Political science homework

POL 190 Institutions and Participation Notes 1

POL 190 POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS and PARTICIPATION in Democracies Why does politics and policy making differ across democracies? While all democracies share core/common features (elections, representative government, accountability and basic rights), both the process (who makes policies and how) and the outcome of policy-making (the content of policies) varies greatly across these countries. Institutional differences are the key element that explains this variation:

 Institutions structure politics and decision-making

 Institutions shape the number of actors/players who participate, and the relationship between them

A simple model can illustrate this process: Institutions Characteristics of Policies

Structure of decision-making -Who benefits?

‘Veto points’ -Timing/responsiveness -Coherence of policy

Needs, -Quality of policies/effectiveness Demand for -Costs of policy Policies Participants/Actors -Accountability Number of actors (e.g. parties) -Transparency Level of conflict -Deliberation

INSTITUTIONS ‘Institution’ refers to the basic ‘rules of the game’ that structure politics: these organize the decision- making process (e.g. legislatures, executives), and the number of actors (e.g. the number of parties). Two basic sets of rules shape governing/decision-making in democracies:

 Rules organizing the relationship between the central government and regional authorities: Where is power located? How centralized is political power ‘geographically’? Are all policies made in one location, or are some capabilities ‘delegated’ to sub-national authorities? Two Options: Federal or Unitary arrangements

 Rules organizing the legislative and executive roles in the central government: How are laws made and power distributed within government? Who holds representatives accountable? Options: Presidential or Parliamentary or Semi-Presidential arrangements

A critical comparative concept in understanding the role of institutions is the ‘veto point’: these are decision points in a political system where policy-making faces an obstacle or where a policy can be ‘vetoed’ by particular actors. Some arrangements of political institutions have more ‘veto-points’ than others, leading to substantial differences in how and when policies are made (or fail to be made). Veto points also tell us how much power rests in the hands of groups of elected officials.

POL 190 Institutions and Participation Notes 2

I. Unitary vs. Federal systems The geographical/physical location of decision-making power is the main criteria: is all decision making done by leaders in the capital city (centralized), or is decision making shared with regions (i.e. decentralized)?

 Unitary: highly centralized

 Federal: division and sharing of authority between central state and regions

Basic Feature

Degree of Centralization of Political Authority

Unitary

Federal

Power/authority is highly centralized in the central government

Decentralized power/authority; regions share decision-making power with the center

Cases, Examples

UK, France, Japan, (and the majority of the countries of the world)

US, Germany, Mexico, Canada, Nigeria, Brazil, India, Russia

Some Advantages

 Gives all regions a uniform incentive to participate in central government decisions

 Uniform application of laws, rights

 Centralizes economic development and reduces regional disparities

 Relatively efficient, small administration

 Reduces the power of the central government

 Gives regions control over their own political affairs

 Allows specific regional needs to be addressed by the central government

Some Disadvantages

 May reduce attention to distinct regional needs

 May create the conditions for a cultural majority to dominate the state and to marginalize regionally distinct minorities

 Centralizes/concentrates power and authority, and so endangers citizen control over leaders

 Simplified policy-making with uniform application may make for large scale errors

 Costly, prone to expensive government and duplication of efforts

 May create an incentive for “separatism” and “secession” by dissatisfied regions

 May create an environment for culturally distinct groups in some regions to be victimized

 May create multiple economic rules and an uneven application of laws

 Leads to a complex policy making process: conflicts over ‘who has authority’

 Small regions may be ‘over- represented’: malapportionment

NOTE: ‘Federalism’ is NOT synonymous with having a president, the separation of powers in a constitution, or with having a democracy. The US is also not the only country that has a federal arrangement of the state. Some non-democracies have been federal (Brazil, Nigeria, USSR). Federalism is not the same everywhere: there are significant differences between the organization of federalism in the Brazil, US, Germany, and India.

Degree of Regional Autonomy in Federal countries

Low regional autonomy (strong center)

High regional autonomy

Russia India

US

Canada Brazil

Germany

Switzerland

POL 190 Institutions and Participation Notes 3

II. Presidential vs. Parliamentary systems While all democracies have certain basic guarantees about the selection of leaders, accountability, and the rights of individuals, the central government may be organized in different ways. The two most common forms are the parliamentary approach (the fused authority system used in the UK, Canada, and most democracies around the world) and the presidential approach (the separation of powers system at work in the US and Latin America). A few countries combine elements of both types (France and Russia for example).

