4.
Systems of government: similarities and differences of parliamentary,
presidential and semi-presidential governments.
Sartori 1994: Chapter 5, 6, 7. – MANDATORY
Lijphart 1984: Chapter 4. – OPTIONAL
Powell et al., 2015: Chapter 6. – MANDATORY
Systems of government: similarities and differences of parliamentary,
presidential and semi-presidential governments.
Lecture 2: Systems of Government – Coalition theories
Readings: Lifphart C6 and Satori C5/6/7
Government is not only about leadership (which plans strategy and strategic decisions), but
also about bureaucratic management (managing issues and state functions, to get the works
done, to enforce the law passed by the legislation) Another function of government is to
protect our rights; it is written in the American Declaration of Independence that we create
governments because we want our rights to be protected. It is government’s duty to protect
our rights and security.
According to Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan, the natural stage of living is known as the
original stage (every individual is an enemy for every other individual). We form society in
order to protect ourselves from the outside world. This is a theoretical contract among humans
– that when we form a government to end anarchy, we form a coalition, a society. The second
treaty is about how we give power to the government to protect and govern society.
1) Key patterns of the comparative analysis between systems of government
a. The source of legitimacy: it is a very important factor of every governmental
system. The source of legitimacy of democratic governments can be different.
All of them are possible and functioning way for functionable and effective
governments. All of this depends on political culture, tradition, tastes,
different aspects of the whole political system. All are equal and applicable
way of electing leadership. There is no superior way.
i. Voters: French President elected directly and only by the people and
every 5 years in a 2-round system, the legitimacy comes directly from
the people; America is a semi-direct election due to Electoral College
ii. Legislative body (Parliament): it is the Parliament that elects the
Head of Government. UK partly true because after the general
election on Tuesday, the PM candidate of the winning party visits the
Queen/King to be appointed to the role and then the PM gives a
consent to the proposal – this is also the case in France with semi-
presidential system; Hungary; Pakistan; Georgia, Germany…
iii. Appointment: Jordan PM appointed by the King (all Arab Countries)
b. Separation of Power or Sharing Power system – true sep. of powers only in
the US – different building, President can’t dissolve the Parl., can only step
inside if invited, member of parliament can’t be a cabinet member
c. Responsibility and Accountability: they are in a relationship, but they have
different meanings
i. Responsibility: whether the government is responsible and to whom
and it depends (people/parliament/monarch). Responsibility is always
theoretical and hypothetical.
ii. Accountability: a more factual and realistic presence of responsibility.
You are responsible when you are accounted for doing something.
There are many different ways to maintain this responsibility and to
have an accountable government.
Accountable procedure: USA Impeachment
(constructive) motion of no-confidence
d. Conflict of interest (personal):
- in some cases, you can be a member of the cabinet only when you are an elected
member of the legislation (UK: if you want to be a secretary, a member of the
government, you must have a seat in the House of Commons).
- In US, there is a conflict of interest between the two branches of government. You
can be either a Senate or a Secretary of State, but you cannot belong to the 2 branches
at the same time.
e. Operability: functioning part of the government, whether it is based on:
i. Cooperation: between the legislative and the executive body
ii. Interdependence: between two above-mentioned branches
2) The challenges of leadership
The challenges of leadership are abundant and compelling. It is always too much
responsibility for one man to bear and he is totally alone in that decision-making situation.
Therefore, one-man leadership like US system is hard. However, the lonely power like this is
easier for reviewing of the criteria of “responsibility and accountability” since the man
obviously making decisions himself and he has to be responsible for it.
“All due respect, you got no fucking idea what it's like to be Number One. Every decision you
make affects every facet of every other fucking thing. It's too much to deal with almost. And in
the end, you're completely alone with it all”
(Tony Soprano, The Sopranos, Season 5, Episode 13)
- You never make just ONE decision since it always affects the later decisions with its
impacts and consequences.
- You are alone with it all.
“Who should get in? Is it someone who’s got a problem only the President can deal with? Or
is it someone who’s got input the President needs? Or is it someone who needs the President’s
time because it’s helpful to him, not to the President? Of course, you’ve got the symbolic
meetings—that doesn’t help him or help them do any better; and there’s all the ceremonial
stuff he has to do, from receiving diplomatic credentials to Miss America....
He needs input. And seeing people is not the only way, not necessarily the best way. Getting
the facts, the opinions, the ideas, is input. How do you get the best opinions, the right facts,
the new ideas? ... The way to make him accessible is to isolate him from the trivia, and that’s
my job....”
(Theodore H. White: The Making of the President, 1972. p. 276)
- Only men that once had that kind of responsibility can give advice to man with
absolute power like that
- For example: The Pope, US President.
