
In Europe, most countries use some form of proportional representation, where a party’s seats are related to its vote percentage. As a result, they usually have a large number of parties, representing many diverse views and are often ruled by coalition governments.
Coalitions are often mistaken as unstable by people who support “first past the post” voting. Component parties in coalitions change often in some countries, such as Italy, but not in others. However, even where such changes occur, core policies imposed by successive governments are very stable and change little. This is because policies are formulated by agreement between multiple party views, and do not swing suddenly from left to right as in two party states.
Most of the EU uses proportional representation, and most of its governments are multi-party ones. This includes many of the richest countries in the world.
At least over here in the Netherlands, that’s a pretty good description. As far as I can see, yes, coalitions are less stable than 1-party/winner take all governments, but that doesn’t mean the policies jump all over the place, if only because we pretty much always have a coalition.
In any case, after the cabinet falls, a new one must be formed before any real decisions can be taken, either by forming a new coalition from the current distribution of parties or if that fails, by holding new elections. In most cases, coalition parties that force a fall of the cabinet can’t be at all sure of getting in the new one - in fact, they tend to do worse in the following elections - so stepping out of a coalition is pretty much a last resort option.
As the Democratic split in the health-care debate is demonstrating, the US Congress operates as a coalitional body in certain ways, despite its two-party nature. This occurs because party discipline is nearly non-existent compared to many parliamentary systems; party leaders have few tools to force a legislator to fall into line. Certainly, political considerations often lead Congress to vote along party lines, but there are comparatively few structural elements compelling it to do so.
The oddest thing about the US system was the fixed presidential term. In Britain before the US revolution, and in the colonial governments, the head man could be ousted at any time if the rest lost confidence in him.
You’re mistaken. The “head man” in Britian has only been ousted a couple of times - in 1649 and 1688. The prime minister is the head of government not the head of state. The president is the head of state - the equivalent position in the UK is the monarch.
Other countries (Canada, Great Britain, Mexico) use FPTP and have viable third parties and regional parties with substantial representation in the national legislature. The US has only two parties because of the nomination of candidates via state-run primary elections, not just because of FPTP.
That certainly isn’t true of the colonial governments. Colonial governors were appointed by the crown. Even Canada didn’t achieve “responsible government” (wherein the colonial governors had to resign if they lost the confidence of the legislature) until the 1830’s.
The Presidency was created during the late Eighteenth Century, at a time when the British Crown still exercised substantial executive powers. The President was perceived as being equivalent to the monarch, not a mere minister of the crown. The “oddest thing about the US system”, from the perspective of the time, wasn’t that the President had a fixed term as opposed to a minister who served at the pleasure of the legislature, but that the President didn’t have life tenure like a monarch.
Freddy the Pig - your quote from my post is cut short. If you quoted the next two sentences, they answer your comment. The point is that third parties are unfairly represented.
In First Past The Post countries, third parties are unfairly represented in parliament. If they are national parties, not confined to one region, they receive a tiny number of seats in relation to their national vote. The system gerrymanders them.
I am not from the UK, so I used the UK Liberal Democratic party as an example.
In the UK, the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors score 15-20% of the national vote. However, if they get 2-3% of seats in the UK Parliament, it’s a good year for them.
The two big UK parties know this gerrymandering is happening, but they refuse to change a system which benefits them. Of course, if the Lib Dems grow their vote to 40%, the system will favour them, and will gerrymander whichever party has lost votes. Indeed, that is what happened to the Liberal party a century ago.
As you know, the equivalent has also happened in Canada.
In countries with proportional representation, the Liberal Democrats would receive a fair number of seats. If they maintained their level of vote, they would be in government a lot of the time. However, in the UK they are treated as an unimportant minority party - because they are gerrymandered out of the seats to which their vote entitles them.
That system puts a strong incentive for only two viable parties.