Talk:Minority government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Long Discussion 2 Key issues 2.1 Largest Party 2.2 First Past the Post 2.3 Continental Europe 2.4 Criticism 3 Wales 4 Value statements

[edit] Long Discussion

I removed the following paragraphs. Most of it will surely be made fit, but the totality gave (in my impression) a too incorrect impression, why I propose the wordings are discussed on this talk page first:

When in a minority situation the head of the largest party is still asked to form a government.

This is surely true for some countries, but not generally.

They must then either form a coalition with one or more existing parties, or they must win enough support from the other parties to avoid a non-confidence motion.

This is quite simply not generally or absolutely true.

Minority goverments are extremely common in proportional representation systems.

"Extremely common" - it would be interesting to see some statistics proving this.

Countries such as Israel and Germany are always ruled by coalitions.

"always" --> "usually" or "as a rule"

Under the first past the post system minorities are much rarer

Seems plausible, but are there really no better term than "the first past the post system" for what I'd called for instance "one-person's constituencies". ..."less proportional systems" for instance?

Minority governments are inherently unstable and often fall before their term is expired.

"are" --> "are sometimes" or "are often", but note for instance the Social Democrats in Sweden, who have headed the Cabinet with three brief exceptions since 1932, but as a rule have headed minority cabinets.

Many criticize minority governments arguing they create deadlock within the government and prevent and slow changes. Others, however, view minority governments as beneficial for creating a more diverse government that reflects more than one viewpoint.

It would be nice to see who these critics are. Names, please!

-- Ruhrjung 13:44, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wrote most of the above text. It is written from a Canadian/Westminster system perspective, and most of the mistakes stem from that. In Canada minority governments virtually never last for there full term, usally falling within two years. Criticism of minority governments is almost universal within Canada's major parties see [[1]], [[2]]. Also "first past the post" is the ubiquitous term for Canada's system. Sorry for the mistakes, I'll try to rework it. - SimonP 14:39, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

That's OK, but please do it here!
-- Ruhrjung 15:02, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think there is any policy against writing incomplete articles, please stop deleting my additions. I would be much obliged if you would edit the article yourself rather than just reverting it to a stub. - SimonP 16:18, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

If you stop put rubbish in the article, that would be no problem. I've above detailed why I reverted your change, and proposed that you discuss the article on the talk-page, which actually is the meaning of the talk page.

As English is not my mother tongue, I'm not the right person to make quick and good edits, and in this case I showed how each of (or close to each of) your sentences were objectionable. I do, and have done, plenty of edits in English, but that doesn't change the fact that it demands comparably more than edits in a mother tongue.

I must say that I had expected you to comment on the objections instead of putting new rubbish in the article, as for instance the claim on Swedish coalition cabinets which beside being false is in direct contradiction of what I had written above - only a few minutes before.

There is no reason to react aggressively, unless your ambition is m:Wikipedia vandalism, which I however do not believe.

-- Ruhrjung 17:21, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused any offense, I thought I had made significant changes to the article based on your critiques. I am not an expert but I was under the impression that in Israel Likud or Labour never win more than fifty percent of the seats and thus form coalitions. At least recently, the same has been true in Germany, and will be for the foreseeable future as long as there are four large parties. Perhaps I was wrong on these but please present some evidence.

No, I don't think you were wrong. But I question on these points the relevance for an article on minority cabinets ...in addition to the pure nonsence on Swedish coalition cabinets, ...although Swedish minority cabinets in reality might be relevant here - and that as example of stable minority cabinets that don't seem to suffer much from proposed drawbacks. Additionally, it might be questioned if Germany, my country, is such a good example. -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

More importantly I do not see what is so wrong about my section on the westminster system (which by the way is not a synonym for the first past the post system). For Canada, at least, it is quite accurate, there are probably differences in other westminster countries (Australia's system has been much reformed), but please list these rather than deleting the entire text.

