Not that i'm politically on the ball but to me it seems that in countries like the USA and England where in politics it is one or the other, politicians of different parties are forever slagging the others off and blaming the country's shortcoming on the other party. Lots of others there but there is only ever 2. The third one is like there for it to look right but everyone knows they will never make it to rule the country.
So what is stopping countries like the USA and England introducing a system where coalitions are part of everyday life.
To me it seems those politicians involved just ain't man or woman enough to agree to disagree with the other side and haven't got the integrity to admit they can't agree? I realize there are many more countries where coalition politics are just not an option. Maybe if the 'Leaders' lead by example, i.e. publicly agree to disagree and start again then those other countries would eventually follow?
2006-09-16 10:43:56 · 9 answers · asked by Part Time Cynic 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Before anyone mention parliaments 'crashing', i grew up in Belgium in the 70's. If that makes no sense do a search on Leo Tindemans or move on to the next question please.
Ta.
2006-09-16 10:45:25 · update #1
Avon something ... Just people like you i left the comment for. belgium had very unstable politics in the 1970's. I was not even a teenager but the only thing ever on the news was another government crash and the only thing my parent ever told me was that the politicians couldn't agree. I left the country at 18 but now, nearly 30 years later it is a federal kingdom where no longer there are petrol bombs thrown over linguistic issues. And parliament no longer crashes and even when one coalition wanted this power you seem to think so highly off recently, and decided to form a coalition with the Vlaams Blok it was stopped by all the other parties. No one got power in England. Other than the media that is!
2006-09-16 10:58:54 · update #2
been thinking, maybe compulsory is bit of a strong word. More like coalitions should just be matter of course, if i'm supposed to be living in a democracy then does that give me the democratic right to a referendum on the matter? Cause if i doesn't then there is nothing democratic about the system. More feudal-like to me!
2006-09-16 11:06:33 · update #3
Maybe not forced coalition... but definitely setting up the rules better to prevent a de facto two-party system from closing out any other options. If multiple parties can compete on a level playing field, then there will end up being a coalitional system almost every time.
Specific proposals linked below.
2006-09-16 10:49:33 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think Americans are comfortable with a de facto two party system. There are still primaries and such. You can lobby your legislators whether they are Democrat or Republican. The two political parties clearly outline their positions on some of the most key political issues facing Americans today. The smaller issues may be disagreed upon by members of the same party, but in the interest of progress they assemble to achieve their goals in politics. That being said, the idea of politics being partisan is kinda funny since their are many different opinions working together as one party. People who complain about lack of bipartisan cooperation between the two parties are often asking the opposite party to make an unfair comprimise and capitulate.
Also this question doesn't pertain to the US or UK very well since neither are a true democracy. The US is a federal republic, I am not really sure what the system in UK is called other than a constitutional monarchy.
2006-09-16 17:47:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
To whitebuyasiangirl :
USA is a democracy (comes from Greek the "people governing") AND a republic (which means that there is a president) opposite to a kingdom where there is a king.
Difference is that the people in the government are not chosen by percentage of votes (as in most of Europe) but the winner of a region takes all which means less fragmentation but also less representation of the people (51 % republican means and 49 democrat party votes means that it is the Republican that has to represent all the people of the state, not quite representative, ain't it ?
2006-09-17 09:11:41 · answer #3 · answered by Rik 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The USA is not a democracy but it is a Republic. It is funny that you mention the USA and the UK, the two nations that Europe and the world count on to make decisions to save the world. European coalitions tend to be useless debate societies, it is far from a system any rational country would emulate.
2006-09-16 17:58:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Proportional represention is the fairest method of electing a government. This would most likely result in a coalition.
2006-09-16 17:49:02 · answer #5 · answered by malcy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Surely the idea of making anything compulsory is anti-democratic?
The system you seem to be advocating would result in a government no one had confidence in. At least the first past the post system places power in someone's hands.
2006-09-16 17:49:49 · answer #6 · answered by Avondrow 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why not abolish parties altogether, as in non-partisan system so representatives don't point-score and represent their citizens rather than their parties?
2006-09-16 18:19:09 · answer #7 · answered by Darrell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - we need the sharp cut and thrust of party politics to keep things mobile otherwise we stagnate!
2006-09-16 17:51:55 · answer #8 · answered by Michael E 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
WELL YEA KINDA
2006-09-16 17:47:57 · answer #9 · answered by Penney S 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