Coalition Formation in Parliament

As was discussed in the previous blog entry, common ideology played a key role in coalition formation, and these divisions in ideology could also explain the divisions among the candidates because they derived their platforms from these causes. Prior to the parliamentary elections, coalitions first formed based on regional terms (local versus non-local), and then on more specific terms as with HOPE (help for disadvantaged girls). What is interesting however is how ideology affected coalition formation when candidates did not have common concerns. The Justice League formed based on a catch-all strategy, and this actually created a majority party model that rendered the ideological divisions irrelevant. This can be explained using Alan Ware’s discussion on government formation. By looking at the role of the legislative party, who was responsible for government formation, and finally the goals of those involved, one can then understand why ideology became irrelevant.

Beginning with the role of the legislative party, because the Justice League had two-thirds of the seats in parliament they could be considered the major party. As a result, there was “no viable alternative government because no other parties [could] command the necessary support in the legislature” (Ware 331). Because one party had a working majority this parliamentary system would fall under the majority party model. Furthermore, when new coalitions formed in parliament, every member of the Justice League continued to support the coalition, effectively making the parliament Justice League versus everyone else. This caused a “minority” coalition to form between the members of SOC and HOPE. Despite having different ideologies that proved to affect coalition formation before, the members of these two parties formed a coalition solely out of opposition to the Justice League. This shows why ideological divisions were not important once the parliament was formed.

Second, although parliamentary leaders are significant in coalition formation in the real world, the role of the parliamentary leader was not as significant because of party loyalty established prior to the elections. The main point here is that again, ideology did not play a significant role in ensuring the Justice League’s success because the members of the party had agreed to help each other had they gained control of the parliament. Thus although the parliamentary leader had little power, the Justice League was able to secure even that position because of its super majority in parliament.

All of this relates to the final set of variables affecting coalition formation – goals. As Ware discusses, the goals of government officials includes policy concerns, career goals, and office goals (Ware 332). In terms of career goals, because re-election was not a concern the need to maintain one’s electoral strength was irrelevant, and thus members of parliament do not have to be concerned with their image. This can further explain why the members of SOC and HOPE joined together despite having little in common, because there was no need to maintain an image that they were strict adherents to their own ideologies. In terms of office goals, there were no cabinets or special organizations, so this variable did not apply either. For policy concerns, it is evident that ideology was not significant because the Justice League was able to get all $35 for its causes despite having no common ideology. Furthermore, despite the minority coalition’s attempt to control which charities would receive funding, along ideological differences, the money was not distributed accordingly. This can be seen when the minority coalition attempted to change the bill so Forgotten Harvest would receive $14, because as a local organization that helps children, they felt that this organization was closest to their concerns. The money was given to the highest voted members of the Justice League however, again showing that ideology did not have an effect on the overall spending of the parliament. In conclusion it was the catch-all strategy that allowed for the most power in parliament. This strategy allowed for a majority party model that rendered ideological divisions irrelevant.  

Party Classifications

            To classify the parties present in the class elections, there are three methods of categorization in Alan Ware’s Political Parties and Party Systems; they are based on ideological, membership, and organizational differences. By looking at ideological differences, it is evident that all the parties are similar socially and thus fall under the Social Democratic party family. Further investigation will then reveal regional differences that establish local and non-local divisions, showing how the parties are different. Then in terms of tendency and faction, organizational aspects, the parties can be divided into cadre parties and catch-all parties (the membership aspect discusses party-constituency relations and will not be addressed because party support and activism were not part of the process). By addressing ideological and organizational differences it will be evident that the Justice League is closest to a non-local, catch-all party, whereas the smaller parties are locally-concerned, cadre parties.

            Beginning with party ideology, all the parties are composed of charities and can be classified as Social Democratic. This is because every charity uses donations to improve the lives of the less fortunate. As parties then, the desire to help the less fortunate is parallel to public spending. All the parties also fall into the regional and ethnic party family, but this is where they differ. The Justice League is primarily composed of non-local charities, whereas the remaining parties exclusively support local organizations. The issue however is that Ware discusses regional differences in terms of culture, tradition, and economic interests (39-40). Thus, the local/non-local divide can be explained using economic interests because the debate is in where the money should go. More interestingly, the local/non-local issue can be related to the regional family because of cultural divisions, because most of the minorities in Hon4200 are part of the Justice League, an overall non-local party. This is just a theory however, and there is not enough information to assume that minorities favor one type of regional party over another.

            Second, the parties can be classified on organization. The two types are tendencies and factions, and this influences the size of the parties. Organization based on tendency involves common ideology or “…patterned sets of attitudes found among different members of the party…” (Ware 109).The smaller parties formed based on common ideology, and thus the parties are attributed with specific concerns. This is in comparison to the faction-type organization of the Justice League, where the party is made up of power groups that are together to get votes. These parties may have nothing in common, making it more difficult to see how all of the candidates or charities relate. The benefit however is that such parties have the opportunity to gain more votes because their platform addresses more concerns.

Finally with an understanding of the organization, the parties in class can be designated as either catch-all or cadre parties. Because the Justice League attempts to get votes on multiple concerns, it is catch-all party. This is because it is comprised of several charities that address different concerns like health, nutrition, education, and so on. As a result, the party is large, improving the chances that the party will express concerns everyone has and thus get more votes. The other parties are cadre because they speak to a specific audience and thus alienate other concerns. Although they do not represent elitist concerns, they represent less popular ones, which can be considered similar for this example (because these parties received fewer votes). It can be seen then that these parties have smaller constituencies, and are thus smaller, just like cadre parties.

Campaign Strategy

            My campaign strategy focused on simplicity and easy recognition primarily because I assumed that it would be difficult to persuade or even keep the freshmen interested. I realized this was a concern because I recalled that when I was in their position, I could barely remember what each person was campaigning for. Consequently, it was first important to campaign through simple speeches and flyers to maintain everyone’s attention. Thus our party used YouTube videos as well, in attempts to convey our concerns through a medium that we hoped would be “easier” on the voter than reading a flyer. In picking the videos as well, we focused on shorter, direct videos that got the point across quickly, again for campaigning with simplicity. Keeping it simple was also beneficial because it allowed me to focus more on recognition in my speeches and flyers. In terms of recognition, I focused on promoting my name as well as my party affiliation, with the hopes that the students will recognize my name on the ballot and feel more inclined to vote for me. By picking “The Justice League” as our party name, again we focused on name recognition with the hopes that it will help us get more votes. The only problem here is that the party affiliation is not listed on the ballot, and we could not use The Justice League logo, which may hinder our party’s recognition in comparison to the other parties that have nicer logos. Hopefully this will not affect the voting however.