What impact did the lack of opposition prior to 2016 have on the Executive's performance?

The correct answer highlights that the absence of opposition prior to 2016 significantly decreased the effectiveness of the Executive due to the lack of scrutiny. When a government operates without robust opposition, there is a diminished capacity for critical evaluation of its policies and actions. This situation can lead to issues such as a reduction in accountability, as there are fewer checks in place to challenge decisions and proposed legislation. Consequently, the Executive might become complacent, making decisions without thorough debate or consideration of alternative viewpoints, ultimately affecting the overall quality of governance.

In contrast, other options do not accurately capture the implications of a weak opposition. Increased support for the coalition government could suggest a robust backing that isn't feasible in a context lacking scrutiny. Promoted transparency implies that without opposition, processes would be open and clear, which is generally contrary to the dynamics in a non-scrutinized environment. Lastly, enhanced collaboration may suggest a positive working atmosphere; however, without opposition, there could be less incentive for parties to collaborate effectively, as they might not feel the same pressure to address dissenting views or criticisms.