The Presidential System (‘separation of powers’)

EXECUTIVE: V elect President nominates

(selects Cabinet) O T “checks and balances” Judiciary [separate E elections] R Majority Party/ parties S elect

Minority Party/ approves parties LEGISLATURE

Representatives in “Congress”

Basic Features

 A written formal Constitution: essential to regulate this complex system

 A Formal separation of roles: executive (President) vs. legislature (Congress)

 Executive and Legislature have a competitive-conflict relationship: checks and balances

 Many regular elections are necessary: many offices/posts to be filled

 The timing of elections is fixed by constitution: makes for predictable, regular change, accountability

 Laws can start at several points (Executive, or Legislature): many representatives can act for voters

 Consensus and deliberation: Executive and legislature must approve. Extensive review/scrutiny of proposals

 Big role for the judiciary: oversight of laws (they must be consistent, and conform to the constitution)

 The party “losing” an election (the minority party) can still propose laws, have influence

POL 190 Institutions and Participation Notes 4

The Parliamentary system (‘fused’ authority)

EXECUTIVE: V PM, Cabinet O T

E select LEGISLATURE R elect Representatives in

S [single election] Majority/Governing a single Parliament Party/parties

Minority Party/parties “Opposition”

Basic Features

 Executive and legislative roles are fused: centralized decision-making (not separate powers)

 The Legislature chooses the executive officers (the PM and Cabinet officers) from the members of the majority (a single majority party, or coalition of parties)

 There is a single ‘general election’ that all legislators contest at the same time: the maximum term between elections is fixed by law, BUT

 Prime Ministers can call an ‘early’ election (why? The PM/Cabinet cannot act without majority support, and may call on the electorate to validate their decisions and control of parliament)

 The PM can be removed by a simple majority vote in parliament for non-performance: a “Vote of no confidence” (The PM is given power by, and is always accountable to the majority in parliament)

 Having a single election has an impact on parties: they are more coordinated, and focused on policy/ideology and presentation of a clear ‘manifesto’ of policy goals in order to win a majority in the general election

 “Parliamentary sovereignty”: Parliament represents the ‘popular will’. Majority rule in parliament means there is a limited role for the judiciary, and a written/formal constitution is not essential

 Laws are proposed/implemented by the parliamentary majority: law-making is easy, reflects the majority

An alternative: The Semi-Presidential System Most of the world’s democracies use either the presidential or parliamentary system. For the sake of completeness, however we should note that some countries use the ‘semi-presidential’ system.

 This is basically the presidential system (separately elected Legislature and Executive, with separation of powers and checks and balances), AND with the addition of a PM that represents the majority in the Legislature (like in the parliamentary system).

 This system operates in France, and Russia. Many new democracies have adopted this model of government since the 1980s. It is also the system adopted by Iraq in 2004.

 The main advantage: it allows for the legislature to be more organized/coordinated in balancing the powers of the president, and for holding the president accountable. It is an improvement of the checks and balances of the presidential system

 The semi-presidential system can have two negative results. It may deepen conflict between the 2 branches of government: it leads to an inevitable conflict over defining the powers of the president and the powers of the PM. Second (paradoxically), the system may actually make the president stronger when the president, PM and majority are all from the same party.

POL 190 Institutions and Participation Notes 5

Accountability in Presidential and Parliamentary systems of government

Presidential

Parliamentary

Vertical accountability (control over elected

officials by voters)

 Multiple elections: many opportunities for voters

 Regular election schedule: predictable, allows voters to evaluate officials and to replace/remove officials

 Single General Election: raises stakes and visibility of choices for voters and candidates

 Irregular schedule: retains public/majority control over whole legislature

Horizontal accountability (control over elected

officials by other players within government)

 Formal separation of powers (executive, legislative, judicial)

 Checks and balances: mandatory oversight, joint decision-making by executive and legislature

 Veto power of president

 Impeachment of elected officials

 Judicial review: courts have oversight

 Vote of no confidence: immediate removal and replacement of the PM/cabinet

 Public, regular reporting by PM/Cabinet to Majority MPs. Executive accountable to majority members

 Opposition in parliament acts as public watch-dog (non-veto oversight) of majority

 Judicial review: courts have oversight (limited)

Combining Political Institutions So far we have looked at these institutional arrangements/choices (federal vs. unitary, and presidential vs. parliamentary) as separate ways of structuring government. We should, however remember that these sets of rules are combined in specific countries and that the combination is the basic building blocks for organizing democratic politics. The combination of institutions allows us to make several observations about important aspects of politics in democratic countries:

 The number of key ‘players’ in the system and the number of ‘veto points’

 The level of conflict among the levels and branches of government

 The effectiveness of government (e.g. ability to pass laws, or respond to crises)

 The ease (or difficulty) of changing the rules (e.g. the constitution)

 The number of opportunities that voters have to elect representatives (how many elections— ‘vertical accountability’)

 The number of representatives that voters have to act on their behalf

 How elected officials are held accountable while in office (‘horizontal accountability’)

 The number of opportunities that lobbyists/interest groups can have to influence the process

POL 190 Institutions and Participation Notes 6

Executive-Legislative System

Presidential (separation of powers)

