Fact check: Are coalitions weaker than single-party governments in T&T?

People's Partnership Leader, Mrs Kamla Persad-Bissessar was quoted, in reference to the UK's newly-formed coalition government: '... no-one is saying that the [Lib-Con] coalition is a threat to Britain. In fact what they are saying is that it is a tribute to the strength of the system of parliamentary democracy.'

That is not entirely true.  Many folks have openly expressed concerns about the UK coalition, including members of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties.  The pound sterling fell on 12 May 2010 based on market fears that the coalition government would struggle to cut the budget deficit (the main economic concern).  Also, in some constituencies, the councillors and activists are vehemently opposed to each other, and will be campaigning against each other in upcoming local government elections.  So the threat of the coalition collapsing is fully recognised by all.

However, to mitigate the threat, the leaders of both parties have committed to staying together for five years, despite any differences that may arise, in the country's interest.  It is included in their written coalition agreement, alongside an agreement that 55% of MPs will be required to bring down the coalition in a no-confidence vote.  They've set up a Coalition Committee, chaired by both leaders, to resolve any issues of conflict within the parties relating to governance during the next five years.  They also committed to holding the next general elections on the first Thursday of May 2015.  Representatives of both parties have been placed in each government department: where there is a Tory Minister or Secretary, there's a Lib-Dem junior and vice-versa.  This helped to allay fears about the coalition being anything but strong and stable.  However, the fears will always exist on the ground and it will be foolish of any coalition not to recognise this fact.

I invite the T&T People's Partnership to realistically confront those fears by making a similar iron-clad commitment to the public before 24 May 2010.  Outline how internal conflicts, which may affect Parliamentary decision-making, would be managed.  What is imperative for good governance is the commitment of leadership and Parliamentary members of any coalition government to maintaining unity whilst in office, and an unrelenting pursuit of what's good for the whole of T&T.  In fact, I suggest that any commitment should include the following penalty for breaking unity before the five-year term expires: that the Parliament be dissolved immediately and general elections be held within six weeks.

Similarly, the Hon. Prime Minister's prediction that the UK's coalition would return to the polls within one year and his general statements that all coalitions are weak are a bit dishonest.  He ignores evidence to the contrary.  Even if we were to similarly ignore international evidence of stable coalition governments, what is the evidence from T&T?  The alliance of 1986 and the coalition government of 1995 both went to full five-year terms.  The only governments that failed to complete their five-year terms were the PNM governments of 1991, 2001 and 2007, and the UNC government of 2000.  However, no-one takes this to support any argument that unitary governments are weak, or in particular, that we should fear the PNM because three times they failed to last a full term.  Both coalition and unitary governments can be weakened by internal conflicts, so there isn't enough evidence to fear one form more than the other.

I would prefer if our prospective leaders would deal with the facts and stop trying to make unstable arguments based on visions, prophecy and fear-mongering.