Presidential Versus Parliamentary Democracy

Institutional Theories II: Presidential Versus Parliamentary Democracy • Where does parliamentary democracy come from? • What is parliamentary democracy? • What is presidential democracy? • Who cares? The Pres./Parl. Debate Parliamentary Systems • Original parliamentary system: Great Britain. Very common form of government in Western Europe and former British colonies. • Historically, parliamentary democracy developed out of monarchies in Western Europe. Lets see… Medieval/Early Modern Western Europe • Society was divided into hierarchical orders, or “estates” (nobility, clergy, everyone else) • Periodically, these estates would be called by the King or Queen to discuss and affirm royal policies, especially (increasing) taxation. In Britain, called Parliament. • Nobles and the highest members of the clergy (bishops) refused to sit with the riff raff. This often led to 2 chambers of representatives. In Britain, Parliament is composed of the House of Lords (bishops and nobles) and the House of Commons (townsfolk and free peasants) Medieval/Early Modern Western Europe • <> All politics requires collective action. • The King/Queen would appoint a council to receive help and advice on running the kingdom. In Britain, called the Privy Council. Britain‟s Long 17th Century • Tensions between the King and the Parliament grew over the course of the 17th century because of: 1. Religion. A Protestant nation was wary of Catholic-leaning Kings 2. Taxation. Kings levied taxes without Parliament‟s consent 3. Liberalism (individualistic political culture) 4. Structural Changes (modernization) Britain‟s Long 17th Century • 1642-1649: The English Civil War – Charles I (pro-Catholic) loses to Parliament and is executed • 1649-1660: The Interregnum – Britain calls itself a republic or commonwealth – In reality, it was a military dictatorship, with Oliver Cromwell as “lord protector” Britain‟s Long 17th Century • 1660-1689: Restoration Monarchy – King Charles II is King from 1660 to 1685 – Appoints counsel from members of Parliament. This is the origin of the cabinet in parliamentary systems Britain‟s Long 17th Century • 1688 – 1689: The Glorious Revolution – 1685, James II (pro-Catholic) becomes King. Protestants begin plotting! – Mary, James II‟s Protestant daughter, is invited to assume the throne along with her Dutch husband, Prince William of Orange. They accept – Both explicitly recognize the supremacy of Parliament. A Bill of Rights is drafted, asserting that no law can be suspended by the crown – Sovereignty is no longer vested in the King. Britain becomes a Constitutional Monarchy Britain: Post Glorious Revolution • The King continues to appoint advisors from the House of Commons to the cabinet • 1741-42. Sir Robert Walpole led the cabinet. During his administration the idea developed that the cabinet was responsible to the House of Commons. Walpole thus enjoyed favor from both the King and the House of Commons. This is the origin of responsible government and the vote of confidence. • Walpole is called the King‟s first, or “Prime,” Minister Britain: Post Glorious Revolution • During the 19th century, the cabinet assumes greater control over the legislative agenda. Members of Parliament (MPs) needed the support of the cabinet to get their legislation onto the agenda. • The party becomes a powerful organization that can punish and reward MPs for their behavior. Parties become hierarchical, top-down, and very powerful • Partisanship spreads downward into the electorate. By 1868, voting for parties was permanent. “By the 1860s the individual MP was a relatively unimportant cog in the legislative machinery…With the important changes in private [MP] and public [Cabinet] bill procedure the policy foundation of the individual candidate‟s electoral importance was eroding…Consequently, constituency elites and voters generally began to view the franchise more as a means to affect the partisan control of the executive than as a means to choose between individual representatives…More and more, the individual MP, „like a delegate to the electoral college for the election of an American President‟ was returned primarily as a tied voter for a potential Prime Minister.” (Gary Cox, The Efficient Secret, 1987, p. 134-135) Britain: Post Glorious Revolution • As Parliament assumes more control over executive and legislative functions, Kings and Queens become ceremonial figureheads. • Britain transforms from a constitutional monarchy to a parliamentary democracy • Many parliamentary governments have a dualexecutive. One ceremonial (the monarchy), one political (prime minister and cabinet). Queen Elizabeth II, Britain‟s Head of State King Albert II: Belgium‟s Head of State King Carl XVI Gustaf, Sweden‟s Head of State Queen Elizabeth II, Canada‟s Head of State! Michaelle Jean, Governor-General of Canada (The British Queen‟s Representative) Parliamentary Systems • Core element: the executive and legislature are fused. Survival and origin of each branch are not separate. Parliamentary Systems • Origin not separate: – One popular election fills parliament, then cabinet (the executive) is selected from parliament. – Cabinet: a body of officials individually responsible for administering a portion of the state bureaucracy and collectively forming the government of the day. – Head of cabinet is the Prime Minister. PM is not directly elected. Parliamentary Systems • Survival not separate: – Cabinet must “maintain the confidence” of parliament (sustain the support of a majority of MPs) or resign. – Terms of office are not fixed, so cabinet can dissolve parliament and call new elections when it sees fit. – Thus, the executive can dissolve the legislature and the legislature can axe the executive! Parliamentary Systems • Implications: – Divided governments are constitutionally impossible. – Power is concentrated: cabinets rule with the entire weight of parliament behind them. • “A Prime Minister in such a system