3. democracy · second, the judiciary’s horizontal accountability to executives and legislatures...
TRANSCRIPT
By Claudio Foliti
3. Democracy
CHAPTER 5. GOVERNING INSTITUTIONS IN DEMOCRACIES
Institutionalization and accountability
● Institutionalization: The degree to which government processes and procedures are established, predictable, and routinized
● Political accountability: The ability of the citizenry, directly or indirectly, to control political leaders and institutions
● Vertical accountability (O'Donnell 1999): The ability of individuals and groups in a society to hold state institutions accountable
● Horizontal accountability: The ability of state institutions to hold one another accountable
Institutionalization and accountability
● Institutionalization: The degree to which government processes and procedures are established, predictable, and routinized
● Political accountability: The ability of the citizenry, directly or indirectly, to control political leaders and institutions
● Vertical accountability (O'Donnell 1999): The ability of individuals and groups in a society to hold state institutions accountable
● Horizontal accountability: The ability of state institutions to hold one another accountable
Branches of government
● Executive: The branch of government that must exist in all modern states; the chief political power in a state and implements all laws
● Legislative: Branch of government that makes the law in a democracy
● Judiciary: Branch of government that interprets the law and applies it to individual cases
Types of democracy (Lijphart)● Representation vs. governability● Majoritarian democracies
● Concentrate power in a single place and office● Single-party executive● Executive dominance over the legislature● Single legislative branch● Constitutions that can be easily amended
● Consensus democracies● Multiparty executives called a coalition government● at least two parties negotiate an agreement to rule together● Executive-legislative balance● Bicameral legislatures● Rigid constitutions not easily amended
Veto players● George Tsebelis (2002) studied limits on effective
policymaking ● He argued that a key distinction among political systems and
institutions is the number of veto players they have. ● A veto player is an individual or collective actor whose
agreement is essential to effect policy change.● Veto players may exist on the basis of institutional positions
defined by a constitution or via partisan battles and political support.
● Tsebelis further argued that the greater the number of veto players and the greater the ideological distance among them, the less likely policy change will be.
Top institutions
● Head of State: official, symbolic representative of a country, authorized to speak on its behalf and represent it, particularly in world affairs
● Presidents● Monarchs
● Head of Government: key executive power in a state● Presidents● Prime ministers (PMs)
Forms of government
● System of relation between executive and legislative power.● 1. Parliamentarism● 2. Presidentialism● 3. Semipresidentialism
Parlamentarism● The “purest form of majoritarian government”● Separate head of state and head of government● Executive and legislative branches are fused via Parliament’s
election of the chief executive ● Head of Government: Prime Minister
● Member of the legislature● Elected by legislators, not directly by public● Vote of no confidence can force PM to resign
● Vote of No Confidence: a vote by parliament to remove a government (the PM and cabinet) from power
● If no party has majority, must form coalition government● PM can dissolve parliament, call for new elections● Cabinet serves as check on PM
Parlamentarism in Britain and India
● Executive Power: depends on number and strength of parties● Legislative Power: greater than formal powers might suggest
● Parliament as “watchdog,” even though government legislation always passes
● Accountability: stronger vertical accountability● Coalition governments likely to weaken, as in India
● Veto-players: weak in Britain with stronger and fewer parties● Policy-making: strong, coalition government weakens in India● Recent Trends: PMs becoming more “presidential” but efforts to
strengthen parliament via more committees and resources
Presidentialism
● Separation of powers defines system● Executive and legislative branches distinct and separate● The legislature becomes an independent, decision-making body● Elected in separate elections
● Single executive● Presidents and legislators serve fixed terms
Presidentialism in the USA and Brazil
● Executive Power: weak but growing over time● Stronger with fewer parties, as in the United States
● Legislative Power: strong ● Accountability: horizontal stronger● Veto-players: build into system in legislature and executive● Policy-making: problems of gridlock in the United States
and many weak parties in Brazil● Recent Trends: strengthening executive, greater gridlock
in the United States, less in Brazil
Semipresidentialism in France
● Two executives: president and a PM● President elected directly by voters● PM elected by the parliament and leads majority
● To work well, duties of each must be clearly specified--not always the case
● Works best if president and PM from same party● When not, French call the result “cohabitation”
● Aims to combine best of presidential and parliamentary systems
● Sometimes results in gridlock or excessively strong president
Judiciary● In comparative politics, least studied government branch● Enforces a state’s laws● Plays an important political role interpreting laws
● Judicial Review: authority of the judiciary to decide whether a specific law contradicts a country’s constitution
● Two models:● 1. Common Law: legal system originating in Britain in which judges
base decisions not only on the written law but also on past court cases > Decentralized judiciary review
● 2. Code Law (Civil Law): legal system originating in ancient Rome and modified by Napoleon in France in which judges may only follow the law as written > Centralized judiciary review
Judiciary● In comparative politics, least studied government branch● Enforces a state’s laws● Plays an important political role interpreting laws
● Judicial Review: authority of the judiciary to decide whether a specific law contradicts a country’s constitution
● Two models:● 1. Common Law: legal system originating in Britain in which judges
base decisions not only on the written law but also on past court cases > Decentralized judiciary review
● 2. Code Law (Civil Law): legal system originating in ancient Rome and modified by Napoleon in France in which judges may only follow the law as written > Centralized judiciary review
The problem of the judiciary review● Why judges, who are typically not elected and therefore not subject
to vertical accountability, should be allowed to make decisions with major political consequences.
