Types of Political Systems Political and Media Systems PMCb1006 Doc. Marek Rybář, PhD. Spring 2024 Normative basis of democratic government l1. governing must be linked to elections l2. government is constrained by constitutional limits (vertical and horizontal accountability) lGovernment in representative democracies may take several forms, the most common are presidentialism, parliamentarism and semi-presidentialism Parliamentarism 1/2 lIs a system in which: l1. there is a head of government distinct from the head of state; the head of government is elected by the parliament and accountable to it l2. the terms of the executive and of the parliament are not fixed, they are mutually dependent Parliamentarism 2/2 lThe executive without a parliamentary support will normally resign; the cabinet often has the power to dissolve the parliament and to call for new parliamentary elections l”an almost complete fusion of executive and legislative powers"; members of the executive are typically recruited among the most senior members of parliament, i.e. they simultaneously hold positions in the two bodies l Presidentialism 1/2 lIs a system where l1. president is simultaneously the head of government and the head of state, s/he is directly elected; and l2. the terms in office of the president and the parliament are fixed and not connected (a system of mutual independence) Presidentialism 2/2 lThe executive led by president cannot dissolve the legislature and and call the new elections; the legislature may not remove the president lPresidentialism is a system of mutual independence of the two branches of power lMembers of parliament may not simultaneously hold executive positions (strict separation of powers) Semipresidential systems lIt is the arrangement with a president directly elected for a fixed term, AND with a prime minister and his/her cabinet accountable to the parliament lOriginally, M. Duverger (1980) also added that the president had to have “quite considerable powers”, this feature is now abandoned in favour of a purely institutional understanding of the concept Directorial form of government lIt exists only in Switzerland lThe executive (the so-called Federal Council) is composed of seven persons, each of them individually elected by a joint decisions of the two chambers of parliament lThe term of the Federal Council is fixed, it overlaps with the term of the parliament lHowever, it is not accountable to the parliament and cannot be voted out of the office l Directly elected Prime Minister lA short-lived system that existed in Israel between 1996 and 2003 lPrime Minister was directly elected by all voters in a majority runoff system (simultaneously with parliamentary elections) lthe PM and his government was accountable to Parliament, in case of successful no confidence motion, early elections were to be held Differences among parliamentary systems lThe extent to which parliament is “rationalized” is the key explanatory factor: lHow difficult de facto is it for the parliament to pass a vote of no confidence to the cabinet? lTo what extent does the government control the parliamentary agenda? lHow difficult is it for MPs to submit “private member’s bills”? lIt all depends on the so-called party discipline l Single-party majority cabinets 1/2 lThe UK as a typical example lWith an absolute majority in the House of Commons, cabinet formation is straightforward, since party discipline is imposed (a CP majority of 365 out of 650 seats in 2019 elections) lThe opposition forms a shadow cabinet, a future government-in-waiting, and hopes to win the next parliamentary elections Single-party majority cabinets 2/2 lThe norm of collective responsibility, a uniquely British doctrine: all members of the cabinet must support the official line lIn a vote of no confidence, MPs vote along strictly party line (the role of party whip) lThe executive is not omnipotent: it must contend with powerful interest groups outside parliament and must also consider the wishes of party backbenchers Minimal-winning cabinets 1/2 lIn most parliamentary systems, no party controls a parliamentary majority lOne possibility is to form coalition government with as many parties cooperating as are necessary to form a coalition to attain a majority in parliament lGermany after 2017 elections: SPD 206, CDU/CSU 196, the Greens 118, FDP 92, AfD 78, the Left 39, (total 709 parliamentary seats) l355 seats needed to form the MWC Minimal-winning cabinets 2/2 Chart Description automatically generated Oversized cabinets 1/2 lInclude more parties than are necessary to attain a parliamentary majority lSwitzerland: four largest parties form a 7-member Federal Council and divide the seats along the so-called “magic formula” 2:2:2:1 lThe logic is not that all four parties agree on a common program but rather that all should be represented when the Federal Council makes its decisions lIf no consensus is reached, a majority voting will decide Oversized cabinets 