A MINORITY GOVERNMENT CAN BE A MAJORITY GOVERNMENT

Dec 19, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The euphoria that visited the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR)-led A People’s Partnership for National Unity (APNU) immediately after the declaration of the November 28 General and Regional Elections’ results is understandable. This situation is explicable because in the course of Guyana’s political history, the PNC never won any national election, and now to have to interface with a minority and not a majority government may be its raison d’être for rejoicing.
Indeed, it is Christmas time, too, a time for jubilation, welcoming the new-born king. But as the Parliament becomes constituted and the arduous work of good democratic governance begins, this PNCR-led APNU euphoria will dissipate; in fact, dissipation of that exhilaration for some in that camp has already set in, as these few realize that their political fate reached a cul-de-sac, as Parliament has no place for them; their political journey, for now anyway, ended on that Party candidates’ list. Intermixed with this euphoria is a huge focus on raw votes, percentage of votes, a minority government, and opposition control of parliament.
Nonetheless, in a letter on December 4, to the media, I pointed out that, “At any rate, this notion of instability associated with a minority government cannot be discounted as historical evidence of the volatility of minority governments abound. Studies of minority governments with minority presidents present perceptions of ineffective government, persistent intensity of government-parliament conflict, and the gradual erosion of democracy. Nonetheless, this scenario has become popular because of its sole focus on the number of votes, and not on governmental performance.”
“…Look, the relationships between the legislature and the government (executive) in modern times define a government without a majority in parliamentary democracies; where the action is more directed toward rational policies and social problems, rather than solely on votes the parties won (Strom, 2004); and Strom noted that what could be more political than these intra-governmental relationships. The number of votes does not primarily define such intense political relationships. Politics have to do with making the lives of the poor and vulnerable better, and it is this parameter in the long run that defines the solidity of a ruling party, with or without a majority in parliament. “
The PPP/C, indeed, is a minority government, but it can produce for all Guyanese as a majority government because it is not primarily the votes it acquired but a quality legislative and executive agenda that will determine the quality of its governmental performance in parliament. The logic governing good governmental performance pertains to having an agenda that meets people’s interests and fulfils their needs; especially the concerns of the vulnerable and the poor. Addressing and resolving such concerns with immediacy would dismiss any sine qua non attached to ‘votes’.
You keep hearing this talk about the opposition controlling parliament because of the combined votes of  both APNU and the Alliance for Change (AFC); this may be the case, but merely using votes to stymie governmental activities and create gridlocks would make the combined opposition the architect of a ‘do-nothing parliament’. This is a public perception where a coalition is winning if it has an absolute majority of votes. Bogdanor defines absolute majority as a ‘majority of all votes cast’; relative majority as obtaining ‘more votes’ than any other party.
Bergman (1993) refers to Bogdanor’s ‘relative majority’ as a plurality rule; where, for instance, a cabinet is constituted when its party obtains more votes than any other party; and with no requirement to win by a majority to form a government. In Bogdanor’s vernacular, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) may have a relative majority; and in Bergman’s terms, relative majority is merely a rule, but a rule, nevertheless, that enabled the PPP/C to constitute the government.
Nonetheless, whether the PPP/C has a relative majority or whether relative majority is a rule, the fact of the matter is that the PPP/C has most of the votes than any other party, and constitutional arrangements allow it to constitute the executive. Still, the bottom line is that the PPP/C has to develop and re-craft a quality legislative and executive agenda to ensure that its governmental performance would be engaging, of good quality, and firmly adhere to the principles of good democratic governance. What really I am saying is that the PPP/C’s focus at all times has to be on addressing people’s concerns, interests, and needs, that is, concerns, interests, and needs as defined and determined by the masses.
And let me say that a minority government in a parliamentary democracy does not necessarily imply a weak government because even the absolute majority of members of parliament may have to endure a minority government over long periods of time; for if this absolute majority actively fails to support the government, then that government will fall or it will resign (Bogdanor, 1984; Brucewitz, 1929); and would combined parties with the absolute majority be willing to remove the minority government just for the sake of wanting power? In terms of the empirical record of the fate of minority governments and this definition of parliamentary democracy, a government does not necessarily need an absolute majority to function (Bergman, 1993); and a minority government’s consistent focus on rational policies meeting the masses concerns, interests, and needs also would bolster its minority status.
Today, ‘coalition’ and ‘minority government’ are ‘hot’ words in Guyana. Yet, Bergman argued that there is an inconsistency between what we know about coalitions and what we see in practice as far as government formation goes in parliamentary democracies. The inconsistency arises because it was believed that a coalition can only be winning if it has an absolute majority of members of parliament; and Bergman quite rightly notes that this is not the case in most parliamentary democracies.
For this reason, it may be useful to outline the five rules relating to coalition and the type of government formed, and possibly what is in store for Guyana with the PPP/C having a minority government status.
“1. An often assumed rule that a coalition must contain parties that together hold an absolute majority  (as shown above, this rule exists only in theory).
2.  A rule that requires a coalition to win a positive vote in the parliament by an absolute majority.
3.  A  rule  that  requires  a coalition  to  win  a positive  vote  in  the parliament by a relative  majority.
4.  A rule that allows a coalition to win if it can pass a negative vote in the parliament (in the sense that an absolute majority does not vote against it).
5.  A  rule  that  does  not  require  a  coalition  to  win  an  explicit  vote  in  the Parliament” (Bergman).
1-3 represents the positively formulated rules and 4-5 the negatively formulated rules. The Guyana scenario is possibly more skewed toward 1-3 than toward 4-5, in that the PPP/C government was formed on the basis of positively formulated rules. And the size and frequency of minority governments in many countries have a lot to do with government formation rules, as I have noted in (1) through (5); incidentally, the positively related rules are less prone to producing minority governments. For this reason, Guyana is not on the verge of hatching minority governments; rules for government formation in Guyana do not support that line of thinking.
Prem Misir

---

---