Core elements of a democratic state (IV): Opposition

When asking ourselves about the role played by the opposition in the state system, we could say that the opposition has the job of supervising what the ruler does with the remote control. That is, the opposition makes sure that the ruler acts in the interests of the people, who have handed over the batteries to the ruler for a set term in office. The opposition tries to expose failings in the government's program and to offer an alternative, better program, which it would introduce were it to be given the batteries. This means that the opposition is always working to come up with new ideas and alternatives to those being offered by the present government in the hope that its program will gain sufficient popularity among a majority of the electorate. The ultimate aim, of course, is to persuade the electorate to vote against the present government at the next election, allowing the opposition to form the next government.

The following text by Waldemar Besson and Gotthard Jasper outlines some of the functions, tasks and problems faced by the opposition in a democratic state:

Another text in this series touches upon different types of opposition. There are two fundamental types of opposition, competitive and cooperative. This second text describes and evaluates these two types in brief. In democratic reality, however, opposition is usually a mix of the two types

[Back to top of page]

Government and opposition

The domestic and foreign policy followed by a democratic government is always of a party political nature. This aspect of democratic government is demonstrated wonderfully by the existence of an opposition, which stands opposite the government's majority in parliament. The entirety of a nation's political power, under normal circumstances, can be formed only when government and opposition are both present. It has been said - quite rightly - that the opposition represents the second greatest mover of policy after the government. The existence of an opposition prevents the ruling party from identifying itself as the state and from declaring its interpretation of public weal as being absolute and singularly valid.

There are two fundamental convictions, regarded as being at the core of a democratically structured state system, that have influenced the institution of parliamentary democracy. Firstly, is the firm belief that democracy gets its dynamic force from political and social conflict. Only when a state of continuous conflict between opinion and opposing interests exists can the wide range of political views be addressed, with whose help current problems can be solved (...).

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

Opposition as a counter

Democracy makes opposition possible and is held as an essential element of a democratic system. Yet it can be traced back to another basic experience to come from political history. Those convinced of the principal effect of power to corrupt have to make sure that adequate precautions in the form of systematic controls on state power are in place to counter this danger. The most effective and most important counter to state power has always been the parliamentary opposition. According to theories developed by Anglo-Saxon thinkers on parliament during the 18th century, who, indeed, invented parliamentary opposition, a moral division exists between government and opposition caused by the existence of possession of power and non-possession of power. The demon that often goes hand-in-hand with power only threatens the government, and, therefore, it is only the government that runs the risk of being corrupted. It is the opposition's task to counter this threat. Freedom is secured through the institutionalization of the opposition. The tendency of man, especially the powerful, to be led astray led to the creation of the opposition to act as a sort of rod and counter the threat of freedom deteriorating into anarchy and despotism.

The idea behind a parliamentary opposition is to overcome man's creature failings, while at the same time providing society with action and critic, deed and evaluation. Opposition, for its part, becomes a function of political leadership. This aspect is illustrated well in England where the leader of the opposition is awarded a state salary and the institution is called "Her Majesty's Opposition". The institutionalization of barriers in the form of a state opposition to counter run-away political power in a democratic system has, quite rightly, been described as "one of the most fortunate inventions to come out of the not all too rich stock of political institutions" (Otto Kirchheimer).

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

Opposition as an alternative

It is no coincidence that the concept of a parliamentary opposition developed in England, a nation whose politics is characterized by the classic two-party system. Indeed, in a two-party system like the one in England the interplay between government and ruling party on the one side and the opposition party on the other can be particularly effective. While it is true that the government's secure parliamentary majority means that the opposition has little chance of forcing it out of office during its term in office, this does not diminish the opposition's political opportunities. Indeed, the very fact that the opposition is waiting in the wings to replace an unsuccessful government at the next election has a profound effect on the government. Accordingly, the opposition is always keen to criticize government policy and to present a better alterative, with the hope of convincing the electorate that a vote for the present opposition at the next election would be a wise decision. And since the opposition actually has a realistic chance of forming the next government at the next election, it is forced to be moderate in its criticism of the government and in the drafting of its own alternatives. Equally, the government is also at pains to win over the trust of the electorate. Criticism voiced by the opposition often forces the government into compromise and into improving its own position on issues. The government has also been known to change its own position under pressure from the opposition. In the past, far-sighted governments have taken on the oppositions suggestions as their own, to the great concern of the government's opponents. This, however, is healthy for democracy and for the good of the community. All this is acted out before the watchful eye of the electorate that, acting as the referee, is waiting to make its decision every four or five years. To make an informed decision the electorate needs plenty of information and this is the main reason why, quite rightly, parliament tends to "play to the gallery".

