week 3
difference between elections of head of government and legislature in parliamentary vs presidential systems
parliamentary
indirect elections of chief executive
citizens vote to elect members of the legislature (parliament)
the parliament then chooses the head of government (prime minister or chancellor)
presidential
popular election of chief executive
separate electoral process to elect members of legislature (congress) and head of government (president)
difference of the separation of powers and functions between the executive and legislative in parliamentary vs presidential systems
parliamentary
limited separation of power
prime minister and other ministers are also members of the parliament
presidential
clear separation of power
president and members of parliament are not members of congress
difference of the roles of head of government and head of state in parliamentary vs presidential systems
parliamentary
clear separation between heads of government and state
the elected prime minister commands the administration
presidents are politically weak figures
presidential
no separation between head of state and head of government
elected president plays role of head of government and that of state simultaneously
difference in the timing of elections presidential vs parliamentary systems
parliamentary
flexible terms in office - mandated at certain intervals but can occur earlier
minister can call for dissolution of parliament
vote of no confidence
presidential
fixed terms in office
president has no power to dissolve congress and congress cannot issue a vote of no confidence
what is meant by semi-presidentialism
institutional arrangements that blend elements of parliamentarism and presidentialism
elections: directly elected president
separation of power: prime minister is responsible to parliament
roles of heads of government and state: varies
timing of elections: no fixed term (dissolution or vote of no confidence)
hybrid constitutions = part parliamentary and part presidential
describe the key differences between majoritarian and consensual systems
majoritarian | consensus | |
---|---|---|
electoral system’s representation | disproportional | proportional |
party system | two-party | multi-party |
government | single-party | coalitions |
interbranch balance | executive dominance | balanced power |
interest representation | pluralism | corporatism |
local government | unitary | federal |
legislature | unicameral | bicameral (regional minorities represented in parliament - senate) |
constitution | flexible | rigid |
judiciary | weak/ no judicial review | strong judicial review |
central bank | dependent on executive | independent |
optimal for: | homogeneous societies | plural societies |
what are the two political systems described by Lijphart
majoritarian and consensus
majoritarian = Majoritarian democracy is a form of democracy based upon majority rule of a polity's citizens.
consensus = Consensus decision-making or consensus process (often abbreviated to consensus) are group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all.
main advantages and disadvantages of the majoritarian system
advantages
very decisive: quick and effective policy making
higher accountability to voters
easier to hold a one-party government accountable
clarity of responsibility
disadvantages
potentially volatile
main advantages and disadvantages of the consensual system
advantages
very resolute: agree on major politics and sustain them on basis of broad agreements
disadvantages
too many parties can lead to political unrest
protest votes
how does tsebelis’ theory add to the debate of political systems
institutions that design ‘veto players’ by empowering minorities encourage policy paralysis but also checks and balances
which of his two political systems does lijphart prefer
consensus democracies perform equally as well (if not better) when considering:
macroeconomic outcomes
social unrest
voter turnout
women’s participation
what is meant by ‘the principle of presidential government’
it means putting all executive power (for a certain time) on one political actor (a directly elected politician)
a ‘one-person executive’
the president is sovereign
difference between federalism and multilevel governance
federalism
the centre cannot change the structure unilaterally
this dual sovereignty is protected by the constitution
multilevel governance
from the nation-state, power has been moved up to supranational institutions and down to regional governments
the decentralisation within multi-level governments does not exclusively take place in within states
all levels of subnational governance are seen as ‘other’
there is no distinction between regional and local governments
it transcends the divide between federal and unitary governments:
shows, that unitary governments can have multiple levels of government (regional assemblies/ executives)
federal government
from the nation-state, power has been moved up to supranational institutions and down to regional governments
→ the centre cannot change the structure unilaterally
→ this dual sovereignty is protected by the constitution
multi-level governance
→ from the nation-state, power has been moved up to supranational institutions and down to regional governments
→ the decentralisation within multi-level governments does not exclusively take place in within states
→ all levels of subnational governance are seen as ‘other’
there is no distinction between regional and local governments
→ it transcends the divide between federal and unitary governments:
shows, that unitary governments can have multiple levels of government (regional assemblies/ executives)
name the five drivers of multilevel governance
ethno-territorial identity
democracy
interdependence
affluence (wealth)
peace
what is Strøm’s theory
agency theory
principal = one that entrusts the task/ responsibility of representation in the agent (ultimate principal is the voter)
that is because they might be less qualified to make political decisions on a large scale, but still want their opinion to be carried out by someone that has this ability
agent = the one acting on behalf of (and being checked by) the principal (and their wishes/ expectations)
an agent has accountability towards their principal
what agency problems exist
adverse selection and moral hazard
adverse selection
the problem arises through hidden information
could be solved by being more accessible and spreading more information about an agent’s goals
parties work as a great screening device for an agent also has to follow their party’s ideology → can be observed and acted accordingly on the principal’s side
strong screening devices (ex ante)
→ agency theory
moral hazard
the problem arises through hidden action (and hidden information)
could be solved by granting more insight for principals into political decision-making processes to see who was promoting which ideas and what actions the agents take
ex post sanctions and monitoring
easier for presidential systems with competition and containment
→ agency theory
caramani’s arguments for or against presidential democracies
characteristics of presidentialism | advantages (Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart) | disadvantages (Juan Linz) |
---|---|---|
head of government is elected by popular election | voters have greater choice | ‘winner-takes-all’ elections → political polarisation |
president is heads of state and government | voters have more clarity on who controls the executive → better government accountability | president might adopt ‘plebiscitarian’ style → might dismiss all criticism |
president and legislators have fixed terms in office | legislators do not fear dissolution of parliament → have greater independence | disagreements can lead to “executive-legislative deadlock/ paralysis” → dual legitimacy |
what aspects is Strøm’s political system based on
representation
delegation
accountability
what are ways to respond to agency problems
ex ante (before entering the agreement)
contract design
screening and selection mechanisms
political parties
ex post (after entering the agreement)
monitoring and reporting requirements
institutional checks
veto players
because presidential systems have competing agents, adverse selection is less of a problem
higher chance of adverse selection in parliamentary systems due to a possible weak link
how do we call problems between agent and principal
agency loss
steps to determine whether a country is presidential or parliamentary
Does a country have a directly elected President?
