Final Exam Flashcards
Disadvantages with the bicameral parliament in the U.K?
Disadvantages:
- House of Lords in the U.K are not democratically elected - directly or indirectly elected - questions the upper house’s legitimacy.
- If you are more progressive, you will probably have problem with the House of Lords because they are usually a conservative house.
Advantages with the bicameral parliament in the U.K?
Advantages:
- Help the House of Commons to made laws and lessen the workload of the House of Commons.
- House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills (with severe restriction). However, they are much weaker than the lower house. No deadlocks.
- Can discuss a wide variety of things. Since they are not elected in any way, they are not as afraid of the consequences.
- Weak bicameralism in general, offers an opportunity for experienced (those who have finished their careers) or junior politicians.
Describe the bicameral parliament in the U.K.
The bicameral parliament in the U.K. has asymmetrical bicameralism. You have the lower house in the House of Commons and the upper house in the House of Lords. The lower house, the House of Commons gets its legitimacy from the fact that they are directly elected. The House of Lords, the upper house are not directly elected and can pretty much only debate, amend and reject (with severe restriction) bills.
Describe the bicameral parliament in Germany:
Germany: The bicameral parliament in the Federal Republic of Germany is also asymmetrical. You have the Bundestag, which is the lower house and you have the Bundesrat which is the upper house and are mainly concerned with provincial interests (the 16 Länder). The Bundestag is directly elected every four years through MMP and the Bundesrat is not directly elected, the members are taken from the provincial legislature - depending on the size of the provincial legislature. For example, Bavaria has 6 members in the Bundesrat and the Bremen, a must smaller region, only has 3 members. German bicameralism enables the provincial governments, the upper house to participate in federal legislation and gives them a special veto over legislation that concerns their areas of concurrent legislative or executive power. Basically, bills concerning the provinces requires approval of both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. Since the 1990s, there have been different parties in the two houses. In turn, this has made the upper house a strong actor in the political system.
Advantages of the bicameral parliament in Germany?
Advantages:
- It gives the provinces equal opportunity to be heard and veto legislation at the federal level regarding their own interests. With that, it protects the Länders interest vis-a-vis the Federation, and, indirectly, vis-a-vis the European Union.
- Formally, represent diverse constituencies.
- Facilitate a deliberate approach to legislation.
- In regards to the upper house in Germany, the upper house, as said, have been a strong actor in the political system since.
Disadvantages of the bicameral parliament in Germany?
Disadvantages:
- Relations between the chambers depend on their party composition. The interweaving responsibility in the chambers can sometimes be complicated for citizens to understand.
- It is costly with two chambers.
- Lack of uniformity -> provincial interests might take precedence over federal interests.
Describe the bicameral parliament in the U.S:
In contrast with Germany and the U.K, the U.S. has a strong bicameralism.
Both the upper house, the Senate and the lower house, the House of Representatives are directly elected.
The Senate has two representatives from each of the 50 states, no matter how big the state is, giving each state equal representation in the Congress. The lower house allocate seats depending on the population of the state. The state of Maine, for example, has less seats in the House of Representatives than Florida or California.
Problems with the bicameral parliament in the U.S:
Problems with strong bicameralism: The problem with strong bicameralism is that deadlock can occur, when two houses do not agree or the president disagrees. Both houses have absolute veto over legislation and the president has veto-powers as well. In the case of the U.S, this happens:
In 2008, when Obama was elected, the Democrats controlled the executive and both chambers in the Congress - which in turn makes it really easy for the Democrats to pass their legislation. This was the case until 2010, when the Republicans took over the House of Representatives. So, in 2010, until 2014 you have a situation with the House of Representatives being Republican and the Senate being Democrats. This in turn created a lot of deadlocks. Since bills has to pass through both chambers, it was hard to get legislation through.
Advantages of the bicameral parliament in the U.S:
Advantages:
- More varied representation: The House of Representatives provides proportional representation of the population in the states. The Senate, provides equal standing of the states at the federal level.
- The stability of a bicameral legislative system comes from the ability of the two houses to check each other’s power. This prevents a dictatorship of the majority and avoids the passing of legislation based merely on popularity.
- The passing of quality legislation.
Describe the basic features of devolution. Give an example:
Devolution occurs where higher levels of government granting decision-making powers to lower levels while maintaining their constitutionally subordinate status.
An example of this is in the U.K or The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The autonomous regions involved in the U.K is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
- There have been some devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, they have separate education and legal systems. In addition to the U.K Parliament in Westminster, there is a Scottish Parliament, The National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly - these Parliaments scrutinize and pass bills in devolved areas.
