Post by Glüc on Nov 6, 2013 0:09:57 GMT 1
There is a chance the MRPT might be invited to participate in a coalition after election. I think we should consider what this would mean, how we deal with this and whether some changes to MC regulations / key statute might be required for this.
Some suggestions: Its probably useful to have someone who represents the party in possible negotiations. I think this should mainly be the task of the party leader (representing the members) possibly assisted by the party whip (representing the MCs). Of course the members should be regularly informed of the procedures, so they can give feedback. Suppose an agreement is reached with some other parties, the party will get a vote on the proposal. (Though obviously members should be given the chance to give their opinion on stuff before the agreement is reached to avoid awkward situations. Obviously a majority of MCs should support the coalition (thats how we decide on the VoC after all), but I think we should also provide a provision in the key statute to ensure a majority of members need to support the deal as well.
As far as government offices (ministers) etc are concerned, I would be opposed to calling for internal party votes on specific functions. After all, the PM appoints the ministers and they need to form a team. Also the wishes of the other parties are important to consider. Rather, I believe the ministerial posts should be agreed upon by the representatives of the parties when forming the coalition and be proposed to the members of the party as one package, together with all the other agreements. Of course, that doesnt mean members cant be asked about whether they would like a certain office, but to have a vote about indiviual ministers would not be helpful in selecting the most qualified people and coming up with a good team. Also, this prevents a lot of nasty fighting about offices.
A majority of MCs decides on the VoC anyway, so if a majority of MCs supports the cabinet, that wont a problem. What might be a problem though is this: suppose we also make agreements on policy to be voted on by the ziu, (especially when this goes against the party manifesto as part of a compromise), but one MC does not support this deal. I think we generally should agree that when a majority of members and MCs supports a coalition deal, all MCs should vote along with it, but we cannot force MCs to vote against their conscience. If one MCs conscience does not allow him/herself to commit to the coalition agreement, I think there are three things that could happen:
a) There is a majority in the Cosa for the coalition without that MC and we agree together with the other parties that an exception can be made for that one MC, so he/she does not have to vote along with the coalition.
b) We talk with the other parties about the encountered problem and we renegotiate a deal that all MCs can live with.
c) The deal is off.
We cannot prevent a situation like that from occuring. After all MC candidates can be asked commit to the party manifesto before the elecitons, but we cant ask them to commit to a deal that does not exist yet.
Thoughts?
Some suggestions: Its probably useful to have someone who represents the party in possible negotiations. I think this should mainly be the task of the party leader (representing the members) possibly assisted by the party whip (representing the MCs). Of course the members should be regularly informed of the procedures, so they can give feedback. Suppose an agreement is reached with some other parties, the party will get a vote on the proposal. (Though obviously members should be given the chance to give their opinion on stuff before the agreement is reached to avoid awkward situations. Obviously a majority of MCs should support the coalition (thats how we decide on the VoC after all), but I think we should also provide a provision in the key statute to ensure a majority of members need to support the deal as well.
As far as government offices (ministers) etc are concerned, I would be opposed to calling for internal party votes on specific functions. After all, the PM appoints the ministers and they need to form a team. Also the wishes of the other parties are important to consider. Rather, I believe the ministerial posts should be agreed upon by the representatives of the parties when forming the coalition and be proposed to the members of the party as one package, together with all the other agreements. Of course, that doesnt mean members cant be asked about whether they would like a certain office, but to have a vote about indiviual ministers would not be helpful in selecting the most qualified people and coming up with a good team. Also, this prevents a lot of nasty fighting about offices.
A majority of MCs decides on the VoC anyway, so if a majority of MCs supports the cabinet, that wont a problem. What might be a problem though is this: suppose we also make agreements on policy to be voted on by the ziu, (especially when this goes against the party manifesto as part of a compromise), but one MC does not support this deal. I think we generally should agree that when a majority of members and MCs supports a coalition deal, all MCs should vote along with it, but we cannot force MCs to vote against their conscience. If one MCs conscience does not allow him/herself to commit to the coalition agreement, I think there are three things that could happen:
a) There is a majority in the Cosa for the coalition without that MC and we agree together with the other parties that an exception can be made for that one MC, so he/she does not have to vote along with the coalition.
b) We talk with the other parties about the encountered problem and we renegotiate a deal that all MCs can live with.
c) The deal is off.
We cannot prevent a situation like that from occuring. After all MC candidates can be asked commit to the party manifesto before the elecitons, but we cant ask them to commit to a deal that does not exist yet.
Thoughts?