Parliamentary (fusion of powers)

Geographical Centralization

of Authority

Federal (de-centralized

decision-making)

Maximum veto-points, largest number of decision

makers (e.g. US, Nigeria, Brazil,

Venezuela)

Few veto points in the central government, important veto points at the regional level

(e.g. India, Canada, Germany)

Unitary (centralized decision-

making)

Important veto points in the central government, no

important veto points at the regional level

(e.g. Peru, Colombia, Chile, South Korea)

Minimum veto-points, fewest number of decision

makers (e.g. Japan, UK, Spain,

Sweden)

Thus far the discussion has focused on the institutions that structure government. Within each set/combination of rules, however, the number of actors is also a critical ingredient:

 How many parties are there in the legislature?

 Why are there more parties in some countries than in others? These are critical issues, as the number of players can add an additional layer of complexity in the system. In some democracies, there may coalitions of parties that control the legislature. In others there may be a single party that controls the legislative and executive functions. The next section discusses how parties interact with governing institutions in democracies to create specific kinds of results.

POL 190 Institutions and Participation Notes 7

III. Party Systems and Election Rules in Democracies Central Question: Why does the number of parties differ across democracies? The number of parties in a democracy has implications of the question for the number of choices/options that voters have, the level/quality of public debate, and the ability of voters to ensure oversight/ accountability over government Types of ‘Party Systems’: over time, a democracy may develop a relatively stable ‘set’ of parties

Dominant party system Multiple parties exist, but one wins every election and governs continuously. e.g., Mexico’s PRI until 2000; Japan’s LDP until 1990s, the ANC in South Africa since 1994

Two-party system Only two parties win, although more may compete. e.g., UK, U.S.

‘Two and a half’ party system Two large parties win most votes but not enough for majority, which requires coalition with a smaller third party e.g., Germany, Canada

Multi-party systems More than two parties win enough seats and must govern in coalition e.g., India, Israel, most of Western Europe

2 Explanations for the number of parties in a democracy Sociological Explanation

 Party systems reflects the divisions or ‘social cleavages’ e.g. divisions between classes (in the UK and Germany) or between regions/culture/languages (e.g. in India, Canada, Nigeria)

Institutional Explanation

 Election rules (the system for converting votes into seats) shapes the party system. ‘Duverger’s Law’ Simple majority elections rewards/leads to the survival of two parties; other systems lead to multiple parties in the legislature

Election Rules in Democracies 2 most common systems for legislative elections: ‘First Past the Post’ (FPTP) or simple majority vs. Proportional Representation (PR) The First Past the Post, ‘Simple Majority’ or ‘Majoritarian’ Election Rule (e.g. the US, UK, India, Nigeria) (also known formally as the ‘single member district plurality’ election system)

Basic Rules

 ‘First Past the Post’ (FPTP) system: the candidate with a majority of the votes wins election/seat

 There is only one winner in an election in a geographical district (hence a ‘single member district’)

 There is little incentive for voters who do not support one of the 2 likely winners in a district

 The party winning the most districts/seats ‘wins’ the election (and controls the legislature)

 The largest 2 parties undercut/absorb smaller “Third” parties (the two biggest parties dominate)

 Interest groups and financial backers pick and support one or both of the 2 likely winners (not third parties)

 The media focuses on a ‘horse race’ of the 2 front runners (not third parties) Two Scenarios of a “Winning” Candidate under FPTP election Rules

1. Simple (absolute) Majority winner Candidate 1  49% Candidate 2  51% (wins election)

2. ‘Plurality’ Winner (not an absolute majority) Candidate 1  25% Candidate 2  40% (wins election) Candidate 3  35%

POL 190 Institutions and Participation Notes 8

Advantages of the FPTP election rule

 Aggregation of divergent interests/demands: The 2 leading parties make efforts to reach out to many voters, and representation of groups lies within parties

 Leads to clear winners who have authority (a single winner in each district, and a single party controlling the legislature): voters have a clear focus for accountability

 Easy-to-follow system for voters, media, interest groups: low information/skill burden for voters

Problems of the FPTP election system The FPTP system has been observed to create several important problems: it often results in a legislature or government that does not reflect the choices of a majority of voters (a core principle of democratic government)

 The FPTP rule rewards the party that wins the most seats, not necessarily the most votes. It may thus lead to unrepresentative government and legislation (a violation of the basic goals of representative democracy).

 The FPTP election rule undermines the motivation to vote (and thus depresses voter turnout over time).

 Uneven attention to districts in elections: Smaller districts and very highly contested ones will be “battleground” districts in elections. Parties will spend most of their efforts trying to win in those districts, and may make special appeals to voters there in order to gain their support (even though those districts have less than half of the total voters).

