Executive-Legislative Relations Marek Rybar, PhD. Comparative Perspectives, Winter 2018 Normative basis of democratic government l1. governing must be linked to elections l2. government is constrained by constitutional limits (vertical and horizontal accountability) lGovernment in representative democracies may take several forms, the most common are presidentialism, parliamentarism and semi-presidentialism Parliamentarism lIs a system in which: l1. there is a head of government distinct from the head of state; the head of government is elected by the parliament is accountable to it l2. the terms of the executive and of the parliament are not fixed, they are mutually dependent Parliamentarism lThe executive without a parliamentary support will normally resign; the cabinet often has the power to dissolve the parliament and to call for new parliamentary elections l”an almost complete fusion of executive and legislative powers"; members of the executive are typically recruited among the most senior members of parliament, i.e. they simultaneously hold positions in the two bodies l Presidentialism lIs a system where l1. president is simultaneously the head of government and the head of state, s/he is directly elected; and l2. the terms in office of the president and the parliament are fixed and not connected (a system of mutual independence) Presidentialism lThe executive led by president cannot dissolve the legislature and and call the new elections; the legislature may not remove the president lPresidentialism is a system of mutual independence of the two branches of power lMembers of parliament may not simultaneously hold executive positions (strict separation of powers) l l Semipresidential systems lIt is the arrangement with a president directly elected for a fixed term, AND with a prime minister and his/her cabinet accountable to the parliament lOriginally, M. Duverger (1980) also added that the president had to have “quite considerable powers”, this feature is now abandoned in favour f a purely institutional understanding of the concept Directorial form of government lIt exists only in Switzerland lThe executive (the so-called Federal Council) is composed of seven persons, each of them individually elected by a joint decisions of the two chambers of parliament lThe term of the Federal Council is fixed, it overlaps with the term of the parliament lHowever, it is not accountable to the parliament and cannot be voted out of the office l Directly elected Prime Minister lA short-lived system that existed in Israel between 1996 and 2003 lPrime Minister was directly elected by all voters in a majority runoff system (simultaneously with parliamentary elections) lthe PM and his government was accountable to Parliament, in case of successful no confidence motion, early elections were to be held Differences among parliamentary systems lThe extent to which parliament is “rationalized” is the key explanatory factor: lHow difficult de facto is it for the parliament to pass a vote of no confidence to the cabinet lTo what extent does the government control the parliamentary agenda? lHow difficult is it for MPs to submit “private member’s bills” lIt all depends on the so-called party discipline l Single-party majority cabinets lThe UK as the classic example lWith an absolute majority in the House of Commons, cabinet formation is straightforward, since party discipline is imposed (a CP majority of 330 out of 650 seats in 2015 elections) lThe opposition forms a shadow cabinet, a future government-in-waiting, and hopes to win the next parliamentary elections l Single-party majority cabinets lThe norm of collective responsibility, a uniquely British doctrine: all members of the cabinet must support the official line lIn a vote of no confidence, MPs vote along strictly party line (the role of party whip) lThe executive is not omnipotent: it must contend with powerful interest groups outside parliament and must also consider the wishes of party backbenchers Minimal-winning cabinets lIn most parliamentary systems, no party controls a parliamentary majority lOne possibility is to form coalition government with as many parties cooperating as are necessary to form a coalition to attain a majority in parliament lGermany after 2017 elections: CDU/CSU 246, SPD 153, AfD 94, FDP 80, the Left 69, the Greens 64, out of 709 parliamentary seats l355 seats needed to form the MWC Possible Alternatives Minimal-winning cabinets lSPD initially announced it would not enter any new government lThe Left and especially AfD not considered acceptable parties to govern lCoalition talks between CDU/CSU, FDP and the Greens (390 seats combined) failed due to policy differences lEventually, a fourth government led by A. Merkel and consisting of CDU/CSU and SPD was formed, controlling 399 out of 709 seats Oversized cabinets lInclude more parties than are necessary to attain a parliamentary majority lSwitzerland: four largest parties form a 7-member Federal Council and divide the seats along the so-called “magic