Coalitions normally provide good government because the decisions are made in the interest of the majority of the population. Any policy will be debated thoroughly before implementation because a wide consensus of opinion is involved. But coalitions also provide bad government because they cannot take a long-term view. This happens because the different parties in the coalition can have different ideological views and thus a unifying philosophy is hard to come by. Planning for the long term is difficult because temporary unpopularity may "encourage one of the parties to defect in search of a populist advantage" (Endersby, 2001).
Electoral systems can often attribute to the necessity of coalition governments. When proportional representation is used, it almost invariably leads to a multiparty system, where no one party can get enough seats in parliament and thus coalition parties have to be formed. Economic issues normally influence the choice of coalition partners, which provides reasons for parties to coalesce (Mahler, 2003:118). This is a definite factor that will be examined when discussing the coalition governments of Israel and Germany respectively.
Another drawback of coalition governments is that they are usually less transparent, because one party does not have the opportunity of forming the government alone. The manifestos presented to the public usually become unrealistic and irrelevant. Real decisions are usually only made after the elections, often in a secretive way, where the public is excluded. This negatively influences the accountability of parties (Endersby, 2003).
Germany
Political system
Western Europe in categorised by unitary political systems. Germany is the exception to that rule, because it is the only major state in Western Europe with a federal political structure (Mahler, 2003).
The Bundesrepublik (Federal Republic) consists of 16 Federal states. The constitution of 1949, the Basic Law, outlines the division of power between the federal and state levels (Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia, 2003). Each State has its own powers, with a constitution, legislature and local government (much like the USA). States may therefore enact their own laws, except where the Federal Government has an exclusive right, such as foreign affairs and defence issues for example (The Europa World Year Book 2003 (1), 2003. 1734)
Germany has a bicameral parliamentary regime. The Bundesrat (Federal Council) is the upper house, which consists of 69 seats. The lower house, the Bundestag (Federal Assembly), consists of 669 deputies. This is where the majority of legislation is passed (The Europa World Year Book 2003 (1), 2003: 1735).
The Federal Chancellor is the chief executive in the government. He/she therefore exercises the most power in the political system. The federal president only has a ceremonial role. Currently, Prof. Dr Johannes Rau is the president and Gerard Schröder form the Social Democratic Party (SPD) is the Federal Chancellor (Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia, 2003). The German federal system can be referred to as "chancellor democracy" (Mahler, 2003:250)
Federalism has various benefits. Most importantly, it creates a system of power sharing and regional autonomy. Where a system such as this is not in place, or is overthrown, the result could be an authoritarian regime such as the Third Reich in the past. Federalism therefore ensures that “neither level of government can encroach on the powers of the other” (Heywood, 1997: 124).
Coalition government
Germany has five political parties that have formed different coalitions since the days of the Cold War: the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) / Christian Social Union (CSU), the Alliance 90/The Greens, the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) (German Embassy – Washigton D.C, 2003). These parties have had the majority of the votes (up to 99,5%) through most of the past decades. To understand why this is so, one has to look at their electoral system (Mahler, 2003: 256).
Germany's electoral system works on a so-called two-vote system. With the "first vote," the citizens vote directly for a candidate who has been nominated by the local political party organisation in a "single-member-district, plurality voting electoral framework" (Mahler, 2003:258). The "second vote" is cast for a political party in a proportional representation electoral competition where parties then receive a proportional amount of seats in the federal assembly (Mahler, 2003:258). The seats in the government can, however, only be allocated to parties who have received more than 5% of the total votes cast (this is the so-called 'Five Percent Clause' (Patterson, 2003:256). The justification behind a two-vote electoral system is that it permits for the accuracy of proportional representation, while still permitting for a single-member-district electoral structure, and thus personal representation. Another justification behind this has to do with interest group representation (Mahler, 2003: 258).
This creates a problem that can be seen with coalition governments: over-representation. A situation can develop when “as in Germany, a small centre party is the only viable coalition partner for larger conservative and socialist ones” (Heywood, 1997: 246). In this case, the CDU/CSU seems to be the party that forms coalitions most regularly. We may also find that a legislature with so many parties can lead to coalition governments, which can be less stable governments (Mahler, 2003:259). But the fact that Germany has the "Five Percent Clause" at least lessens the amount of parties that can take part in government.
This can be seen in the fact that coalition governments in Germany have often been the norm. In a political system where a number of parties vie for power, or where regional characteristics need to be taken into account, coalition governments are usually an appropriate option. This has a positive impact on democratic performance because it increases representation in government. Coalitions that constitute a majority are usually more stable than minority coalitions. Majority coalitions are less prone to get votes of non-confidence (Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia, 2003).
