2 ms·
Your question is a perfect example of identity politics. Most political parties want mostly the same things. They have differences in priorities, and they may
by jltsiren 2y ago
Your question is a perfect example of identity politics.
Most political parties want mostly the same things. They have differences in priorities, and they may oppose the specific means other parties propose, but they are rarely opposed to the actual goals of the parties on the other side of the political spectrum.
Radical fringes often have too different visions of the society to work with those on the other side. But we are not talking about radicals here, but a coalition of three moderate center-left / center-right parties. Those parties should be able to collaborate most of the time, even if you add CDU (another center-right party) to the mix.
- rayiner 2y agoYou can specify goals at a high level of abstraction. But do they agree on concrete policies to achieve those goals? The fact that the government failed suggests the answer is no. Same thing in France. Countries where half the political spectrum twists itself into a pretzel to oppose the right on immigration will become ungovernable.
- jltsiren 2y agoIf you want a majority government, half the political spectrum must twist itself into a pretzel. The key issue is will the people in question try to find common ground, or do they prefer to play identity politics. The most stable government coalition in Finnish history was Lipponen's first government in 1995-1999. It consisted of SDP, National Coalition Party (center-right), the Greens, the Left, and Swedish People's Party (center). The coalition was stable enough that it lasted the full four-year term and another three years after the elections. Government stability is ultimately about people. Are those people willing to work together, or do they let political labels get in the way.