Could someone explain coalition Parliamentary governments?

[morteduzionism]

First of all I just read something about "Parliamentary systems" and it seems there are more than one type. Since I barely understand Parliamentary governments I doubted I would be able to know whichy "type" of system I was looking for.

What I'm specifically interested in is these Parliamentary governments in places like Pakistan and what I assume is a similiar type of government currently in Iraq. Which are both different from the type of Parliamentary system in the UK? Or are they?

The main question is: how do they work?

It just seems that they're doomed to fail because they'e...antagonistic in their very nature. What I'm referring to specifically is comments by the husband of Benazir Bhutto(I'm pretty sure it was her husband) who said that, 'whatever new government is formed will not include supporters of Musharraf' he went on to say some other things about what he thought about them but that only underscores the point I'm trying to make.

What confuses me is that it is expected that peoples who were willing to kill each other(literally) can be expected to coexist when immediately after the shooting stops(sometimes the smoke is still in the air) they form a government that allows exclusion?

So who's in charge? Like in Iraq when al-Sadr took his coalition out of the government, it almost collapsed. How? What? Why?...

Finally, what precedent(s) do the world powers base the success of these types of strategies(i.e. ending civil strife and establishing a parliamentary government) on?

The UK? Wasn't that accomplished after a century of rule by a single monarchial family, numerous attempts by the respective Parliaments and a few pints of blood spilled?

Canada? I mean...it's Canada(just a joke...but still you can't expect people to be as sensible as Canadians, first of all it's too cold to act too much a fool so that's one factor in their favor right there)

India?...do Indians even understand their government?(another joke...I'm just suggesting that India is so unique it'd be nearly impossible to reproduce their constitution or their government)

So what is the "success story" that the world hopes to repeat by using this political model?

[gaius valerius]

I don't think there is this 'golden way' towards democracy. I hope all ppl will one day share the fruits of a parliamentary democracy. How long this will take I don't know. What I DO KNOW, is that the USA-way of spreading democracy is highly unproductive. The main problem with democracy today is that we force it upon others, neglecting the fact it took democracy ages to become the way we know it now. Of course we've cleared many obstacles and other countries can learn from this, making their own transformation easier. But democracy is a bottom-up issue, if you go in and force it down their throat, how can you accept democracy to work? You can't just install parliamentary democracy, it is something that grows.

[Erik]

First of all I just read something about "Parliamentary systems" and it seems there are more than one type. Since I barely understand Parliamentary governments I doubted I would be able to know whichy "type" of system I was looking for.

I don't think there are any two countries who have the exact same parliamentary system.

What I'm specifically interested in is these Parliamentary governments in places like Pakistan and what I assume is a similiar type of government currently in Iraq. Which are both different from the type of Parliamentary system in the UK? Or are they?

I don't know about Pakistan, but Iraq's parliamentary system is very different from the one in the UK.
Iraq's system is designed to allow each major population group (Shia, Sunni, Kurds) to have their own fair share of representatives, while the UK favors majorities over minorities.

The main question is: how do they work?

It just seems that they're doomed to fail because they'e...antagonistic in their very nature. What I'm referring to specifically is comments by the husband of Benazir Bhutto(I'm pretty sure it was her husband) who said that, 'whatever new government is formed will not include supporters of Musharraf' he went on to say some other things about what he thought about them but that only underscores the point I'm trying to make.

What confuses me is that it is expected that peoples who were willing to kill each other(literally) can be expected to coexist when immediately after the shooting stops(sometimes the smoke is still in the air) they form a government that allows exclusion?

One of the properties of a coalition Parliamentary system (note: the UK has a one-ruling-party parliamentary system, so this doesn't apply to them) is that parties who compete during elections often have to cooperate right after the elections.

In most cases this isn't such a big problem because most parties are smart enough to keep the elections "civilized" and not piss off their opponents too much, since that would not be in their best interest.

In Pakistan, Musharraf's party did not play "nice", so it's no surprise that the winning PPP excludes them from any possible coalition.

So who's in charge? Like in Iraq when al-Sadr took his coalition out of the government, it almost collapsed. How? What? Why?...

