Government and Politics in Europe October 16, 2014 By Hung-jen Wang 王宏仁

Today’s Outline Comparative political system: Parliaments [To continue last lecture] Elections and Electoral Systems Presentations: Group 1 and 2

Comparative Political System: Parliaments

Parliaments In classical liberal democratic theory, the government merely does the bidding of parliament; that is, the government is merely an “agent” of parliament. In reality, this was never really the way things worked in European states.

Who Is More Powerful? It is a wrong question to ask “How much power do parliaments have versus governments?” when we try to understand European politics. It is more realistic to see parliament as wielding power through the government that it has elected than to see it as seeking to check a government that has come into being independently of it (the latter is the case of U.S.) Why? Because in Europe both of governments and parliaments are dominated by political parties, and these parties are powerful and generally well-disciplined.

Two Types of Parliament According to Arend Lijphart, there are two types of model: 1) The Westminster-type “majoritarian” model : the United Kingdom is the clearest European example, but Greece, France, and Malta are also in this category. [interparty mode] 2) The “consensus” model : The clearest European example is Switzerland, but Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria are also in this category. [the cross-party or nonparty mode]

Appointing and Dismissing Governments It is too simplistic to say that the U.S. Congress is powerful and the parliaments of Europe are “weak”. Why? If a parliament does pass a motion of no confidence in the government, the latter has two options: either to resign and allow parliament to elect a new government, or to dissolve parliament and call a general election.  In Belgium, Germany, Poland, and Spain, they employ the “constructive vote of no confidence”. However, the parliaments of Europe use this power so rarely because usually they do not need to use it: what is important here is not how parliament has used the power but the fact that it possesses it in the first place.

Parliaments and Lawmaking European parliaments are “reactive” rather than “active” in that they possess modest rather than strong policy-making powers. Why? Variation by the distinction between majoritarian and consensus systems of governments: Three institutional features The seating arrangements in the chamber: (1) In countries like Britain and Ireland, government ministers and their opposition counterparts face each other across the chamber [ to engender a confrontational attitude ]; (2) In Iceland, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Greece, and the Netherlands, government members sit together facing the entire chamber of members of parliament (MPs) [ to lead to collective consciousness on the part of MPs ]; (3) MPs are usually seated by party, but in Norway and Sweden by constituency, and in Iceland by lot.

Dáil Éireann, Ireland DQ5sDI1PBHE Alþingi, Iceland =ZpCjYjAs168 The Italian Parliament Switzerland, Parliament

Parliaments and Lawmaking in Majoritarian Countries Greece : The Greek parliament (the Vouli); two main parties, New Democracy and PASOK. UK : the name of the main nongovernment party “Her Majesty’s Opposition”. Ireland : Government and parliament, like U.K., are almost entirely “fused”.

Parliaments and Lawmaking in Consensus Countries Germany: Bundestag (National Assembly), the committees and the opposition [a cross-party, co-govern mode] a=details&offsetStart=0&offsetLength=6&id= &instance= m187&destination=search&categorie=Sonderveranstaltungen&m ask=search

Germany: Bundestag (National Assembly)

Other consensus countries: Austria (committees are significant), the Netherlands (committees play an important role in considering legislation), Scandinavia (emphasis on “working parliaments” rather than debating societies like that of UK), and Italy (secret ballots).

Elections and Electoral Systems

Who votes? Universal male suffrage: by the time of WWI Universal female suffrage: by WWII (except Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, and Switzerland) The European states have to ensure the electoral register (cf. the United States) Voting arte is high in most countries (70~85%), but low in Poland and Switzerland (below 50%)

When do people vote? A fixed term (ex. 4 or 5 years) The government or the prime minister has the power recommend (ex. French president) In Norway and Sweden, the timing of elections is fixed by law, while in others (such as Luxembourg) it is more or less determined by practice and convention. Parliamentary elections are not the only opportunity: others including elections for local councils or regions, and for choosing members of the European Parliament.

Types of Electoral System Generally speaking, electoral systems in western Europe have been fairly stable since 1945 (except for France and Greece); in postcommunist Europe, some countries have been stable and continuity (Slovenia, Hungary, and the Baltic states), while in others (Poland and the Czech Republic) the electoral system has been the constant political battles. Nevertheless, there are two general electoral systems: Plurality/Majority systems, and Proportional representation (PR) systems.

Plurality and Majority Systems (1) UK: (1) 659 areas, known as “constituencies” or “districts”; (2) each of which elects one member of parliament ( MP ) to the House of Commons; (3) Single-member plurality (SMP), or “first past the post” system.  Critics : (1) the elected MPs would not be most representative of the voters’ wishes (Table 1); (2) some voters have to “think strategically”; (3) An overall election would be unfair? (Table 2)

Table 1

Table 2

UK reforms: (1) a variety of different electoral systems in different settings (the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly, Northern Ireland assembly, and England); (2) the introduction of ordinal voting, rather than “x” (nominal voting)  the alternative vote, or, the single transferable vote ( STV )

Plurality and Majority Systems (2) France: (1) “deputies” are from single-member constituencies, but based on “two rounds of voting”  majority-plurality system ; (2) also applied to French presidential elections (only the top two); (3) however, the French system has the problem of disproportion; (4)

Proportional Representation (PR) The key element: the multimember constituency Three types of PR: (1) list systems ; (2) mixed system s; (3) the single transferable vote

List systems : (1) a list of candidates in each constituency; (2) electoral formulas & district magnitude

Mixed systems : (1) the voter has two votes for “constituency seats” and “list seats”; (2) compensatory mixed systems vs. parallel mixed systems  Example: Germany

The single transferable vote (STV)  Pros : (1) to give voters the opportunity to convey their preferences; (2) voters are not constrained by party lines ; (3) voters, not parties, control the way their votes will be used; (4) the voters can express an opinion as to the direction their party should take; (5) the voters can vote sincerely, and their votes will not be wasted.  Cons : (1) STV weakens the internal unity of parties (less cohesive); (2) STV only works in relatively small constituencies (less than 10 seats); (3) independent candidates (the government will lack a secure majority)