LG302 Comparative European Politics Revision: Patterns of democracy across Europe

Majoritarian and consensual democracies According to Arend Lijphart A majoritarian democracy “concentrates power in the hands of the majority” A consensual democracy “tries to arrive at as much consensus as possible by restraining majority rule and by sharing, dispersing, and limiting political power” To distinguish between them, Lijphart focused on two political dimensions and 10 institutional characteristics

Lijphart’s patterns of democracy Majoritarian model: concentration of power in the hands of the majority (single-party govt, majoritarian electoral systems) Consensus model: non-concentration of power Shared = dispersed to political actors operating together within the same political institutions Ex: coalition governments, multi-party systems, proportional representation Divided = dispersed to separate political institutions Ex: bicameral parliaments, federalism, regionalism, decentralisation

Majoritarian and consensual democracies

Consensual prototypes Majoritarian prototypes Consensus joint-power & Majoritarian federal-unitary Majoritarian joint-power & Consensus federal- unitary

Consensus joint-power & Majoritarian federal-unitary Consensual prototypes Majoritarian prototypes Majoritarian joint-power & Consensus federal-unitary Source: Kriesi & Bochsler 2012

Consensus joint-power & Majoritarian federal-unitary Consensual prototypes Majoritarian prototypes Majoritarian joint-power & Consensus federal-unitary

Lijphart’s criteriaMajoritarianConsensual Single-party govts or coalitions? Govt dominates legislature or not? 2-party or multi-party system? FPTP or PR electoral system? Pluralist or corporatist interest groups? Centralised or decentralised state? One or two working chambers of parliament? Flexible or rigid constitution? Govt dominates judiciary or judicial review? Dependent or independent central bank?

The executive How do we recognise different types of executive structures? We read the constitution of the country we want to define to identify the chain of delegation from voters to their representatives in public office.

The executive

Parliamentarism Presidentialism VotersParliament Executive (Cabinet headed by prime minister) Voters Parliament President (Chief Executive) Cabinet The executive

VotersPresidentParliament PM & Cabinet Semi-presidentialism The executive

How do we recognise different types of executive structures? We read the constitution of the country we want to define. Presidentialism: separation of powers Parliamentarism: fusion of powers Semi-presidentialism: the direct presidential election introduces an element of the separation of powers. However, as long as the cabinet is accountable to the parliament, the powers are effectively fused. The executive

Semi-presidentialParliamentary FranceBelgium, Netherlands IrelandUK FinlandGermany, Italy PortugalNorway, Sweden PolandSpain RomaniaCzech Republic (before 2013) Czech Republic (after 2013) Slovakia (before 1998) Slovakia (after 1998)

Lijphart’s criteriaMajoritarianConsensual Single-party govts or coalitions? Govt dominates legislature or not? 2-party or multi-party system? FPTP or PR electoral system? Pluralist or corporatist interest groups? Centralised or decentralised state? One or two working chambers of parliament? Flexible or rigid constitution? Govt dominates judiciary or judicial review? Dependent or independent central bank?

Lijphart’s criteriaMajoritarianConsensual Single-party govts or coalitions?Single-partyCoalitions Govt dominates legislature or not? 2-party or multi-party system? FPTP or PR electoral system? Pluralist or corporatist interest groups? Centralised or decentralised state? One or two working chambers of parliament? Flexible or rigid constitution? Govt dominates judiciary or judicial review? Dependent or independent central bank?

Executive – legislative relations

Appointing and dismissing govts: Even if this power is rarely used, governments know it exists and must be sensitive to the views of their own MPs, including coalition partners. Law-making: Governments tend to control legislation to a lesser or greater degree. Majoritarian parliaments are characterized by an inter- party mode of interaction. Consensual parliaments are working parliaments according to the cross-party mode, not debating societies according to the inter-party mode.