That's the beauty of the system (IMO): NOBODY is in charge.
As long as the coalition has a majority they can rule together, but their power is very fragile because a breech in the coalition can often loose them their majority (which can be a good thing, if you aren't a big supporter of strong governments)[/quote]

Finally, what precedent(s) do the world powers base the success of these types of strategies(i.e. ending civil strife and establishing a parliamentary government) on?

I'm not really sure what you mean by that.

So what is the "success story" that the world hopes to repeat by using this political model?

I think the strongest argument in favor of these systems is that it allows minorities to have their voices heard too, and not just one or two big parties.
(the UK is again an exception to this general rule).

btw: If you really want to get confused, try studying Belgium's democratic system, it's probably one of the most complex in the world.

[gaius valerius]

btw: If you really want to get confused, try studying Belgium's democratic system, it's probably one of the most complex in the world.

Hehe, if you understand our system, you'll know everything. Honestly this country is complicated. But hey, we get along nicely, most of the time

[King Edward III]

Hehe, if you understand our system, you'll know everything. Honestly this country is complicated. But hey, we get along nicely, most of the time

Has Belgium formed a government yet?

[Manco]

Temporary government under the old PM while the parties are drawing up the restructuring of the federal government and so on. In a month the new guy, Leterme, should take over and implement the new federal structure (if everyone has agreed) and finally start a real government. But he's in the hospital now, too much stress probably

[morteduzionism]

One of the properties of a coalition Parliamentary system (note: the UK has a one-ruling-party parliamentary system, so this doesn't apply to them) is that parties who compete during elections often have to cooperate right after the elections.

That's what confuses me. That's fine if it were competitions to see who could kiss the most babies or some other harmless activity but these parties were competiting to to see who could kill the most of the other. That's not fine.

And then to almost immediately form a type of govt where one side can legally say to other, "you can't play"...is utterly asinine.

In most cases this isn't such a big problem because most parties are smart enough to keep the elections "civilized" and not piss off their opponents too much, since that would not be in their best interest.

That's what I'm saying. Isn't it blatantly obvious that in Pakistan/Iraq both parties aren't "smart enough to keep the elections 'civilized'..." That's why I don't understand attempts to form these particular governments.

In Pakistan, Musharraf's party did not play "nice", so it's no surprise that the winning PPP excludes them from any possible coalition.

Wouldn't it be equally unsurprising if Musharrafs'(just keeping with the example not suggesting/implying anything) side simply decided to retake power with force? What choices has been left to him/his side? Like I suggested in the previous comment, isn't it blatantly obvious that these people aren't "smart enough to keep the elections civilized..."-this isn't an implication of the recent elections in Pakistan which were deemed "fair". I'm just saying that regardless of the results if you have people willing to kill, you can't simply say to them: 'you can't be in the govt'

That's the beauty of the system (IMO): NOBODY is in charge.
As long as the coalition has a majority they can rule together, but their power is very fragile because a breech in the coalition can often loose them their majority (which can be a good thing, if you aren't a big supporter of strong governments)

That sounds horrible! So you mean as long as the coalition has a majority they can rule however they want? Do they even have to acknowledge other parties? If that's the case it's no wonder these places devolve into violence.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that.

It seems that the 'Parliamentary system' is the system of choice for countries who were recently(not recently meaning within the last few years I meant that soon after their conflict they establish a Parliamentary form of govt) in civil wars/conflict: Palestine, Rwanda, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan

If my perception is correct then I assumed that these peoples know of some country/place where a Parliamentary system was successfully established almost immediately after a civil conflict. That was the reason they were determined to establish that form of government because they had a real world/life example that showed it could work and was the best choice.

I think the strongest argument in favor of these systems is that it allows minorities to have their voices heard too, and not just one or two big parties.

So let me get this straight...let's say you have a coalition party called the Alphabet Party of 10 people; 5 are members of the ABC party; 3 are members of the DEF party; GHI and JKL both have 1 member apiece giving the Alphabet Party a majority coalition in the govt.

Are you suggesting that these govts allow(ideally speaking) GHI and JKL a voice?

So if GHI walks out on the coalition that gov't collapses right? Like al-Sadr almost did al-Maliki?

That's what I'm asking why do these places establish a type of ineffective govt that is almost always on the verge of collapsing back(remember these places were already at war with each other) into civil violence?

