Looking ahead to the July elections, one has the feeling that bipartisanship will once again be dominant. If this is really the case, will it be a better option for the economy than the multi-party system of recent years that now seems to be languishing? Spanish democracy has never been purely bipartisan and even less bipartisan (understood as prone to agreements of two). However, during a good part of the last decades, the preponderance of the first two parties and their certain alternation in power was assumed as a competition between two. More recently, new political forces have emerged that have come to draw a multi-party map on a national scale and, in fact, the current government is a left-wing coalition.
It is not that the United Kingdom or the United States - fundamentally bipartisan systems - are to throw rockets in terms of political cooperation and conflict resolution, but historically they have worked and have effective control systems. What is missing, in any case, is that cooperative spirit that Abraham Lincoln already defined by pointing out that "a man divided against himself cannot remain standing." In Spain, however, we swing between Mariano José de Larra and Adolfo Suárez. The first suggested that "politics is the art of looking for problems, finding them, making a false diagnosis, and then applying the wrong remedies." The second that "it is better to agree than to fight. It is better to give in than to lose everything."
The convergence between left and right is pure arithmetic and is achieved through the center. However, we have just witnessed in Spain the umpteenth death of a center party in Europe. The curious thing about Ciudadanos is that it reached agreements with the two main parties that showed much more agreement than anything else regarding the need for some economic and social reforms (and even political responsibility). They never gelled. On the other hand, extreme options are weakened. On the left, the internal struggles and, perhaps, the evaluation of his performance, have led to a sharp drop in his support. On the extreme right, there is irrelevance because everything that Spain does not need is proposed (stopping Europeanism and immigration, for example) and it is rarely possible to govern in coalition. It remains, yes, a lot of noise and unpleasant.
The economic question is to what extent this step towards multipluralism that now seems to be vanishing has been a system of control and economic reform. The American system cannot be taken as an exact reference, which, moreover, has been in question these days due to the blockade of the budget that has kept the entire American administrative system and a large part of the markets in suspense.
Those who criticize multipardismo point out that this system encourages patronage and political corruption. Partisan fragmentation can generate greater opacity in political decision-making and facilitate the capture of public resources by interest groups. This can have a negative impact on the economy, as resources are diverted to political ends instead of being used efficiently to promote economic growth. It has also been shown that, at least in its irruption, the arrival of new parties favors budgetary and social change from positions entrenched by the historical bipartisanship.
I would consider four important institutional dimensions. The first is political stability and certainty. In this sense, both bipartisanship and coalitions can provide political stability if solid and lasting majorities are achieved, but this is not a historical tradition in Spain. There are no coalitions like
German or Dutch that, strictly speaking, can be interpreted as a bipartisan reconfiguration of a multiparty system. Progress is being made in these countries because the voter values the entrenchment and its impact on the economy very negatively.
Second, the possibility of consensus and economic reforms. In a two-party system or stable coalitions, consensus on economic policies and necessary reforms is more likely to be achieved.
Third, competition and diversity of ideas. In a multi-party system, competition between different parties can lead to a greater diversity of ideas and economic proposals. This can generate an enriching debate and foster innovation in economic policies, but it can also polarize in an impractical or clientelistic way or make politics a profession without professionals.
Fourth, the risk of political paralysis. In some cases, multipartyism and coalitions can lead to further political fragmentation and make it difficult to make quick and effective decisions. Italy is the epitome. The economic and social future of Spain requires a new dialogue. The multipardisimo has not favored it. It is not clear that bipartisanship does it, but sometimes it is easier to reform between two than between sixteen.
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
