The Full Wiki

Motion of no confidence: Map


Wikipedia article:

Map showing all locations mentioned on Wikipedia article:

A motion of no confidence (alternatively vote of no confidence, censure motion, no-confidence motion, or confidence motion) is a parliamentary motion traditionally put before a parliament by the opposition in the hope of defeating or weakening a government, or, rarely by an erstwhile supporter who has lost confidence in the government. The motion is passed or rejected by means of a new parliamentary vote (a vote of no confidence).

In the British Parliament it generally first appears as an early day motion, although the vote on the Queen's Speech also constitutes a confidence motion.


Typically, when parliament votes no confidence, or where it fails to vote confidence, a government must respond in one of two ways:

This procedure is either formalised through constitutional convention, as is the case with the United Kingdommarker and Canadamarker, or explicitly stated in a written constitution, as is the case with Germanymarker and Spainmarker.

Where a government has lost the confidence of the responsible house (i.e., the directly elected lower chamber which can select and dismiss it; in some states both houses of parliament are responsible), a head of state may have the constitutional right to refuse a request for a parliamentary dissolution, so forcing an immediate resignation.

Often, important bills serve as motions of confidence, when so declared by the government. This may be used to prevent dissident members of parliament from voting against it. Sometimes a government may lose a vote because the opposition ends debate prematurely when too many government members are away.

In the Westminster system, the defeat of a supply bill (one that concerns the spending of money) automatically requires (by convention) the resignation of the government or dissolution of Parliament, much like a no-confidence vote, since a government that cannot spend money is hamstrung. This is called loss of supply.

Where the Upper House of a Westminster system country has the right to refuse supply, such as in Australia, the events of 1975 the convention becomes a grey area as Westminister governments are not normally expected to maintain the confidence of the Upper House

Governments often respond to a motion of no confidence by proposing a motion of confidence which, according to parliamentary procedure in the Westminster system, takes precedence and so replaces the motion of no confidence.


There are a number of variations in this procedure.

For example, in Germanymarker, Spainmarker, and Israelmarker, a vote of non-confidence requires that the opposition, on the same ballot, propose a candidate of their own whom they want to be appointed as successor by the respective head of state. Thus the motion of no confidence is required to be at the same time as a motion of confidence for a new candidate (this variation is called a constructive vote of no confidence). The idea was to prevent crises of the state such as those found near the end of the German Weimar Republicmarker by ensuring that whoever is head of government has enough support to govern. Unlike the British system, the German Chancellor does not have to resign in response to the failure of a vote of confidence, provided it has been initiated by herself and not by the parliamentary opposition, but rather may ask the Federal President to call general elections - a request the President may or may not fulfill.

A motion of no confidence can be proposed in the government collectively or by any individual member, including the Prime Minister. In Spainmarker it is presented by the Prime Minister after consultation. Sometimes motions of no confidence are proposed, even though they have no likelihood of passage, simply to pressure a government or to embarrass its own critics who nevertheless for political reasons consider not to vote against it. In many parliamentary democracies, strict time limits exist as to the proposing of a no confidence motion, with a vote only allowed once every three, four or six months. Thus knowing when to use a motion of no confidence is a matter of political judgement; using a motion of no confidence on a relatively trivial matter may prove counterproductive to its proposer if a more important issue suddenly arises which warrants a motion of no confidence, because a motion cannot be proposed if one had been voted on recently and cannot be proposed again for a number of months.

In the consensus government system of the Northwest Territoriesmarker and Nunavutmarker, Canadamarker, in which the premier is chosen among and by a vote of the members of the non-partisan legislature, a vote of no confidence removes the premier and cabinet from office and permits the members to elect a new premier. (CBC)

Presidential systems

In presidential systems, the legislature may occasionally pass motions of no confidence, as was done against United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson in the 1950s and was recently contemplated against U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, but these motions are of symbolic effect only. Presidential systems also usually have the procedure of impeachment by which an executive or judicial officer can be removed, but these procedures generally require a supermajority and the standard for impeachment generally requires some crime to have been committed or gross incompetence to be present.

In certain parts of the United Statesmarker, Canadamarker, and Venezuelamarker, the recall election fills a similar role of removing an unpopular government, but in contrast to the motion of no confidence this vote involves the entire electorate.

Several state legislatures have the power to remove its members from leadership positions through similar motions. New York Statemarker has done so at least twice in recent memory; in 1994, the New York Senate ousted Ralph Marino in favor of Joseph Bruno, and more recently, a vote of no confidence led Malcolm Smith to be thrown out of his post as majority leader in favor of Pedro Espada Jr. in the 2009 New York State Senate leadership crisis.


The first motion of no confidence occurred in March 1782 when, following news of the British defeat at Yorktown in the American Revolutionary War the previous autumn, the Parliament of Great Britain voted that they "can no longer repose confidence in the present ministers". Prime Minister Lord North responded by asking King George III to accept his resignation. This did not immediately create a constitutional convention. During the early 19th century, however, attempts by prime ministers such as Robert Peel to govern in the absence of a parliamentary majority proved unsuccessful, and by the mid 19th century, the ability of a motion of no confidence to break a government was firmly established in the UK.

In modern times, passage of a motion of no confidence is a relatively rare event in two-party democracies. In almost all cases, party discipline is sufficient to allow a majority party to defeat a motion of no confidence, and if faced with possible defections in the government party, the government is likely to change its policies rather than lose a vote of no confidence. The cases in which a motion of no confidence have passed are generally those in which the government party has a slim majority which is eliminated by either by-elections or defections.

Motions of No Confidence are far more common in multi-party systems in which a minority party must form a coalition government. This can result in the situation in which there are many short-lived governments because the party structure allows small parties to break a government without means to create a government. This has widely been regarded as the cause of instability for the French Fourth Republic and the German Weimar Republicmarker. More recent examples of this phenomenon have been in Italymarker between the 1950s and 1990s, Israelmarker, and Japan.

To deal with this situation, the French placed large amount of executive power in the office of President of France, which is immune from Motions of No Confidence.

In 2008, Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of the recently re-elected minority government of Canada, requested that the Canadian Governor General Michaƫlle Jean prorogue the Parliament. The request was granted, and it allowed Canadian Prime Minister to delay a potential vote on the non-confidence motion presented by the opposition. Harper is the first Canadian PM to use such a request.

See also


  1. Microsoft Word - M07 - Parliamentary Elections.doc

Embed code:

Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address