Programmatic politics leads to coherent and coordinated Government

Successful democracy depends on the ability of the legislature to uninterruptedly enact legislation that effectively responds to social and economic problems. It also requires a stable executive that is capable of implementing policies and providing competent leadership without frequent disruptions. To be effective, legislative programs and government policies need to be coherent and coordinated. This means that they do not contradict each other, that they prioritize the most important measures, and that conflicts between the various parts of the government (or different parties within the government) do not negatively affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the government.

In established democracies, political parties play a critical role in ensuring the efficacy of the law-making process and in providing stability to government. Programmatic parties especially contribute greatly to the stability and effectiveness of government and make sure that government policies are responsive. Precisely because these political parties must develop coherent policy platforms that appeal to a wide cross-section of society, and which can be translated into government and bureaucratic action, programmatic parties generate balanced and coherent governmental programs more easily than individuals or parties that are focused on specific interests.

Party discipline promotes stability in government

Programmatic parties also develop internal structures of interest aggregation, specialization and discipline that make it easier to organize stable majorities in the legislature, to execute policy coherently in the bureaucracy, and to negotiate political compromises when necessary.

This is the ideal situation but unfortunately not always the case. Some parties approach these as two separate issues. They argue that in terms of promoting inclusivity, it works best if internal democracy is in place. However, a top down developed programme that is voiced both by a strong leader as well as lower level politicians/executive is still an important feature of a programmatic party.

While elected representatives in most democracies are formally independent, political parties generally develop mechanisms to enforce adherence to a party line. This is not necessarily undemocratic if every party member has a chance to influence the formation of the party line in the first place. This is why establishing democratic internal structures is an important pre-requisite to legitimately enforcing party discipline.

Such party discipline stabilizes the government and enables it to implement its political program in a more coherent manner than in a situation where majorities must be formed anew on each political issue. On the other hand, if there is a small majority–government it often need to negotiate on each political issue. This might also broaden public support for contentious issues and give parties with fewer seats more power to influence government policies. Moreover, party-led negotiations can often reach political compromises more efficiently than discussions among a multitude of independent lawmakers.

Case Study: Problems with forming a government in the Netherlands Forming a government in the Netherlands As soon as the results of the general elections are known, the process of forming a government begins. A new team of ministers and state secretaries has to be formed, creating a government to rule for the next four years. This is not always a simple matter. Because of the electoral system of proportional representation, without separate constituencies and electoral hurdles, many political parties are represented in the Second Chamber. The election results rarely indicate precisely what kind of government the voters prefer. No political party in the Netherlands has ever gained an absolute majority in the Second Chamber (at least half the seats plus one: 75 + 1 = 76, as there are 150 seats). Any government must have the support of a majority in the Second Chamber, so after each election two or more parties have to form a coalition. This has been the case for many years, so the Dutch have grown used to prolonged coalition negotiations. Problems The way governments are formed in the Netherlands is controversial. From a democratic point of view, it is objectionable that the political composition of the government depends more on post-election bargaining than on the actual election results. Furthermore, the negotiations take place in secrecy for the most part. Another problem is that it often takes a lot of time to form a government. The record was in 1977, when it took 207 days. The old government remains in power while the bargaining process is going on, but it cannot take any controversial decisions since it is on its way out. This does not make for responsive government, of course, and the interminable bargaining does not inspire confidence in the political system. Laborious negotiations are inevitable, however, given the complicated party system. Another problem is the detailed coalition agreement that results from the negotiations.In the last two decades, government programmes filled dozens of densely printed pages, but nowadays they are more concise. Critics said that such detailed coalition agreements made the parliament powerless. The coalition agreements of 2002 and 2003 sketched only the outlines of government policies, but the agreement of 2007 was much more detailed again and ran to 53 pages. Source: The Dutch Political System in a Nutshell