Ok, there's a distrust/dislike of strong central governments but if the alternative is to essentially live in a feudal barony where your neighborhood defends itself from another neighborhood with mortars, etc...I mean is that really that hard of a choice?

btw: If you really want to get confused, try studying Belgium's democratic system, it's probably one of the most complex in the world.

...no thank you...I'm confused enough for this week...lol

[Erik]

That's what I'm saying. Isn't it blatantly obvious that in Pakistan/Iraq both parties aren't "smart enough to keep the elections 'civilized'..." That's why I don't understand attempts to form these particular governments.

Well, it wasn't my idea to invade Iraq and force democracy on them.

As for Pakistan: I think the other parties are quite able to have civilized elections, it's just the military dictatorship of Musharaf that was the problem there.

I'm just saying that regardless of the results if you have people willing to kill, you can't simply say to them: 'you can't be in the govt'

Why not?

That sounds horrible! So you mean as long as the coalition has a majority they can rule however they want?

Same as in a two party system, isn't it?

Do they even have to acknowledge other parties? If that's the case it's no wonder these places devolve into violence.

Usually the government has to answer any questions from the opposition.

And sometimes some of the coalition parties own MP's won't vote in favor of the coalition, in which case they might need the support of at least some opposition MP's.

It seems that the 'Parliamentary system' is the system of choice for countries who were recently(not recently meaning within the last few years I meant that soon after their conflict they establish a Parliamentary form of govt) in civil wars/conflict: Palestine, Rwanda, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan

It's the system of choice for the vast majority of democracies, not just the new/troublesome ones.
In fact: I can't think of many countries who adopted the US system.

So let me get this straight...let's say you have a coalition party called the Alphabet Party of 10 people; 5 are members of the ABC party; 3 are members of the DEF party; GHI and JKL both have 1 member apiece giving the Alphabet Party a majority coalition in the govt.

Are you suggesting that these govts allow(ideally speaking) GHI and JKL a voice?

Most certainly YES.
Because if GHI and JKL didn't get anything out of the coalition, they would simply leave.

So if GHI walks out on the coalition that gov't collapses right? Like al-Sadr almost did al-Maliki?

Usually, Yes.
But sometimes the coalition can still be mended by joining up with a different opposition party.
It's also possible for minority coalitions to rule (extremely rare), but then they will constantly need the support from opposition parties to get anything done.

That's what I'm asking why do these places establish a type of ineffective govt that is almost always on the verge of collapsing back(remember these places were already at war with each other) into civil violence?

Oh, wait there for a second:
The "collapse" of a coalition doesn't mean civil war: it just means new elections and a new government.
It's really not a big deal.

This is essentially the heart of the question I'm trying to ask. The 'Parliamentary System' seems to be in direct opposition to the point you're suggesting. From my understanding it would've been like when the Democrats(US) won back the House/Senate they told the Republicans from Texas that they couldn't be in the govt. anymore.

Exactly how does that "encourage cooperation"?

If the Democrats win the presidential elections, that's exactly what they are going to do.
Or do you really expect Clinton to make Bush her vice-president?

In a multi-party system it really wouldn't be that far fetched for Clinton and Bush to cooperate and form a government together.
...Although a Nader/Democrats coalition would be more likely at this point, I think, considering the hostilities between the two biggest parties.

[morteduzionism]

Why not?

ummm?....because they'll kill you.

Same as in a two party system, isn't it?

hmmm, possibly...Bush/Reps recently had a majority in Congress and the White House, off he top of my head I can't recall any major legislation being zipped through because of it(but my memory is bad... )

It's the system of choice for the vast majority of democracies, not just the new/troublesome ones.
In fact: I can't think of many countries who adopted the US system.

But why? I'm not advocating the US system either! The Parliamentary system seems so unstable that I'm not understanding why countries "choose" to input a form of govt that seems clannish/cliqueish and on the verge of perpetual collapse.

Usually, Yes.
But sometimes the coalition can still be mended by joining up with a different opposition party.

...

Oh, wait there for a second:
The "collapse" of a coalition doesn't mean civil war: it just means new elections and a new government.
It's really not a big deal.

True if/when you have people who're "smart enough to keep the elections civilized". But for places where the people aren't smart enough for that-what then? Isn't a civil war almost a certainty?

