7. Political institutions: power-sharing vs power-concentrating Flashcards
why are constitutions important for regime building/democratisation
- they define the basic power structure of the country
- choices are made about power-sharing vs power-concentrating, presidentalism vs parliamentary, electoral system, and checks and balances
constitution
definition/what is included in it
- ultimate source of state authority, ground rules of a political system
- who is part of the demos
- rights of citizens
- how political power can be gained
- what every institution can do (scope of power)
- interaction between different institutions (separation of powers, checks and balances)
- how the constitution can be changed
why is the constitution hard to change
- to prevent instability
- to prevent autocratisation
changing the constitution opens up all the rules of the games, which causes conflict
functions of the constitution
- enable self-governance
- constrain abusive capacities of the state
- embody political ideals
- express and maintain collective identity within democratic arrangements over time
- 3: bill of rights, define political idea state conspires to)
- 4: represents the values people stand for, collective identity as nation-building tool)
consequences of constitutions being made after a civil war/revolution
- may represent frozen identities, frozen conflicts, or at least frozen compromises
- so another function is temporarily ending conflict/agreeing to solve conflict peacefully
- this can mean that these decisions won’t work in the long run because they’re made for the issues at that time
example is freedom of religion in education in NL
when did most new + changes in the constitutions occur
- second and especially third wave of democratisation due to decolonisation –> new countries need new constitution
- in the 90s changes due to a lot of transitions –> safer to tweak constitution than to open it up again
constiuent assembly elections
- in many countries after conflict/transition
- temporary parliament to formulate new constitution
- so new constitutions are often made by representatives of the people
example of successful new constitution
- south africa
- extreme power sharing constitution
- despite past power sharing with white people
- inclusive and large human rights section
example of failed new constitution
- egypt
- collapse because muslims and secularists didn’t want to give each other power
- tension caused military to intervene
constitution making is a combination of:
- balancing political and economic interests
- institutional learning/borrowing
- ideas/experiences of those involved in the constitution making process at the time
2: international help, colonial legacies
3: frozen compromise/conflict
when do changes in the constitution usually happen
- they see big changes in the beginning and then it slows down
- when countries transition to a democracy big changes happen in the beginning like maybe switching from a presidential system to a parliamentary one
- overtime changes become smaller which helps to stabilise the democracy
- authoritarian constitution changes also slow down over time, but happen more often to ensure the incumbent can stay in power
how do constitutions affect democratisation?
- can stabilise regimes depending on how you design it
- limits on power (term limits for example), and thus authoritarian actors
- limits what’s possible in institutional change
- can also legitimate and strengthen authoritarian rule
1: it has to be representative for minorities to prevent grievances and conflict
power-sharing
- is about thinking about different groups in society
- it helps democratisation in the way that a group won’t feel left behind which prevents conflict
power-concentrating
- more centralised
- institutions could be a unitary state
- more efficient
vertical and horizontal power-sharing
- vertical about national, provincial, regional, federal states
- horizontal about executive, judicial, and legislative
consensus democracy
lijphart
the pure idea of democracy, according to its definition, is the government of the whole people by the whole people equally represented
majoritarian democracy
majority rules
key features of consensus demoracy
- power-sharing
- group autonomy: can be about devolution of power, certain schools/churches/newspaper for each group etc.
- idea is that in divided societies, democracy can still work within consensual institutions
10 institutional features that determine if a democracy is consensus or majoritarian
bold are most important
- electoral system: highly proportional vs highly disproportional
- party system: multiparty vs two party
- cabinet: broad support vs minimum support
- executive: balance of power vs dominant
- interest groups: consultation vs competition
- federalism: decentralisation vs centralisation (unitarianism)
- parliament: bicameralism vs unicameralism
- constitution: rigid vs flexible
- judicial review: yes vs no
- central bank: independent vs dependent
pros vertical power sharing
- more democratic: closer to the people, more accessible/responsive government
- more efficient: closer to the people, better adaption to local circumstances
- self-government for local minorities: geographically concentrated minorities self-rule
- more creative/different solutions: local government is better able to respond quickly to changing circumstances, plurality also leads to more creativity
cons of vertical power-sharing
- dual legitimacy problem: both are democratically elected, so who is right when they disagree?
- national government means economies of scale and capacity to override collective action problems
- can lead to inequality of laws/inequality of service provision, centralised government can redistribute resources to counteract inequality
with dual legitimacy problem minorities may want to secede, disintegration of state or discrimination
three main families electoral system
- plurality/FPTP/winner takes all: district votes, if you get more than opponent you win the entire district (even if you got less than 50% of the votes)
- proportional: votes directly translated into seats
- mixed: combination of both –> proportional outcome with regional representation
mixed becoming more popular because a lot of countries have regionally concentrated minorities and switching to proportional is too big of a change
electoral systems in a presidential system
- plurality: the person with the most votes becomes president
- absolute majority: you need 50% of the votes, so often two round system.
- qualified majority: constitution decides if maybe 40% of the votes is sufficient
- electoral college: only USA
factors the proportionality depends on in an electoral system
- district magintude: the amount of seats per district
- tiers (mixed systems tend to have a national and regional list)
- electoral threshold (can promote disproportionality, but also means more parties have to work together)
effect of PR on democratisation
- more representative, so more stable
- less efficient, so more unstable
- more representative also means extremist parties can get into parliament, unstable
- small parties can have extreme power in coalitions because they’re needed for a majority, more democratic
effect majoritarian electoral system on democratisation
- less inclusive
- more efficient
- technically it would be democratic because majority rules, but we tend to see that presidents get elected with maybe 30% of votes, which is not the majority and this creates resentment
- smaller parties no access to government because of strategic voting, but can prevent extremist parties from getting access
extremist parties voices could take over larger parties, giving them more influence
