CHARLES UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Institute of Political Studies Lukáš Hájek Legislative Behaviour of Deputies in the Czech Republic Dissertation Thesis Prague 2020 Author: Mgr. Lukáš Hájek, M.A. Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Miloš Brunclík, Ph.D. Year of submission: 2020 Bibliographic reference Hájek, Lukáš. 2020. Legislative Behaviour of Deputies in the Czech Republic. Dissertation thesis. Charles University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Studies, Prague. Abstract Scrutiny of legislative behaviour of members of parliament (MPs) has a long tradition in Western Europe. Nonetheless, there has been a research gap in the Czech Republic. Thus, the dissertation thesis identifies the most burning and exciting questions and delivers the answers as a collection of to some extent separated but still interconnected studies. To be more specif- ic, I employ quantitative methods of analysis. I deal with the data on all the members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic who held the mandate between 1993 and 2017. Overall, the original and unique dataset consists of 1,518 legislators and their comprehensive parliamentary activity. The results suggest that two main conflicts drive par- liamentary politics – the institutional division between ruling parties and opposition, and the ideological left-right socio-economic dimension. Besides this, the thesis shows that both the age and tenure of the MPs noticeably affect their parliamentary activity. While older and more experienced MPs propose more bills, address more speeches and obtain more intra- parliamentary posts than young novices, the latter group focuses on the work outside of the parliament. Next, the gender differences in the parliamentary activity of Czech legislators re- semble patterns from Western Europe. Most importantly, female MPs speak less than their male colleagues, and there are substantial gender distinctions among committee assignments. Last but not least, the thesis delivers pioneering findings on the MPs’ individual voting dis- sent, which affects the legislators’ parliamentary activity, especially if they vote against the majority of their counterparts. Moreover, the rebels attend fewer roll calls, abstain more, and elucidate their position through addressing the plenary session more compared to other MPs. The final chapter summarizes impressions expressed by contemporary members of the Cham- ber of Deputies who were acquainted with the results. Overall, the dissertation thesis delivers a complex and pioneering picture on the legislative behaviour of the MPs in the Czech Re- public. Importantly, the legislative behaviour of the MPs in the Czech Republic is more simi- lar than different to the parliamentarians’ performance in Western Europe despite the forty years of the communist regime. Keywords Parliament, member of parliament, party, legislative behaviour, quantitative analysis, Czech Republic. The dissertation thesis consists of 125 pages (55,209 words). Statement of authorship I hereby declare that the thesis presented is my own work. In addition, I affirm that I have clearly marked and acknowledged all quotations or references that have been taken from the works of others. All secondary literature and other sources are marked and listed in the bibli- ography. The same applies to all figures and tables as well as to all digital resources. Moreo- ver, I consent to my thesis being electronically stored and sent anonymously in order to be checked for plagiarism. Prague, 15 April 2020 Lukáš Hájek Table of Contents Party Abbreviations............................................................................................................... vi Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................... vii Preface and Acknowledgments............................................................................................ viii Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1 Dimensions of Ayes and Nays ....................................................................... 6 1.1 Evolution of politics............................................................................................ 8 1.2 Consequences of governing forms..................................................................... 11 1.2.1 Hypotheses................................................................................................ 12 1.3 Spatial modelling of politics ............................................................................. 13 1.3.1 Roll call analysis ....................................................................................... 14 1.3.2 Data .......................................................................................................... 15 1.4 Dimensionality of politics ................................................................................. 16 1.5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 2 Elders and Rookies ..................................................................................... 25 2.1 On MPs’ age and experience ............................................................................. 27 2.2 Effects of age and tenure ................................................................................... 30 2.2.1 Hypotheses................................................................................................ 31 2.2.2 Data .......................................................................................................... 32 2.2.3 Results ...................................................................................................... 35 2.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 42 Chapter 3 Gender Matters ........................................................................................... 44 3.1 Role of MPs‘ gender ......................................................................................... 46 3.2 Effect of gender ................................................................................................ 49 3.2.1 Hypotheses................................................................................................ 49 3.2.2 Data .......................................................................................................... 51 3.2.3 Results ...................................................................................................... 55 3.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 63 Chapter 4 Broken Whips ............................................................................................. 65 4.1 Incentives to voting dissent ............................................................................... 66 4.2 Research design ................................................................................................ 68 4.2.1 Hypotheses................................................................................................ 68 4.2.2 Data .......................................................................................................... 70 4.3 Voting dissent of MPs ....................................................................................... 74 4.3.1 Characteristics ........................................................................................... 74 4.3.2 Interconnection with parliamentary activity ............................................... 80 4.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 85 iv Chapter 5 Return to the Cave ...................................................................................... 87 5.1 Incentives and responsibilities ........................................................................... 89 5.2 Dimensions of ayes and nays ............................................................................ 92 5.3 Elders and rookies............................................................................................. 94 5.4 Gender matters.................................................................................................. 97 5.5 Broken whips .................................................................................................. 100 5.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 103 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 105 References ......................................................................................................................... 110 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 120 v Party Abbreviations ANO ANO 2011 ČSSD Czech Social Democratic Party (Česká strana sociálně demokratická) HSD-SMS Movement for Autonomous Democracy – Party for Moravia and Silesia (Hnutí za samosprávnou demokracii – Společnost pro Moravu a Slezsko) K Coalition (Koalice) 4K Quad-Coalition (Čtyřkoalice) KDU-ČSL Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People’s Party (Křesťanská a demokratická unie – Československá strana lidová) KDS Christian Democratic Party (Křesťanskodemokratická