Parliamentary Crises: How and Why Do They Occur in Europe?

The parliamentary crisis provoked in Ukraine by the political reform can hardly be considered purely Ukrainian know-how. It would be incorrect to view the boxing bouts of deputies in the session room, voting by show of hands, and opposition deputies’ exercises in not so artistic whistling as purely Ukrainian national achievements. Yet, it is peripeteia in the Ukrainian parliament that caught the stern eye of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). It was reported last week that the PACE bureau would recommend putting the “constitutional crisis” in Ukraine on the agenda of the European Parliament’s January session. Moreover, special PACE rapporteur for Ukraine, Hanne Severinsen, arrived last Sunday in Kyiv on a three-day visit. She is one of the PACE officials authorizes to monitor domestic political developments in Ukraine. Ms. Severinsen admitted PACE would continue the monitoring at least until the presidential elections to be held later this year. The respected organization was granted the right to monitor not in the least thanks to Ukrainian parliament members themselves who had failed to meet their earlier commitment to pass the legislative acts required for Council of Europe membership.

There have been many instances in modern history when crises in European parliaments were defused by the deputies themselves, without interference of foreign political, legal or informational entities. One of the fresh examples is the Netherlands. Last year that country was beset with conflicts as never before. After the resignation of Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, Holland held mid-term parliamentary elections. Most of the seats were gained by the center-right Christian Democratic Appeal party and its main rival, the social democratic Labor Party. They thus obtained the right to form a new government, but serious differences on many issues slowed down the formation of a coalition. The country was in a crisis situation for almost six months, as negotiations dragged on. At last, the Christian Democratic Appeal opted for a coalition with the Liberals and the Democrats ‘66 social liberal party. Only then was the protracted crisis overcome. Yet, Dutch opposition leaders still maintain that the coalition government, short of the leading Labor Party, remains unstable and is subject to very reasonable compromises.

Another example of a European parliamentary conflict is the confrontation among Swedish MPs. The most serious crisis in Sweden’s Riksdag was stirred by the 1973 parliamentary elections, when the socialist and non-socialist blocs each gained the same (175) number of seats. Although this situation made it possible to make the most important decisions, equal representation of the opposite blocs made a large number of issues reach an impasse. This necessitated the adoption of amendments to the constitution of Sweden, which reduced the number of seats in parliament from 350 to 349 (from the next elections onwards) and revised voting age qualifications.

The characteristic feature of Italian parliamentary proceedings is that the majority and the opposition quite stormily debate on the issues on which they have opposite views: sometimes this results in reciprocal insults and even physical violence. In such cases, a special police unit, polizia delle udienze, has to intervene and restore order in the session hall.

Great Britain has not yet seen a parliamentary crisis, although British analysts have been forecasting a split among the ruling Labor in the past few months. For example, last February’s six-hour debate in the House of Commons on governmental policies in the Iraq crisis revealed considerable opposition to the military operation in Iraq among Labor Party members. And, although the draft resolution in support of the government position was passed by the overwhelming majority of votes, the alternative draft, which took a dim view of the reasons in favor of the Iraq war, gathered 122 Labor votes, almost a third of the party’s faction in the House of Commons. Observers saw it as the most serious crisis in the Labor Party since Prime Minister Tony Blair came to power in 1997.

What caused a governmental crisis in Austria in the fall of 2002 was an aggravated conflict inside the coalition of representatives of the Austrian People’s Party and the Freedom Party. The immediate reason was the coalition government’s decision to postpone the first stage of the tax reform from 2003 to 2004 because it was necessary to allocate considerable budgetary funds for overcoming the consequences of floods. The decision to put off the reform encountered active resistance of Jorg Haider, former leader of the Freedom Party and governor of Carinthia, and his party’s cells in the federal lands. They managed to collect 380 signatures, more than 50% of the statute-required number of delegates at the previous Freedom Party congress, demanding to convene an extraordinary congress in order to pass a vote of no confidence in the ministers that represent the party. Very soon, Freedom Party representatives in the government, including the vice chancellor, the minister of finance, and the minister of transport and infrastructure, publicly offered their resignation. After consultations with President Thomas Klestil, the federal chancellor, officially announced he would propose in the National Council that parliament be dissolved. As a result of the early parliamentary elections, the People’s Party and Freedom Party restored the government coalition.

It follows from the aforesaid that it is a country’s own traditions of political dialog and relevant legal provisions, rather than external challenges, that thwart and help defuse parliamentary crises.