- Powers reserved to Westminster are foreign policy, defence and national security, foreign policy, immigration and citizenship and tax policy (Scotland has the right to set tax rates now). Scotland is the region with the most autonomy.
Problems in distinguishing between devolution, unitary states and federal states:
There are plenty of problems in distinguishing these types of systems in practice.
- For example, there are not that big of a difference between local governments in unitary systems and states in federal systems. Unitary states also delegate government functions to sub-central government.
- Furthermore, sub-central government often has a legitimacy and vested interest of their own.
- In practice, federal and unitary systems practically have same division of labour – similar functions, duties and powers reserved for the central government and similar for the sub-central levels.
- Some unitary states have quasi-federal features such as degree of home-rule for special areas such as Sicily in Italy, Åland in Finland and the Faroe Islands and Greenland in Denmark.
Describe and contrast the basic features of the following systems:
presidential system in the US;
parliamentary system in the U.K;
semi-presidentialism in France.
Parliamentarism is a system of government in which the executive (the prime minister and cabinet) collectively, ‘the government’ is chosen by, and responsible to, an directly elective body (the legislature), thus creating a single locus of sovereignty at the national level. If a Parliament, is not satisfied with the work of the government, they can issue a vote of no confidence.
Presidentialism, its contrary, is a system where policy-making is divided between two separately elected bodies, the legislature (which may consist of 2 distinct chambers) and the president. The president’s election is usually by direct popular election, though it may be filtered through an electoral college (as in the United States), and the rules pertaining to victory (by relative or absolute majority) vary from country to country. His/her tenure cannot be foreshortened by parliament except in cases of gross malfeasance. S/he is actively engaged in the making of public policy, and in this sense plays a political role.
Between these polar types, we find various admixtures, known generically as semi-presidential polities. France’s semi-presidential system is in theory a combination between the USA’s presidential system and the U.K’s parliamentary system. France is basically trying to combine the strong presidency of a presidential system and the fused executive and legislature of parliamentary systems. -> president directly elected + PM appointed by the president but drawn from the majority in parliament -> share the executive power. Different functions, different accountabilities.
For and against presidentialism, parlamentarism, semi-presidentialism and potential consequences that each can have for decision-making:
Presidential system is a key feature of interest group pluralism, while parliamentarism is a key feature of corporatism. Interest group pluralism might have negative ramifications for governance to the extent that groups represent narrow ‘’special interests’’, are able to veto legislation that serves the general interest, and defect rather than cooperate with other political actors.
Division of power, as is presidentialism, creates an information-rich environment. Each branch has an incentive, and the requisite constitutional authority, to investigate the other branch; each also has an incentive to publicize (either by formal proclamation or informal leaks) information favourable to the achieve of their political power and policy preferences. Advocates of parliamentarism counter that more information, does not always lead to good governance and better decision-making. On the contrary, if two members are constantly attacking each other, engaging in ‘smear’-campaigns, then the resulting information will not serve as a useful check against bad policies. Instead, it will enhance citizen apathy and alienation.
Advocates of separate powers often emphasize the virtues of political stability. Behavior of political actors is predictable from one election to the next. By contrast, advocates of parliamentary rule emphasize the problem of the status quo. For them, the chief political problem is to adapt to changing demands and changing circumstances.
Presidential systems are rigid, in the sense that, absent an impeachment, there is no way of remove a sitting president in between election (unless s/he does something very illegal). Parliamentary systems are more flexible since the prime minister, and ruling coalition at-large, may removed at any time by parliamentary vote and elections may also be called at any time. Stability in the executive is a virtue insofar as it allows leaders to credibly commit to policies and to stay the course; it is a vice insofar as presidents may lose legitimacy or pursue wrong-headed policies.
A separate power system, presidential system, assures more points of access and greater independence on the part of politicians provides a breeding ground for new ideas. Every interest group and every candidate is a potential policy entrepreneur. Parliamentarism fosters a highly predictable, institutionalized form of politics and policy-making in which participants are part of the establishment. In the presidential system, under the influence of the media, this political structure may lead to greater political conflict than be expected in parliamentary system, where negotiations usually take place behind closed doors.
In a separate powers system, conflict is endemic and continual. In a parliamentary system, by contrast, power is temporarily monopolized by a single party or coalition. Thus, it might be said that a separate powers system is one where all parties engage in policy-making at the same time (with greater or lesser influence on policy results), while a parliamentary system is one in which parties take turns (dependent upon electoral results and post-election coalition agreements).
Problems with being able to classify political systems (presidentialism, parlamentarism and semi-presidentialism), unambiguously according to this typology.
The political characteristics cannot be subsumed to its constitutional arrangements – it’s much more broader, and relative than that.