2/2 lOversized cabinets are often established when societies are fragmented on religious, linguistic or ethno-regional grounds lThe idea is to allow each group to participate in the political process lMore often created in times of war, during economic crises or in the wake of cataclysmic political events Minority cabinets 1/2 lWhen the party (or parties) forming the cabinet does not possess a majority of parliamentary seats lFrequent in Spain and Scandinavian countries, especially in Sweden, Denmark and Norway lAfter the 2021 Canadian elections, a single-party minority government of the Liberal Party was formed (160 seats) lIt was 10 seats short of a parliamentary majority Minority cabinets 2/2 lOccupying the ideological centre and dividing the opposition lPolicy-oriented rather than office-seeking politicians lAnticipated voter reactions restrict office-seeking behaviour l l Caretaker cabinets lSometimes it takes quite a long time for a coalition government to be put together lIn such cases, the old cabinet stays in office as caretaker cabinet lIt handles everyday business but cannot take major initiatives lFollowing the 2020 Slovak elections, a majority government was formed but one party left it and joined the opposition to pass a vote of no confidence in 2022 lthe cabinet stays in office until early elections l Differences among presidential systems lContrast the case of the US presidentialism and many Latin American presidential systems: lTwo-party vs. multiparty format lStrong constitutional prerogatives of the US presidents vs. not-always-so-strong Latin American ones lWeak horizontal accountability in Latin America vs. strong horizontal accountability in the US Are parliamentary systems better? lCheibub a Limongi (2002): ldifferences in the survival of presidential and parliamentary systems cannot be derived from the way they are constituted lDeadlocks are not so common in presidential systems; they also exists in parliamentarism l coalition governments also exist in presidentialism Are parliamentary systems better? lthe key to effective governance is the centralization of decision-making and the monopolization of the legislative agenda, otherwise there is a risk of a lack of coordination and "stalemate" lcentralized decision-making more common in parliamentarism, but not always (France and Italy as ineffective parliamentarisms in the past, and conversely Brazil as an example of effective multiparty presidentialism) Are parliamentary systems better? lthere are no guarantees that the president will have support of a parliamentary majority in presidentialism lparliamentarism is a system in which the establishment and continuation of government is conditional on the consent of parliament lhowever, minority governments are common in parliamentary systems Legislative success of governments lIn parliamentarism, majority and minority governments have roughly the same legislative success rate of around 83%, lwhile presidents with a majority support have a success rate of 67.5% land presidents without a majority support have a success rate of 62.2% Presidents and multipartism 1/4 lin Latin America (1979-2006), only two presidentialisms with a two-party system - Mexico and Costa Rica; the rest had multi-party systems lcoalitions necessary for the functioning of the system lcoalitions in presidentialism are different from parliamentarism: the president is the de facto permanent formateur who tries to put together coalitions to push through legislative proposals Presidents and multipartism 2/4 lcabinet posts and other appointments l"pork" and lpolicy concessions lthese are often more important than ideology and party identity of the MPs who support the president Presidents and multipartism 3/4 lstrong constitutional powers of the President to be able to sustain the initiative and ward off potential counter-proposals from the opposition lLatin American experience suggests that constitutionally weak presidents cannot govern effectively in multiparty parliaments Presidents and multipartism 4/4 lBut that does not mean a blank cheque from parliament or a usurpation of powers by the president lat the same time, there are strong control mechanisms for parliament, the courts, the prosecutor's office, etc., including against the president lall branches of government must be effective and strong Policy implications of government systems 1/2 lGerring et al (2009): parliamentary systems have visible advantages over semi/presidential systems in a number of aspects lExamines only democratic regimes and their impact: lPolitical development (corruption, quality of bureaucracy, political stability, rule of law) leconomic development (GDP per capita, infrastructure, level of investment) Policy implications of government systems 2/2 lparliamentarism is positively related to a range of outcome indicators, suggesting its cumulative effect on governance lparliamentarism is probably better able to function as a tool for coordination