If the Democrats win the presidential elections, that's exactly what they are going to do.
Or do you really expect Clinton to make Bush her vice-president?

What I meant was that they could legally exclude Republicans from participating in govt. on a national or local level. The Dems can't do that regardless of what they win.

That seems like exactly what's happening in Pakistan. The winning side is basically sticking its' thumb on its' nose and saying, 'na-na-nee-boo-boo...you can't play' it seems childish and provactive. It's especially confusing when the side being antagonized has demonstrated the will/ability to simply kill the opposition.

It just doesn't make sense.

[Erik]

What I meant was that they could legally exclude Republicans from participating in govt. on a national or local level. The Dems can't do that regardless of what they win.

Oh, I think I see where you got confused:

In a parliamentary system the term "government" refers to what's called the "executive branch" in America.

Nobody can be excluded from the parliament or senate, and that's where the real power lies anyways.

[wilting]

It just seems that they're doomed to fail because they'e...antagonistic in their very nature.

Actually Parliamentary democracies are more successful than Presidential democaries; that is, new democracies that choose a Presidential system are more like to fail and slide back into dictatorship than Parliamentary democracies. The very first politics essay I did was on this.

Why this happens isn't known precisely but it isn't actually because those democracies are Presidential per se that they fail, but because of certain institutional configurations/practices that are generally associated with Presidential democracies, but aren't fundamental to them.

Democracy is by it's very nature adversarial, otherwise we wouldn't have different political parties and it wouldn't be real democracy. The key is to design political institutions that encourage cooperation between these groups, at a minimum to cooperate with governance by the other group when they lose the political game. Whether or not a Presidential or Parliamentary system, in an absolute sense, is better for this is pretty subjective but institutions/rules generally (but not exlusively or fundamentally) associated with Parliamentary democracies are better for this. But you can have Presidential systems with these rules or Parliamentary systems with the rules more associated with Presidential systems. You can generally characterise each type as having certain practices, but every democracy is unique.

The only REAL difference between a Presidential system and a Parliamentary system is the seperation of powers; in a Parliamentary system the Executive sits in the Legislature, and is therefore more powerful, specifically on it's influence on law making.

Pakistan, I would think, is a semi-Presidential system, which combines elements of both, splitting power between President and Prime Minister to varying degrees. So is, for example, France. Iraq is closer to pure* Parliamentary, I believe.

*In the context of Executive power, which is what the definition boils down to. I have no idea about electoral rules etc in Iraq.

[morteduzionism]

First, just to be clear I'm not implicitly advocating Presidential democracies over Parliamentary ones. I'm just baffled as to why people seem to insist on establishing a form of govt. that from what I can tell is almost doomed to immediate failure. Maybe it's because troubled Parliamentary govts. have been in news recently.

Democracy is by it's very nature adversarial, otherwise we wouldn't have different political parties and it wouldn't be real democracy. The key is to design political institutions that encourage cooperation between these groups, at a minimum to cooperate with governance by the other group when they lose the political game.

This is essentially the heart of the question I'm trying to ask. The 'Parliamentary System' seems to be in direct opposition to the point you're suggesting. From my understanding it would've been like when the Democrats(US) won back the House/Senate they told the Republicans from Texas that they couldn't be in the govt. anymore.

Exactly how does that "encourage cooperation"?

[Farnan]

The argument hinges on Morte using the wrong definition in government. In a Parliamentary system government refers to the Prime Minister and his cabinet. It does not refer to the government as a whole.

[morteduzionism]

ahhhhh...I see. Thanks for clearing that up. And thanks for the replies.

It still seems like it'd be hard to get anything accomplished with this political system. Specifically referring to countries who're ending some form of civil conflict.

Depending on the members of the governments coalition, it almost seems like a Prime Minister hamstrings her/himself into ineffectiveness.

To use al-Maliki as an example, he couldn't crack down on al-Sadr because he was a member of his own coalition. He couldn't crack down too hard on Sunnis because of the perception it might give(since he's a Shi'a) and the effect it would have on the Sunni members of his coalition. Isn't it the same for legislative matters also? He hasn't been able to do much?

There isn't a minimum amount of the time a PM has to hold the post is there? What I'm asking is if a PM has a minimum amount of time he/she must serve or is their term dependent on the constitutional limit(whatever the term their constitution grants) and his/her ability to maintain the coalition?