- You must train yourself.
- Theodore emphasized on the importance of filtering the Inputs serving the making-
decisions procedure for the President. Chief of Staff takes this role as he keeps
irrelevant actors away from the President and saving time for him, help keeping him
informed. He organizes the White House. The “gatekeeper” is a creation of Richard
Nixon, and he is the only person who had to leave the White House, but his system
stays, as this is a very effectively functioning system for the White House.
3) Presidential system
The oldest form of democratic government. Origin of this system is the monarchy as they are
the chief executive.
a. One-man leadership, no common responsibility: the president is the
government himself. There is no common responsibility since all of it belongs
to the President. The Secretaries only execute the law, but they are not a
collective body in any sense; they do not make decisions together as they only
maintain their departments and assist the president – the only one who is
responsible for everything. Therefore, it is important for the president to have a
tactic for listening to people.
b. Double legitimacy: a conflicting element as the legislative has direct
legitimacy, and the executive has electoral legitimacy. Both of them are
directly or semi-directly elected, which means both of them may say that “I
represent the people” when they are in a conflict. They have to make an
agreement, or the State cannot function or be governed.
Mostly the president wins the argument thanks to public opinion.
Thanks to media exposure, he is:
o More visible and directly connected to the people
o People always find it easier to sympathize with one person than
a collective body of 100 or 1000 people
c. Separation of power: power separated between three distinctive branches of
power: legislative, executive, and judicial.
It also means clearer transparency and responsibility for each branch. They do not have
and cannot have any connection to each other. A person cannot have positions at 2 different
branches at the same time. No branch can have overwhelming power. The branches are
interconnected as they can check and limit each other but each cannot be robbed of its power.
Each branch is responsible and accountable. When there is a conflict between branches
(mostly the executive and legislative), there is no solution to end the crisis since the
legislative cannot vote “no confidence” to remove the government and the government cannot
dissolve the Congress because both of them are directly elected by the people.
The Impeachment process exists but it is not based on political responsibility. The underlying
cause must be illegal issues since the President is elected directly by the people. However, the
Parliament has no right to dissolve the Congress, so they have to compromise if they want to
be re-elected. Thus, the US political system is unique. Other countries cannot work with this
system, so they try to modify it. This makes the US form classic and original as an exception.
The Vice President is an exception since he is the 2 nd – a federal reserved of the US.
He has no power at all as proclaimed in the Constitution except in the Senate session
when there is a tie of 50-50.
d. Checks & Balances: each branch has their own checkpoint, power, limits and
these are in balance
- The Congress can adopt any law, but President (executive) can decide to veto and does
not sign for it.
- The Supreme Court can declare a law is unconstitutional and therefore law cannot be
adopted or applied.
- However, the Congress can make a new law with the same content.
e. President: effective executive power
f. Legislation functions:
i. Lawmaking responsibility
ii. Control over the executive somehow
4) Parliamentary system: based on the idea of collective government
a. Collective governance
b. Fusion of power: these two powers are in fusion because if I want to be in
power, I must have a majority. If I have a majority, that majority will be
entrusted with success as people will support me as they support the project for
same interests. People are elected to get the problems done. It is a mutual
interest between the parliament and the government so they will support
government’s legislative project, not against it, because the parliament’s
interest is for the executive to stay in power.
- parliament gives legitimacy to the government.
- government is responsible to the parliament.
- the higher authority is the parliament, in principle. In reality, the government has the
upper hand.
c. Different leadership roles:
i. First above unequal: the PM is above the members of the Cabinet.
The Cabinet is divided into important ministers (secretaries) and the
rest that lower in hierarchy. Most important ministers are by the field of
the departments (foreign affair, security, finance…). PM is the Head of
the Government and has the rights to select his government.
ii. First among unequal: there are ministers who are more important than
the others in the “first above unequal” system. However, the PM is one
of them, not higher than the ministers. He has no rights to select the
government although he is important.
iii. First among equals: the ministers are the same and the PM is only one
of them. This is the Republic of France and Italy after WWII (PM has
to resign every 10/12 months). Political leaders have strong influence
on the government, but that power is temporary.
d. Indirect legitimacy: the people select the parliament, and the parliament elects
the government or the PM/Chancellor. This means the government is less
accountable because the people cannot elect the government directly as we
vote in the general elections for political parties. We can only punish the party
by not voting for it in the next election, but not punishing the government
directly. Therefore, there are 2 elements:
i. Distorted responsibility: they are partly responsible, and the party
takes the blame. It might happen that the government still stays in
power.
ii. Less accountability
e. Governmental control over the legislation: in some countries, the
government may dissolve the parliament. In others, government can introduce
the motion of “vote of confidence” (for example, Germany)
i. Vote of confidence: when the government introduces the “vote of
confidence” and it does not get the majority of the parliament vote, the
government may start the election from the scratch and give power
back to the people to form a new parliament that can vote for new
government. The government may blackmail the parliament.
f. Parliamentary control over the government: vice versa, the parliament also
has control over it
i. Motion of no confidence: it comes from the parliament as it says it has
no confidence in this government and want a new one. There are two
different ways of this no confidence:
- Destructive: we vote the government out and whenever we can, we form a
new one. But with this vote, it is just for outing the government and not for
selecting a new one.
