Would Like a 'Parliamentary Political Systems for Americans' Primer

Politics & Elections
1

I’m embarrassed about how little I understand about a form of democratic government that’s far more universal and widespread than the American Constitutional bicameral model. And now that ours seems to be grinding to a halt, it’s well nigh time I learned more about the prevailing model.

There all these intermittent previously-unscheduled “calls for a new election” because the “government has failed” or had a “no-confidence” vote. Not to mention the configuration of a government to begin with, from multiple component parties. Ours is winner-take-all and for eons we’ve only had two serious contenders, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. I’m a third party voter myself (Green) so I’m very interested in this notion of marginal parties getting to play a role in establishing “a government”, even if I don’t have a very solid understanding of what the latter means.

Along with the basic primer, I’m open to absorbing a critique of what doesn’t work well in Parliamentary systems, and whatever alternatives have been posed or tried that are neither US-type structures nor Parliamentary structures. But before the critiques, the primer please.

2

There’s a lot of details, but the basic point is: there are elections for parliament. If a group gets a majority of the seats in the main chamber, they form the government: the leader of that group becomes Prime Minister.

If no party has a majority in the main chamber, then there will be a minority government, or possibly a coalition government.

The government stays in power until the term of the Parliament expires, or unless defeated on a significant vote, called a confidence measure.

When the term of the parliament expires, there’s a new general election and the process starts over.

A new election is also called if the government was defeated on a confidence matter.

3

Gee, this won’t take but a minute … but I’m not up for a posting a doctoral dissertation

Wiki does a reasonable primer

Start from that and IMHO pose questions which we of parliamentarian ilk may seek to alternately clarify or confuse, because you’ll find as many similarities in the systems as contrasts.

You need to be careful with cause and effect amid preconceived concepts.
“Ours is winner-take-all and for eons we’ve only had two serious contenders”
AUS is not winner take all but also for eons we’ve only had two serious contenders.

“this notion of marginal parties getting to play a role in establishing “a government””
Minor parties rarely get to play a role in establishing a parliamentary government.
The jury is out on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

1st element of the matter is the question of who is in charge.

There are two fundamental roles ie Head of State and Head of Government.

In the US system they are the same person.

In a parliamentary system they are separate and the balance of power between the two varies between extremes.

The Head of State who could be called Monarch, President, or Governor . They could be elected, appointed or hereditary.

The Head of Government who could be called President or Prime Minister.
I think they are almost always elected, but not necessarily directly.
The US equivalent is Speaker of The House.

4

Me neither. It’s a very complicated topic–we in parliamentary democracies/constitutional monarchies can do it, but it would require a lot of time. I had a helluva time trying to explain it to my American ex-wife over the years, and I don’t think she ever fully got it.

I’d suggest that you have a look at @penultima_thule 's Wikipedia link, and come back with some questions based on that. Then we can answer those, and focus in on your further questions which will undoubtedly arise from our answers.

5

Depends on what you mean by a “minor party”. In Canada, the federal NDP could be considered a minor party in the sense that it has never formed a government at the federal level. Yet they have at times – such as right now – had an outsize influence on policy by forming an informal coalition with the Liberals, essentially requiring the centrist Liberals to adopt certain policies favoured by the left-leaning NDP in exchange for their support.

This tends to happen in the case of minority governments, where one party wins the plurality of seats but doesn’t have enough to form a majority government. Some observers believe that minority governments are often best because they require bipartisan cooperation whereas majority governments can sometimes be perceived as arrogant and heedless of the opposition.

6

One factor that distinguishes the US, AIUI, is not so much the combination of Head of State/Head of Government as the separation of legislative and executive powers.

7

Bear in mind that parliamentary countries have considerable differences within themselves; Canada, for example, has much stronger party discipline than does the British Parliament.

Third parties are at their strongest when there is a minority government, ie no one party has a majority in the major house. In that situation, in Canada, there are at least three ways a third party can have an influence on the policies of the government (“government” here meaning the PM and Cabinet, which control the executive branch and need to maintain a majority in the Commons).

  1. Enter into a full coalition, where members of the third party are part of the Cabinet, members of the third party have members appointed as ministers, and have a clear share of policy / legislation development. That’s the strongest way a third party can have a major influence on government. In Canada, that is very rare at the federal level. There’s only been one coalition government, in WWI, when the Conservatives and those Liberals who supported military conscription entered into a Union government.

