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.