DOCSLIB.ORG

Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism Author(s): George Tsebelis Source: British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Jul., 1995), pp. 289-325 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/194257 Accessed: 29/09/2010 14:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British Journal of Political Science. http://www.jstor.org B.J.Pol.S. 25, 289-325 Copyright? 1995 CambridgeUniversity Press Printed in Great Britain Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism GEORGE TSEBELIS* The article compares different political systems with respect to one property: their capacity to produce policy change. I define the basic concept of the article, the 'veto player': veto players are individual or collective actors whose agreement (by majority rule for collective actors) is requiredfor a change of the status quo. Two categories of veto players are identified in the article: institutional and partisan. Institutional veto players (president, chambers) exist in presidential systems while partisan veto players (parties) exist at least in parliamentarysystems. Westminster systems, dominant party systems and single-party minority governments have only one veto player, while coalitions in parliamentarysystems, presidential or federal systems have multiple veto players. The potential for policy change decreases with the number of veto players, the lack of congruence (dissimilarity of policy positions among veto players) and the cohesion (similarity of policy positions among the constituent units of each veto player) of these players. The veto player framework produces results different from existing theories in comparative politics, but congruent with existing empirical studies. In addition, it permits comparisons across different political and party systems. Finally, the veto player framework enables predictions about government instability (in parliamentarysystems) or regime instability (in presidential systems); these predictions are supported by available evidence. There is general agreement in contemporary political science that 'institutions matter'. However, consensus breaks down when analyses focus on the outcomes of specific institutional structures. Several studies exemplify this lack of agreement over what outcomes are produced by which institutions. With respect to regime type (parliamentarism vs. presidentialism), some researchers argue that presidential systems are more likely than parliamentary systems to experience breakdown and be replaced by an authoritarianregime;' others make the opposite argument;2 while still others argue that there is no relationship whatsoever.3 With respect to two-party versus multi-party systems, researchers have argued that two-party systems promote both the moderation of party positions * Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles. I would like to thank the Hoover Institutionfor financial support. While writing this article I profited from comments from Jeff Frieden, Geoff Garrett,Miriam Golden, Sada Kawato, Peter Lange, Michael Laver, Terry Moe, Bjorn Eric Rasch, Ron Rogowski, Kaare Strom, Sidney Tarrow and Michael Wallerstein. I also thank Albert Weale and two anonymous referees for their suggestions. Juan J. Linz, 'The Perils of Presidentialism', Journal of Democracy, 1 (1990), 51-69. 2 Donald L. Horowitz, 'Comparing Democratic Journal of Democracy, 1 (1990), 73-9. 3 Systems', Matthew Soberg Shugart and John M. Carey, Presidents aindAssenmblies(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 290 TSEBELIS and clear choices for the electorate. However, as Lijphart notes, these two characteristics are contradictory. Moderate parties ensure unclear choices because clear choices depend on distinct differences between parties.4 With respect to bicameralism, there seems to be general agreement (ranging from Montesquieu, to the founding fathers of the American constitution, to various contemporary analyses)5 that it creates a system of checks and balances by giving each chamber the power to cancel the other's decisions. However, in countries where bicameralism does not reflect a federal organization of government, some argue that the upper house does not have 'power' but rather 'authority', stemming from its considered opinions and its distance from the political conflicts of the lower chamber.6Even when there is agreement that the upper house has power, there are disagreements over the mechanisms that create checks and balances between the two houses. Riker argues that bicameralism does not alter the legislative outcome in only one policy dimension, but that in two dimensions it delays choices until an agreement is reached.7 However, this argument is both partial and incorrect. It is partial because it is quite unlikely that a bicameral legislature will be deciding in one dimension. It is incorrect because, as we shall see, bicameralism permits any number of outcomes (the 'winset' of the status quo). Levmore argues that 'the best explanation of bicameralism' is that it selects 'a strong Condorcet winner'8 if one exists. However, the probability that a strong Condorcet winner exists in more than two dimensions is zero. As the above arguments suggest, institutional debates are conducted in pairs: presidentialism is compared to parliamentarism, bicameralism to unicameral- ism, and two-party systems to multi-party systems. For example, some argue that presidentialism has advantages over parliamentarismbecause it secures the accountability of elected officials to citizens, the identifiability of likely winners, mutual checks of legislature and executive, and an arbiter.9On the other hand, 4 Arend Lijphart, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984). 