  2. Confidence and supply arrangements: the party which forms the government enters into a formal agreement with the third party that the government will advance certain preferred policies of the third party. In exchange, the third party will vote in favour of the government’s budget and on confidence matters. That option gives the third party some influence, while the government gets stability. That’s the current state in Canada: the Liberals have the most seats, but not a majority, and have entered into a confidence and supply arrangement with the New Democratic Party (NDP), which is the fourth party in terms of seats in the Commons.

  3. Ad hoc arrangements, on a bill-by-bill, vote-by-vote approach. The government has to find support for its measures as each one comes up for a vote. That kind of arrangement is the least stable, but it does give third parties some chance of influencing the government on a quid pro quo basis.

There’s less opportunity for a third party to influence a government which has a clear majority in the House, but it can happen in circuitous ways. For example, post-WWII, the socialist CCF party was putting forward a number of social safety proposals: welfare, family allowances, and so on. The Liberals, who had been in government since 1935, were initially cool to those measures, but then they saw how well the CCF was polling, in large part because of their social policies. The Liberals became converts and began to introduce more of those types of measures. The CCFers said that the Liberals were just stealing their best ideas; the Liberals said that they had realised that they couldn’t repeat the mistake after WWI and just assume that everyone would just come home and get a job, so they were implementing social measures. Who was right? YMMV.

8

Yes, what the Americans call “gridlock” we call “gov’t breakdown”. :wink:

9

Other observers believe that, with the exception of there being an existential threat, minority governments possess VW engines and Rolls Royce brakes. Would you be able to nominate a minority government that could be described as reformist?

But for the OP’s requirements I suggest that we discuss the great matters of state rather than the minutiae!

10

Following up on @AHunter3 's question about diversity in the government, there is another way diversity comes into play, and that is in the make-up of Cabinet. In the US system, all power flows from the President. He gets to appoint whoever he wants to Cabinet, and the Cabinet secretaries hold their power solely because the Prez put them there.

That’s not the case with a parliamentary system (on the Westminster model). The leader of the majority party becomes PM and gets to name the members of Cabinet, but the PM’s choices are constrained by the fact that only members of Parliament can sit in the Cabinet (either by law or by constitutional convention, depending on the constitutional structure of the particular country).

And, the members of Parliament are there because they have some political clout in their own right - they’ve won their seats in Parliament. Each party has different wings, or groups, and a wise PM has to accommodate those different groups in the Cabinet, or risk a caucus revolt. So for instance, Jean Chrétien pretty much had to include Paul Martin, his most significant rival for the party leadership, in the Cabinet, because Martin was the leader of a considerable faction within the federal Liberal caucus. Chrétien made Martin the Minister of Finance, one of the most important positions, recognising Martin’s pull within the party. (Chrétien was more on the left side of the party, with a focus on social equality; Martin was more of a fiscal responsibility person; altough both had common ground within the Liberal big tent.)

In a huge country like Canada, where regional identity is strong, the PM also has to ensure that there are Cabinet members from each province. Plus, there has to be a balance of French and English; Indigenous reps; and new Canadians.

All of which is to say that it’s not possible for a PM in Canada to have a Cabinet of rich old white guys, like President Trump, because the Party electoral results dictate who is in the pool for Cabinet, and no party nowadays just elects rich old white guys.

11

Yes, PM Pearson, who held office 1962-1968. His accomplishments included universal medicare; a new Canadian flag; and the Canada Pension Plan. He’s generally considered one of Canada’s best PMs, and he never had a majority government.

12

Much obliged. [doffs hat]
Nothing vaguely approaching that has been seen in this here parliamentary system. :upside_down_face:

13

Which reminds me: I don’t think any Westminster parliaments allow unlimited filibusters. In Canada, we have closure; in Britain, the “guillotine”. Boils down to the majority controlling the business of government: the minority cannot prevent the passage of bills introduced by the majority. “Bipartisanship” is not really part of the parliamentary lingo, at least not in Canada. No faffing around about how “we would have done X, except for the Senate blocking it”, or “the President vetoing it”, or “the minority in the Senate threatening to filibuster”.

Governments get elected to put their proposals into law, and then let the people judge them at the next election.

Except, of course, if the government in a minority situation gets defeated, but that triggers an election to let the people decide the dispute that the Commons could not resolve.

14

Elections in a parliamentary system (specifically Australia)

Australia federally doesn’t have fixed terms. Some of the Australian states do. The Australian Parliament is bicameral. Some of the states are unicameral.
An Australian federal term is three(3) years for the House of Representatives (HoR) and six (6) years for the Senate. This is specified in the Constitution. A referendum to extend terms to 4 years was defeated in 1988.

The recently installed Labor Government lead by Anthony Albanese is Australia’s 47th parliament.