Problems:
- There are always problems with classifying political systems since there is a big difference between theory and how things work in reality.
- Presidentialism in the U.S. is very different to presidentialism in Russia.
- Furthermore, it depends whether or not it is an old, stable democracy or a new, emerging democracy or state.
- The size of state matters: unitary or federal system.
- These typologies does not take into account the political culture of the country in question.
- There are other typologies as well. For example, the classification of consensus or majoritarian systems which has the same kind of problems.
Basic features of FPTP in the U.S:
Countries are divided up into single-member constituencies based on the size of the electorate. The aim is to create a ‘manufactured majority’ -> exaggerate the share of seats to create an effective parliamentary majority. In order to win, a party or candidate needs a simple majority – meaning that the party or candidate in question needs one more vote than the opposition. The focus of this is effective government.
You could potentially have a party winning with 18% of the votes winning the election. Simultaneously, you could have a party with 49,99% of the support that could lose.
Consequences for political and social minorities with a FPTP-system in the U.S:
- Parties like the Greens and other small parties have shallow support spread around a wide range of constituencies. So, even if they would have 5% of the votes spread across the country, they would most likely not get any seats at all.
- With that, in a FPTP-system there is a risk for gerrymandering - that is, drawing electoral boundaries to favour a political party or interest. Ex: In the U.S, when adult suffrage started to become more common - people in power started to redraw electoral boundaries to prevent black voters to be able to vote for the party/candidate they wanted.
Consequences for voter behaviour with a FPTP-system in the U.S:
- People that don’t like any of the candidates or parties, or expect that their favorite candidate or party will be defeated - might not go to vote.
- Furthermore, in the last election: you had populistic candidate in the general election. With that, people supporting the populistic candidate, is more likely to go to vote for their candidate. Ex: Clinton vs. Trump in the last election.
- The turnout is usually lower in a FPTP-system than it is in a PR-system.
Basic features of the MMP-system in Germany:
The Mixed-Member Proportional Representation is a combination of the FPTP-system and the PR-system. In Germany, where MMP was created, the election is divided up in two parts and the voters have two votes. To begin with, there are at least 598 seats in the Bundestag. In the first vote Germany is divided up in 299 constituencies and FTPT is used. So, with the first vote, the voters vote for someone from their constituency to represent them in the Bundestag (in reality though, the vote in the first circle is still mainly dependent on party preference). With the second vote, the voters cast a vote for a party – therefore, it is the second vote that decides the relative strength of the parties in Germany and the system that is used is PR. The threshold for the parties is 5% and thanks to proportional representation, a relatively wide range of social and political forces are represented in Parliament.
Consequences for political and social minorities with a MMP-system in Germany:
- In regards to consequences for political and social minorities, the MMP system retains the proportionality benefits of the PR-system which benefits political and social minorities in the second round -> better representation of women and political minorities and of the different interests among the citizens.
- Nonetheless, in the first part, with the FPTP-system, you still have the problem of smaller parties being spatially diverse.
Consequences for voter behaviour with a MMP-system in Germany:
As per voter behavior: Then, you have something called vote splitting. What I mean by that is that voters, strategically vote in the second round to support the coalition partner of “their” party or, at least, to indicate their coalition preferences.
Furthermore, people still vote along party lines instead of focusing on someone representing you constituency in question well.
Basic features of the two-round system in France:
Regarding the TRS used in France, there are two rounds in the election.
- It’s almost like a FPTP, but the aim is to reach an absolute majority (50%), not a simple majority like in the FPTP-system used in the U.S. for example. If a candidate or party reaches 50,1% in the first round, you have a winner.
- After the first round, you take the two biggest candidates and then there will be an election between the two. Looking at the last election in France, you had the populist party Front National that had most of the votes in most regions in the first round. People were scared that they were going to take over France with their right-wing populism but in the second round, they ended up losing in all of the regions that they had majority in the first round. With that, it takes away the possibility that a candidate can win an election with 20% support and gives you the chance to vote with your brain in the second round.
- This voting system is used in France for presidential, legislative and regional elections. There has always been a second round in the presidential election.
Consequences for political and social minorities with a two-round system in France:
Consequences for political and social minorities: This system usually favours the traditional political parties: either because they pass the first round and then fight each other in the second one, or because the candidate of a traditional party might be opposed to the candidate of a minority, and might get a broader support (beyond its own usual supporters) than the minority party.
Example: the National Front is a strong minority in the French Politics. They regularly pass the first round but not the second one since other political forces gather against them, around the other more moderate candidate (in the recent regional election they won almost everywhere after the first round but were systematically defeated after the second one. It is also remarkable that in 2002 they won only 2 seats despite a score of more than 13% (first round)).
