lecture 11 - legislative relations Flashcards
exucitive - legislative conflicts
= most common conflicts in politics
examples
- Russia: has president right to dissolve the parliament and call for new elections? parliament tried to empeach, Yeltzin rallied with army -> new constitution
- Slovak: journalists were looking into corruption, were killed, president argued that parliament should take responsibility and resign (in the end they did)
systems of government - parliamentary vs presidential
parliament systems
- head of gov. (prime minister) is dependent on confidence of parliament (can be dismissed at any time)
- head of gov. is elected or appointed by the parliament
- executive is collegial, consisting of the Prime Minister (chancellor, minster-president etc.) and the Cabinet ministers
(citizens elect legislature, legislature selects executive)
presidential systems
(mostly in Latin-America and North-America)
- head of gov. (president0 is independent of legislature, can’t be dismissed (president enjoys fixed terms in office)
- head of gov. is elected directly by the people
- executive is steered by the president: members of the executive are subordinate and serving as advisors
(citizens elect executive + citizens elect legislature)
separation of powers
presidential = large separation of mandates
parliamentary = executive and legislative branch are mutually dependent (executive derives from the parliament/legislature) = fusion of power
qualifications parliamentary systems
3
head of state vs head of government
- state = monarch or president (in a republic)
powers are procedural and diplomatic (low-key, ceremonial)
!presidents: sometimes directly elected (but that does not make it a presidential system), sometimes appointed by parliament (e.g. Germany) - gov.
diff degrees of executive collegiality
- true collegial executive = prime minister and other ministers are equal
- prime ministerial cabinet = executive dominated by prime minister, prime-minister is dominating + ministers have little autonomy
e.g. Chancellor (Prime Ministerial) Cabinet in Germany
*new research: prime ministers more powerful (presidentialization of prime ministers)
diff degrees of fusion of power: parliament and gov. depend on one another
- e.g. Britain: minister is selected by parliament, you remain an MP whilst being a minisiter = complete fusion of power (almost no difference between parliament and gov.)
- e.g. NL: you come from MP, but once you become a minister you lose your seat (if you are kicked out of gov. you can’t get seat back) = less fusion of power
qualifications presidential systems
2
removal of presidents
impeachment: president can be removed from office when they do something truly unacceptable
- e.g. removal Bill Clinton (had affair with an intern + lied about it)(was impeached by lower house of Congress, but was accredited at some point with help of Hillary)
- e.g. removal Nixon: resigned from office because he though impeachment would be successful
different powers of presidents - differs per system, e.g. US not that strong (only for external affairs), Russia strong
presidential vs parliamentary systems (pros-cons)
*important in context new democracies
presidential systems advantages
- provides stability: gov. can’t be dismissed from office (exc. with impeachment)
- executive is democratically elected
- the legislature can fully legislate
- strong leadership
presidential systems disadvantages
- danger of deadlock between executive and legislature (if they are of diff. political color)
e.g. Obama consistantly blocked - fixed terms make for a rigid system (impeachment is a try to stop this)
- winner takes all
- favors poor chief executives (be elected based on charisma rather than skill)
semi-presidential system
=
- directly elected president (head of the state)
- prime minister & cabinet answerable to the legislature
- dual executive: prime minister and president have to cooperate
e.g. France
best of both worlds?
yes: it oscilates between pure presidentialism and parliamentalism depending on the situation: if both elections are right-wing, the system functions as a presidency + if president and parliament are not same wing, it becomes parliamentary (president becomes more procedural/diplomatic)
in practice: cohabitation = dual executive is not of the same political color -> forced to cooperate, leads to conflicts
= not the best of both worlds
(reform created in France against cohabitation: elections for both in the same year)
cohabitation
= in semi-presidential systems when the president and the prime minister are of different colors
governments in parliamentary systems
single-party gov. = usually decided by election results
coalition gov. = usually decided by negotiations between political parties after elections
- e.g. NL 2012-2017: PvdA (labor) + VVD (liberal), VVD Rutte Minister-President
these parties fearcely opposed eachother during the campaign - e.g. Germany 1998-2002: Die Grunen + SPD with Schredder as challencor (both left-wing)
- e.g. Slovakia 2016-2019: Robert Fico, 4-party coalition (1 (Fico) is left, rest is right-wing (one extreme))
minimum winning connected coalition
golden rules for coalition formation
parties that agree a coalition should:
- control majority of seats (if not: gov. vulnerable, can be removed from office at any time)
- not include unnecessary partners (too large gov., harder to negotiate)
if you have unneccessary partners: surplus majority cabinet - have policy agreement (otherwise conflict that may undermine the gov.)
= minimum winning connected coalition
(expected form of coalition)
breaking the golden rules
minority govs: parties don’t have majority in the parliament (e.g. often in Scandinavian countries, esp. Denmark)
why?
- opposition is divided = belief that gov. will always be able to find enough support because the opposition is so divided
- easier to get policy concessions from gov. (party does not join because they can more easily exercise control)
including more parties than necessary for simple majority in parliament (surplus majority cabinet / oversized coalitions)
- adds more legitimacy (e.g. in wartime govs. in Britain)
having two big parties from both sides seems to represent the whole population - creates stronger buffer against revolts of MPs (if some MPs don’t go with party)
e.g. often in NL - enhances policy connection: e.g. if you have coalition of big left and right wing party, include a center party to connect them
coalitions are not always ‘connected’ (in policy)
- parties may be more office or policy-seeking (now: more and more office-seeking)
policy = want to fight for a certain cause, have a specific goal
office-seeking = want to be in gov. (even at expense of ideological/policy goals)
conclusions
- political systems differ according to different patterns of executive-legislative relations
- there is an important debate which system of the executive-legislative relations is the best
- coalition govs (in parliamentary systems) have diff formats
types of gov. in Europe 1944-2016
- Single-Party Majority (Majority govs.) = least
- Minority Cabinet most
- Surplus Majority Cabinet (include unneccessary partners)
- Minimal Winning Coalition = not the largest category