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

Control and supervisory function of the opposition

The opposition's everyday political work is also of great importance. Because the majority party or the parties that make up the ruling coalition have little interest, or, indeed, reason to sharply control the executive, which was formed from these parties, it is left to the opposition to take on the responsibility of control. This is not the case in a presidential system such as the one in the US, where parliament as a whole is responsible for control. The real dividing line in a parliamentary democracy is between government and the ruling party or coalition on the one side and the opposition party on the other, rather than between government and parliament, that is, the executive and legislative. Therefore, the classic concept of separation of powers is replaced by "vital separation of powers", which we will be considering in more detail. It is, however, important not to overestimate the control possibilities open to the opposition. The opposition party is only able to bring together a parliamentary majority against the government in exceptional circumstances. But public criticism of certain abuses or the threat thereof can have a miraculous effect on its own. The parliamentary opposition also has a direct influence on legislation. Changes to the constitution usually require the agreement of the opposition. In actual fact, the opposition is often successful in making substantial changes to proposed government laws by working together with the ruling party or one of its wings. In its role of advocate for the interests disregarded or only partially taken into account by the government, the opposition ensures a free and comprehensive debate on current legislative problems. Indeed, opposition can sometimes be the friend of government. Criticism and argument voiced by the opposition can play a vital part in the government's efforts to resist policy advocated by the ruling party that it regards as being too one-sided.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

For the opposition to carry out its work effectively, certain parliamentary rights have to be in place. The opposition must be protected from any parliamentary standing order tricks employed by the government and have enough space to take on the government, to force information and to present its own criticism. It is also essential that the opposition has equal opportunity, equal access to the press, radio and TV and is able to promote its aims and programs openly in public.

This statutory right to equality and effective protective measures that favors the minority in parliamentary law, however, does not in itself guarantee fair play between the government and opposition within the existing state structure. Both the government and opposition must have a well-practiced sense of fair play and respect for the traditional fundamentals of political style and the democratic process (...).

It is important to avoid turning any single government-opposition system into an absolute. The system used in England cannot be transferred to all party-political and government systems. In a multi-party system, too, the institutionalized alternative of the parliamentary opposition can be used as a possibility to build another government coalition from the parliamentary groups. A clear change of leadership is rare, however, and it is for this reason that it is often difficult to differentiate between the position of the government and opposition in parliament (...).  

But even in countries with a two-party or two-group system - the latter consists of a large ruling party with small partners opposite an opposition party or opposition groups - a change of government is made very difficult. The opposition benches have become harder and harder. It is possible to misjudge or view out of all proportion the chances for the opposition to form the next government in modern-day democracies. This makes it important to know the reasons behind this development.

[Back to top of page]        [Back to overview]

Problems faced by the opposition

People used to say: Government wears out. This fading process did not affect those sitting on the opposition benches. Today, however, taking office seems to have very different consequences. The opportunity for the opposition to regain power quickly has diminished. The reasons for this development can be found in the instruments available to the ruling party to satisfy interests in advance of an election (...). Satisfying the needs of the electorate through targeted measures and even pre-election "gifts", rather than through the manifesto can be decisive in winning an election. This is one of the weaknesses of the parliamentary system. Fundamental critics of the system doubt whether the existing system still contains sufficient internal dynamic force and opportunity for a change of government. It for this reason, in fact, that critics are calling for a fundamental change to the statutory social requirements of the political system in the interest equal advancement. Parliamentary systems in the Anglo-Saxon world (...), however, still demonstrate that a change of government and opposition remains possible in the existing power and social system. But we need to be vigilant: Danger does indeed loom for democratic society, if the encrustation of the group and party state is not counteracted sharply by lively public opinion.

Many pressure groups, in actual fact, might consider turning to the opposition, if the government has been ignoring current trends and movements in society and in public opinion. When the ruling party begins to demonstrate a lack of drive and will to make changes, the chances for the opposition within the existing system are good.

Taking into account the wishes of pressure groups, however, also has consequences for the opposition in that it is increasingly forced into cooperating with the government in order to do something for its clientele. This can easily lead to emphasis being placed upon the things that the government and opposition have in common to the detriment of the opposition's control duty. In a society in which the primary concern of citizens is social security, this trend has to be regarded as being almost irresistible. The opportunity to participate becomes greater than the burden of opposition.

