|
|
|
|
Types of oppositionThe following text highlights the different ways in which opposition can be structured in a democratic political system. The text explores some of the differences that exist between the two fundamental types of opposition; namely competitive and cooperative opposition:
The structure of the relationship that exists between the government and its majority in parliament varies and alters over time depending on the political system in place in a given country. This is also true of the position taken by the opposition to the government and its majority. It is easy to define the opposition in a democratic state, as long as we ignore the problem posed by opposition groups outside of parliament, that is, groupings that are not represented in parliament and which express their opposition to the ruling majority using demonstrations, blockades and similar strategies. The opposition is made up of the minority parties in parliament; their responsibility and task is to control, criticize and offer alternatives to the policies being followed by the government. Despite the apparent clarity of this statement, the expectations that oppositions find themselves up against can be very different (...). [Back to top of page] [Back to overview] A competitive opposition considers its main task as providing clear opposition to the policies being followed by the government. The improvement of bills being put before parliament is not what lies behind criticism of government policy. Its focus is purely on winning the next election. The opposition's aim is to expose weaknesses in government policy in the hope that the electorate will vote in favor of the opposition at the next election. Alternative policy is often underlined by alternative personalities. The British prime minister and his/her cabinet is faced across the dispatch box in parliament by the leader of the opposition and his/her shadow cabinet. The leader of the opposition appoints a cabinet post to each of his shadow ministers. This is meant to call attention to the fact that the opposition also has competent people waiting to step into the shoes of the government. Should the opposition actively pursue a policy of competitive opposition to the government, a great deal of the detailed work carried out in the committees becomes meaningless. Clashes between the government and the opposition are at their most intense in the parliamentary chamber itself. This is where the government, its parliamentary majority and the opposition address the public: One side of the chamber aims to justify its decisions, while the other side tries to expose the weaknesses and failings of government policy. [Back to top of page] [Back to overview] In contrast, the cooperative form of opposition's main concern is not the next election. Here the main emphasis is not only on presenting an alternative to the policies being followed by the government, but also to go as far as possible towards integrating alternatives into the legislation being proposed. In order to achieve this, however, the opposition must hold back from criticizing government incompetence in public. It is forced into trying to get the government to make as many allowances as possible during a bill's committee stages. When an opposition party takes this too far, a situation arises in which most of parliament's work takes place in the committee rooms. In contrast, parliaments main chamber, the place where parliament's minority and majority parties are supposed to voice and justify their respective positions, ends up losing its function. In addition to this, compromises reached in the committees are often complicated and unclear, leaving the electorate uncertain about which party is actually responsible for the decisions being made. [Back to top of page] [Back to overview] While these two contrasting forms of opposition seem clear at first glance, they do harbor problems. Here are just a few of them:
[Back to top of page] [Back to overview] Despite these doubts, differentiating between a cooperative and competitive opposition style does offer a certain explanatory value (...). It should always be borne in mind, however, that any opposition with hopes of forming the next government usually has little choice than to combine both the competitive and cooperative forms of opposition. An opposition must remain credible and offer alternatives. An opposition party will find it almost impossible to reject all government proposals out of hand, especially if the government is offering out the hand of cooperation. In the same vain, opposition parties cannot afford to be seen working too closely with the government. Indeed, to carry out responsibly the job of opposition in a parliamentary system, the opposition must employ a mixture of these two methods. The "classic triad of critic, control and alternative" (Heinrich Oberreuter) forms the fundamental basis of a parliamentary opposition. Alternative means both tangible and personnel alternatives. Control means making sure that government policy is in line with the constitution and state law. And, finally, criticism should include a preparedness to cooperate and to work towards improving government proposals and not just moaning about details. The opposition does not attend to these responsibilities in parliament alone, but also addresses the electorate directly. [From: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung: Parlamentarische Demokratie 1, Informationen zur politischen Bildung Nr. 227, 1993]
|
|
Subjects: Human
Rights I Democracy I Parties
I Examples I
Europe
I
Globalisation
I United Nations
I Sustainability
|