can wield as much power, or more, than any absolute monarch ever enjoyed” (Eagles and Johnston, 1999, p. 240) – Failure to maintain majority support from the legislature means loosing office. – Parties important! Bush v. Blair • Tony Blair – Prime Minister of Britain – Leader of the Labour Party – MP for the district of Sedgefield – He (and his cabinet) control virtually all aspects of British legislation and policy – Accountable to the legislature, which is accountable to the electorate Bush v. Blair • George Bush – President of the USA – Not the chair of the Republican National Committee (Ken Mehlman is) – Not a Congressman or a Senator – Little control over legislation – Accountable to the electorate Types of Parliamentary Systems • Majority rule: one party has a majority in parliament, can form a cabinet and rule on its own. Power is highly concentrated. (Most common in two party systems, i.e., SMP electoral systems). • If no party has a majority (more common in multiparty systems, i.e., PR electoral systems): – Minority rule: a minority party forms a cabinet and rules alone but depends on support from other parties in parliament to stay in office. – Coalition government: formal agreement between multiple parties to form a cabinet and rule together. Presidential Democracy • Original presidential system: ours! But also very common in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia. Not popular in Europe. • Core element of presidential systems: separation of power between the executive and legislative branches of government. This does not imply that the branches are independent. Rather, it refers to their separate origin and separate survival. Presidential Democracy • Separate origin: Both branches are elected separately, in different elections. • Separate survival: Both branches are elected for a fixed term, neither can dismiss the other. • Cabinet answers only to president. • Personnel of each branch is non-overlapping. Presidential Democracy • Implications: – Divided government is possible. – Power is fragmented. The Pres./Parl. Debate • Do these differences matter? • One argument: YES. Presidential democracies are less stable than parliamentary ones. • The retort: NO. Both systems can be stable or unstable, depending on context. Furthermore, we can‟t study them in isolation. They interact with the party system to shape outcomes. The Case Against Presidentialism • Divided government => Deadlock => War between branches of government => Democratic breakdown. – In contrast, in parliamentary systems, you can‟t have divided government, so this never happens. The Case Against Presidentialism • Because of the fixed term of office, coups are the only way to get rid of a unpopular president. – In contrast, in parliamentary systems, parliaments can remove unpopular cabinets at any time. This produces cabinet instability, but not democratic instability. The Case Against Presidentialism • Presidentialism is “winner takes all.” The office of the president can‟t be shared. The winner gets all of it. The loser gets nothing. Loser gets mad, initiates a coup! The Case Against Presidentialism • And the winner gets to rule however he wants – even if he won by a small margin, and even if he won less than a majority. – In contrast, coalition governments in parliamentary systems are more inclusive and force parties to work together. Furthermore, losers continue to play an active role in politics. The Counter-Argument • Presidential systems have better “identifiability,” i.e. the link between voting and government formation is more transparent. – Presidential systems: very transparent. The candidate with the most votes wins. – Parliamentary systems: when there is no majority, government formation is a result of bargains between parties, not just voting. So transparency is lower. A Hypothetical Election Result . . . • An election is held and five parties win seats: – The Greens: 45% of the seats – The Reds: 30% of the seats – The Blues: 15% of the seats – The Purples: 10% of the seats • What coalition forms? The Counter-Argument • Lower identifiability => Voters peripheral? • Lower identifiability => Less accountability – Accountability: degree to which elected leaders rule in the interests of the electorate. The threat of losing an election is said to promote accountability. – However, if there is a coalition in power: • How do you vote it out if you didn‟t vote it in in the first place? • If things are going badly, who do you blame? The Counter-Argument • Presidential systems are not necessarily more “winner-takes-all.” – Presidential branch might be this way, but the system as a whole splits and divides power. – Furthermore, parliamentary government can be extremely winner-takes-all, i.e. under majority rule. The Counter-Argument • Cabinets can be highly unstable in parliamentary systems, especially when there is no majority. Not the same as democratic instability, but can still be problematic! The Counter-Argument • The performance of each of these systems depends on the party system. • Parliamentary systems: – Majority rule: stable, high identifiability, winner-takesall. Most likely with 2 parties. – Coalition government: unstable, low identifiability, inclusive. Most likely with >2 parties. The Counter-Argument • Presidential systems: – Divided government is most severe when the President‟s party is weak in the legislature – This is most likely when many small parties split the vote. • Thus, we can‟t consider presidential and parliamentary systems in isolation. We also have to look at their interaction with the party system. A Typology of Democratic Regimes SMP Electoral System Parliamentary Democracy “Westminster” Democracy - ≈ 2 parties - Minority government rare - Stable government based on majority party - High identifiability - But winner-takes-all. Tyranny of the majority? “USA” Democracy - ≈ 2 parties - Divided government less likely - High identifiability - Winner-takes-all? Tyranny of the majority? Probably