NO: parliamentary system
YES: presidential or semi-presidential system
Does government depend on parliament for its own survival?
NO: presidential system
YES: semi-presidential system
how is deadlock created
multiple veto-players
the more veto player, the higher likelihood of deadlock
no automatic majority support for government/ president
because separate elections
(even if on the same date: split-ticket voting)
president may also veto decisions from the parliament
can veto everything or specific articles/ lines in the text
breaking a deadlock
negotiate a compromise
president might ‘buy the support’ of a potential dissenters in parliament
pork-barrel politics in single-member constituencies
getting out of each other’s way
president may use their discretionary powers (=bypass parliament)
parliament might decide to create independent agencies, not under presidential control
issues with parliamentary governments
Government depends on parliamentary majority, but in practice government is dominant over parliament
Ministers drive legislative process; government parties’ MPs vote in favour
Party leadership and prominent politicians join government
Prestige ‘office’
Risk of governing (‘incumbency cost’: likely loss of votes at the next election)
Power of the prime minister
Can’t always control other coalition party’s ministers
presidentialisation = power of pm is increasing - esp in campaigns (dominated by personality)
the running pm from the coalition party can decide on changing their views to be more successful in the next election
⇒ issues of cooperation!
types of parliamentary governments (and places of conflict)
single-party governments
→ conflicts mostly within the party
coalition governments
→ conflicts between coalition parties
types of coalition governments
majority coalition (at least 50% of seats in parliament +1)
minimal-winning coalition
all parties in coalition needed for majority
most coalitions are minimal winning
oversized/ surplus majority government
include more parties than necessary for having majority
weak position of the superfluous smaller party
can be convenient in case of
Constitutional reform (supermajorities are necessary)
Representing communities in case of internal tensions
Continuation of an existing successful coalition (from a previous government)
minority coalition
does not have the majority in parliament
might be impossible to create a majority coalition
can be a phase between two majority gov,
can be a more regular occurrence in a particular country (norway)
how can they survive
making deals with different opposition parties
ensuring there is no majority against them
occupy the centre (the median legislator)
shows the ideal type of a majoritarian system
very oppositional
normally one-party majority government
government - parliament: weak opposition
strong wings within parties
disagreements stay within the parties
no written constitution
de facto unicameral
weak house of lords
strong house of commons
→ pendulum swing
e.g. UK
ideal type consensus government
coalition governments (sometimes even minority government)
government- parliament: strong opposition in parliament
proportional electoral system
bicameral
e.g. NL
“the dispersion of authority to jurisdictions within or beyond the state”
→ is it a hollowing out of the state?
national level: politics without policy?
regions and eu: policy without politics?
why choose a multilevel government
functionalist:
structure of authority reflects that each policy has its optimal spatial scale
economic:
jurisdictional design reflects economic self-interest on the part of rulers, groups, and voters
identity:
territorial identity and the demand for self-rule shape the structure of governance
why choose a unitary state
unitary states can and do increasingly empower lower levels
because it is functional (economies of scale)
And/or due to strong regional identities/demands for self-rule
But they can always centralize power again unilaterally (UK & devolution)
why choose a federal state
Smaller states join forces, but want to keep some autonomy/ a clear political identity a) Confederation: central state and all sub-states have their own constitutions b) Federation: one constitution
It adds veto players: More checks and balances between levels of government protect citizens from tyranny
Granting autonomy to territorially concentrated groups may reduce conflicts (in unitary states this may lead to self-rule)