formula” 2:2:2:1 lThe logic is not that all four parties agree on a common program but rather that all should be represented when the Federal Council makes its decisions lIf no consensus is reached, a majority voting will decide Oversized cabinets lOversized cabinets are often established when societies are fragmented on religious, linguistic or ethno-regional grounds lThe idea is to allow each group to participate in the political process lMore often created in times of war, during economic crises or in the wake of cataclysmic political events Minority cabinets lWhen the party (or parties) forming the cabinet does not possess a majority of parliamentary seats lFrequent in Spain and Scandinavian countries, especially in Sweden, Denmark and Norway lAfter the 2014 Swedish elections, a minority coalition government consisting of Social Democrats (113 seats) and the Greens (25) lIt was 37 seats short of a parliamentary majority in a 349-seat parliament Minority cabinets lThe government initially failed to pass the 2015 budget but later it stroke a deal with the moderate center-right opposition parties lThey allowed the government to pass the budget in return for concessions regarding immigration and defense policies lMinority cabinets need to negotiate support in the parliament on an issue-by-issue basis Caretaker cabinets lSometimes it takes quite a long time for a coalition government to be put together lIn such cases, the old cabinet stays in office as caretaker cabinet lIt handles everyday business but cannot take major initiatives lFollowing the 2017 Czech elections, for example, a new minority government was formed but failed to gain a parliamentary vote of confidence lit stays in office until a new government is formed l l Differences among presidential systems lContrast the case of the US presidentialism and many of the Latin American presidential systems: lTwo-party vs. multiparty format lStrong constitutional prerogatives of the US presidents vs. not-always-so-strong Latin American ones lWeak horizontal accountability in Latin America vs. strong horizontal accountability in the US Differences among semi-presidential systems lpremier-presidentialism vs. president-parliamentarism lUnder the premier-presidential system, the prime minister and cabinet are exclusively accountable to parliament lThe president chooses the prime minister and cabinet, but only the parliament may remove them from office with a vote of no confidence. l l Differences among semi-presidential systems lThe president does not have the right to dismiss the prime minister or the cabinet lUnder the president-parliamentary system, the prime minister and cabinet are dually accountable to the president and the assembly majority lThe president chooses the prime minister and the cabinet but must have the support of the parliament majority for his choice. Differences among semi-presidential systems lIn order to remove a prime minister or the whole cabinet from power, the president can dismiss them or the assembly can remove them by a vote of no confidence lpremier-presidential system (e.g. Croatia 1992-2000, Russia, Ukraine 1996-2005 and 2010-2014) are usually less democratic than premier-presidential system (e.g. France, Poland, Lithuania, Romania) lA shaky role of the PM and their cabinet is the key reason l l Presidents and multipartism lin Latin America 1979 - 2006 just two presidentialisms with a two-party system - Mexico a Costarica, other countries have multiparty presidential systems: lparty alliances (coalitions) required for the systém to function lpresident is a de facto permanent formateur, aperson in search of a majority supporting his/her legislative proposals l Presidents and multipartism lcabinet seats and other appointments l"pork" and lpolicy concessions loften more important than ideology and party identity of parliamentarians who support president’s proposals Presidents and multipartism l Coalition-based multiparty presidential regimes succeed if the president l1) is constitutionally strong, l2) has “goods” to trade in order to attract and keep coalition partners, and l3) faces institutionalized and effective checks on presidential actions Semipresidentialism l Since 1990, semi-presidentialism has become the preferred constitutional choice for new democracies lThe prevalent view is that semi-presidentialism is a poor constitutional choice for its inherent potential for cohabitation l the situation where a president from one party holds power at the same time as a prime minister from an opposing party and where the president’s party is not represented in the cabinet Semiprezidencializmus lcohabitation is said to be problematic for new democracies, because president as well as parliament-backed prime minister have a democratic mandate lHowever, Elgie shows that since 1990 only one semi-presidential democracy has collapsed while experiencing cohabitation – Niger in 1996 and in another case (Guinea-Bissau 2003) there is a link between the „threat“ of cohabitation and the fall of democracy