5 See William H. Riker, 'The Justification of Bicameralism', International Political Science Review, 13 (1992), 101-16, and 'The Merits of Bicameralism', International Review of Law and Economics, 12 (1992), 166-8; Thomas H. Hammond and Gary J. Miller, 'The Core of the Constitution', American Political Science Review, 81 (1987), 1155-74; Philip P. Frickey, 'Constitutional Structure, Public Choice, and Public Law', International Review of Law and Economics, 12 (1992), 163-5; and Saul Levmore, 'Bicameralism: When Are Two Decisions Better than One?', International Review of Law and Economics, 12 (1992), 145-62. 6 Jean Mastias and Jean Grange, Les Secondes Chambres du parlement en Europe occidentale (Paris: Economica, 1987). For a discussion of the 'authority' approach to bicameralism as well as for an approach where the influence of the Senate is attributedto institutional factors, see Jeannette Money and George Tsebelis, 'Cicero's Puzzle: Upper House Power in Comparative Perspective', International Political Science Review, 13 (1992), 25-43. 7 Riker, 'The Justification of Bicameralism', and The Merits of Bicameralism'. s Strong Condorcet winner is an alternative that wins against all others in both chambers. See Levmore, 'Bicameralism'. 9 Shugart and Carey, Presidents and Assemblies, p. 44. Decision Making in Political Systems 291 presidentialism suffers from such negative factors as temporal rigidities, majoritarian tendencies and dual democratic legitimacies.'? Arguments over bicameralism closely parallel the arguments on presidentialism by focusing on checks and balances versus dual democratic legitimacies. Finally, two-party systems are thought to provide moderation of parties, stable executives, clear choices and responsible majorities. But Lijphart systematically rebuts each one ' of these points; and Huber and Powell actually find smaller distances between the median voter and the government median in multi-party systems than in two-party systems.'2 On the empirical side, analysts often compare countries which differ along a cluster of characteristics. For example, Anglo-Saxon authors frequently compare the United Kingdom with the United States. But the differences between these two countries are numerous: presidential vs. parliamentary systems, bicameralism vs. (de facto) unicameralism, undisciplined vs. disci- plined parties, appointed vs. independent bureaucracies, and the presence vs. the absence
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Representing Regions, Challenging Bicameralism: an Introduction by Anna Gamper
    DOI: 10.2478/pof-2018-0013 VOLUME 10, ISSUE 2, 2018 ISSN: 2036-5438 Representing Regions, Challenging Bicameralism: An Introduction by Anna Gamper Perspectives on Federalism, Vol. 10, issue 2, 2018 © 2018. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Non Commercial-No Derivatives 3.0 License. (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) Ed -I DOI: 10.2478/pof-2018-0013 VOLUME 10, ISSUE 2, 2018 Abstract This special issue publishes a number of conference papers presented at the conference ‘Representing Regions, Challenging Bicameralism’ that took place on 22 and 23 March 2018 at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. In this issue, the developments of European bicameral parliaments in (quasi-)federal states are dealt with as well as the political impact of shared rule and alternative models to second chambers. Several papers compare the organizational and functional design of territorial second chambers. Finally, closer examination is given to the EU’s Committee of Regions and the second chambers in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. Key-words Austria, Belgium, bicameralism, Committee of Regions, Europe, federalism, Germany, Italy, legislation, parliamentarism, regionalism, second chambers, shared rule, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom © 2018. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Non Commercial-No Derivatives 3.0 License. (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) Ed -II DOI: 10.2478/pof-2018-0013 VOLUME 10, ISSUE 2, 2018 1. Second Chambers Revisited In the world of modern constitutionalism, second chambers belong to the most archaic institutions whose roots lie in a time before the enactment of the first written constitutions (Luther 2006: 8-13).
