在20世纪的多党制成为常态,多党制是一个系统的许多政党试图获得控制。这些政党在议会表示,但总有一种可能性,一方将命令议会的多数席位。(穆勒&斯特罗姆2003:01)当相信一方不会获胜,他们将寻求某种党际联盟。这需要双方同意在特定政策和内阁集体责任的协议,这是一个重要因素。(Saalfeld 2009:172)有多种方式之间可以形成一个联合政府。党联盟可以形成之前的选举如果两方或多方接近彼此在关键的政策可能会发现它务实一起运动。联合政府形成一样经常选举前大选之后。(Woshinsky 2008:258)偶尔两个最大的政党将组建一个联合政府,但这是罕见的,因为他们通常是最直接的竞争对手对抗的系统,有着悠久的历史。(Woshinsky 2008:258)
In the twentieth century multi-party systems became the norm, a multi-party system is a system in which a number of parties try to gain control. These parties are represented in parliament but there is always a possibility that one party alone will command a parliamentary majority. (Müller & Strom 2003:01) When it is believed that one party will not win, they will seek to form some sort of inter-party coalition. This would require both parties agreeing on a particular policy and a protocol of collective cabinet responsibility, which is an important factor. (Saalfeld, 2009:172) There are a number of ways a coalition government can be formed and between whom. Party coalition can be formed prior to an election if two or more parties close to each other on key policies may find it pragmatic to campaign together. Coalition government are formed just as often before an election as they are after an election. (Woshinsky, 2008:258) Occasionally the two largest parties will form a coalition but this is rare as they are usually the ‘most direct competitors in the system and have a long history of antagonism’. (Woshinsky, 2008:258)
The most controversial policy has been the ‘integration policy’ because immigrants and citizens who wanted to have dual citizenship were rejected on the grounds that they should become fully recognised Germans. The Christian democrats/Christian democrats of Bavaria (CDU/CSU), Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), Free Democratic Party (FDP), Greens and the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) have all stated in their policy statements the necessity to improve the integration of non-nationals. The coalition between the CDU and the CSU wanted to implement forms of the repatriation policy in the mid 1980’s because ‘they needed to maintain Germany’s Christian-occidental tradition and culture in the light of large scale, non-European and Muslim immigration.’ The SPD, Greens and PDS argued for a ‘more pluralist, humanist and secular interpretation of integration.’ Each party had a different interpretation of what the citizenship policy should consist of and the question dual citizenship. A reform of citizenship had already been promised in the 1992 immigration compromise that paved way for the asylum reform, but in a prima facie case of non-decision making, internal differences within the CDU/CSU-FDP coalition prevented such a reform in the period from 1994 to 1998. When the SPD-Green government came to power in 1998 they wanted to tackle the problem head on, the original proposal for a new citizenship law of early 1999 envisaged a general tolerance of dual and multiple citizenship both when children of non-nationals gained German citizenship via birth (ius soli), and in naturalisation.’ Germany rejected the dual citizenship in practice is time consuming, complicated and expensive. (200) The proposal was rejected CDU and especially the CSU, this was because the CDU/CSU wanted applicants to become fully integrated into German society and recognising they were German. This was the same reason the CDU/CSU were against even the limted form of territorial ascription (ius soli) which the law aimed to introduce as this too, in combination with ius sanguinis via the parents, who would have created dual citizens at birth.