According to Parliamentary rules a PM can get a vote of 'no confidence' and that's pretty much the end of the story for that govt, right? If that's the case, I still can't see why a people, who were recently shooting at each other, would consciously choose such an unstable type of govt. A govt. that seems to have any number of ways it can fail and seemingly only one way for success.

[Erik]

It still seems like it'd be hard to get anything accomplished with this political system. Specifically referring to countries who're ending some form of civil conflict.

Yes, that's probably its biggest weakness.
I think it's a good system for small countries, but large countries like the USA are probably better off with a system that allows for a stronger government.

Depending on the members of the governments coalition, it almost seems like a Prime Minister hamstrings her/himself into ineffectiveness.

In most countries the prime-minister has just one real task: keep his cabinet from falling apart.
PM's are nowhere as powerful as a president, nor are they intended to.

There isn't a minimum amount of the time a PM has to hold the post is there?

No.
In fact: usually the prime-minister can be fired by parliament at any time, and so can individual members of his cabinet.
They serve until they screw up, or until their term is over, whichever comes first.

The quickest I've seen a member of cabinet get sacked was after just 8 hours in office.

According to Parliamentary rules a PM can get a vote of 'no confidence' and that's pretty much the end of the story for that govt, right?

Correct.

If that's the case, I still can't see why a people, who were recently shooting at each other, would consciously choose such an unstable type of govt. A govt. that seems to have any number of ways it can fail and seemingly only one way for success.

Maybe because they distrust government?

And as I said before, it's really no big deal when the government falls.
They just put out early elections, and try again.

[gaius valerius]

Yes, that's probably its biggest weakness.
I think it's a good system for small countries, but large countries like the USA are probably better off with a system that allows for a stronger government.

If you look at Italy you have a clear example of everything a parliamentary system should never be: in little more than 60 years they've had about 50 different governments... as in general one governments term is about 4-5 years... you get the picture. On the other hand the excesses of this system can be compensated by for exampe an electional 'treshold'. In Belgium every party can participate in the elections, but to be able to get into parliament they need a minimum of 5% of all votes. Such measures - who some deem undemocratic - reduce an extreme fragmented political scen (like in Italy) and increases stability.

The main thing with the USA is that it lacks the historical prerequisites for a parliamentary system in a continental fashion. In the old word politics are according to ideology. Socialism, liberals, conservatives, etc, but in the end we're all part of a 'nation'. Liberals and socialists in Belgium or in the Netherlands are in the end Belgians and Dutch. In the USA there is no historical 'nation' on which ideological schools could attach themselves. You had immigrants from about everywhere and in the beginning there was no link between them. You were an Italian American, an Irish American, but you were never an American. This is the reason why also unions never developped in the same fashion such as Europe: there is to few of a national basis. That is why in the USA a system with just Democrats and Republicans was more appealing. It reconciled the various internal divisions.

In most countries the prime-minister has just one real task: keep his cabinet from falling apart.
PM's are nowhere as powerful as a president, nor are they intended to.

Not necessarily true. Here in Belgium we tend to speak of a 'semi-presidential' role of the PM. This is because our country is federalised to such an extent, that the only central point of authority in most cases is the PM. Throughout the various constitutional/institutional changes our country has had from the 1970's onwards, this led to a growing importance of the role of the PM. This is of course a specific consequence of the ingenuous constellation that is my country...

Maybe because they distrust government?

Each political system is based on a degree of trust. Historica experiences are very important in constructing such feelings. One must have trust in the system and the state itself before it could work.

[Farnan]

One reason for this is it allows the minority groups of the nation to have more of a say. In a nation that has little internal strife a Presidential system works well as there are no protected groups that must have a say in governing. In nations like Iraq with three different ethnic groups with some hostility it requires all three have a say in governing.

[King Edward III]

Good to see Belgium back on track.

[gaius valerius]

Good to see Belgium back on track.

If you want to call it like that If only everyone would be mature here... Goddamn our politicians are like a bunch of kids.

[Blau&Gruen]

So what is the "success story" that the world hopes to repeat by using this political model?

It just seems that they're doomed to fail because they'e...antagonistic in their very nature.

You ask the question. You give the answer.