Workable minority governmentWorkable minority government

We now have a month’s experience with a minority government in Guyana. Knowing this is uncharted waters for us, we seek to expose our politicians and the general public to the reality that others have navigated these waters before us. While there are elements of uniqueness in every situation, there are also elements of commonalities, and from these, we thought we might benefit from these other experiences.

Last month, we introduced a survey of the practice of minority governments in several jurisdictions that share a common history of Westminster parliamentary government with us. While we introduced the office of an executive president, interestingly, we retained the Westminster practice of allowing the party with the largest number of seats in the parliament, the opportunity to form the government and constitute the executive.

We repeat some of the major relevant observations of the survey by the British Think Institute for Government almost verbatim, least we be accused of furthering some ulterior motive. We live in guarded times. We substituted ‘president’ for ‘prime minister’.

We begin with the presidency, which in Guyana has already stressed the need to cultivate, ‘cordial and respectful relations with opposition parties.’ It is advised that ‘both formal and informal channels of communication and mechanisms to resolve disputes’, and it is rather unfortunate that already our opposition parties have not reciprocated in like manner to the president’s initiative on the ‘Tripartite Committee’, for instance.

Another suggestion to the president is that ‘since there is a greater risk of the government being defeated in a minority parliament’, it is important to recognise that in advance. He can however ‘make a virtue of the fact that there may be less legislation in a minority parliament’.

It is advisable for the president to set out a strategy which focuses on a set of clearly defined objectives. This creates a realistic set of expectations as to what the government hopes to achieve and shifts the emphasis from measuring government success in terms of the scale of its legislative output to assessing its effectiveness at implementing existing legislations and managing the public services under its control.

One common theme is the need for officials to become more ‘politically attuned’. A minority government has to negotiate item by item to gain support for its policies and legislation, with its support parties or the opposition parties. Civil servants need to be aware of the policy and constituency interests of MPs with swing votes who may need to be accommodated.

There is a fallacy in the air that the government does not have any powers because of the opposition’s majority in parliament.

But parliamentary support is only one facet of a government’s power. In the parliament, ‘All the other actors look to the government to plan the legislative programme and the rest of the parliamentary agenda in the Westminster system.

Even if the government does not command a majority in the House of Commons, the formal rules and informal culture at Westminster give priority to the government, and government business’.

The main rule is Standing Order 14, which provides that ‘government business shall have precedence at every sitting’. We have the identical rule. Minority governments might have to concede more time to the opposition for issues which concern them, as has been the case in Scotland; but the government remains the prime mover, and the underlying culture at Westminster remains that the government’s business must move forward.’

One legislative rule which will help a minority government is the convention that only the government can propose additional expenditure. So private member’s bills which involve expenditure cannot make progress unless the government tables a money resolution. And opposition amendments to bills with financial implications will be ruled inadmissible if they do not fall within the terms of the bill’s money resolution.