 Small party voters are “wasted”. supporters of small parties are effectively excluded. They may have had good policy ideas, or be the representatives of a marginalized group. They have no chance of winning a seat or control of the legislature. Their best option after the election is to merge with a larger party and so gain some representation in the legislature.

 Reduced options, choices for voters over time: The FPTP election system reduces voter’s choices to the two front runners and their policies. The candidates of the two ‘viable’ parties contesting elections at all levels seek to maximize their share of the vote in many varied districts, so the leaders of these parties have an incentive to offer broad programs that appeal to all.

Proportional Representation (PR) Election system (e.g. Germany, Sweden, Brazil)

Basic Rules of the PR system

 Seats assigned to parties as a percent of the total votes received

 Result: many smaller parties get representatives elected

 Coalitions have to be formed to pass legislation or to form a government

 Voter turnout is high, as no votes are “wasted”

 Parties are more focused and target specific ideas or interests PR election systems operate with what are called “multi-member districts”: each district would have several representatives from each party. The PR system thus increases the number of legislators who represent voters in each district to more than a single majority ‘winner’. Who ‘wins’ a PR election? Answer: Coalitions of parties. “What if many parties get only a small percentage (say, 1%) of the total vote”? Answer: Hurdles or Thresholds. Many countries operating the PR election system have a ‘minimum required share of the national vote’ (a hurdle): parties have to get a minimum of 5% (a random number, it could be set at 2, 8, or 10%) of the total vote to get their first seat. The effect: reduction of the number of very small parties in the legislature. Parties that can only muster less than 5% have a strong incentive to merge, and to form a larger vote-winning group.

Advantages of the PR system

 Representation: The legislature more accurately reflects the voting choices of the public

 It maximizes turnout, and encourages an active and informed public

POL 190 Institutions and Participation Notes 9

 Increases the number of voter options: more parties/platforms that voters can choose from

 Creates many more representatives for voters: increases chances for accountability

 Policymaking by compromises: policy is always the product of explicit deals between parties, and directly ties to voters demands

Problems of the PR Election rule

 Election rule creates an incentive to the fragmentation of politics: small parties rewarded

 Accountability: Voters have difficulty in assigning credit or blame, or to evaluate various policies

 Elections become intense conflicts between small parties and even factions within parties

 Weak coalitions can lead to unstable government

 Compromises between parties in coalitions can dilute policy options

 Uneven representation: regional/local problems may get less attention than national issues

Election Rules Compared: ‘First Past the Post’ vs. ‘Proportional Representation’

FPTP PR

Main focus of system geography/district centered Program/party centered

# of competitive parties 2 more than 2

Need for coalitions generally low generally high

Impact on small parties negative, unless small parties have strong regional support

base

positive, encourages their formation and organization

Voter turnout

tendency to decline or be low tendency to be high

Combining Political Institutions Part 2: We can now integrate the governing institutions with the number of parties: the result is a more fine-grained comparison of politics across democracies

Executive-Legislative System

Presidential

Parliamentary

Election system PR FPTP PR FPTP

Federal

Brazil (most fragmented, most

veto points)

US, Nigeria

Germany*

India, Canada

Unitary

Peru

France

South Korea

UK (least fragmented, fewest veto

points)

Summary The ‘payoff’ of investigating how institutional “rules of the game” shape politics:

 They provide an explanation for the rational motivations of politicians

 They explain the nature of the legislative process and content of laws/policies

 They allow us to compare the powers and capabilities of executive branch politicians (presidents vs. prime ministers)

 Institutional rules can be changed and re-arranged. New democracies especially have the opportunity to create constitutions that combine different institutional rules.

 They are important indications of the range of choice and options open to voters

 They are important guidelines for the controls that voters have over their representatives

 We can explain and predict the degree of conflict in politics by understanding how institutional rules affect the number of players and their degree of cooperation or competition

POL 190 Institutions and Participation Notes 10

INSTITUTIONS and PARTICIPATION: List of Key Terms and Concepts

 Institution

 Centralization

 Federal/federalism

 Unitary

 Malapportionment

 Presidential system

 Parliamentary system

 Semi-Presidential system

 Executive

 Legislature/legislative

 Judiciary

 Checks and balances

 Separation of powers

 Fusion of powers

 Cabinet

 Representatives

 Member of Parliament

 Prime Minister

 Majoritarian

 Coalition

 Opposition

 General election

 Early/Snap election

 Vote of no confidence

 Party manifesto/platform

 Parliamentary sovereignty

 Semi-presidential system

 Veto points

 Horizontal accountability

 Vertical accountability

 Party system

 Two party system

 Multi-party system

 Social cleavages

 Duverger’s Law

 First past the post (FPTP) (simple majority/single member district plurality) election system

 Proportional representation (PR) election system

 Closed-list PR election system

 Open-list PR election system

 Multi-member districts

 Voter Turnout

 PR election hurdle or threshold

 Third party

 Median voter