less than Westminster. PR Electoral System Multi-Party Parliamentary Democracy - Multiple parties - Sometimes a minority government forms - Unstable cabinets, but not necessarily unstable democracy - Low identifiability - Inclusive. Minorities often get into the cabinet Multi-Party Presidential Democracy - Multiple parties - Divided government likely. Deadlock? - Likely that President‟s party is weak in the legislature - Of these four types of democratic regime, this is probably the most unstable. Presidential Democracy What About The Empirical Record? • Most stable democracies since WWII have been parliamentary, not presidential. • Coups are much more common in presidential systems. • Amongst new democracies, countries with parliamentary systems have been more likely to stay democratic. What About The Empirical Record? • BUT, correlation is not the same as causation! – Most parliamentary systems are located in Western Europe. Most presidential systems are located in Latin America and Africa. – Western Europe is rich, LA and Africa are poor. – Democracy is established in Western Europe, but not in LA and Africa. • Thus, correlation between democratic stability and parliamentary government may simply reflect the European context of these institutions. Main Points • Parliamentary Systems: origin and survival of the executive and legislative branch are not separate – PM is selected from Parliament, not elected – Terms of office are not fixed – Cabinet must maintain the confidence of the legislature – The executive can dissolve the legislature and the legislature can remove the executive Main Points • Parliamentary Systems: Implications – Divided government is impossible – Executive and legislative power is concentrated – Parties are very important – The nature of the system depends on the electoral system and the number of parties Main Points • Presidential Systems: separate origin and separate survival – Presidents elected – Fixed terms: neither branch can dismiss the other – Cabinet answers only to the President – Personnel of each branch do not overlap Main Points • Presidential Systems: Implications – Divided government is possible – Power is fragmented – The nature of presidential systems depends on the electoral system and the number of parties Main Points • The Pres./Parl. Debate – There are arguments and counter-arguments for both system – The empirical record shows a correlation between presidentialism and democratic breakdown – But, correlation is not causation. The survival of parliamentary systems may be linked to other factors (wealth, European context, etc.). – The electoral system plays a large role in how presidential and parliamentary systems function Main Points SMP Electoral System Parliamentary System “Westminster” Democracy - ≈ 2 parties - Minority government rare - Stable government based on majority party - High identifiability - But winner-takes-all. Tyranny of the majority? “USA” Democracy - ≈ 2 parties - Divided government less likely - High identifiability - Winner-takes-all? Tyranny of the majority? Probably less than Westminster. PR Electoral System Multi-Party Parliamentary Democracy - Multiple parties - Sometimes a minority government forms - Unstable cabinets, but not necessarily unstable democracy - Low identifiability - Inclusive. Minorities often get into the cabinet Multi-Party Presidential Democracy - Multiple parties - Divided government likely. Deadlock? - Likely that President‟s party is weak in the legislature - Of these four types of democratic regime, this is arguably the most unstable. Presidential System Midterm: Example • Section One: “Government” Government is the group of people who occupy positions of power at any given time (4 points). An example is the Clinton administration (2 points). Government differs from regime, and while government change is very common, regime change, is less common (2). Midterm: Example • Section Two: Hofmann, Steven Ryan. 2004. “Islam and Democracy: Micro-Level Indications of Compatibility.” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 37, #6, pp. 652-676. 1. This reading seeks to explain the relationship between Islam and democracy. Scholars have argued that the political culture of Islam (independent variable) endangers democracy or causes nondemocracy/authoritarianism (dependent variable). 2. At a macro level, Islam and Authoritarianism are correlated. 47 countries in the world have Muslim majorities. Of those, only one country (Mali) was “free” in 2002. 28 were “not free,” and only 11 were minimal, electoral democracies (23%). Of the 22 members of the Arab League, not one is an electoral democracy. However, correlation does not mean causation, and since political culture operates on a cognitive basis, this macro relationship may not be causal. Two explanations have been offered to explain this relationship. First, some scholars argue that the political culture of Islam is not conducive to democracy. Using a qualitative approach, these scholars argue that Islamic doctrine is antithetical to democratic culture because of its emphasis on conformity, authority, collectivism and sovereignty vested in God. Other scholars contest this explanation, arguing that Islam has cultural elements that are conducive to democracy, such as egalitarianism, consultation, independent judgment, and racial equality. A second explanation thus focuses on contextual factors – historical, economic and political – to explain this correlation. In other words, its not Islamic culture, but something else that explains this relationship. 3. Hoffman‟s analysis is a quantitative approach that provides evidence for the second explanation. Using surveys from 8 countries, he shows that positive attitudes towards democracy are higher among Muslims than Christians in these countries. This evidence discredits the first explanation (Islamic culture). However, while his analysis is quantitative, it is not cross-national (only 8 countries), and more research is necessary.