In recent years, European parliamentary democracies have proven themselves resilient in the face of political fragmentation and the rise of radical forces. One of their greatest institutional tools has been the formation of grand coalitions, alliances between traditionally opposed parties that choose cooperation over conflict.
Far from being betrayals of principle, these grand coalitions are acts of democratic maturity. Despite their inevitable electoral cost, they provide a path toward stable governance and national unity in an era marked by polarization and volatility.
Germany, Austria, and Denmark serve as leading examples of how grand coalitions can function effectively. In these countries, traditional parties from across the ideological spectrum have forged governing alliances that reflect a commitment to dialogue, compromise, and the national interest.
Though these arrangements are often temporary and politically costly for at least one of the participating parties, they represent a strategic sacrifice for the sake of democratic continuity. In parliamentary systems, where government formation depends on majority support, these coalitions allow for stable leadership in moments when no single party commands enough votes to govern alone.
The electoral penalty that coalition partners often pay is real. Voters may perceive compromises as betrayals, especially when long-standing ideological differences are softened for the sake of governance. Parties that once stood in opposition now must defend joint policies and shared responsibilities.
As seen in Germany, the Social Democrats (SPD) lost support after multiple coalition agreements with the Christian Democrats (CDU), only to regain strength years later. In Austria and Denmark, junior coalition partners have suffered similar declines, yet their participation prevented political paralysis.
What makes grand coalitions successful in these countries is not just a willingness to cooperate, but a political culture that values pragmatism. The evolution of party systems in Germany, Austria, and Denmark has fostered a context in which consensus is not seen as weakness but as a democratic virtue. By contrast, nations like France, Spain, or Greece have faced greater challenges replicating this model. In these countries, deep political divisions and fragmented legislatures often result in minority governments or repeated elections, as seen in Spain in both 2016 and 2019.
Grand coalitions have also emerged in extraordinary circumstances, when national unity is essential. During World War II, Winston Churchill led a coalition government in the United Kingdom in defense of democracy. More recently, Mario Draghi’s broad coalition in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic brought together parties from across the political spectrum to manage the crisis. These examples highlight how even in highly polarized environments, political actors can and must rise above partisanship when the nation’s stability is at stake.
Today, grand coalitions are not only relevant, they are necessary. Across Europe and beyond, political discourse has become increasingly toxic, fueled by populism and extremism. In this context, coalitions serve as democratic guardrails, containing the rise of radical parties by offering moderate and functional alternatives. They remind us that politics is not about absolute victories, but about negotiation, compromise, and shared responsibility.
There is also a broader institutional lesson to consider. Parliamentary systems, by their very nature, require negotiation. They encourage the formation of coalitions as a mechanism for achieving workable governance. This stands in contrast to presidential systems, where executive power is concentrated in a single figure often disconnected from legislative consensus. The presidential model, while still dominant in Latin America and other parts of the world, increasingly shows signs of institutional fatigue. Perhaps it is time to reconsider its limits and look to parliamentary models for inspiration.
Critics of grand coalitions argue that they blur ideological lines and alienate voters. This is not untrue. But the alternative would be a political deadlock or the rise of authoritarian figures which is far worse. Coalition governments, while imperfect, uphold democratic procedures, avoid institutional stagnation, and promote political maturity. Even if a party loses votes in the short term, the long-term gain is national stability and that is a trade-off worth making.
Ultimately, grand coalitions are not about abandoning ideals, but about prioritizing the collective good. In moments of crisis, choosing unity over division is an act of leadership. As the global political landscape becomes more fragmented, the ability to build bridges between political forces is not a weakness, it is a necessity. Germany, Austria, and Denmark have shown that compromise can be a source of strength. Others would do well to follow their lead.
Featured image via Deemerwha studio/Shutterstock.