If you know the situation specifically in Canada, but not neccessarily otherwhere, then state that you write about Canada, and not about minority cabinets around the world. -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In my almost two years here I have never been in an edit war, but I am strongly considering reinserting my section on westminster unless you tell me what is wrong with it.

You have done that once already. -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Also I did present two links to articles outlining the common criticism of minority governments. (a criticism which I do not believe is valid, but it is still very widespread and should be addressed) Please explain why those sources are invalid or will also reinsert that section.

I will be very quick to agree with you on this kind of issues, I must however confess that I probably did this without any specifical thoughts on the links in question. I've no recollection of having done this. They surely followed en suite as I made a revertion of all your changes, the reason to which I'd stated above, don't you think? -- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I do not want to seem agressive or confrontational but I do feel that most of what was there was at least somewhat valid. - SimonP 17:47, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I think it's you whou should provide examples and references.

If you make a "sweeping" change, where plenty of inaccuracies can be detected also by the untrained eye, you will have to accept that your credibility is damaged, and that it is you who have to carry the burden of provements. I do not oppose your statement that your assertations were "at least somewhat valid" - my problem is that they were only partially valid, as I've detailed above. And your initial disinterest to discuss the issue (above) didn't give the best impression of your intentions.

I'm sure this discussion will make both this specific article, and tinily the wikipedia project as a whole, improved.

regards!
-- Ruhrjung 18:22, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a cultural misunderstanding. You seem to not view coalition governments as a form of minority government, which is reasonable since in most of Europe majority government are so rare that politics are through the lens of a coaltion/minority dualism. In the Commonwealth majorities are the norm and we view things as a majority/minority dualism and generally lump coaltions in as a form of minority government. That is why I could carelessly toss Sweden in to the list of coaltion governed states, and why you think the talk of coaltion governments does not belong in an article on minority goverments. This is just a theory, however, maybe I've got it all wrong again. Tell me what you think of my latest effort, I do value your commentary and do think it will lead to a better article. - SimonP 19:48, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how a coalition that commands a majority in the parliament can be called a minority government. Majority/minority and one-party/coalition are two different dualisms, and all four combinations are possible. --Wik 19:59, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

True, they are not called minority govenrments, but in Canada you will never here of a coalition being elected, you will here of a minority govenrnment being elected which then might or might not transform into a coaltion.

Another example is in the long simmering debate about proportional representation. The disadvantage is always said to be minority governments, when it would, in fact, be coalition governments that result. Minority government is used as a shorthand for anything that is not a majority government.

A minority government, with an unofficial arrangement between the parties, and a coaltion, with a more solid arrangement, but one that could still fall apart at any time, are viewed as quite similar when compared with our standard majority goverments with near dictatorial powers.

This is all still just a theory and it might be totally wrong, or have nothing to with the debate at hand, however. - SimonP 20:29, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

A coalition cabinet is either a minority cabinet or a majority cabinet. That can't be a "cultural thing" - it's inherently following the definitions. I propose you move your, as far as I can judge, correct statements on coalition cabinets to coalition cabinet.

Regarding your assertion about the rareness of majority cabinets in Europe, I agree that you might have right, although I doubt it very much. Once again I think you make claims without presenting any statistical support. My impression is the opposite, i.e. that majority cabinets have been the rule in the democratic (i.e. with exception for Soviet satelites and dictatures in Portugal, Spain and Greece) part of Europe, at least during my lifetime (I'm born in 1973).

-- Ruhrjung 20:48, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I never said majority cabinets are rare in Europe, I said majority cabinets containing only one party are rare in Europe. To Canadians there is a great difference between a majority cabinet with multiple parties and one with one party, enough of a difference that we often treat cabinets with multiple parties as being very similar to or the same as minority governments. To us coaltion governments and minority governments seem very closely related. Also in Canada a coaltion is very rarely, if ever, refered to as a majority government. For instance the is currently a coalition government ruling Saskatchewan, but it is never refered to as a majority government, even though that is technically the case. - SimonP 21:39, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I quote from above: ...since in most of Europe majority government are so rare... -- Ruhrjung 21:48, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

But in Canada majority government refers to a government where one party has a majority of the seats. We don't call coalitions majority governments, they are often even considered a form of minority government.