Apart from the expiration of it’s term the reason a Government will seek an elections are:

  1. defeat of the Government on the floor of the House (twice);
  2. double dissolution situations (seven times);
  3. synchronisation of House elections with Senate elections (four times);
  4. the Government’s desire to obtain a mandate for various purposes (three times); and
  5. by far the most common, perceived political or electoral advantage.

(note that losing formal votes of no confidence or even the loss of major government legislation as proxy are very rare)

The Prime Minister decides they want to have an election. This is usually much speculated and much of the necessary work to hold an election is already in preparation by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

The PM goes to the Governor General and asks them to dissolve parliament and issue the writs for an election.

The PM must present their reasons. The GG usually acquiesces to the PM’s advise. They could refuse permission. To date, none have. They could ask the leader of the opposition if they were able to form a government if a substantial period of the term is still to run. If the Government has control of the House and is able to proceed with its legislative program, the Governor-General is highly unlikely to accede to such a request within the first year of a new parliament.

The writs must be issued with 10 days and specify the date by which nominations for candidates to the HoR must be lodged, the date for the close of the electoral rolls, the date on which the poll is to be taken and the date for the return of the writ. Separate writs are issued for each of the 6 states and two territories. In theory they could be different as to some specific details, but I believe. Note these writs are for the HoR. For the Senate, being notionally the States House, electoral writs are issued by each state’s Governor.

Next the AEC closes the electoral rolls 8pm 7 days after the writ. The AEC (which is strictly non-partisan) has usually been proactive to ensure all eligible voters are enrolled prior to the close e.g. approaching school leavers since the last election, TV advertising and mail outs etc.

Nominations for candidates close at 12 noon on the date specified which is not less than 10 days or more than 27 days after the issue of writs at 12 (The nomination/selection of candidates, our equivalent of the US primary and called preselections can be covered in a later post)

The date of polling (always a Saturday) and on a date no less than 23 or more than 31 days from the date nominations close.

A general election must therefore take place not less than 33 nor more than 58 days after the issue of writ(s).

The various writs must be returned no more than 100 days after their issue.

The new Parliament must meet no more than 30 days after the return of the writs.

15

When Julia Gillard was PM of Australia, she was in minority government for ~2 years, yet passed more legislation through (including radical reforms like the National Disability Insurance Scheme) than any recent majority government.

16

On a national level, South Africa has only had one serious contender since democracy started in 1994.

17

Australian Federal Governments also can deploy the “guillotine” expeditiously, particularly towards the end of any sitting period.
Indeed the Australian HoR Standing Orders allow “the gag”, ie the formal motion “That the Speaker be no longer heard”. Always good to cause uproar.

The Australian Senate does not allow “the gag” but the President of the Senate can warn a senator about irrelevance or tedious repetition and direct them to discontinue their speech

In addition, Standing Order #1 puts time limits on speeches. A parliamentarian shall speak for more than 20 minutes in any debate, but can move for an extension of not more than 10 minutes. There are commonly granted exceptions in both Houses

18

Yes, the Gillard Government was in minority and passed ample legislation, largely facilitated through the work of Albanese as Leader of the House, but you surely aren’t going to call them “reformist”.

19

Yes, that’s the fundamental a priori axiom underpinning Westminster systems. If a proposal was in the manifesto they were elected on, they’re entitled to get it through, and to expect their own MPs to vote it through; the Opposition will have their say, and all members can try to put refining amendments in, but that’s as far as their options go.

That also means that if the government is weakened enough not to be able to get a key measure through, it will have to go sooner rather than later. As to what would be such a measure, well, the ultimate would have to be the budget: the pompous old saying is “The Queen’s government must be carried on”, so there has to be the money to do it. “Government shutdown” is out of the question. A government might be willing to give way on less high-profile measures especially if not already proposed in the government’s manifesto, but depending on the salience of the issue, and who’s rebelling on the government side, it’s a sign of weakness, if not necessarily terminal.

As to what happens in such a situation, a Westminster system would tend to go to an early election. Other systems, usually those with PR and a wider range of smaller parties, have formalised systems for (often quite extended) consultations between parties as to what combination(s) might be made to work, while a caretaker ministerial team (sometimes technocrats/civil servants) keeps the routine business ticking over. The same can apply after a general election - Germany and the Netherlands are recent examples.

20

Quite so.

The Australian Constitutional Crisis which lead to The Dismissal was such a game of political chicken. The Whitlam Government could not get it’s Budget passed. Whitlam’s gambit was that some, and he only needed one, Opposition Senators would cross the floor and vote to pass the Supply Bill before the current Supply Bill expired.