The problem with marginal majorities
George W. Bush clinched the US presidency with a marginal majority in 2000. So did Greece’s Costas Simitis the same year. The same happened when Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats faced Gerhard Schroeder’s Social Democrats in Germany last year. And now Italy’s center-left leader, Romano Prodi, has scraped a slim victory over Silvio Berlusconi’s center-right administration. In Italy, the system of proportional representation that had existed since 1945 was changed a decade ago so that elections would yield strong governments. Under the old PR system, Italy was governed by Catholic-conservative Christian Democrats for three decades running, yet during this period it also witnessed impressive economic and social prosperity; is it a coincidence that this was followed by a period of instability and then stagnation? In countries like the USA, ruled by strong political and economic «establishments,» one party’s slim margin of victory over the other does not appear to negatively affect the way the winning party legislates. Bush has governed decisively despite having been elected with a marginal – and disputed – majority. Kennedy had done the same. But in most other countries, administrations elected with marginal majorities find they cannot govern effectively without some, albeit indirect, support from a rival party. Only Germany’s Merkel, elected chancellor with a tiny majority, conceded her inability to govern alone and formed a coalition with the rival Social Democrats. Now the question in and outside Italy is whether Prodi will be able to govern Italy with such a fragile majority.