- Constructive: an innovation for politics as you when you fire the current
government, you have to name the new PM in replacement. The reason of this
method is to keep someone in charge:
o Maintains stability
o Not to have a power vacuum: Weimar Republic (so many
governmental crisis and temporary governments happen with vague
leaders that cannot govern the states). We always have the confusion
between strong government and effective government. Stability does
not mean and lead to effectiveness (Soviet and Nazi are stable but
ineffective). However, human like stability and security more than
loving and effective.
o Force the cooperation between the two branches.
5) Semi-presidential system
a. Merging the two classic models. The reason for this is because French
political tradition is based on two basic traditions: Republican tradition
(parliamentarian government – a collective body which is responsible for the
legislation. The Republican idea behind this is that they are one community,
and they don’t have one-man leadership but communal responsibility) and
Bonapartism (the one-man leadership that leads the country with a lot of power
and responsibility the same. This is a very classic and original rule of
democracy: power always comes with responsibility)
b. French politics in French Revolution (1958-1962): it interchanged between
the two above-mentioned political traditions. When one-man leadership
becomes too powerful, it leads to revolution – an uprising of French people as
they want collective government. They form a parliament with strong power
over government that later cannot maintain its power and effective governance
because it is divided between too many parties and conflicts. Then happens the
coop d’état with new strong man and desire of being the savior. All is a vicious
circle. Until Charles De Gaulle’s creation of new constitution (1962) with
directly elected President and a second head of state – PM who is
responsible for the National Assembly and can be removed by the President.
c. Divided governance:
i. Government: responsible for the National Assembly (=Lower House
of the bicameral French Parliament) and ruled by the Prime Minister.
He is more like a bureaucratic leader.
ii. President: directly elected for 5 years with absolute power over the NA
and government – a strategic political leader.
iii. The biggest challenge of “cohabitation”. The PM is pushed by the
Parliament to do thing and by the President to do others.
It may happen that the President comes from A party and the PM and
Parliament is from B party. It leads to the “cohabitation” situation as
the President power has been decreased a little bit and some parts of
strategic power goes to the PM since he has the majority and legislative
background behind him.
d. President is acting as a stabilizing actor because:
- He can share the power if he wants
- He has absolute power all the time
- He can dissolve the National Assembly once a year – presidential superpower over
the parliament
- He is not responsible or accountable to any institutions (except to the People only) so
there is no kind of motion of “no confidence” against him. It only works for the PM.
In conclusion, all these three models are applicable and parts of democratic governments.
Each of them has disadvantages and advantages. There is no best model but only suitable
model for each political tradition.
- The semi-presidential system gives President incredible power but also super
responsibility
- American President has almost no power as the Constitution does not give him any
clearly defined power. The American has less power than the French one since he
cannot dissolve the Parliament, enter the building, give speeches wherever and
whenever he wants.
6) Coalition theory
a. Preconditions – why it is important to have coalitions
- If we have a parliamentary system of government: we have to have a majority in a
body and if we cannot get it on our owns, we need partners.
- We have a collective body decision-making system, so we need the majority of votes
(like the EU). There are many rules that require different kinds of majority.
- We need legitimacy and we can only get that from majority if we have no actor with
majority support. There is no single powerful actor in the world. Whenever you want
to achieve anything in an international body, you need partners and coalitions (G8,
NATO, EU, UN…)
- We need majority rule because it is of great importance in the political system.
o Electoral system
o Legislation
- Coalition theory helps us to understand and categorize different phenomenon; to
compare and analyze
b. The classic categories – refers to the parliamentary government and
executive’s relationship
- Legislative coalition: minority government
o It is the case when there is no majority in the parliament (has no more than
50% of the votes)
o It can be an occasional or permanent support from opposition
parties/representatives (usual type in EU and they ask other partners to vote for
government on a number of issues. It is not a permanent agreement, but the
support is there: Theresa May and the DUP with “confidence and supply”
agreement)
o If the party gets the vote and chances to the decision-making, why don’t it go
into the government? It doesn’t want to be blamed for the crazy government
but still wants things to be done. It doesn’t want an early election but doesn’t
want to show visible and obvious partnership with this party. Another reason is
the government doesn’t want to give power to other parties as it wants only the
votes and not governmental responsibilities.
