BRITAIN HAS A COALITION GOVERNMENT - THE FIRST SINCE WORLD WAR TWO.
A REASON TO HOPE FOR A BETTER SOCIETY?
After an interesting election campaign that led to an inconclusive result, the slightly left of centre Liberal Democrat party has entered into a coalition with a Conservative party that campaigned on a slightly right of centre ticket. As no party won an overall majority the only real options were a minority Conservative government or a coalition. The New Labour party which had been in power for 13 years lost quite heavily, and obviously needs time to consider its policy options and leadership after a period of commitment to market fundamentalism and anti-libertarian policies that many believed betrayed the social democratic roots of the labour movement. Labour was also not a strong candidate for a coalition, as the combined members of parliament that could be put together by Liberal Democrats and the losing Labour government would not command a parliamentary majority. So, the centre-left Liberals negotiated a full coalition deal with the centre-right Conservatives - much to the fury of right-wing Conservatives, left wing Liberals and the bulk of the raucous UK right wing press.
The right-wing media had executed a vicious campaign of personal vilification against Gordon Brown, outgoing Prime Minister, and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader. The "Daily Telegraph", owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, who live in a tax haven, the "Daily Mail", a right-wing paper with connections to the Rothermere family - and the "Sun", "Times" and "News of the World", all organs of the Murdoch dynasty; campaigned strongly for the Conservatives.
Their disappointment was palpable when vigorous patronage failed to realise an electoral majority. But this was as nothing when it became apparent that the Conservatives and the despised Liberal Democrats were working to cement a coalition. The "Daily Mail" used the word "squalid" 7 times, and also described the coalition talks as "brazen", "dirty", "venal", "shabby", "cynical", "shameless", "duplicitous", "grubby", "shady" and "revolting"! These violent terms of abuse were used to describe a process that is absolutely normal in developed countries with proportional representation electoral forms - which include 10 of the 14 most highly rated countries for financial stability. One can only speculate at the motives of the right-wing media - but one possibility is that coalitions are much more difficult for press barons to influence.
Britain, Greece, the United States and France have first-past-the-post electoral systems. None of these countries are a strong advertisement for positive politics carried out in the national interest. Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Ireland and the Netherlands tend to have coalitions.
Conflictual politics leads to trouble in the modern world
The author has long been of the belief that there are strong connections between extreme political behaviour and first-past-the-post competitive politics. Britain experienced quite extreme left wing governments in the 1960's and 70's and then swung violently to the right under Margaret Thatcher, who ushered in a period of neo-liberal market fundamentalism characterised by deregulation of the financial markets, wholesale privatisation, decimation of manufacturing and technology and rampant consumerism.
Market fundamentalism is based on the premise that unfettered competition will enable the greatest good of the greatest number. Single party rule encourages a style of politics that almost by definition prevents collaboration between political parties for the good of all. Single party governments in a winner takes all system are highly susceptible to extremism and are also open to being corrupted by power and money. This has been conclusively demonstrated in the United States, Britain, Greece and most countries that have first-past-the-post voting systems. In the US, the Bush administrations, despite initial protestations to the contrary, were quite extreme in their right wing orientation, as well as being highly susceptible to influence from the vast wealth of industry and finance. In Britain, the Blair governments were highly influenced by rich patrons and supported a banking system that ran amok.
Coalitions have the potential to be different.
First, the parties involved have to collaborate closely in a spirit of compromise that tends to lead to considered decision making and the development of policies that avoid extremes.
Second, coalition governments tend towards a diversity of view and talent. This is quite important. It has been demonstrated in industry that management teams that contain a diverse range of skills and orientation tend to perform much better than those with a monolithic membership, no matter how bright team members may be. Dr Meredith Belbin's work* on team composition demonstrated that the performance of complex tasks requires quite a wide range of abilities and psychological characteristics amongst team members. This avoids dominance by single individuals and "Groupthink", when members act more in the interests of group solidarity than in the interests of the organisation that they lead. Coalition governments usually demonstrate sufficient diversity to ensure that complex and important decisions are taken only after a consideration of the facts and options. This avoids the Thatcher "There is no alternative" argument when clearly all complex matters are subject to many alternatives.
Third, it is more difficult for coalitions to be seduced by money and powerful industrial and financial interests, as there is a strong risk that some partners may object and "blow the whistle" on those who may wish to accept largesse for favours.
Fourth, the power of the media to influence government policy may be reduced. Single party governments often pursue policies that suit their supporters, whereas a well-managed coalition is more likely to be seen to act in the wider national interest and is therefore likely to be strong against a rabid press. The outgoing Labour government under Tony Blair/Gordon Brown was suspected of being strongly influenced by the Murdoch press and of responding too readily to the populist pressures of the "Daily Mail".
All of this is repugnant to many who stand to benefit from two-party politics. Such people marshal a range of arguments to support their cause - the most common being that a two party system encourages "strong" and "decisive" governments. The evidence from Britain is that those governments that had large majorities
indulged in policies and strategies that were in the end damaging to the national interest. And George Bush junior, once established in government, abandoned
all pretence of governing for the common good and shamelessly pursued the interests of the rich and powerful.
The periods of Thatcher and Blair government saw huge increases in inequality, the destruction of large swathes of technology and manufacturing industry and the deregulation of banking. Britain and America, both equally plagued by bi-polar politics, allowed the power and influence of the finance and banking industries to increase to a degree that was manifestly against the national interest. Both governments indulged in foreign invasions that at least in the case of Britain's involvement in Iraq went against the will of the majority.
Playing politics and running a government are different
Single party government in a situation where the opposition parties are expected to simply oppose leads to the politicisation of all decisions and actions. Government is about taking complex decisions about social, economic and foreign policy matters and adapting those decisions and actions according to changing circumstances in a complex world. Adapting policy is often a sensible response to changing circumstances, not as the media would have it "performing U-turns".
Politics is about trying to persuade the electorate that one's policies are superior to the opposition. Politics also animates the relationships between factions within parties and parliament. The notion produced by the Conservative-Liberal coalition of having fixed term parliaments might reduce the constant sniping between parties, as elections will only be held at fixed intervals - as might the idea of having a written coalition agreement to regulate relationships between partners. If this reduces the volume of constant and childish "Yah-boo" behaviour in British political life, the nation will surely benefit.
The British experiment with coalition government is important in that it may be the spark for a more adult and positive form of politics in the interests of the whole of society rather than for factional interests. It is very important that this pioneering coalition works - the last successful coalition led by Winston Churchill lasted through the crisis years of World War Two and undoubtedly helped to mobilise the nation. The hard times ahead are also extremely challenging. If Britain can carry off a more mature form of politics and government and make it stick, this will leave few developed countries with the more primitive "winner takes all" model.
