Bipartisanship is a political situation, sometimes referred to asnonpartisanship and usually in the context of atwo-party system (especially those of the United States and some other Western countries), in which opposingpolitical parties find common ground throughcompromise. In multi-partisan electoral systems or in situations where multiple parties work together, it is calledmultipartisanship.Partisanship is theantonym, where an individual or political party adheres only to its interests without compromise.
The adjectivebipartisan can refer to any political act in which both of the two majorpolitical parties agree about all or many parts of a political choice. Bipartisanship involves trying to find common ground, but there is debate whether the issues needing common ground are peripheral or central ones.[1] Often, compromises are called bipartisan if they reconcile the desires of both parties from an original version oflegislation or other proposal. Failure to attain bipartisan support in such a system can easily lead togridlock, often angering each other and theirconstituencies.
According to political analystJames Fallows inThe Atlantic (based on a "note from someone with many decades' experience in national politics"), bipartisanship is a phenomenon belonging to atwo-party system such as the political system of the United States and does not apply to aparliamentary system (such as the United Kingdom) since the minority party is not involved in helping write legislation or voting for it. Fallows argues that in a two-party system the minority party can be obstructionist and thwart the actions of the majority party.[2] AnalystAnne Applebaum inThe Washington Post suggested that partisanship had been rampant in the United Kingdom and described it as "a country in which the government and the opposition glower at each other from opposite sides of theHouse of Commons, in whichbackbenchers jeer when their opponents speak". Applebaum suggested there was bipartisanship in Britain, meaning a coalition in 2010 between two opposing parties but that it remained to be seen whether the coalition could stay together to solve serious problems such as tackling Britain's financial crisis during theGreat Recession.[3]
Bipartisanship (in the context of a two-party system) is the opposite of partisanship, which is characterized by a lack of cooperation between rival political parties.[4] Bipartisanship can also be between two or more opposite groups (e.g.liberal andconservative) to agree and determine a plan of action on an urgent matter that is of great importance to voters. This interpretation brings bipartisanship closer to the more applied notion ofpostpartisan decision-making; a solution-focused approach that creates a governance model with third-party arbiters used to detectbias. It is also argued that bipartisanship exists in policy-making that does not have bipartisan support. This is the case if it involves bipartisan exchanges. This element is a central feature in the legislative process and is a bipartisan concept in the sense that it serves as a mechanism for achieving consensus and cooperation.[5]
TheLabor Party and theCoalition both support the 1996National Firearms Agreement, 2024legislation to ban children under 16 from social media, and opposition to thedeath penalty.
At the federal level, Canada has been dominated by two big tent parties practicing "brokerage politics".[a][8][9][10] Both theLiberal Party of Canada and theConservative Party of Canada (or its predecessors) have attracted support from a broad spectrum of voters.[11][12][13] Although parties such as theCommunist Party of Canada, the Quebec nationalistBloc Quebecois, and others, have elected members to theHouse of Commons,far-right andfar-left parties have never gained a prominent force in Canadian society and have never formed a government in the Canadian Parliament.[14][15][6]
Although the United Kingdom has an adversarial political system, there have often been large areas of agreement between theLabour andConservative parties that have often but not always also brought in theLiberal Democrats. Areas of agreement have tended to includeforeign policy and policy towardsNorthern Ireland. Other questions such as the continued existence of theNational Health Service orBritish membership of the European Union were areas where the parties would tend to agree on the central question but were divided, often sharply, on questions of approach. There is also a convention within British politics where there are minor areas where there is little partisan cooperation to have formal and semi-secret cooperation facilitated by both parties parliamentarywhips and senior civil servants, a process often referred to as theusual channels.
Politics in Ireland has been broadly a two party system with the two main partiesFine Gael andFianna Fáil both being supported by people from different social classes and political ideologies,[16] with very similar andcentre-right political positioning and aliberal conservative ideology. The reason they remain separate is due mainly to historical factors, with those who supported theAnglo-Irish Treaty in the 1920s eventually becoming Fine Gael, and those opposed would join Fianna Fáil and seek an independent Ireland. In many areas such as openness toForeign Direct Investment and a stated willingness to incorporateNorthern Ireland the broad policies of the two parties were very similar.
James Madison argued inThe Federalist Papers that a danger to democracies were factions, which he defined as a group that pushed its interests to the detriment of the national interest. While theframers of theConstitution did not think that political parties would play a role inAmerican politics, political parties have long been a major force in American politics, and the nation has alternated between periods of intense party rivalry and partisanship, as well as periods of bipartisanship. There have been periods of bipartisanship in American politics, such as whenDemocrats worked withRepublican PresidentRonald Reagan in the 1980s,[17] with foreign policy was being seen as an area where bipartisanship was strongest with PresidentWilliam Howard Taft, stating that fundamental foreign policies should be above party differences.[18] Military policies of theCold War and actions like theIraq War were promoted and supported, through themass media, as bipartisan acts.[19] A more partisan tone tended to be taken on domestic policy and this could be sharper at some times such asBarack Obama's presidency with minority parties voting as a bloc against major legislation.[20][21][22] A call for bipartisanship is often made by presidents who "can't get their way in Congress".[23]
Bipartisanship has been criticized because it can obscure the differences between parties, making voting for candidates based on policies difficult in a democracy.[24] Critics of bipartisanship in the United States often refer to a "uniparty" that passes bills that do not have the full support of either party.[25][26] Third parties and independents have also claimed the existence of a corrupt uniparty that represents corporations andspecial interest groups.[27] Additionally, the concept of bipartisanship has been criticized as discouraging agreements between more than two parties, thus exercising atyranny of the majority by forcing voters to side with one of the two largest parties.[citation needed] AnalystBenedict Carey writing inThe New York Times argued that political analysts tend to agree that government will continue to be divided and marked by paralysis and feuding; according toBerkeley professorDacher Keltner, there was research suggesting that humans have a "profound capacity through which vicious adversaries can form alliances".[28]
two historically dominant political parties have avoided ideological appeals in favour of a flexible centrist style of politics that is often labelled "brokerage politics"
...most Canadian governments, especially at the federal level, have taken a moderate, centrist approach to decision making, seeking to balance growth, stability, and governmental efficiency and economy...
Canada's party system has long been described as a "brokerage system" in which the leading parties (Liberal and Conservative) follow strategies that appeal across majorsocial cleavages in an effort to defuse potential tensions.
First Past the Post in Canada has favoured broadly-based, accommodative, centrist parties...