Currently Germany's ruling coalition is the SPD-Green coalition. They have been in power since 1998, with Schröder as the chancellor. The 2002 election was "a very close run affair." The CDU/CSU were expected to win, but Schröder fought a skilful campaign and came out on top. The Reg-Green Government (SPD-Green coalition), returned with 38,52% for the SPD (securing 251 seats) and 8,56% (55 seats) for the Greens. The CDU/CSU secured 38,51% (248 seats), while the FDP only won 7,37% (47 seats) of the votes (Paterson, 2003:257).
Israel
Political system
Israel is a parliamentary democracy and its governmental system is based on several laws enacted by the Knesset, a unicameral parliament. The Knesset elects the president for a 5-year period. Currently the president is Moshe Katsav, who has exceptionally been elected for a 7-year period (The Europa World Year Book 2003 (2), 2003:2125). The president has a ceremonial role. The prime minister exercises executive power and in the past the president chose the prime minister who was most able to be the party leader. Between May 1996 and March 2001, however, the citizens voted for the prime minister directly, but the Knesset annulled this rule in March 2001. Now the prime minister is once again the leader of the ruling party. The Knesset must jointly approve the cabinet members (U.S. State Department, 2003).
The Knesset consists of 120 members and they are elected by secret ballot for 4-year terms. However, the prime minister can decide to hold new elections before the end of the 4-year term.
Coalition government
Israel has been led by coalition governments since 1948, much like Germany. This country, however, has been in constant conflict and strife since, metaphorically speaking, the beginning of time. Although this argument is not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it has to be taken into account that everything done in Israel, political or not, is influenced by this conflict. Israel is also a highly religious country and this has a great influence on the politics of the country.
Israel's electoral system is much simpler than Germany's because of its unicameral government. A proportional representation system is used. This means that voting is for party lists - not for individual candidates – and the total amount of seats are assigned to the parties according to the percentage of votes they received (U.S State Department, 2003).
Israel also has a barrier for parties to be able to get seats in the Knesset. This barrier is 1,5% of the total votes. In the 1999 elections, there was still a split voting system for the prime minister and the Knesset. The result of this was a proliferation of parties. A record amount of 31 parties contended, with 15 parties succeeding to break the barrier of 1,5%. This created a "beehive of identities" producing various interests: secular vs. religious, Sephardic vs. Ashkenazi, old-timer vs. immigrant, Russian immigrants, and Arab parties, representing about 20% of the population. These parties obviously created a lot of heated discussions, but discussions about important issues like adopting a constitution were also discussed. (The basic idea that "all people, regardless of race, nationality, gender, and religion are equal before the law" does not exist in Israel's laws. This obviously has a huge implication for our definition of democratic performance… (Amir, 1999:50)
Amir (1999:50) claims that "the smaller the difference between contending parties in an election, the louder the battle cries, the more ferocious the mutual recriminations, and the more meaningless the promises made by any of them". He also says that there has never been such a widely held consensus among Israelis about the most important issue in Israel's political discourse, namely the relations with the Palestinians. The problem, however, is that this will never be said out loud during an election campaign, because each party wants to claim that they are different and thus we see the various sectional interests discussed above.
Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister in the 2001 election and was re-elected in the 2003 elections. He is the head of the Likud Party. In the 2003 elections Likud, won 40 seats, (doubling their representation from 20 seats to 40). Sharon was unable to form a coalition with the Labour party (who opted to become the official opposition). Sharon, in turn, formed a narrow right-wing coalition. The coalition consists of 68 members, with the centrist Shinui party, the ultra-right wing National Union and the National Religious Party (EIU, 2003: 16). Although Sharon excluded the ultra-orthodox parties, who were previously part of the coalition, his new coalition is by no means united. The main point of concern is the vague acceptance of Sharon of the "road-map" to peace promoted by the Middle East quartet (US, UN, EU and Russia). If the US pushes forward the plan, the NRP and the National Union are out rightly opposed to the idea. Sharon vaguely supports he plan, while the Shinui supports it (EIU, 2003:18).
Even with the 1,5% barrier, thirteen parties still got elected to the Knesset. In this coalition government over-representation is definitely an issue!
Democratic performance – deductions and inferences
The big question that has to be answered is: What is the impact of coalition governments on democratic performance? We thus have to look at the different factors influencing democratic performance within a coalition government.
Coalition governments are usually, characterised by PR electoral system. PR systems can also be called consensus systems. As we have seen, these systems are more representative. Because they are more 'encompassing,' they may encourage more deliberative, inclusive and 'collegial' decision-making. However, their tendency to multipartism means "less executive control of the legislature, and possibly less executive stability (Foweraker & Landman: 2000: 48). This obviously has an impact on democratic performance.
