Minority and unity governments offer stability at the cost of coherence. Critically examine.

When a vote leaves no party with a majority, a minority government (one that survives on outside support) or a unity government (one that joins rivals together) is the usual way to avoid a fresh election. Israel shows the dilemma. Likud is the largest faction, yet President Herzog asked Gadi Eisenkot to form a government because factions holding 67 seats backed him [1]. The statement is only partly true: these arrangements stop the immediate crisis, but neither stability nor incoherence is guaranteed.

Where the claim holds: stability gained

• Avoids repeated elections: the leader with provable support governs, so voters are not sent back to the polls. In India, the S.R. Bommai judgment (1994) made the floor of the House, not the Governor's opinion, the test of majority [2].
• Recognised options: the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions included post-poll alliances and outside support among the options a Governor may consider in a hung House [3].
• Delivery is possible: P.V. Narasimha Rao's minority government (1991–96) completed its term and launched the economic reforms.

Where the claim holds: coherence lost

• Partners with opposite views: Eisenkot's backers range from Yisrael Beitenu to Arab parties such as Ra'am and the Joint List [4]. The partners agree on removing Netanyahu, but not on a governing agenda.
• Supporters who can block decisions: outside supporters gain power without taking responsibility. The Left withdrew from UPA-I in 2008 over the Indo-US nuclear deal.
• Watered-down policy: decisions shrink to whatever every partner can accept.

Where the claim fails

• Stability is not assured: the United Front governments (1996–98) fell when the Congress withdrew outside support, and Vajpayee's government lost a confidence vote by one vote in 1999.
• Coherence can be built: the Common Minimum Programme and NDA coordination committees show that shared agendas can hold coalitions together.
• Time limits impose discipline: Israel's Basic Law gives the nominee 28 days, with up to 14 more, to agree a programme [1].

Minority and unity governments therefore produce a stability that depends on agreement between partners, not one they are guaranteed. That agreement can be built through clear Governor's guidelines on the lines of the Punchhi Commission, a written common programme and an early floor test. With these in place, a fragmented mandate can still produce a government that is both stable and accountable, in keeping with responsible government under Article 75(3).