Question

hey dears here's the question

what is the difference between community Government and coalition government

Answer 1

What is the difference between a minority government and a coalition government?

ans. A coalition government means that no single political party has a complete majority, but several parties have decided to work together as a coalition to reach an agreement about who gets to be the prime minister and who gets to serve in the cabinet. ... A federal system could have several coalition governments within it.

Answer 2

Both types of governments have the purpose of decentralizing the powers of the central/national government. To simply put it, a coalition government can only exist in a parliamentary/prime minister form of government. In contrast to the parliamentary/prime minister form of government is the Presidential government. In a federal government, it can be either a Presidential system or a parliamentary/prime minister government.

A coalition government usually exists in a parliamentary/prime minister government. They follow the example of the United Kingdom (the only existing country in the world that has the longest history of Democratic Representation) parliament. In a country where there are multiple political factions/parties. It is relatively difficult to maintain democratic representation in the government if a Presidential system is used to establish the government instead of the parliamentary/prime minister. In a parliament, if a political faction/party has the majority, it is up to this party to choose somebody that is already a parliamentary representative to become the prime minister, the head of the government and the executive function of the government. If no party/faction has the majority in the parliament. Then the choosing of a prime minister would require the support of other factions/parties. This is when a coalition government exists. In the situation where a single party/faction has the majority, the prime minister usually only responds to the wills of his/her faction/party. In a situation where no party/faction has the majority, the prime minister would have to listen to the demands other than his/her party/faction, and thus the “coalition.” Nations that just got out of dictator/authoritarian rules, and with a relatively small soil and a small population, would reach initial political stability by establishing a parliament and choosing a prime minister, since there wasn’t an absolute political majority exist in the country. The prime minister would have to answer to multiple political factions in the country, and seemingly all factions are satisfied at the same time. Most European nations that got out of monarchies after World War II and entered Democratic rules have established parliaments and chosen prime ministers (In Germany, chancellor), Germany, Italy, etc. And in recent history, we have examples like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Opposite to parliamentary/prime minister system is presidential system. Contrast to the Prime Minister being chosen by the majority faction/party of the parliament. Some form of national appointment is used to select the head of the government that holds the executive functions of the government. The result of this national appointment, is the selection of the President. In this case, the President is nationally elected/appointed. The President answers to the national populace, contrary to the Prime Minister answering to the majority party/faction, and even sometimes only answers to this person’s own constituencies. In a Presidential System, there’s a clear separation of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch, whereas in a Parliamentary/Prime Minister system, the legislative functions and the executive functions are tightly tied together. A phenomenon that could occur as a result of this is that if in the Presidential System, the legislative branch fails to pass a budget, it leads to a government shutdown, as we just experienced in the United States, non-essential functions of the government would be closed. But this does not lead to the dismiss of either the President or the Congress. In a parliamentary/prime minister system, if a budget is failed to pass, both the Prime Minister and all members of the Parliament would be dismissed, and new elections would be held to choose new members of the Parliament and then the new Parliament would choose the new Prime Minister. This illustrates that Parliament/Prime Minister system, though it can establish short term stability, in the long run, it’s unstable. In the Presidential System, the President holds more powers than the Prime Minister, and the President stays in office for a fixed period of time such as that United States Presidents face elections every four years. Prime Minister does not, and there’s no fixed schedules for elections. Presidential system would be effective in a country with a large soil, and a large population, relatively, and there tends to be long term stability if the country did not go through turmoil the period of time immediately followed the establishment of the Presidential system. We have examples such as the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Russia.