Canada’s political structure allows for a multi-party system. A consequence of the fact that we have more than two parties is that two types of government can be formed: a majority government occurs when the winning party has more than half the seats in parliament, while a minority is formed when the winning party has less than half the seats. There are many benefits to the majority form of government.
First off, by nature of the numerical requirement, majority governments are harder to form. If my math is correct, and you should probably double check, it is easier to win less than half the seats than it is to win more than half the seats. Thus it is harder to make a majority government. Then, by hipster logic, they’re better right? Check. Yup. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that train of thought.
All joking aside, though, a big advantage that majority governments have is that they avoid deadlock. One of the chronic problems that plague minority governments is inability to pass bills and laws. This is a natural consequence of the fact that to pass a bill, it needs to have the support of over half the seats in the House of Commons. This can often be difficult for minority governments, as the governing party needs to compromise with other parties. This is often easier said than done, especially considering that many times the other parties would rather overturn your government so that they might have a chance to take your place. On the other hand, a majority government avoids this problem altogether, by virtue of the fact that to be a majority government, you must already control over half the seats in the House, which means all your bills will pass without issue. While this means that parliament cannot be used as a regulatory check against the government, there are plenty of other checks already, such as the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of the defining aspects of the era we live in is rapid change, and our government needs to be able to respond quickly to new ideas and problems. Political deadlock in minority governments can only very rarely do this, while majority governments can.
The other significant advantage that majority governments have is stability. Minority governments are constantly at risk of being ousted. They can be defeated in a vote of no confidence on a number of important bills, most notably the budget. This then forces an election, which could result in a change in ruling party. Every year, a minority government runs this risk if it cannot please the other parties. Imagine a Canada where compromise cannot be attained. In such a world, a minority government would be toppled every year, and an election would happen, possibly electing another minority government. Any long-term plans, such as infrastructure projects, that any of these governments would attempt to implement could never become reality; the incoming government would sweep all those plans away. While we are fortunate to live in a country where dialogue is still possible between opposing parties, such a scenario is very possible. To implement any lengthy project, stability is necessary, and so minority governments will always have a difficult time implementing long term projects.
Majority governments, on the other hand, are never at risk of being toppled. They are guaranteed four years to be able to carry out projects before an election is forced. Thus majority governments are capable of pushing forward much larger, big-picture projects than the typical minority government. Stability is often undervalued today, but it is important to have. It gives majority governments the security they need to do something memorable that will benefit the country in the long term.
Democracies have a plethora of advantages over other authoritarian forms of governments like monarchies, but one of the few advantages authoritarian governments have is that they are better and more effective at carrying out long term projects such as industrialization and development. Majority governments co-opt these advantages from authoritarian forms while maintaining the advantages of a democracy, such as the choice of the people, and regulation of power.
Majorities also tend to happen under strong leaders. Most of Canada’s strongest, most influential Prime Ministers held majority governments for most of their time in power. John A. MacDonald, Wilfrid Laurier, William Lyon Makenzie King, John Diefenbaker, and Pierre-Eliot Trudeau are all among Canada’s most celebrated historical leaders, and they all held successive majority governments which allowed them to enact their visionary ideas. While the majority government is caused by the strength of leader rather than the other way around, this shows that if you can trust your prime minister, then he can accomplish more with a majority government than a minority. Majority or pseudo-majority governments à la unity governments were necessary during both World Wars to ensure the smooth running of the industrial total war machine. There are some instances, mainly wars, where a government simply requires absolute control to ensure the safety of the nation.
To sum up, majority governments have a number of advantages over minority governments. They are able to avoid partisan deadlock in parliament and can thus get more done and react to changes faster. They are also able to enact long term projects that minority governments cannot due to the stability and guarantee that a majority government brings. In times of crisis, a majority government is absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of the public. While a majority government is not always the right choice, it has several advantages over minorities, and can ensure that a good government can accomplish their goals and lead a country to success.
Leave a Reply