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing a Lebanese Senate: Bicameralism and the Third Republic
    CDDRL Number 125 August 2012 WORKING PAPERS Establishing a Lebanese Senate: Bicameralism and the Third Republic Elias I. Muhanna Brown University Center on Democracy, Development, and The Rule of Law Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies Additional working papers appear on CDDRL’s website: http://cddrl.stanford.edu. Working Paper of the Program on Arab Reform and Democracy at CDDRL. About the Program on Arab Reform and Democracy: The Program on Arab Reform and Democracy examines the different social and political dynamics within Arab countries and the evolution of their political systems, focusing on the prospects, conditions, and possible pathways for political reform in the region. This multidisciplinary program brings together both scholars and practitioners - from the policy making, civil society, NGO (non-government organization), media, and political communities - as well as other actors of diverse backgrounds from the Arab world, to consider how democratization and more responsive and accountable governance might be achieved, as a general challenge for the region and within specific Arab countries. The program aims to be a hub for intellectual capital about issues related to good governance and political reform in the Arab world and allowing diverse opinions and voices to be heard. It benefits from the rich input of the academic community at Stanford, from faculty to researchers to graduate students, as well as its partners in the Arab world and Europe. Visit our website: arabreform.stanford.edu Center on Democracy, Development, and The Rule of Law Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies Stanford University Encina Hall Stanford, CA 94305 Phone: 650-724-7197 Fax: 650-724-2996 http://cddrl.stanford.edu/ About the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) CDDRL was founded by a generous grant from the Bill and Flora Hewlett Foundation in October in 2002 as part of the Stanford Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation, Counsel and the Impact of 1603
    University of Dundee Consultation, Counsel, and the ‘early Stuart period’ in Scotland MacDonald, Alan Published in: The Politics of Counsel in England and Scotland, 1286-1707 DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197266038.003.0010 Publication date: 2016 Document Version Peer reviewed version Link to publication in Discovery Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): MacDonald, A. (2016). Consultation, Counsel, and the ‘early Stuart period’ in Scotland. In J. Rose (Ed.), The Politics of Counsel in England and Scotland, 1286-1707 (Proceedings of the British Academy). British Academy. https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197266038.003.0010 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in Discovery Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from Discovery Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain. • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 25. Sep. 2021 Final text submitted for publication in Proceedings of the British Academy. For final published version see The Politics of Counsel in England and Scotland, 1286 -1707, ed. Jaqueline Rose, Proceedings of the British Academy 2016 (Oxford: Oxford University press).
    [Show full text]
  • Legislators As Leaders: Investigating and Elucidating the Influence of Gender, Religious Beliefs, and Mindfulness on Legislative Decision Making
    LEGISLATORS AS LEADERS: INVESTIGATING AND ELUCIDATING THE INFLUENCE OF GENDER, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, AND MINDFULNESS ON LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING by ALISON J. BATTAGLIA Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Weatherhead School of Management Designing Sustainable Systems CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY May, 2017 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of Alison J. Battaglia Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy*. Committee Chair Diana Bilimoria., Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University Committee Member Kalle Lyytinen, Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University Committee Member Kathleen Buse, Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University Committee Member Eileen Doherty-Sil, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania Date of Defense March 24, 2017 *We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein. © Alison J. Battaglia, 2017 All rights reserved. Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to legislators, advocates, stakeholders and policy makers who provide a voice and support for those unable to advocate for themselves. It is my hope that this research contributes to a strong and civil society that recognizes mindful deliberation, and the strengths inherent in gender differences. These critical practices, when applied by legislators, can improve the well-being and prosperity of everyone. We seek fairness and equity in each decision, particularly when they affect those who are in considerable
    [Show full text]
  • Voting in the Bicameral Congress: Large Majorities As a Signal of Quality
    Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization Advance Access published June 26, 2012 JLEO 1 Voting in the Bicameral Congress: Large Majorities as a Signal of Quality Matias Iaryczower* Department of Politics, Princeton University Gabriel Katz University of Exeter Sebastian Saiegh Department of Political Science, UCSD Downloaded from We estimate a model of voting in Congress that allows for dispersed information about the quality of proposals in an equilibrium context. In equilibrium, the Senate only approves House bills that receive the support of a supermajority of members of the lower chamber. We estimate this endogenous supermajority http://jleo.oxfordjournals.org/ rule to be about four-fifths on average across policy areas. Our results indicate that the value of information dispersed among legislators is significant, and that in equilibrium a large fraction of House members’ (40–50%) votes following their private information. Finally, we show that the probability of a type I error in Congress (not passing a good bill) is on average about twice as high as the probability of a type II error (passing a low-quality bill). (JEL C11, C13, D72, D78). 1. Introduction by guest on June 27, 2012 One of the main arguments for bicameralism is that a bicameral legislature can improve the quality of public policy vis-a` -vis a unicameral system (see (Tsebelis and Money 1997), and references therein). Evaluating the quality of proposals is indeed a key consideration in legislative settings. As numerous examples and a vast literature show (see Krehbiel 1991), two key points seem to be largely uncontroversial. First, most issues decided in Congress have a common value dimension, be it the technical merit of the proposal or its appropriateness for the given state of the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Of the Scottish Parliament: Parliament and Politics in Scotland, 1660-1707 | University of Stirling
    09/28/21 HISU9Y7: The 'Golden Age' of the Scottish Parliament: parliament and politics in Scotland, 1660-1707 | University of Stirling HISU9Y7: The 'Golden Age' of the Scottish View Online Parliament: parliament and politics in Scotland, 1660-1707 Alastair Mann 518 items Links not working? Contact your librarian (1 items) If any links do not work please contact the Subject Librarians Let us know which resource is not working and which list it is on. Thanks General works (11 items) Kingdom or province?: Scotland and the regal union, 1603-1715 - Keith M. Brown, 1992 Book | Suggested for Student Purchase | All students are expected to read this before the module commences Scotland: James V to James VII - Gordon Donaldson, 1978 Book | Recommended Scotland: 1689 to the present - William Ferguson, 1978 Book | Recommended Scotland's relations with England: a survey to 1707 - William Ferguson, 1994 Book | Recommended Country and court: England, 1658-1714 - J. R. Jones, 1978 Book | Recommended The British Isles: a history of four nations - Hugh Francis Kearney, 1989 Book | Recommended The formation of the British state: England, Scotland, and the union, 1603-1707 - Brian P. Levack, 1987 Book | Recommended Scotland: a new history - Michael Lynch, 1992 Book | Recommended 1/39 09/28/21 HISU9Y7: The 'Golden Age' of the Scottish Parliament: parliament and politics in Scotland, 1660-1707 | University of Stirling Lordship to patronage: Scotland 1603-1745 - Rosalind Mitchison, 1990 Book | Recommended The kings and queens of Scotland - Richard D. Oram,
    [Show full text]
  • Symbolism and Ritual in the 17Th Century Scottish Parliament
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Stirling Online Research Repository Symbolism and ritual in the seventeenth-century Scottish Parliament Alastair J. Mann (University of Stirling) Parliaments communicate with the people of their nations through a range of symbolic and ritualistic registers. The nature of symbolism and ceremony in the Scottish Parliament before the 1707 union with the parliament of England provides an interesting illustration of this communicative aspect.1 In particular seventeenth-century Scotland - an astonishingly traumatised place of political and religious strife – was home to a surprising reliance on rituals in spite of the atmosphere of conflict. In the last full century of this parliament’s long life, the impact of decades of revolution, warfare and economic collapse was even greater for Scotland than for England. Traditionally, in Scottish and English historiography, the woes of Scotland after 1603 are placed at the foot of government by absentee monarchy. Indeed although some seventeenth-century English contemporaries and modern English historians have reflected on the negative consequences of a Scottish King James VI becoming King James I of England in 1603, to be ruled by an experienced monarch was much less traumatic for England than was for Scotland the departure of the head of state from Edinburgh to London. After 1707 of course an absentee monarchy became an absentee parliament, but in the period 1603 to 1707 it is perhaps a surprise that so many of the traditional and medieval-based symbols of Parliament remained constant, if occasionally re-worked in changing circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Symbolism and Ritual in the 17Th Century Scottish Parliament