You should understand terms like "majority cabinet" are foreign to us. If you search for "majority cabinet" canada on google all the 47 hits are references to other countries. - SimonP 22:10, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Nothing hinders that you mention this peculiar Canadadisms :-> in a sentence in this article, but as most (if not all) of what you've contributed with actually is about multi-party majority-cabinets, you better remove it from here and inser relevant parts into the article on coalition cabinets - but also there it's highly advicable that you avoid a confusing usage of terms peculiar to Canadians. It's sufficiently confusing with Anglo-Saxon lack of stringence and logic.;->>
-- Ruhrjung 22:26, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the non-westminster stuff. I'm fine with a sentence or two directing people to the article on coalition governments. I mostly just included all the non-Westminster stuff because there was some fellow who wanted heaps of evidence for everything I was saying.

You must be aware of that in my opinion THAT is what I've done. - Thrice! With the only effect that you put new, similar versions with outlandish assertions into the article. The "heaps of evidence" are yet not presented. Chiefly, you are mixing apples with pears. I don't care about edit wars. My investment on this article has actually been much more than I would have liked, and now I really think it's your responsibility - IF you really care about the credibility of the wikipedia project. -- Ruhrjung 23:01, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Westminster bits, even if some of it is on what you call majority cabinets, should stay as it would still be relevant to most Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders etc. views on minority governments. - SimonP 22:48, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if you at all have read the first sentence of the article, stating:

A minority government, or a minority cabinet, is a cabinet of a parliamentary system which does not represent a majority in the parliament - or in bicameral parliaments, in that chamber whose confidence is considered most crucial.

-- Ruhrjung 23:01, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Key issues

I can see that there are arguments raging back and forth over a number of points on this article. Here are some of the points I would like to add a comment on:

[edit] Largest Party

I have changed the sentence on the largest party to "In a minority situation the head of the largest party is usually asked to form a government" since a smaller party could be asked to form a government if it was better equipped to do so ( an example of how that nearly happened in the UK can be seen after the 1974 General Election (February)

[edit] First Past the Post

First Past the Post is ridiculous and inaccurate name for the system described. However it is also the commonly accepted name - sometimes English doesn't make sense.

[edit] Continental Europe

I am unconfortable with the line "Countries in Continental Europe mainly have proportional representation, and rarely have a single party that controls a majority of the parliament." since it is not entirely accurate. Many of the countries in Europe have their own issues: for example the French government usually has a majority in Parliament, but different Presidents and Prime Ministers can lead to a system of "co-habitation" which is very different from coalition / minority government (and has nothing to do with PR). Belgium also has coalition government, but this is largely due to the Flemish and Wallonian parts having completely different political parties. Other countries that I know less about all have their own issues, but blaming it all on PR seems a little bit unfair (as it is often not the culprit).

Coalitions also mean different things in different countries. In Italy for example coalitions are often formed before elections, unlike the UK where they are formed after. (So an Italian coalition is more like a political party)

I've moved the line " Countries in Continental Europe mainly have proportional representation, and rarely have a single party that controls a majority of the parliament." per the arguments above Captainj 18:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I have moved these lines to the talk page as they clearly violate Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Please find someone who has said these criticisms and had them published.

Many criticize minority governments arguing they create deadlock within the government, which prevents and slows changes. Others, however, view minority governments as beneficial for creating a more diverse government that reflects more than one viewpoint.

Captainj 22:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wales

The details about the Labour minority government in the Welsh Assembly is rather out of date now. I've updated the information about the current state of the Assembly and the new Labour-Plaid coalition, for someone with more experience to decide whether it's still worthy of note on this page or not. AlbertSimon 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Value statements

However, a minority government tends to be less arrogant because it often requires compromise between the different parties to ensure the passage of legislation.

Arrogance is a value judgement; perhaps another more factual term should be used here. Also, "tends", "often" = weasel words. --- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 13:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)