Political parties will always have their tribal rituals. Much of the appeal of membership comes in belonging to a community of like-minded people, and identifying with that community. And this process often involves members identifying with each other based on who they are not. Enmity between different party tribes is therefore an unavoidable aspect of party politics.
But as Westminster’s first peacetime coalition enters the home stretch and some experts predict another hung parliament in 2015, there are signs that things might slowly be changing. Politicians are starting to grapple with the challenge set by modern politics—how to be tribal enough to convince activists to remain true to the cause, but pragmatic enough to keep the lines of communication with other tribes open.
Over the last 50 years or so, people have become much less likely to identify themselves as party supporters, let alone members; they are more likely to care about single issues than to sign up to a whole raft of policies; and they are more frustrated when their demands for participation are not meant, and their voices are not heard.
But the 19th century party model—two big, mass-membership parties slugging it out on the main stage—simply doesn’t mesh with a 21st century public. If parties are going to keep up with changes in society, they are going to have to become less tribal and more open to the idea of power-sharing than they are now. Increasingly, people either seek to express their political values through minor parties and independents, or more worryingly turn away from the ballot box when they find no party reflecting their concerns. Even if we retain an electoral system that maximises the chances of majoritarian government, the sheer inevitability of change—developments in people’s social and personal lives, and consequent developments in voting behaviour—makes Westminster majorities less and less likely.
That means Westminster politicians need to become more familiar with some of the dynamics and mechanisms of coalition that are routine for many of their counterparts elsewhere in Europe, and even in Britain—remember that Scottish and Welsh politicians have been doing this sort of thing for quite a while now.
Perhaps it is too early to imagine the Queen appointing formateurs after the 2015 election. These are politicians earmarked by the head of state to lead coalition negotiations. But we have already seen some of the traditions of coalition play out since 2010. For instance, all coalitions require at their centre a “negotiator”—a minister, civil servant or special adviser—who is responsible for keeping the government ticking over. In the case of the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition this role is played by Oliver Letwin. And if parties wake up to the increased likelihood of coalition in the future, it may not be long before we see pre-electoral pacts and even joint manifestos.
Many have expressed concern about the haste with which the 2010 coalition agreement was reached. If our political culture were more accommodating of coalition, we could move away from the unusual assumption that governments must be formed immediately after elections in order to avoid market uncertainty. That would give party leaders more time to reach sensible, well thought-out coalition deals, and more time to offer their membership a say in this process.
Parties would be wrong to assume that the current Westminster government is a blueprint for how to do coalition. Like snowflakes, no two coalitions are identical. We know not only from other European countries, but from the devolved assemblies and many councils in the UK that there are different ways to share power. When it comes to learning about coalition, Westminster politics has a lot of catching up to do.
Katie Ghose, is the chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society
Getting comfy with coalition
October 31, 2013
