The consensus on the need to end the two-party system continues to grow but a lingering doubt continues to nag in the minds of a few about the quality of democracy available under a coalition government with a large partner and a small one. Will the tail wag the dog?

The question is asked because Malta has not had a coalition government for very many decades. The experience of politics requiring a consensus among political parties is only a faint memory among senior citizens, sometimes an unpleasant memory.

The scenario depicted as unfair is that of a one-seat party dictating terms to its much larger partner in order to form a government. My first response is to ask what exactly is the difference between this scenario and one in which a government depends on a one-seat majority but not in a coalition. Each one of the 33 MPs becomes possessed of the political leverage described as dictatorial when in the hands of a small political party.

An octogenarian, maverick backbencher belonging to the government party is a far greater threat to government stability than a youthful party looking forward to making gains by securing a wider popular approval. What many people seem unable to make out is that, while every MP in a 33-seat, one-party majority is nominally bound to that party's electoral manifesto, a coalition becomes bound to the manifestos of all parties forming that coalition as specifically agreed between them in a government programme on taking power and not before an election when the ability to fulfil political promises is far less certain and promises extravagantly made. This is the system so widely adopted across the EU that it is taken for granted by 450 million people with the exception of the Maltese and the British.

In all other countries, several parties either form a pre-electoral coalition or await the result to come together according to their relative strengths after the vote to agree on a programme for the next government. Assuming that the coalition partners will have made different pre-election proposals, their amalgamation becomes a fuller articulation of the will of the electorate.

If the support of Alternattiva Demokratika - the Green party is needed to form a government, the twin duties of the party leadership will be to secure a government for the country as soon as possible after the election and, secondly, to secure for its support as many of the electoral promises made by the Greens. Unlike our colleagues in the other political parties, we have not only worked hard for many years to bring about just such a situation but we also have the experience of Green parties across Europe to fall back on in hammering out such a coalition.

Still, a government programme, however skilfully fashioned, will not cover all possible contingencies a government may face throughout its term. What will happen when a matter arises on which no agreement had been made by the coalition partners? Will we all face a government crisis every few days?

In the vast majority of such instances, coalition partners may find themselves in agreement or may disagree mildly. A situation of internal dissent may be a healthy, as well as a novel, situation for Malta which has become used to having monolithic governments in which public dissent and discussion are a very rare luxury. It should make for better government.

In the event that the coalition is divided on a matter of major importance and no effective majority in Parliament exists, should that coalition survive? In the present two-party parliamentary landscape such issues may be glossed over and the government may carry on by imposing its will on recalcitrant backbenchers. Is that necessarily a benefit to democracy?

While a crisis in government is a matter that should not be taken lightly, the avoidance of crisis at all costs is no laughing matter either. The stability of any government is not an end in itself. If that government runs roughshod over citizens' fundamental rights, if it is found guilty of rampant corruption, if it proposes a foreign policy altogether rejected by the majority of the population or drives the economy into the ground, an early return to the polls may become a very welcome safety mechanism. Who would prefer cast-iron government stability to the opportunity to be rid of an obnoxious government?

The very possibility of an early election thus becomes an important check on the government which will avoid it by not giving just cause. The existence of the possibility works to make the occurrence of a crisis far less probable.

It has been the experience of Green parties in coalitions that their larger partner, or partners, on the approach of an election, deliberately provoke a crisis to create a dilemma for the smaller partner. The choice given is either to submit on a matter of principle and lose core support or to bring about an early election and be criticised by a much wider section of the electorate. Far from the tail wagging the dog, a minor coalition partner may come under pressure from within the coalition. It is a real danger which the electorate must learn to recognise, to counter and to suppress by punishing capricious manoeuvres at the polls.

On the positive side one must count that a coalition will create the possibility for the inclusion in a coalition agreement of a host of matters which the two-party system keeps permanently off the government's agenda.

As a coalition partner, Alternattiva Demokratika can oblige the government to commit to policies which government after government have studiously avoided in fear of opposition opportunism. A just reform of the rent laws and a review of the property and rental market in terms of the 1995 Housing Topic Paper updated by the latest census results comes easily to mind. Ending the humiliation of the other two parties before the hunting lobby with regard to spring hunting follows fast on its heels. A law granting separated couples the right to remarry should they choose to do so also begs for attention.

Had the Greens been in such a position since 1992, the Whistleblower Act and the Freedom of Information Act would have been law for 15 years already and not merely an electoral promise in 2007. We would also have a law governing the financing of political parties which would offer far greater democratic guarantees than we enjoy at present.

In each case, our coalition partner can continue to avoid any perceived electoral loss by blaming us for the action taken, we can look to greater support from those who recognise the need for action and the country can move forward at last.

In the end, we can only bring about changes which our partner can live with. To assume that a small coalition partner can dictate terms and force a larger coalition partner to act in violation of its most cherished principles is to insult the larger partner and to describe it as holding absolutely nothing sacred in its quest to stay in power. If that is the case, how could anyone prefer a one-party government by such unprincipled opportunists to a coalition in which they can be held in check?

Dr Vassallo is chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika - the Green party.

www.alternattiva.org.mt, www.adgozo.com