    Symbolism and ritual in the seventeenth-century Scottish Parliament Alastair J. Mann (University of Stirling) Parliaments communicate with the people of their nations through a range of symbolic and ritualistic registers. The nature of symbolism and ceremony in the Scottish Parliament before the 1707 union with the parliament of England provides an interesting illustration of this communicative aspect.1 In particular seventeenth-century Scotland - an astonishingly traumatised place of political and religious strife – was home to a surprising reliance on rituals in spite of the atmosphere of conflict. In the last full century of this parliament’s long life, the impact of decades of revolution, warfare and economic collapse was even greater for Scotland than for England. Traditionally, in Scottish and English historiography, the woes of Scotland after 1603 are placed at the foot of government by absentee monarchy. Indeed although some seventeenth-century English contemporaries and modern English historians have reflected on the negative consequences of a Scottish King James VI becoming King James I of England in 1603, to be ruled by an experienced monarch was much less traumatic for England than was for Scotland the departure of the head of state from Edinburgh to London. After 1707 of course an absentee monarchy became an absentee parliament, but in the period 1603 to 1707 it is perhaps a surprise that so many of the traditional and medieval-based symbols of Parliament remained constant, if occasionally re-worked in changing circumstances. 1 For summaries and contrasts with the post 1999 Scottish Parliament see Alastair .J. Mann, ‘The Scottish Parliaments: the role of ritual and procession in the pre 1707 parliament and echoes in the new parliament of 1999’, in Rituals in Parliament: Political, Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on Europe and the United States, eds.
    [Show full text]
  • Bicameralism and the Dynamics of Lawmaking in Brazil
    Bicameralism and the Dynamics of Lawmaking in Brazil Taeko Hiroi Department of Political Science University of Pittsburgh DRAFT: Please do not cite or quote without the author ’s permission. Paper prepared for presentation at the 2005 Annual Me eting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, January 6 -8, 2005. Introduction What explains the dynamics of lawmaking in developing countries? Many researchers have argued that bicameralism is a key institution that increases leg islative delays and gridlock (see, for example, Tsebelis and Money 1997; Binder 1999; Bottom et al . 2000; König 2001 ). However, outside the US presidential system and European parliamentary systems, virtually no theoretical or empirical research to date h as explored the effects of bicameralism in new democracies. 1 The dearth of research on the effect of bicameralism in new democracies is unfortunate because many newly democratized countries adopted bicameral legislatures and a few of them (e.g., Peru and Venezuela) have abolished their bicameral congresses and replaced them with unicameral ones. Prior studies of legislative politics in new democracies have instead concentrated on executive -lower chamber relations or modeled bicameral legislatures as if th ere were only one chamber (e.g., Shugart and Carey 1992 ; Ames 2001; Cox and Morgenstern 2001 ). The purpose of this paper is to analyze, taking Brazil as a case, the determinants of bill approval and legislative gridlock in a nascent presidential bicamer al democracy. I argue that bicameral incongruence of preferences raises the political system ’s propensity for legislative gridlock. In contrast, a government ’s majorities in both houses of Congress increase a chance of bill approval.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Legislative Process and the Mirroring Principle
    6. Legislative Process and the Mirroring Principle MATHEW D. McCUBBINS At the center of all democratic governments are legislatures. In all legislatures, members compete for access to a variety of valuable resources, such as floor time and committee or cabinet positions. The internal distribution of these re- sources fundamentally shapes the legislative process, and by extension, deter- mines which individuals or coalitions can influence legislative outcomes. In this paper, I argue that, within a given legislature, the distribution of legislative influ- ence tends to mirror the external checks and balances in the polity as a whole. In other words, as Lijphart (1984) has argued, just as polities with little separation of purpose (i.e., with limited diversity of interests and factions) tend to have more unitary governmental institutions than do polities with greater separation of purpose (which tend toward institutions that create separation of powers), so too will internal legislative institutions reflect the separations of purpose and power within a polity.1 This law of organization is referred to as the mirroring principle.2 In making my argument, I consider legislatures generally and use examples from a wide range of parliamentary and non-parliamentary bodies. I argue that many elements of legislatures, as well as the ways that we think about them, are common across most (and perhaps all) legislatures. Thus, a goal of this paper is to present a general analytic framework within which many aspects of the world’s diverse legislative bodies can be considered. I proceed as follows: In the next section, I discuss the nature of legislative resources, and briefly review the various arguments about how they are allocated.
