Flexible Majorities as an Alternative to Rigid Majority Coalitions in Germany

Germany’s party system has become increasingly fragmented. As a consequence, politicians find it increasingly difficult to form majority coalitions. When traditional block coalitions (e.g. CDU/CSU and FDP or SPD and Greens) fail to reach a parliamentary majority, complex and ideologically stretched three-party alliances (e.g. so-called Kenya-coalitions) are required. Against this background, the project, funded by the Baden-Württemberg-Stiftung, assessed the political and normative disadvantages of majority coalitions and explored alternatives such as flexible majorities.

Germany’s party system has become more and more fragmented. As a consequence, politicians find it increasingly difficult to form majority coalitions. When traditional block coalitions (e.g. CDU/CSU and FDP or SPD and Greens) fail to reach a parliamentary majority, complex and ideologically stretched three-party alliances (e.g. so-called Kenya coalition) seem to be unavoidable. Against this background, the project, funded by the Baden-Württemberg Stiftung, assessed the political and normative disadvantages of majority coalitions and explored alternatives such as flexible majorities.

To understand the disadvantages of majority coalitions, we analysed data on legislation, party positions, and seat allocation with regard to the prevalence of minority rule in specific issues. We also analysed to what extent party profiles are diluted by rigid coalition discipline. We explored various innovative instruments of majority formation as an alternative to majority coalitions (e.g. agree-to-disagree clauses or confidence-and-supply agreements). These instruments are used in Scandinavia and New Zealand and could be adapted to the German context. We interviewed various actors from the media and politics to understand their perspective on majority formation. Finally, we investigated the attitudes of voters towards minority government and flexible majority formation in an online-survey.

The results highlight that the disadvantages of majority coalitions are exacerbated by the increasing fragmentation of the party system (e. g. issue-specific minority rule, brand dilution of parties). Our interviews suggest that flexible majorities are considered a possibility, but also a stark detour from a long tradition that is likely to be taken only in situations of crises. Our survey shows that—in contrast to political elites—voters are surprisingly open towards alternatives to rigid majority coalitions (e.g. minority governments).

To understand majority coalitions’ disadvantages, we analysed data on legislation, party positions and seat allocation with regard to the prevalence of issue-specific minority rule. We also analysed to what extend party profiles are diluted by rigid coalition discipline.

We explored various innovative instruments of majority formation as an alternative or supplement to majority coalitions (e.g. agree-to-disagree-clauses or confidence & supply-agreements). These instruments are used in Scandinavia and New Zealand and could be adapted to the context in Germany. Various actors from the media and politics were interviewed to understand their perspective on majority formation. Finally, in an online-survey we investigated the attitudes of voters towards minority government and flexible majority formation.

The results highlight, that the disadvantages of majority coalitions are exacerbated by the increasing fragmentation of the party system (e.g. issue-specific minority-rule, brand dilution of parties). Our interviews suggest, that flexible majorities are considered as a possibility, yet also as a stark detour from a long tradition that is likely to be taken only in situations of crises. Our survey shows, that – in contrast to political elites – voters are surprisingly open towards alternative to rigid majority coalitions (e.g. minority governments).