This system has more defects than merits, as follows:
The multiple party system has not enhanced the prestige and power of the legislature due to the constant intrigues and manoeuvring in which pe members and ministers constantly indulge. Coalition cabinets are notoriously unstable and short-lived. Government has no continuity in policy or programme. Combinations and compromises on which a coalition government depends, prevents the solution of national problems and destroys unanimity of opinion in the cabinet and the legislature. Coalition governments are weak and inefficient governments. Too many parties in a Country, like two much money in the market, are bad: the one for the political health of the country and the other for its economic health.
Comparison.
Comparison of the two-party and the multiple party system reveals ■e fact that the latter is neither a desirable nor a practicable system. It makes administration uncertain, government weak, cabinets unstable, legislators irresponsible, and the policy of the government weak and Uncertain. The executive becomes a plaything in the hands of the legislature md is unable to adopt strong policy or great measures. The legislature is ‘devoted to manoeuvring’ for positions which are lost almost as soon as they ire occupied. “Two parties”, as Dr. Finer remarks, “are better for the happiness and duty of nations than many parties.
When two parties contest leats everywhere, lies and errors may be in all places challenged, while destruction of will and disintegration of outlook are reduced.” The recent experience of France, Pakistan and .other countries has shown that multiple party system leads to national chaos, corruption and weak and inefficient government, in itself the greatest calamity which can befall a nation. Parliamentary system failed in these countries due solely to the multiplicity Of irresponsible and intriguing parties.