Minority governments can work

The notion of a "government for all the people" (全民政府), a key slogan in President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) election campaign, was revealed as an empty phrase when political reality took its toll. The notion, a by-product of Taiwan's abnormal politics, faced its nemesis earlier than expected and is bound to be replaced by a more practical solution.

The inherent problems of the constitutional structure, together with bad communication between the president and the premier, and the premier and the ruling DPP, caused this intrinsically fragile government to degenerate. The controversies over the legislative review of the national budget and the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant posed some of the greatest challenges to the Chen-Tang administration (陳唐體制).

Apart from the consideration of Tang Fei's (唐飛) health, it seems almost impossible to exclude other political factors involved in his resignation Tuesday night. With next year's legislative elections looming ever larger, it is natural for the DPP to be worried. The recent criticisms of Tang by DPP Secretary-general Wu Nai-jen (吳乃仁) were understandable.

As the "government for all the people" moves toward a dead end, what sort of strategy should Chen adopt? It seems that his options are limited to two scenarios -- either to establish a coalition government (聯合政府) with other political parties or a minority government (少數政府) led by the DPP. The appointment of Vice Premier Chang Chung-hsiung (張俊雄) as the new premier means the formation of the latter. And there are reasons to believe that Chen and the DPP prefer a minority government over a majority government largely due to electoral considerations.

Conventional wisdom has it that minority governments are generally formed as a result of constraints, limited choice, failure in negotiations and other circumstances that are often tied to the negotiation process itself. In other words, minority governments have rarely received high marks for either stability or effectiveness. Minority cabinets are conventionally portrayed as governments of low effectiveness.

Research suggests, however, that minority cabinets are a surprisingly common occurrence in a number of parliamentary democracies. They account for about one-third of all postwar governments. The difference between majority and minority governments converges with an important distinction often existing between partisan governments -- the distinction between single-party and coalition governments.

It is commonly assumed that single-party and coalition governments are formed under distinct conditions: single-party governments in majority situations (ie, when one party alone controls a majority of the legislators), and coalition governments in minority situations, when no party is so advantaged. This is why political scientists have generally shown much greater interest in coalition governments than in either single-party majority or minority governments.

In theory, minority govern-ments violate the expectation that executive and legislative coalitions are identical. Even when the distinction between these two coalitions is recognized, it is difficult to see what would cause them to differ. Why would any party agree to support the government legislatively if it gets no portfolios in exchange?

Whether or not minority governments can be as easily dismissed as nonpartisan administrations remains debatable. Minority governments are nowhere near as rare as nonpartisan administrations. Substantial conflict, extremism, or polarization are the principal causes of the formation of minority governments. The more polarized or divided the party system, the greater the likelihood of minority governments.