And there is another aspect. The complicated nature of legislation means that comprehensive specialist knowledge and first-rate information is needed. The ruling party can draw on the extensive knowledge of the civil service, but the opposition is left to fend for itself. The opposition, then, is faced with a difficult task when drawing up its own proposed bills, or, indeed, when trying to develop a working alternative to the plans proposed by the government (...).

[Back to top of page]         [Back to overview]

Civil action and new social movements

The development of civil action groups and new social movements (...) led to a fresh intensification of the business of opposition in western democracies. Because their concerns were not being taken seriously enough by the existing party-political system, many of these movements were opposed to the policies followed by the government and the opposition. Nevertheless, the flexibility of the parliamentary system of government was characterized by its ability to integrate many of these movements into the political system in a specific way (...). The women's liberation movement, for example, forced the political parties - whether in government or in opposition - to make drastic changes to their policies, in particular to their personnel policy. This was forced by an increasing political awareness among women, who questioned the dominance of men on the political stage and were effectual in bringing to bear the weight of the female vote. Local and regional civil action groups often form the only opposition against nationwide schemes scheduled for implementation at a local or regional level. Such schemes include plans to build roads, airports or rubbish dumps. Local people unite and organize resistance to these schemes carrying parliament's blessing. This triggers conflicts opposed to normal party-political positions; they serve in introducing a new element of opposition into the equation, which is very difficult for parties operating at a national level to integrate.

This form of opposition from local civil action groups standing "outside" of parliament is having an increasingly important function in the ever more complicated intertwining of modern politics and its differing spatial effects. It serves in bring those affected at a local and regional level into the equation. The same is also true for social movements, which are juxtaposed to the usual pressure groups. Civil action and social movements have a habit of articulating a basic democratic need for additional and more effective participation of the citizens in the political process. This has had the effect of becoming a thoroughly welcome challenge for the government and opposition. Some of the unrealistic and radical demands serve in raising serious questions about the models on which parliament is based. If the government and parliamentary opposition is successful in dealing with these challenges, then no danger is posed to the stability of society from the kind of opposition coming from outside parliament. Indeed, society benefits from this process, even if it means that some decisions and plans may be subject to delay. Should parliamentary democracy, on the other hand, not manage to satisfy this legitimate wish for political objectives with more content and increased participation, then dangerous weaknesses will be exposed, expressed most predominantly by a lack of individual commitment for the democratic system. Opposition stemming from civil action and social movements can make a vital contribution to society by heading off its fall into a purely consumer society. Provided the government and opposition remain open to the problems voiced by these movements, alienation need not arise between a parliamentary democracy and its citizens. As far as the parliamentary opposition is concerned, taking on board some of these pressing questions and problems means improving its chances of gaining more of the popular vote.

[Back to top of page]         [Back to overview]

Opposition in a democratic state

Successful politics in a modern and free welfare state requires a moderate political climate and the well-tested ability to settle completely political controversy and this, in turn, requires consensus about basic political values, that is, agreement on that which cannot be voted on. Despite the force of circumstances in a technical world, a modern democracy has differing options open to it. There is always a differing sequence in the priority attached to political measures and, more often than not, also different ways of reaching a political goal that is acceptable to all sides. Therefore, there exists sufficient space for the opposition to distinguish itself within the existing structure, especially if it has the courage to voice more fundamental criticism now and again. Democracy needs a statutory opposition both inside and outside of parliament, whose strength and discipline forms a decisive standard for freedom and tolerance within the community. Only in a tense relationship of cooperation and opposition between the government and opposition, therefore, can the democratic political system unfold.

While it is essential for the opposition to have courage and imagination, it also requires a social climate that says yes to political argument, rather than dismissing it as something negative. It requires a political atmosphere that does not give priority to the government out of a false belief of authority and does not condemn all criticism as subversion. The opposition should also have an open mind about new horizons and social change. It should also develop a readiness to regard as positive changes in the leadership that might lead to new initiatives both in society and in the state. In this sense opposition is dependent on the make up of public opinion. Public opinion that is self-confident and critical boosts and strengthens the role of the opposition. Indeed, the opposition should emphasize in public those issues with which it itself can become the shaping power of modern democracy.

[Taken from: Waldemar Besson/Gotthard Jasper, Das Leitbild der modernen Demokratie. Bauelemente einer freiheitlichen Staatsordnung, Bonn 1990]

[Back to top of page]

Subjects:  Human Rights  I  Democracy  I  Parties  I  Examples  I  Europe  I  Globalisation  I  United Nations  I  Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods