What is opposition good for?
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0951629819833192 |
| Author | Betul Demirkaya |
| Published date | 01 April 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Journal of Theoretical Politics
2019, Vol.31(2) 260–280
ÓThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0951629819833192
journals.sagepub.com/home/jtp
What is opposition good for?
Betul Demirkaya
Department of PoliticalScience, Pennsylvania State University,USA
Abstract
Governments in representative democracies may have incentives to pursue policies that do not
align with voters’ preferences. When voters lack information about the policy bias of the govern-
ment and the consequences of policy alternatives, they will have difficulty holding the government
accountable. I propose a formal model that explores whether an opposition party can help solve
this problem by providing information about policy alternatives. The model acknowledges that
opposition parties may have incentives to mislead voters because of their own policy biases or
election concerns. Despite this challenge, the model shows that the presence of an opposition
party may induce a biased government to adjust its policies. For this disciplining equilibrium to
work, the reputations of the opposition and the government should be close to each other, or
the voter should believe that one policy alternative is much more likely to be good for her than
another alternative. In addition, the government should be sufficiently concerned about winning
the elections, and the opposition should be sufficiently concerned about policy. Under the same
conditions, however, misleading information on the opposition may cause an unbiased govern-
ment to implement policies that are detrimental to voter welfare.
Keywords
Democratic representation;legislative politics; opposition parties
The pure idea of democracy, according to its definition, is the government of the whole
people by the whole people, equally represented. Democracy, as commonly conceived
and hitherto practiced, is the government of the whole people by a mere majority of the
people exclusively represented. The former is synonymous with the equality of all citi-
zens; the latter, strangely confounded with it, is a government of privilege in favor of the
numerical majority, who alone possess practicallyany voice in the state.
(Mill, 1861)
Corresponding author:
Betul Demirkaya, 203 PondLab University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-1503 USA.
Email: betul.demirkaya@wustl.edu
The opposition has the responsibility of providing criticism and posing useful alternatives
to government policies. This function, properly performed, helps government to set goals
best qualified to produce public satisfaction. On matters of budget, welfare and other
major concerns, criticism keeps the government responsive to the public and aware of
weaknesses in its program.
(Apter, 1962)
1. Introduction
The merits of a democratic political system stem from the opportunities it provides
for the representation of everyone in thepolity; therefore, a sound and viable oppo-
sition is one of its indispensable elements. Opposition parties, obviously, serve as
alternatives for discontented voters; however, their function is more than just pro-
viding another emblem on the ballot in the next elections. They provide informa-
tion about the government’s policies, and point to their weaknesses. They express
the demands and the interests of their constituencies, and contribute to the transla-
tion of these demands and interests into policy. Hence, in a political system with a
functioning opposition, the government is expected to be more responsive to the
demands of the population as a whole. In parliamentary systems, however, there
are both institutional and motivational obstacles against the opposition’s perfor-
mance of these ideal functions.
In parliamentary systems, opposition parties have very little, if any, chance of
directly influencing policy decisions. The party or the coalition that has the major-
ity of seats in the parliament has control over both legislative and executive power.
Given high levels of party discipline, the party in governmentdoes not usually have
difficulty passing the bills that it proposes and the opposition’s votes in the legisla-
ture cannot change the result. Evidence suggests that the direct influence of opposi-
tion parties on policy in parliamentary systems is rather limited (Powell, 2006).
Nevertheless, opposition parties have the opportunity to participate in parliamen-
tary debates, during which they can reveal their policy positions and offer alterna-
tives to the government’s policy. The opposition’s criticism of the government’s
policies may help voters acquire information about or have a new perspective on
policy outcomes. In that case, the government may have to adjust its policies in
accordance with the voters’ demands. Hence, opposition parties have the potential
to influence policy decisions even when they do not have the majority of seats
required to change the result of legislative voting.
While the information provision function of the opposition is promising for a
more responsive political system, the incentives of the opposition parties may be
incompatible with this function. The opposition may want to mislead the voters
for policy or electoral purposes. If the opposition has information that would make
it more difficult to justify its preferred policy, it may prefer to misinform voters in
order to facilitate the adoption of its preferred policy. Similarly, if the opposition
has information that would support the preferred policy of the government, it
would not be willing to admit that the government is implementing the policy that
Demirkaya 261
To continue reading
Request your trial