    [Show full text]
  • Unicameralism, Bicameralism, Multicameralism: Evolution and Trends in Europe by Paolo Passaglia
    ISSN: 2036-5438 Unicameralism, Bicameralism, Multicameralism: Evolution and Trends in Europe by Paolo Passaglia Perspectives on Federalism, Vol. 10, issue 2, 2018 Except where otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5 Italy License E - 1 Abstract An analysis of the structure of parliaments in European countries shows that a wide range of options developed across the centuries. However, many of these patterns (among which tetracameralism, tricameralism, and qualified unicameralism) did not survive, despite their sometimes-remarkable historical interest. Currently, parliaments in Europe are either unicameral or bicameral: while unicameralism is the most common option, bicameralism is generally adopted in more populous countries and/or States with strong territorial autonomies. As a matter of fact, among varieties of bicameralism, the most common is characterized by a ‘territorial’ second chamber. Nevertheless, other types of bicameralism deserve attention too, not only to provide a comprehensive outline of the comparative scene, but also to find features that can define emerging trends. For this purpose, a classification of bicameralism will be outlined, mainly examining the patterns displayed by second chambers and the relationships between the two chambers. Combining this classification with the outcomes of the choice between unicameralism and bicameralism, some trends can be detected, although national experiences are so diverse that reliable norms are difficult to identify. Key-words parliament, unicameralism, bicameralism, representation, decision-making process Except where otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5 Italy License E - 2 1. Introduction A comparative analysis shows that there is a huge diversity in the patterns identifiable in parliaments across European systems, especially if one adopts an historical approach, as Europe is the region where most of the models experimented with throughout history were created.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered
    Democratic Institutions and Regime Survival: Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered José Antonio Cheibub Yale University Department of Political Science New Haven, CT 06511 United States [email protected] and Fernando Limongi Universidade de São Paulo Departmento de Ciência Política São Paulo, SP 05508-900 Brazil [email protected] Forthcoming in Annual Review of Political Science 2002 Acknowledgments: We thank Adam Przeworski, Tasos Kalandrakis and, especially, Argelina Cheibub Figueiredo, who has participated in many of the conversations that led to this paper. We also thank the Leitner Program in International Political Economy at Yale University for support for this research and the Fundação de Pesquisa e Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) for providing the conditions for us to work on this paper together. Abstract We review arguments and empirical evidence found in the comparative literature that bear on the differences in the survival rates of parliamentary and presidential democracies. Most of these arguments focus on the fact that presidential democracies are based on the separation of executive and legislative powers, while parliamentary democracies are based on the fusion of these powers. From this basic distinction several implications are derived which would lead to radically different behavior and outcomes under each regime. We argue that this perspective is misguided and that we cannot deduce the functioning of the political system from the way governments are formed. There are other provisions, constitutional or otherwise, that also affect the way parliamentary and presidential democracies operate and that may counteract some of the tendencies that we would expect to observe if we were to derive the regime’s performance from its basic constitutional principle.
    [Show full text]