Are coalition governments less accountable than single party governments

One of the pivotal functions of a democratic election is for the citizen to have the ability to hold the government to account for their past actions and decide whether to vote them back into office or to remove them.

Yet Downs in 1957 argued that the complexity of coalition governments provides a hindrance to accountability, which is a key term said to exist when the electorate decides whether governments are acting in their best interests and thus need to punish or reward them accordingly in elections. This view is seen as a sanctioning mechanism; 'accountability is a retrospective mechanism, in that sense that the actions of rulers are judged ex post by the effects they have'. (Cheibub and Przeworski:1999:p170).However, to hold governments to account retrospectively when there is a coalition government may be blurred by the lines of the multi party governments lines of responsibility. Coalition governments can create difficulties when trying to punish or reward MP's.

As such, the general expectation is that 'voters would be likely to hold single party governments more responsible for policies than multiparty coalitions' (Powell and Whitten 1993: 401). Although this is a general expectation it is also argued Laver and Schofield below.Laver and Schofield state that the most popular misconception of a coalition government is that it is unstable. This contention may have an element of truth in it, but has been carefully selected from examples like Italy and the French Fourth Republic; where both coalition systems has reached epic proportions. Yet on the other hand Germany, Luxembourg and Austria have been more or less ruled since the post war by stable coalition administrations and this is easily forgotten. (Laver and Schofield: 1998:p144)In this essay I will be assessing how coalition governments and single party governments are elected into office, through the systems used and examples in Western Europe for each.

The second part of my essay will analyse the ways in which single party governments are held more accountable than coalition governments. I shall then reverse the argument to discuss how coalition governments are more accountable than single party governments; however, there are many factors that affect this argument such as the number of parties in the coalition and whether one party has a majority in government will both affect the coalition governments accountability. The conclusion of this essay is that single party governments can be more accountable than coalition governments however, the complexity of coalitions determines how accountable they are to the electorate.Coalitions tend to be elected through the proportional representation system.; (Katz 1997: 162). stressing more emphasis on representation than between votes cast and then turned into Parliamentary seats as opposed to "winner takes all".

Currently, all countries in Western Europe use some form of PR except France and the UK.(Gallagher, Laver and Mair:1995: p274)Single Party Governments tend to be elected through plurality or majority systems; only the UK uses this type of system in Europe currently.(Gallagher, Laver and Mair:1995: p276.However, it is fair to say that with some British which uses the plurality method in elections, most recently in February 1974, no overall parliamentary majority for any party was formed and between 1976 and 1979, the minority Labour Government was only able to survive in office because of the support of the Liberal Democrats, under the arrangement of the "Lib Lab" Pact. (Gallagher, Laver and Mair:1995: p293)Single-party governments are commonly thought to be more clearly responsible for government policy than coalition governments, and as such more accountable.

This is supposed to result in voters being less likely to hold coalition governments to account for past performance. One particular problem for voters evaluating coalition governments is how to assess whether all parties within a coalition should be held equally responsible for past performance. (Gallagher, Laver and Mair:1995: p293)The reason why the electorate can hold the single party government to accountable is because there is no way of passing the blame to another party for failures. There is one party and one party only in office and if they fail to deliver then they will be removed from office at the next election.Accountability and scrutiny of the Government is particularly important and as such the British Government is held to account regularly, not just at elections.

Prime Ministers Question Time takes place weekly where MP's from the opposition party raise questions to the Prime Minister without him knowing the topic prior to this. This element of not knowing the question allows the opposition to attempt to catch the Prime Minister out with awkward questions, where he must then answer to his opposition and the electorate straightway.Critics of the Proportional Representation system claim that coalition Governments make it harder for voters to hold a Government responsible for its performance. This is because both parties in the coalition will try to take the credit for the governments successes yet pass the blame on where failures have been seen. They further go on to claim that under plurality systems and single party governments, the electorate know who to blame and who to reward. (Gallagher, Laver and Mair:1995: p293)The problem with this argument is that even if the electorate does deliver an unambiguous verdict, the electoral system of a country may distort it, an example of this is in 1992 the Conservative Government placed its record to the people of England and requested a fresh mandate.

Each time, a clear majority 58% rejected its request and voted for other parties , however, these votes were turned in to comfortable Conservative parliamentary majorities because of the electoral system. (Gallagher, Laver and Mair:1995: p293)Once a Government has formed a coalition government, it is by no means the end. The government needs to be able to continually retain power through continuous bargaining and negotiations between party leaders, this is because the deals that were used to form the coalition government can just as easily be unmade, causing the government to tumble down. Thus, a coalition can be brought don at any moment by the loss of support from one of its creators. However, on the other hand, although coalition governments do not last as long as single party governments, it should not be forgotten that Germany, Switzerland and Austria have been economically and politically successful for most of the post war period due to their coalition governments. (Gallagher, Laver and Mair:1995: p302)A factor that explains how coalition governments may be more accountable than single party governments is the "Head of Government's party effect".

That is as a general rule the electorate is more likely to hold the Government's party accountable for the governments performance when compared with other parties in the coalition.As such, regardless of a single party or multiparty government; it is the head of the Government who will face scrutiny.Another possible factor determining whether coalition governments are more accountable than single party governments is the ability of voters to hold governments to account depending on the type of coalition government. Lewis-Beck claims accountability is strong when governments are less complex, since complex coalitions prevent voters' ability to clearly assign of responsibility for policy performance. Moreover, it has been argued that party size may influence the level of retrospective voting, when the coalition is dominated by a strong party it is easier for voters to assign credit and blame, because voters are likely to find it more difficult to assign responsibility to a government that consists of a large number of smaller parties. (Lewis Beck:1988:p170-194).

If the coalition is dominated by one strong party then the electorate would find it easier to assign credit or blame and as such hold the multi party government to account. The greater representation a party has in cabinet the more influence it should have over policy and so it should take more responsibility for decisions. One way to measure the proportion of a coalition is to count the number of cabinet seats controlled by the head of governments party. A second way is to simply measure the number of parties in the coalition.

It is harder for the electorate to hold to account a government that consists of a several smaller parties. Duch and Stevenson (2005:p23) further demonstrate this argument by claiming that the 'concentration of policy-making authority enhances the importance of economic voting'.A further reason why coalition governments may be held more accountable than single party governments is dependent on the type of coalition. Some members of government may be held under more scrutiny than others, and this hypothesis is based on the head-of-government's party experiencing more retrospective voting than other coalition members. As such coalition governments may be held to account but more specifically will the head of government be held to account than the whole party.

Following on form this, although the head of government is to be held to account more so than other members of the party, such parties are still less likely to be subject to retrospective voting than single party governments.Finally, a rather definitive statement to conclude is to suggest that regardless of whether it is a single party in government or a multi party in government, both parties would be held accountable for their actions, more so would it be easier for the electorate to hold a single party in governments actions. However, ultimately if any government, single party or multiparty did not represent the wishes of the electorate then ultimately they would not be voted back into office in the next election.To conclude, coalition governments can create difficulties when trying to hold them to account. Single-party governments are commonly thought to be more clearly responsible for government policy than coalition governments.

Yet ultimately, the various factors affecting the level of accountability held to coalition governments can vary; accountability is strong when governments are less complex, since complex coalitions prevent voters' ability to clearly assign of responsibility for policy performance. Also, the greater representation a party has in cabinet the more influence it should have over policy and so it should take more responsibility for decisions and be held more accountable. Finally, regardless of a single party or multiparty government; it is the head of the Government who will face scrutiny.However, ultimately if any government, single party or multiparty did not represent the wishes of the electorate then ultimately they would not be voted back into office in the next election.