● 1. First, legislatures and executives are never perfectly representative or accountable, so the difference between them and the judiciary may be less than it appears.
● 2. Second, the judiciary’s horizontal accountability to executives and legislatures can be seen as an indirect source of democratic accountability. Judges are typically appointed by elected officials, so their stands on issues reflect the ideas of those officials and their constituents.
● 3. Third, it provides a check on executive and legislative power, serving as a mechanism of horizontal accountability.
The judicialization of politics● Tate and Vallinder 1995● Taylor (2008) argued that this is happening not only because
the judiciary has chosen to act as a veto player but also because other political actors increasingly use the judicial system to conduct their policy battles, making the judicial venue a “veto point.”
● Judicial independence: The belief and ability of judges to decide cases as they think appropriate, regardless of what other people, and especially politically powerful officials or institutions, desire
● Fragmented political systems enhance the judicial independence (presidential systems or parliamentary systems with a multi-party system)
Federalism
● 1. Unitary Systems: The central government has sole constitutional sovereignty and power > United Kingdom
● 2. Federal Systems: A state’s power is legally and constitutionally divided among more than one level of government
● 2a. Symmetrical Federal System: All subnational governments have the same relationship with and rights in relation to the national government > United States, Germany
● 2b. Asymmetrical Federal System: Different subnational governments have distinct relationships with and rights in relation to the national government > e.g. Canada
CHAPTER 6. INSTITUTIONS OF PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION
IN DEMOCRACIES
Participation and the collective action problem● Most regimes allow some amount of participation and
representation● Democratic regimes face challenge of stimulating and
channeling participation into representation● Authoritarian regimes seek to constrain or co-opt it● Collective action problem
● Rational belief that individual actions will have little or no effect● Individuals become unwilling to engage in particular activities● Collectively, all individuals suffer adverse consequences, when all fail
to act● Especially in very complex systems (Aina Gallego 2015)
Electoral systems
● Formal, legal mechanisms translate votes into:● Control over political offices● Control over shares of political power
● Major types of electoral systems:● Single-member districts (SMD)● Proportional representation (PR)● Mixed systems
Single-mandate district systems● Each geographic district elects a representative ● First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) or Plurality System: SMD system in
which the candidate with a plurality of votes wins● Majority System: SMD system in which the winner must gain an
absolute majority of the votes (50% + 1)● Simple majority vs. absolute majority
● E.g.Turnout: 80%● Absolute majority: 62.5%
● Otherwise, a second round will be held (open or close)● Sincere voting and tactical (strategical) voting● Problems: underrepresentation of the major parties,
underrepresentation of the minor parties, the logic of the winner-takes-all and the wasted votes, imbalance of power
Proportional representation
● Vote: belonging, opinion, and exchange (Katz 1985) ● Seats in a legislature are apportioned on a purely proportional
basis, giving each party the share of seats that matches its share of the total vote
● Closed-list PR: Electoral system in which each party presents a ranked list of candidates, voters vote for the party rather than for individual candidates, and each party awards the seats it wins to the candidates on its list in rank order
● Open-list PR: Electoral system in which multiple candidates run in each district, voters vote for the individual candidate of their choice, and the candidates with the most votes in the party get the seats the party wins
How to reduce fragmentation
● Raising the minimal electoral threshold (e.g. Netherlands 0.67%; Israel 3.25%; Sweden 4% national level, 12% constituency; Turkey 10%)
● Introducing a majority bonus system● Reducing the average constituency size● Adopting a different formula: D'Hondt method and Imperiali
quota favor the larger parties (Sainte-Lague method and Droop quota favor the mid-size parties; Hare quota favors the smaller parties)
Political parties
● Parties are important organizations where political participation takes place
