Government and Patterns of Democracy

difference between elections of head of government and legislature in parliamentary vs presidential systems

1. parliamentary

   1. indirect elections of chief executive

   2. citizens vote to elect members of the legislature (parliament)

   3. the parliament then chooses the head of government (prime minister or chancellor)

2. presidential

   1. popular election of chief executive

   2. 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

1. parliamentary

   1. limited separation of power

   2. prime minister and other ministers are also members of the parliament

2. presidential

   1. clear separation of power

   2. 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

1. parliamentary

   1. clear separation between heads of government and state

   2. the elected prime minister commands the administration

   3. presidents are politically weak figures

2. presidential

   1. no separation between head of state and head of government

   2. elected president plays role of head of government and that of state simultaneously

difference in the timing of elections presidential vs parliamentary systems

1. parliamentary

   1. flexible terms in office - mandated at certain intervals but can occur earlier

   2. minister can call for dissolution of parliament

   3. vote of no confidence

2. presidential

   1. fixed terms in office

   2. 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

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

1. ethno-territorial identity

2. democracy

3. interdependence

4. affluence (wealth)

5. 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

what aspects is Strøm’s political system based on

1. representation

2. delegation

3. accountability

what are ways to respond to agency problems

ex ante (before entering the agreement)

1. contract design

2. screening and selection mechanisms

   • political parties

ex post (after entering the agreement)

1. monitoring and reporting requirements

2. 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

1. Does a country have a directly elected President?

   1. NO: parliamentary system

   2. YES: presidential or semi-presidential system

2. Does government depend on parliament for its own survival?

   1. NO: presidential system

   2. 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

1. 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

2. It adds veto players: More checks and balances between levels of government protect citizens from tyranny

3. Granting autonomy to territorially concentrated groups may reduce conflicts (in unitary states this may lead to self-rule)