Germany’s coalition building functions very differently from the one in Nepal. After an election we have exploratory discussions, called Sondierungsgespräche in German. The most likely partners sit together and discuss their main political objectives and the number of ministries which might be allocated to the parties entering into an agreement. In case they find common ground, the coalition negotiations will start. Working groups on social policy, infrastructure policy, economic policy, financial policy and so on come together and go into the details. Before the three-party coalition of Socialdemocrats, Greens and Liberals came together in 2021 they negotiated for over a month a coalition treaty which was written down and signed formally containing 143 pages. Such a treaty document has to be endorsed by the party convention of each of the partners.
You can imagine that such a formalized way of forming a new government has consequences on the stability of the government. Usually, the coalition treaty is valid for four years. Only three governments in the history of Germany since the foundation of the Federal Republic in 1949 have not made it to the end of their term—including our present government which broke up a fortnight ago on the question of if the aid to Ukraine should be financed from the budget or if extra debts should be made.
Formalized coalition contracts provide stability. However, in case something unpredictable happens, like the Russian war in Ukraine, they need to be adjusted. This is what did not happen and was finally the reason for the recent collapse of the coalition between Free Democrats Party (FDP) and Social Democratic Party (SPD).
The frequent switching of coalition partners, as we have seen in Nepal in the last few years, has happened in Germany only once in 1982 when the Liberals switched from the Socialdemocrats to the Christiandemocrats toppling the Government of Helmut Schmidt and bringing Helmut Kohl to power.
In Germany, the leader of the government does not have the power discretion like the prime minister of Nepal, who more or less can decide to change coalition partners single-handedly. A change of coalition partners in the German system is practically possible only after a severe or prolonged crisis. The party institutions have to be convinced that a change is necessary and they have to agree on that. Also, the members of parliament have to be convinced, because they have an independent mandate. Once elected to the Parliament, the political party MPs belong to can’t take the mandate away from them. Even when they change the party or vote against their party, they would retain their mandate. That’s also a major difference to the case of Nepal.
We have such a case now with our Federal Minister of Transport Volker Wissing from the Liberals. His party-boss, Christian Lindner, was fired by the chancellor, all Liberal Ministers stepped down in an act of solidarity with the finance minister but Wissing remained in his position and left the liberal party. In summary, power discretion in Germany is limited. The party leaders have to take into account intra party-democracy and they have to take into account the free mandate of the MPs.
As a coalition must be agreed upon by the party decision making bodies, the main question is which political program of each party can be realized in a coalition. That’s why we have these elaborate coalition documents. In Nepal, my impression is that the program doesn’t count too much. It’s more about who gets which ministry.
Democracy and stability
Democratic principles are essential for both Germany and Nepal. Limiting the power of party leaders, having decisions on coalitions based on discussions within the party including the rank and file and having the selections of candidates for parliament done by the party members in the respective constituency by secret vote will strengthen democracy, public trust and bring more stability. International party connections and parliamentary connections and contacts are helpful to learn from each other’s experiences and practices.
When you do not have an organized system of party financing, how do the parties finance their headquarters and their campaigns? In Germany, parties get money from the state according to their average results of the last three elections.
Democratic institutions can play a vital role in ensuring sustainable economic development. MPs well-equipped with resources can contribute even more. Party financing is an example. When you do not have an organized system of party financing, how do the parties finance their headquarters and their campaigns? In Germany, parties get money from the state according to their average results of the last three elections. In addition, the MPs get an office in the parliament building including allowances for secretaries and advisors. I myself worked a long time ago for a member of parliament, writing her speeches, organizing her office and doing research for her. MPs also get an allowance for an office in their constituency, they can call the drivers of the parliament and get free railway tickets. They also can make use of the scientific advisory service of the parliament. Thus, German parliamentarians are extremely well equipped to do their job.
I have seen that in South Asian democracies there is nothing like that for the MPs—no office, no staff, no driver. Either you are wealthy or you have a rich sponsor—both in the end not very democratic and contributing to fostering particularism and corruption which are the main development obstacles.
Democratic institutions like parties, judiciary, media, civil service and civil society institutions are important for the pluralistic distribution of opportunities. If they do not work properly, you will have a particularistic distribution where only certain groups can benefit. During my time as Ambassador to Bangladesh, I had several meetings with the then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Whenever I came to her office, there would be dozens of people waiting to get her audience. Whether certain projects would get the “go” or not would entirely depend on her decision. To get the chance to talk to her was again rare. Not everybody could afford that. That was a kind of a feudal particularistic government system totally opposed to a democratic and pluralistic system. We all know what happened in Bangladesh.
The article is based on remarks delivered by Dr Thomas Prinz at the seminar “From Coalitions to Consolidation: Unpacking the Impact of Political Structures on Nepal’s Democracy and Economy” recently organized by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in Kathmandu. Dr Prinz is German Ambassador to Nepal.
Comment