In Germany, a “majority coalition” has existed for 16 years + 4 years (20th Bundestag, whose legislative period is still running). In my view, this practice is a democratic shortcoming. Because it means government by the majority. This problem has an impact on both the Bundestag and the government.
The political practice of the coalition agreement turns the discourse that is so important for democracy into a farce. To exaggerate, the problem can be described as follows in connection with the government for the most part:
The democratic legitimacy of MPs is derived from the voter's 'yes' to a candidate (first vote) and the 'yes' to a particular party election program with the second vote. The voter has no other direct influence on the composition of parliament. The election program was drawn up by a party. The voter had no opportunity to influence this. Their only real choice is to opt for one of the election programs on offer. According to my interpretation, the electoral program chosen by the voter with the second vote is therefore a decision to be highly respected. This decision legitimizes the content of the election programme. A coalition agreement, on the other hand, is a so-called compromise election program. A hybrid of the election programs of the coalition parties. If parties A and B form a coalition, the result is the compromise election program AB. And this is precisely where I see a democratic shortcoming. Because neither the voters of party A nor those of party B have been able to verify this compromise election program. This creates a shortcoming that affects both the government and the Bundestag.
1. Effects on the government (Executive)
The government consists of the chancellor and the ministers. The Chancellor is elected in accordance with Art. 63 of the constitution. The Federal President proposes a candidate. If this candidate receives the votes of the majority of the members of the Bundestag, he or she is elected. The elected chancellor then proposes the federal ministers, who are appointed by the Federal President, Art. 64 GG.
The coalition agreement already has an effect on the election of the Federal Chancellor.
Majority coalitions are formed in order to become part of the government. A candidate for chancellor is agreed in the coalition agreement. Agreement is also reached on the distribution of ministerial posts. A simple majority is required for the election of the chancellor by parliament. Thanks to the unanimous voting behavior of the coalition parties in the Bundestag as a result of the coalition agreement, the outcome of the election is certain.
The majority required by the coalition agreement is fundamental for the government's future plans. Many projects require a simple majority in the Bundestag. The government can be certain that such projects will be implemented.
2. Effects on the Bundestag (Legislator)
The coalition agreement has an enormous impact on the work of the Bundestag.
In terms of content, the coalition agreement stipulates, among other things, which legislative projects are to be passed. This means that the coalition parties agree to vote together on these projects in the Bundestag. While in fact that kind of behavior is prohibited, as it means, the MP is not voting according to his or her own believes. As it is stated in Article 38 of the Constitution. Individual MPs would presumably argue in public that they themselves were not coerced, but that a rejection of the project in the Bundestag could lead to the dissolution of the government and that they therefore decided to approve the project. This is therefore not coercion by definition.
Irrespective of whether this decision-making process constitutes coercion, it has a detrimental effect on the debate in the Bundestag. The government or parliamentary groups in the Bundestag introduce a bill. As there is a majority due to the coalition, there is no need to worry about the majority in the Bundestag. Objective criticism from the opposition can be safely ignored.
If we think of the two constellations from the previous section: it is possible that interests capable of winning a majority are not taken into account, and it is possible that strongly underrepresentative interests become a government project thanks to the formation of a coalition. To a certain extent, this intensifies the battle for the voter's best interest I described in Democracy-Deficit I.
With regard to this problem, it should be borne in mind that the Bundestag is the central organ of democracy in Germany: the legislature of a country. Through the means of the coalition agreement and the associated pressure from parliamentary groups, the formation of will takes place from the top down. The political will should actually develop from the bottom up. Another disadvantage is that power is centralized in the government. If only their plans are pursued and objections can be ignored, this in turn increases the risk of shipwreck. In addition, mistakes cannot be admitted due to the party line. This can lead to legislative-projects being introduced into the Bundestag, critical objections being ignored due to the majority, and ultimately being passed. Although the failure of the project became obvious after a short time, it is continued.
As mentioned, the presentation of democratic legitimacy was exaggerated. The Bundestag has sufficient democratic legitimacy. After all, the participating parties were elected by the voters in a proper election. In my opinion, however, this is no reason not to criticize. There are certainly practical reasons for forming a coalition. Starting with the election of the Federal Chancellor, there is no need for a lengthy debate. However, this is at the expense of the discourse that is indispensable for a democracy. After all, if I can introduce a bill - in compliance with the formal and material requirements for a law - and am not dependent on the votes of other MPs, then their objections sink into insignificance. And this shifts the process away from the factual level to the “power-securing” level in one of the most important institutions of democracy: the legislation.