● People join parties for various reasons● Because they agree with their ideas
● To gain direct material benefits
● Relationship between party and citizens important to party’s institutional strength
Dealignment/Realignment● Russell Dalton > parties and voters disconnect● Functions of a party: educating voters about political issues and
simplifying voters’ choices● As voters have become more educated and media outlets have multiplied,
they no longer need parties to educate them● The media changes have also prompted parties to campaign increasingly
via national media rather than by mobilization of grassroots membership > from the mass party to the catch-all party (light party)
● Realignment: as parties change or new parties emerge, voters and parties will once again come into alignment
● Inglehart and theory of postmaterialism: economy does not matter anymore > beyond the cleavage “right-left”
● Iversen and Wren 1998, Rodrik 1997: economy still matters > globalization and postindustrial service economies > new cleavages
Party system
● The number of parties and their relative institutional strength
● Dominant party system: Party system in which multiple parties exist but the same one wins every election and governs continuously (African National Congress; Indian National Congress 1947-1989)
● Two-party system: Party system in which only two parties are able to garner enough votes to win an election, though more may compete (e.g. UK and USA)
● Multiparty system: Party systems in which more than two parties could potentially win a national election and govern Sartori's relevance criteria:
Sartori's relevance criteria (1976)
● Coalitional potential: a minor party can be discounted as irrelevant whenever it remains over time superfluous, in the sense that it is never needed or put to use for any feasible coalition majority.
● Blackmail potential: a party discloses blackmail potential «whenever its existence, or appearance, affects the tactics of party competition and particularly when it alters the direction of the competition – by determining a switch from centripetal to centrifugal competition either leftward, rightward, or in both directions – of the governing-oriented parties»
A sociological explanation: cleavages● Party systems reflect divisions in society● Rokkan and Lipset (1967): 2 historical events, 4 cleavages● Caused by the creation of the modern nation-state:
● 1. Centre vs. Periphery > ethnic and/or regionalist parties● 2. State vs. Church > secular parties vs. religious parties
● Caused by the Industrial Revolution● 3. Land vs. Industry > agrarian (protectionist) parties vs. liberal parties● 4. Owners vs. Workers > Liberal and conservative parties vs. socialist and
socialdemocratic parties
● New cleavages: left wing (socialist vs. communist); polarized struggle (communist vs. fascist); postmateriliasm (neoliberal vs. environmentalist); globalization (internationalism/multiculturalism vs. nationalism) Europe (europeanism vs. euro-skepticism)
An institutional explanation ● Institution can shape and determine the party system● Electoral system/party system relation● Duverger's laws (1954)
● 1st law: the plurality system tends to party dualism● 2nd law: the majority system or PR tend to multipartyism
● Raw/Riker's proposition (1971, 1982)● Plurality formulae are always associated with two-party competition except
where strong local minority parties exist
● Sartori's tendency laws (1986)● 1st law: given systemic structuring and cross-constituency dispersion (as joint
necessary conditions), plurality systems cause a two-party format● 2nd law: PR formulas facilitate multipartyism and are hardly conducive to two-
partyism
The Scottish National Party (2015)
● SNP● 4.9% of votes● 59 candidates● 56 seats● 8.6% of seats
● Green Party● 3.9% of votes● 575 candidates● 1 seat
Civil society
● Arose in Europe with capitalism, industrialization, and democracy
● Includes all organized activity that is not focused on individual self-interest and is not controlled by the government
● Interest groups● Social movements● Patron–client linkages
Governments and interest-groups
● Two models● Interest-group pluralism: system in which many groups exist to
represent particular interests and the government remains officially neutral among them (USA)
● Neocorporatism: also called societal corporatism; corporatism that evolves historically and voluntarily rather than being mandated by the state (Germany); system where strong peak associations represent the major interests in society by bringing together numerous local groups, and government works closely with the peak associations to develop policy.