Executive –legislative relations Institutional variations in law-making MajoritarianConsensus Agenda controlGovernment Party Groups and/or President of Parliament Main area of workFull parliamentCommittees Sequence of debateFull parliament firstCommittees first Consensual parliaments are “working parliaments” according to the cross- party mode, not “debating societies” according to the inter-party mode. In consensual parliaments, the opposition often eschews out-and-out criticism in return for government openness to amendments on details. In majoritarian parliaments, the opposition is reduced to “heckling a steamroller” (Austin Mitchell, UK Labour MP).

Parliaments and parties Are MPs “dumb sheep” or “lobby fodder”? MPs have joined the same party, so they tend to have similar views. MPs logroll within their parties, they trade votes on different issues. Voters vote for parties, not for individuals. Politicians advance by making a contribution to their party, not by developing a reputation for independence. The party’s interest is the MP’s interest. This fundamental coincidence of interest and identity is more important than the disciplinary sanctions imposed by parliamentary parties and their “whips”.

Lijphart’s criteriaMajoritarianConsensual Single-party govts or coalitions?Single-partyCoalitions Govt dominates legislature or not? (Cabinet duration and stability) (Oversized vs. minimum winning coalitions) StableShort-lived 2-party or multi-party system? FPTP or PR electoral system? Pluralist or corporatist interest groups? Centralised or decentralised state? One or two working chambers of parliament? Flexible or rigid constitution? Govt dominates judiciary or judicial review? Dependent or independent central bank?

Parliamentary power & Second Chambers “If the second chamber agrees with the first it is superfluous, and if it does not it is pernicious”. Impact depends on:  Method of selection: directly or indirectly elected? Same electoral formula as the other chamber?  Composition: is it designed to overrepresent certain minorities? (federal chambers: overrepresentation of the smaller territorial units – e.g. Germany)  Powers: can it veto certain types of law or initiate legislation (Germany, Italy, Romania)? Or can it only delay legislation (Czech Republic, Poland, Spain)

Parliamentary power & Second Chambers

Lijphart’s criteriaMajoritarianConsensual Single-party govts or coalitions?Single-partyCoalitions Govt dominates legislature or not?StableShort-lived 2-party or multi-party system? FPTP or PR electoral system? Pluralist or corporatist interest groups? Centralised or decentralised state? One or two working chambers of parliament? (Does a bicameral legislature with two or more identical houses and one house that is much more powerful than the other differ in any significant way from a unicameral legislature?) UnicameralismBicameralism? Flexible or rigid constitution? Govt dominates judiciary or judicial review? Dependent or independent central bank?

Party systems & party families

Party families

Party systems: change and continuity (Gallagher, Laver, and Mair) Continuity Balance between left and right blocs is remarkably constant Main parties have been very resilient New parties have not challenged the overall structure Change Weakening of collective identities Terms of reference between left and right have changed Balance of support within blocs has sometimes changed “New politics” relevant in most countries Decline of Christian Democrats Lower turnout

Lijphart’s criteriaMajoritarianConsensual Single-party govts or coalitions?Single-partyCoalitions Govt dominates legislature or not?Majority? Durability Minority? Short-lived 2-party or multi-party system?Two-partyMulti-party FPTP or PR electoral system? Pluralist or corporatist interest groups? Centralised or decentralised state? One or two working chambers of parliament?UnicameralismBicameralism? Flexible or rigid constitution? Govt dominates judiciary or judicial review? Dependent or independent central bank?

Electoral systems - FPTP Voters can vote for one candidate and there is one seat per constituency. The candidate with the most votes wins. Europe’s dominant electoral system until the early twentieth century, it is now only used in the UK. Tends to produce stable governments, but results are often very disproportional. Party membership, rather than constituency service, explains MPs’ behaviour in parliament.

Electoral systems – Majority runoff Electors can vote for one candidate and there is one seat per constituency. If no candidate wins an overall majority, the candidates with at least 12.5% of the electorate go through to a second round, which is decided by plurality vote. Nowadays, it is only used in France for legislative elections, but is used in presidential elections in several countries. It has similar results to SMP in the UK, but allows some scope for smaller groups to influence the election.

