Britain’s recently concluded national vote produced a new prime minister and a coalition government, the latter the nation’s first in more than 60 years. The election also provides Americans — if they choose to look — with several useful lessons about the conduct of several useful lessons in about the election process.
The election proved inconclusive. No major candidate received a majority of votes. The Conservative Party, headed by David Cameron, received the most votes, followed by the Labor Party of incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Liberal Democratic Party. The Conservative party did not amass enough votes in Parliament to govern on its own, so Mr. Cameron had to find an ally with which to form a coalition or lose the opportunity to assume office. He did so with an ease and with a speed that should embarrass the United States’ perpetually feuding political parties and their leaders.
The Conservatives joined with the with the third place finisher to create a 363-seat majority in the 650-seat Parliament. Though the two parties differ, sometimes significantly, on some issues, they do share enough common ground to establish what those involved hope will be a productive and useful partnership. Though not unique, the coalition government is new to most Britons. The last of its type held power 65 years ago.
Those who expect Mr. Cameron — who named Nicholas Clegg of the Liberal Democrats as deputy prime minister — to abruptly change either domestic or international policy are likely to be disappointed. The voters made it clear they prefer adjustments to certain policies, but not radical change. The distribution of votes in the national election among the parties strongly suggests an electorate that prefers a centrist approach to government. Mr. Cameron and his governing partners should provide it.
To that end, the new government will remain generally progressive in domestic policy. There is general agreement, though, that there will be heated debate about the best way to address pressing issues such as the economy, immigration questions and the nation’s sometimes rocky relationship with much of the rest of Europe. Even so, it appears likely that the coalition partners will reach accommodation on the issues.
The nation’s international role will remain much the same as it did under the Labor Party. Mr. Cameron says his government that his nation will honor its NATO commitments and that it will retain its strong ties to the United States. That certainly should ease any concern in Washington that political changes in Britain might lead to major shifts in international policy.
That settled, Americans should ponder other facets of the British election. Cooperation — evidenced by the formation of a coalition government — rather than partisanship can serves both political parties and the common good. Britain’s six-week campaign, a sharp contrast to lengthy presidential contests, works well and keeps costs low. And finally, once election results are tallied, the transition from old government is quick. It took less than a day in Britain. Compare that to the long process the United States.
Americans need not and should not emulate the British electoral system, but they can learn lessons from the manner in which they are conducted and the general civility that prevails during the process.