| Mr Khan said: So they simply need to be large enough to be feasible (e.g. a plurality), and not a majority? I must remember things incorrectly from my freshman Comparative Politics class, or else they were specifically referring to the British system... |
People have different values regarding a political system. Many value a stable government high.
I does not, even without a working government (Belgium) nothing really bad happens, if it is a democracy. The parliament works without a government and decides about anything. Also the ministry-burocreacy can work without a head.
In monarchies (and today dictatorships) the stability of the whole country depends on the monarch or dictator. In former times it happened, that if the monarch died a war could start over the succession. Think about the wars of the roses or the bloodshed over the succession to Henry VIII (that eventually lead to another stable monarch, Elisabeth I., but before many bloodshed and possible kings and queens). That leads people to the thinking, that a stable government is needed for a prosperous country.
But in a democracy things change. As the power is not so centralized, the country as a whole is not dependent on the government. Other institutions work well without a government. That's why a minority-government like it sometimes happened in scandinavia and seldom in germany can work well.
