Posted by
Bert Chapman on Saturday, May 08, 2010 12:59:52 PM
Thursday's British election was truly an interesting affair. Like our 2000 presidential election, they experienced some electoral machinery snafus though this had to do more with student voters not bring their id cards and relying on an antiquated and inefficient paper ballot system. The overall results are a mixed bag. The Conservatives won the most seats in the House of Commons and defeated Gordon Brown's Labour Party Government by over 2 million votes, but they did not win enough seats to achieve a majority. Consequently, they are trying to negotiate an agreement with the Liberal Democrats and their leader Nick Clegg, who finished third in the balloting to achieve some sort of coalition government under the leadership of probable Conservative PM David Cameron. There are also some additional minor parties in the mix as well representing Scottish separatists, Welsh nationalists, and various Northern Ireland factions.
Despite his party's worst defeat since 1931, Gordon Brown still gets to squat on as Prime Minister in 10 Downing Street. This election illustrates the absolute folly of having more than two parties in a major democracy. The Conservatives may be able to reach a temporary working agreement with the Liberal Democrats, despite their significant ideological differences, but such an agreement will probably only last a year at the most before it collapses and new elections will be required. It is even possible that Labour and the Liberal Democrats may negotiate a deal that would give them power but there are also big differences between these two leftist parties and deep personal animosity toward Brown outside of the Labour Party.
Since early 2006, Canada has had a minority Conservative government under the able leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. This government has been able to function somewhat effectively due to divisions among the other Canadian political parties. However, it could be toppled at any time and early elections could occur if the three major Canadian opposition parties decide to collaborate together on no confidence motions or budget votes. Parliamentary systems are somewhat capable of dealing with minority governments even though they are limited in how much political leverage they have or decisive action they can take. Britain is facing serious budget problems and is well aware of the problems facing Greece and, potentially, other Eurozone countries. It will be tough for a Conservative lead government to make the necessary budget reductions to lessen British debt if it has to collaborate with the Liberal Democrats or some other parties.
Our U.S. governmental system with its separation of powers is not equipped to handle such multiparty government. How would congressional committees organize themselves if no single party has a majority in the House or Senate?. If you have a committee with 25 members, you could have 14 members on it from one party and 11 members from the other party. In a three party system where no party has a majority in either House one party might have 11 members on this committee, another 10, and a third part 4 members or a whole variety of arrangements. Who would direct Committee business? How would legislative business be transacted on the House or Senate floors. Would presidential cabinets appointments be divided by party e.g. Secretary of State Republican; Secretary of Defense Democrat-Secretary of Agriculture Democrat; Secretary of Energy-Republican; Transportation Secretary-Libertarian etc?
Hopefully, the British can work out a reasonably effective system that will reflect their electorate's preference for more Conservative policies. Those of you who are third party enthusiasts should take caution from the British example which is even more complicated in many European democracies where it can take several weeks to form a government after an election.