Believe it or not, there is another country, not so far from us here in Northern Ireland, that struggles to form a government. Belgium, host to the unofficial capital of Europe and home of the EU, has just established a formal government after a near two-year stalemate.
Belgium uses a system of government called "consociationalism", or power-sharing as we know it. This system allows deeply divided societies to govern in a way that recognises deep religious, political and constitutional differences.
Sound familiar? And it makes a lot of sense that we all share power in this environment. When your goal is to end decades of conflict, this is clearly a model that works.
What's not to like? Well, it comes with a hefty price-tag.
When your goal moves beyond peace to actually running a country, it's a different story. This has long been an elephant in the room in Northern Ireland. But, as is often the case, we're too precious and obsessed with process over outcomes to take action.
The way we form governments here is having the opposite effect than the one intended. It is dividing us, not bringing us closer together.
If you work in a job that means you earn commission, you're going to change your behaviour to sell more. In the same way, the way the Executive and Assembly works shapes the behaviour of political parties and politicians.
The problem goes like this. Any party is automatically entitled to a ministerial position, or multiple, if they secure enough votes. The more seats you win, the more ministers you have.
Other countries around the world with coalition governments work differently.
After an election, groups of parties get together and try to come to an agreement which would secure enough support in their equivalent of the Assembly.
This involves a series of trade-offs and negotiations that will then form the basis of the government's programme.
Parties that aren't willing to compromise - even those which may have ultimately won the election - can be left out.
In our case, if you know you legally cannot be left out of any government, what incentive is there to compromise?
You can run whatever electoral strategy you like, knowing that, on the far side, you can stand over the red lines you set because, if you're big enough, a government cannot be formed without you.
This isn't a partisan point, because parties can only operate in the environment they find themselves in.
For parties like the DUP and Sinn Fein (and previously the UUP and SDLP), ensuring their voters turnout is of paramount importance for victory and, therefore, they need a message that will do just that.
This creates a set of very perverse incentives, whereby you are rewarded for running a campaign that is likely to be successful for your party, but which is actually quite divisive for the country.
The situation is worsened by our insistence that the First Minister and deputy First Minister be automatically appointed from the largest parties of each of the two "blocs".
The consequence of this is that elections become a race for a nationalist or unionist First Minister, even though such a goal is a red herring given the joint nature of the office.
All of this is why elections in Northern Ireland are fought like diet border polls. Our electoral and governmental system actually encourages it - a truly odd state of affairs when it is supposed to do the exact opposite.
Then there is the governing itself. Fastening a Programme for Government is a tough ask with five parties - it has often taken the entire first year.
For the two larger parties, it must be frustrating to have to factor in the demands of smaller parties after you convincingly won the election. For the latter, you're neither in Government nor in Opposition.
You've only got one minister, so you're limited in what you can achieve and sell as your record at the next election. On the other hand, you can't really be an effective Opposition because you are part of the Government in the eyes of voters.
Our system also means a lack of what's known as collective responsibility. Parties are legally forced to work together, rather than agreeing to do so through willingness, compromise and trust. This leads to silo working, duplication and mistakes, many of which have been well documented over the last few years.
There have been some half-hearted, but ultimately failed, attempts at reform over the years. It took legislation from former UUP MLA John McAllister to create a proper Opposition, an important aspect of a parliamentary democracy, for the first time.
If the will is there, it shouldn't be beyond us to come up with something that moves us towards a more normal system of government, where compromise is rewarded and efficient governments are formed on the basis of an agreed policy programme, but still maintain some level of protection and power-sharing.
The uncomfortable truth is that the status quo comes at a hefty price and we should ask ourselves, two decades on, whether it's one worth paying.
Gareth Brown is a political commentator, former Cabinet Office and Stormont adviser and public affairs specialist @garfbrown