- Majority coalition: this is the classic type
o The majority of the representatives belong to the governing parties
o More than one party forms the government in order to get the majority of the
parliament
- Grand coalition: it is different since,
o It includes two biggest parties, and no smaller parties want to collaborate with
them or because no possible partners/members (Germany and Angela Merkel)
o One smaller party is not enough, and it will need more than one smaller party.
But they don’t want to go together. So, the party has no other option but to
collaborate with the biggest opposite party that has the enough seats to get
the majority.
- National government (national unified government): it is the rarest, most unusual
model
o All major political parties are involved
o It happens when there is a national crisis, and we need to show people that we
are unified above differences (Winston Churchill’s government)
o They have to share responsibility in hard times
o They make hypothetical promises
o They are different in ideologies
c. Categorizations:
The first articles and books from the 1960s and they are applicable not only for parliamentary
governments but international organizations (UN Security Council) and other forms and
bodies of collective decision making too.
- Size: William H. Riker had developed 3 types of models. What matters is the SIZE of
the majority and the smallest number of partners in this coalition.
o Minimum winning coalition: the only goal you have is to get the majority at
any price and you don’t care how many parties you need to achieve that.
Coalition of 2 or more parties to win control with majority
Minimal rule: they do not include parties which are not necessary. It is
because if you only need majority, you don’t need a super majority and
you can maximize your power this way because you may have very
few partners, so don’t have to share much.
o Smallest number of parties: your goal is not only to get the majority in the
body but also to get the smallest possible number of partners/parties. The
reason is because it is easier to negotiate and bargain with one than 2/3/4
parties. This way it is easier to compromise and complete tasks.
o Minimal range coalition: you have to take the majority, smallest number and
ideological range of the partners into account too. You want parties with
similar policy preferences and like-minded partners.
- Ideological disposition:
o Minimal connected winning coalition (Robert Axelrod)
Parties will usually create coalition with their immediate neighbors in
ideological and policy preferences.
No parties can be left behind: if there is radical left, left and central left,
you cannot jump over the left to collaborate with radical left, the whole
range must be included. They are connected with each other.
This may create a super-majority and lead to a situation in which you,
as the governor and the head of government/coalition, have to manage
the conflicts between your party and others, or partners with each other.
It takes a lot of time, energy and effort. Sometimes, it’s worth it,
sometimes it’s not. Extra effort equals extra super-majority whenever it
needs in decision-making procedure, depending on political goals.
o Policy-viable coalition (Laver – Schofield)
When we create a coalition, what is most important is the political
program (policy preferences) and not the size or ideology of the
partners.
The core-party is at center and therefore the relationship between this
and other partners must be analyzed, how they are connected to each
other? (EU and core-party of Germany)
- Party logic: the approach that tries to understand the coalition from the party’s point
of view.
o Programmer or policy-based coalitions: I have a policy aim and to achieve
it, I enter the coalition
It is important to realize and analyze some concrete political ideas and
goals of this party to achieve some special positions in the coalition. It
is also important to find out what our partners’ goals are to give their
needs a place in our plan (which is not always possible)
o “Office-hunter” model: the goal is not to get something done but the goal
itself is the office
They want to get the highest number of positions and offices, no matter
what they are because they give us power regardless of their offices’
background or ideologies.
Policy preferences do not matter or relevant because we select our
cabinet partnership/membership because of office position.
Neither of the policy-based nor office-hunter is more or less democratic
than one, just based on interests.
- Rules of functioning:
o One-party involvement:
The whole given ministry (office) belongs to one of the coalition
parties. In Germany, the Head of Justice Department belongs to Social
Democratic Party and your deputy belongs to that party as well, you
don’t have to share your department with other parties’ officers.
Less conflict among coalition members: because daily functioning of
that department belongs to party A or B and there is no party B to
intervene.
Less influence from other governing parties: though you are in a
coalition as the head of the coalition, you have less power, connection
and control on the given department with its party A. That can be
dangerous because you don’t know what is going on although you are
responsible for it.
Mutual and common responsibility remains.
o Divided (shared) government:
Every coalition member (party) is presented in every office/department
(Head of Department is party A but deputies belong to B party and C
party)
Permanent/frequent conflicts among coalition members happen.
PM, however, grows his influence and power because he gets more
information and constant access to works thanks to coalition members.
Responsibility fades away because you cannot say this party is
responsible for that department individually. At the end of the day, it is
the PM’s responsibility.