Cabinet crisis.

[The Lawspeaker]

Does your political system allow for them and what happens when one occurs ?

Under the Dutch system a minister of a department can tender his resignation and basically take away the entire "kabinet" (or government/ administration).

Dutch wiki says this about it:

Een kabinetscrisis kan in verschillende vormen voorkomen:

• Het kabinet dreigt af te treden als het parlement een bepaald voorstel niet aanneemt. Het centrale discussiepunt is het toekomstige beleid.
• Er is zodanige kritiek op de regering vanwege (vermeend) wanbeleid, dat de regering onvoldoende vertrouwen van het parlement heeft om door te kunnen regeren. Het centrale discussiepunt is het in het verleden gevoerde beleid.
• Een regeringspartij dreigt zijn steun aan een kabinet in te trekken, waardoor het kabinet onvoldoende vertrouwen van het parlement overhoudt om door te regeren.

A cabinet crisis can possibly take place when a parliament does not pass a bill. The central issue of discussion would be the policy that would follow next.

A government can come under such severe criticism because of (supposedly) faulty policies that the "chamber" (parliament) loses it's confidence in the government to such an extent that without the support of parliament the government would find it difficult to continue governing the country. The central issue then would be the previous policy of the government that caused the present crisis.

A party which is a member of the coalition (government) can withdraw it's support for the coalition which would leave the coalition without the adequate support in parliament that it needs to function.

A cabinet crisis sometimes occurs when a minister tenders his resignation (ministerial crisis).

A potential scenario for a cabinet crisis under the Dutch system as on Dutch wiki:

Een mogelijk scenario voor het verloop van een kabinetscrisis is:

1. Een minister dient een belangrijk wetsvoorstel in, bijvoorbeeld over de gekozen burgemeester.
2. De Tweede Kamer probeert het voorstel af te zwakken.
3. De minister zegt: "als mijn voorstel niet wordt aangenomen, ben ik als minister niet geloofwaardig meer; dan treed ik af" (een onaanvaardbaarverklaring).
4. De fractie van dezelfde partij als de minister zegt: "Als de minister hierom aftreedt, gaan wij opnieuw bekijken of wij dit kabinet nog langer willen steunen".
5. Het voorstel wordt afgewezen.
6. De overige regeringspartijen gaan proberen een nieuw akkoord te sluiten met de ontevreden regeringspartij.
7. Het kabinet valt (of niet).

Als een minister-president dreigt af te treden, is er niet alleen een ministerscrisis, maar ook een kabinetscrisis, want het kabinet verliest zijn steun als de minister-president vertrekt.

1. A minister sends in an important proposal f.i about the electability of mayors.
2. The Lower House tries to moderate the proposal.
3. The minister declares that "if my proposal is not passed by the House then I will lose my credibility as a minister and I will resign from the cabinet.
4. The parliamentary group (or party) to which the minister belongs says " when the minister is forced to resign we will review our support to the cabinet."
5. The House votes down the proposal.
6. The other coalition partners seek negotiations with the disgruntled coalition partner in order to see whether a new agreement between them can be reached.
7. The cabinet falls (or is saved).

When a prime-minister is forced to resign there is not just a ministerial crisis but a cabinet crisis because the cabinet will loose it's support in the case of the resignation of a prime minister.

When a cabinet can no longer be repaired the ministers and prime minister tender their resignation to H.M the King / Queen. Then elections would have to be organised (which usually takes a couple of months) while the old cabinet becomes demissionair meaning that it can only take care of those cases that are already on the case list.

[The Lawspeaker]

Hmm I guess that the Netherlands, Belgium, the former Netherlands Antilles and Surinam are the only ones that experience the collapse of a cabinet.

[rhiannon]

My political knowledge as far as how the American government works is not that extensive. This is something I could ask my husband once he is feeling better (poor guy is sick as a dog right now).

However, I can say that the US has seen a federal government shutdown....whereby our congress and president found themselves at an impasse.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._1995_and_1996

This scenario is the closest thing I can think of to the situation Civis describes.

[The Lawspeaker]

My political knowledge as far as how the American government works is not that extensive. This is something I could ask my husband once he is feeling better (poor guy is sick as a dog right now).

However, I can say that the US has seen a federal government shutdown....whereby our congress and president found themselves at an impasse.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._1995_and_1996

This scenario is the closest thing I can think of to the situation Civis describes.

Here all civil servants continue to function as normal as there is no real standstill. However the cabinet has resigned and only deals with the affairs that were already on the list until new elections can be held. The cabinet and still continue to convene because of the affairs on the case list but the cabinet is then referred to as a "demissionair kabinet" so all the ministers are "demissionair" as well.

[Joe McCarthy]

In the US there is nothing comparable as we don't have a multiparty system and rule by coalitions. It's just two parties.

Ours has been cited as a more stable form of government due to this arrangement.

[The Lawspeaker]

In the US there is nothing comparable as we don't have a multiparty system and rule by coalitions. It's just two parties.

Ours has been cited as a more stable form of government due to this arrangement.

But as a result also less representative.

[Joe McCarthy]

But as a result also less representative.

Maybe, but it just makes the two parties themselves more diverse. A lot of different interests are represented.

[European Loyalist]

In the US there is nothing comparable as we don't have a multiparty system and rule by coalitions. It's just two parties.

Ours has been cited as a more stable form of government due to this arrangement.

More stable yes. More functional and efficient? I would say no.

[Joe McCarthy]

More stable yes. More functional and efficient? I would say no.

They go hand-in-hand. Efficient government is not characterized by crisis but by stability.

[European Loyalist]

They go hand-in-hand. Efficient government is not characterized by crisis but by stability.

Is that why the system that ensures stability constantly slows down and often totally kills policy decision making?

Efficient government is characterized by being able to make policy decisions in real time, and being able to implement them in real time.