Role of the Opposition
In a parliamentary system, the party or parties in government control most of the legislature’s time and largely determine public policy. The word ‘opposition’ is used to describe the members who are not in the parties in government. In a presidential system, as in the United States of America, the opposition to the president might comprise the majority of the members. The constitutional role of the opposition is to constantly question, probe, and call the government to account. This function is very important in democratic politics. Criticism from the opposition is partly intended to influence government policy, through force of argument or the pressure of public opinion, and is partly directed by the opposition towards the public, with a view to gaining the support of the electorate during the next election.
In the United Kingdom, the leader of the opposition and some of his or her principal colleagues in both Houses form a group called ‘the Shadow Cabinet.’ Each member of this group ‘shadows’ the work of a minister or department, in order to be able to make informed criticism of the government’s policies and administration and to systematically suggest alternative policies. The opposition is expected to behave as though it may be called to form the government at any time, and thus it should not make false promises or impede and obstruct the work of Parliament.
Political parties: Spaces for multiparty dialogue in parliament
In most democratic countries, legislatures are the primary space for public debate on political matters at the national, regional and (in some countries) local level. Legislatures offer a country’s citizens an opportunity to observe how their party representatives perform their oversight, representative and legislative roles.
Since most parliamentary business is transacted in committees, parliamentary committees can present good avenues for multiparty dialogue given their multiparty composition. In some countries, for instance Kenya, the speaker of parliament can also convene special forums on issues for debate in the house that require consensus building. During these in-formal sessions, members usually build consensus around controversial issues before the actual debate in parliament.
This can give parties/party leaders the opportunity to withdraw from public view to discuss contentious issues or to prepare for difficult coalition negotiations.
For example, in Tunisia in 2014 – the two parties that had been adversaries knew already before elections that they would most probably need to forge a coalition government to secure a majority in Parliament. For that reason the two leaders secretly had coffee a few time in Paris to remove themselves from the pressure of public scrutiny to try to seek out possibilities to form a coalition.
Nevertheless, in some contexts constructive political party dialogue cannot take place in the parliament itself. Even when opportunities for dialogue exist, political parties may feel that the parliament does not enable them to engage in open, meaningful inter-party dialogue. For example, political parties may wish to discuss issues as institutions rather than as groups of MPs. Relations between the main political adversaries may also be too polarized for meaningful dialogue to occur in a public setting.
Party power relations in parliament
The division of parliamentary seats and the balance of power can strongly influence inter-party relations in parliament, especially when parliamentary decisions are based on voting. For instance, in the case of a majority party situation (or a stable majority coalition), bills in parliament do not need the consent of the opposition in order to be passed. This can lead to a situation in which a ruling party or coalition ignores the voice of its opponents and, by extension, the opinions of the members of society they represent.
In contrast, in cases where there is no clear political majority the need for dialogue and compromise in parliament is more pressing, as inter-party coalitions and alliances are required for effective decision making. In these cases it will be more likely that (some) parties meet and discuss common issues of concern in commissions or corridors, explore each other’s positions and identify potential spaces for negotiation and compromise.
The weak link between parties and parliament
MPs in many countries are the main representatives of the electorate, having been chosen through popular elections. MPs (especially those in parliamentary systems with single-member districts) must answer to their party as well as their constituencies and may therefore sometimes ignore party interests. MPs have been elected via the party, representing a party that is on its turn representing a constituency. This means that it is important to maintain strong links between the party and their MPs.
In some cases this may be facilitated by a general lack of internal party discipline (e.g. when an MP openly ignores or votes against the official party line) or rifts within a party. Sometimes there are few clear lines of communication between the MP and their party. MPs might not know when and how to contact their party and the party might not be able to ‘feed’ the MP with relevant party positions, background, research. It is important for parties to develop their intra-party communication structures in order to address this issue.
|
Box: Making the Legislature More Effective In many parts of the world, a number of proposals have been made to strengthen the role and capacity of the legislature. They include the following: • Training and further education for members • Adopting a rule that demands minimum educational qualifications of the members • Instituting a retirement age for members • Anti-defection provisions, under which members who defect from their party to another lose their seats in the assembly. • A provision whereby members who are absent from the assembly or committees for more than the prescribed minimum number of days lose their seats in the assembly. • Increasing the quorum (the number of MPs who are required to be present in order for legislatures to sit or vote). • Strengthening the research capacity of the legislature and individual members, by appointing researchers, including legislative drafters, for the legislature and facilitating the appointment of researchers for political parties. • Providing a reasonable salary and pension for members. • Creating an independent administrative service and support bodies, such as a secretariat, • Specifying a minimum number of sitting days. • Strengthening the committee system • Strengthening the capacity of the auditor general so that his or her office can assist parliamentarians in scrutinizing government expenditures and budget proposals. • Creating better library and internet facilities for members of the legislature. |