In Germany, a two-vote system is used. This means that PR and a single-member-district system are combined. Germany also has the "Five Percent Clause." Israel on the other hand, only has a PR system and the 1,5% barrier. As discussed before, both these countries have various parties in government, but Israel has 13 represented parties. The implications of this can be inferred from our discussion about coalition governments. First of all, there is the problem of over-representation. Secondly, transparency of government is a definite problem (seeing that Israel's leading coalition consists of four parties, this is definitely a bigger problem in Israel than in Germany). Instability in the political system is another issue that is caused by the PR system where so many parties are involved. However, a PR system, as discussed above, does provide for representation of the majority of the citizens, voicing their concerns.
However, Foweraker & Landman (2000:59) looks at electoral systems and concludes that:
"Electoral systems act to condition political party systems and political systems in general. But the electoral system alone cannot make a political system. This will be configured by pre-existing social, economical and cultural conditions, especially by pre-existing political cleavages in the society, as well as by the relative stability of party ideologies and political party loyalties in the population."
The implications of this statement are clear from the two examples. Israel is an unstable country, with such a diverse population. It is typified by strife and conflict. Germany, on the other hand, has one of the biggest economies is Europe, it is stable and doesn't have nearly as much conflict within the country as Israel does. Therefore, an electoral system isn't the only deciding factor on democratic performance within a country. "Historical and political context remain important" (Foweraker & Landman, 2003:49).
Another aspect that has to be considered is the powers of the executive. This has a great impact on responsible government and thus on democratic performance.
The problem with coalition governments is as we have seen, the unavoidable differences among coalition-forming parties. "The more volatile the voters, the more party leaders have to condition their choices on the expected electoral consequences" (Strom, 2000:10). Thus, promises made by party leaders in their electoral campaign are often not realised once government is formed. This has an impact on the transparency of government, which is a key value of liberal democracies. This is, once again, a bigger problem in Israel than in Germany.
However, there is one more area of concern in connection with Germany's democratic performance. In Germany, the chancellor is "dominant and beyond the normal reach of the legislature in terms of the usual meaning 'responsible government'" (Mahler, 2003:253). This is one uncertain factor within Germany's political system. However, Germany has achieved something that only a few countries have achieved with a coalition government. With its two-vote electoral system and the "Five Percent Clause, " it has overcome, to a great extent the great drawbacks of a PR system, namely "proliferation of political parties and the ensuing political instability of the regime" (Mahler, 2003:264). As we have seen, the same cannot be said for Israel, in most aspects. Another area of concern in terms of a liberal democracy in Israel is the fact that it does not have a written constitution (but that won't be discussed here).
Conclusion
So, what is the impact of coalition governments on democratic performance? If we look at the examples, it is clear that the impact differs from country to country, depending on the entire context of the country. Germany's coalition government does have certain negative implications for its democratic performance, but it also has positive impacts on democratic performance. Israel, on the other hand, has an unstable government and their democratic performance is not such a well-oiled machine. But, bare in mind that Israel has a completely different political setting, and thus it isn’t easy to hold only the coalition government responsible for relatively poor democratic performance.
We can therefore conclude that coalition governments have a definite impact on democratic performance; one just has to bare in mind the context in which you place a comparison. No political event occurs in isolation.
Bibliography
Amir, S. 1999. "Israeli elections: much ado about not much" in Monthly review. September. p. 50-51.
EIU. 2003. "Country Report : Israel" in The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. Issue 4. April. p. 3-18.
Endersby, A. 2003. "Coalition government" in International Debate Education Association – Debatabase (online edition) <> (15 October)
Foweraker & Krznaric. 2000. "Measuring Democratic Performance: an Empirical and Conceptual Critique" in Political Studies. London: Blackwell Publishers. Vol. 48. Issue 4. September. p. 43-67.
Foweraker, J. & Landman, T. 2002. "Constitutional Design and Democratic Performance" in Democratization. Vol. 9. No. 2. London: Frank Cass. Summer. p. 43-66.
German Embassy – Washington D.C. 2003. ‘Government, Constitution and Legal System’, <www.germany-info.org>.
Heywood, A. 1997. Politics. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Hyperdictionary. 2003. "Coalition" (online edition) <> (15 October)
Paterson, W.E. 2003. Regional surveys of the world - Western Europe 2003. London: Europa publications Limited. p. 252-258.
Strom, K. 2000. "Coalition Government, Subnational Style: Multiparty Politics in Europe's Regional Parliaments (Book Review)" in American Political Science Review. March. p. 10.
The Europa World Year Book 2003 (1) .2003. "Germany." London: Europa Publications. p. 1733-1776.
The Europa World Year Book 2003 (2) .2003. "Israel." London: Europa Publications. p. 2111-2148.
Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia. 2003. ‘Coalition Government’ (online edition) <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government> (15 October)
U.S. Department of State. 2003. Background Notes: Israel. (online edition). September. <> (15 October)