Electoral systems – List PR There is more than one seat per constituency District magnitude is the number of seats per constituency. The greater the district magnitude, the more proportional the results  High proportionality when the whole country forms a single constituency - Netherlands, Slovakia  Large DM (average 12 seats) – Finland  Small DM leads to disproportionality - Spain Voters choose party lists Different formulae are used to apportion the seats to parties

Electoral systems – List PR Other important variations:  Thresholds for representation in parliament (ex: difference between the 1991 and 1993 elections in Poland)  Closed lists (Spain, Portugal) vs. opportunity to change the order of candidates on a party list (Finland, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia)  Higher-tier seats that can increase the proportionality of results at constituency level (Norway, Sweden).  Majoritarian twists through compensatory mechanisms (ex: Italy – the largest party or coalition receives 347 of the 630 seats

Electoral systems – Mixed systems Voters cast two votes: single-member plurality (SMP or FPTP) and party list In Germany, the party list votes compensate for disproportionalities in the single-member constituency elections. There is also a five per cent threshold. This system is supposed to combine the virtues of FPTP and party list, but there is little evidence that FPTP members behave substantially differently to their party-list colleagues.

Electoral systems Plurality (FPTP) Majority (double ballot) PRMixed UKFranceNetherlands BelgiumGermany Ireland (STV) Italy (after compensation) Italy ( ) Finland, Norway, Sweden Spain, Portugal Poland Romania ( ) Czech Republic, Slovakia Romania (after 2008)

Why do electoral systems matter? Proportionality –How closely does the distribution of seats in the parliament reflect the preferences of voters The number of parties Coalition or single-party government? –Single-party govt more likely under majoritarian electoral systems (but: UK 2010, France vs. Norway, Sweden) –Coalition govt more likely under PR electoral systems (but: Spain) Policy outputs

Electoral systems & party systems Parties choose electoral systems. Parties are likely to choose an electoral system that would protect existing competitors. Nonetheless, the effect of the electoral system interacts with other aspects of the political system.

Lijphart’s criteriaMajoritarianConsensual Single-party govts or coalitions?Single-partyCoalitions Govt dominates legislature or not?Majority? Durability Minority? Short-lived 2-party or multi-party system?Two-partyMulti-party FPTP or PR electoral system? (Technical differences between PR systems are crucial in determining which parties are going to do well ). FPTPPR Pluralist or corporatist interest groups? Centralised or decentralised state? One or two working chambers of parliament?UnicameralismBicameralism? Flexible or rigid constitution? Govt dominates judiciary or judicial review? Dependent or independent central bank?

Essay writing guidelines

Choose a title. Compare and contrast the two countries you have chosen, avoid studying them separately. Divide your paper into sections and use subheadings to emphasise the structure of your work and show how your argument develops. Divide each section into separate paragraphs. Start each paragraph with a topic sentence that introduces the argument, develop that argument in the paragraph body and close it with a wrap up or a conclusion of your argument. Check that your paragraphs are logically connected. Don’t use bullet points / don’t list or number your ideas. Do not quote excessively. Paraphrase what other authors say (always using always in-text citations!) and make a logical argument that emphasises your own independent thinking. Always use quotation marks to reproduce exact words. When you quote or you paraphrase a specific idea cite the page, in addition to the author and publishing year (e.g. Gallagher 2005: 86). Essay structure do’s & don’ts

Plagiarism of any length will attract heavy penalties. Include the word count of your essay on the first page. Don’t deviate with more than 10 per cent from the required length. Use the same reference system throughout the paper. Study our library’s guide to citing and referencing. Font size: 12pt, Time New Roman, line-spacing: 1,5. Alignment: Justified. Page numbers on each page. Pay attention to good grammar & punctuation. Use simple and coherent editing. Use the same indentation throughout the paper. Proof-read Spell-check Essay writing essentials