What Is the Difference between Unicameral and Bicameral Systems? Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Define unicameral and bicameral legislature. Outline which types of legislative systems exist in different parts of the world. Analyze the relative advantages and disadvantages of each type of legislative system. One key structural component of legislatures is the number of chambers that they have. The two most common options for chamber structure are unicameral and bicameral. A unicameral legislature has only one chamber, or body, that makes decisions. A bicameral legislature has two chambers, often with different procedures and powers, that ultimately must work together to make policy and exercise other legislative powers and responsibilities. Strengths and Weaknesses of a Unicameral Legislature One of the main strengths of unicameral legislatures is that they create a more efficient legislative process. In a unicameral legislature, bills only need to go before and be debated by one set of decision makers, whereas in a bicameral legislature, both chambers must debate and approve bills in order for them to have a chance of becoming laws. This legislative efficiency is particularly valued in more homogenous societies, where having venues for different voices and perspectives is not seen as particularly important. In these societies, political parties are considered sufficient to protect diverse interests. Unicameral systems do not lend themselves to oversight and checks on the power of the legislature. In bicameral systems, the need to pass legislation through another chamber is a natural “veto point”; if there is support for legislation in one chamber but not the other, that may reflect broad concerns of a segment of the public, so the public’s preferences are better served when both chambers weigh in and consider a piece of legislation. The lack of a natural “veto point” is particularly apparent in unicameral parliamentary systems, where a prime minister with a strong governing majority faces almost no constraints from either a separate chamber or an effective minority opposition. Strengths and Weaknesses of a Bicameral Legislature Bicameral systems make up approximately one-half of legislatures around the world. Bicameralism is largely thought to allow the structures of a political system to reflect different voices and priorities. In bicameral systems, there is often a lower chamber, more closely associated with the perspective of the people, and an upper chamber, which might reflect different territories or classes. Paolo Passaglia, “Unicameralism, Bicameralism, Multicameralism: Evolution and Trends in Europe,” Perspectives on Federalism 10, no. 2 (2018): 1–29, http://www.on-federalism.eu/index.php/articles/291-unicameralism-bicameralism-multicameralism-evolution-and-trends-in-europe. For example, in the German parliamentary system, the lower chamber, the Bundestag , is directly elected by the public, while the upper chamber, the Bundesrat , is supposed to represent the 16 Länder, or states. While each state has between three and six votes on legislation, all of a state’s votes in the Bundesrat must be cast as a bloc, either for or against a piece of legislation. “Voting,” Plenary Sessions, Bundesrat, accessed October 15, 2021, https://www.bundesrat.de/EN/funktionen-en/plenarsitzung-en/abstimmung-en/abstimmung-en-node.html The idea is that the vote should represent the state’s interests, not the interests of the individuals representing the state. The two chambers create a system of checks and balances within the legislative branch so that any legislation that can survive the legislative branch process is much more likely to succeed. Student journalists participate in a 2017 celebration of youth journalism taking place on the floor of the German Bundesrat. Note how the names of the Länder are affixed to the desks, highlighting the importance of representing a particular region. (credit: “Preisverleihung - SZWdL17” by Jugendpresse Deutschland/Timon Suhk/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) There are important weaknesses to bicameral systems. First, the legislative process is inefficient. After a bill has been investigated, debated, and voted on in one chamber, it must go to a second chamber and complete the whole process again. This can both significantly extend the time it takes for a piece of legislation to pass and dramatically raise the odds that a piece of legislation will die before it gets to a vote, as at every stage along the way there are two sets of decision makers who can choose not to proceed with a piece of legislation. This phenomenon played a significant role in preventing comprehensive immigration reform in the United States in the first two decades of the 21st century. One nuance of the American legislative process is that bills that haven’t passed both chambers of Congress expire at the end of each two-year session. Although a number of different pieces of immigration legislation were introduced between 2000 and 2020, and some passed either the House or the Senate, no comprehensive immigration legislation was signed into law. Daniel González and Dan Nowicki, “Timeline: Immigration Reform,” Arizona Republic , updated November 24, 2014, https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2014/06/22/immigration-reform-timeline-notch/11232797/. Additionally, both chambers must pass the exact same text of legislation. As many systems allow both chambers to amend legislation, a piece of legislation can bounce back and forth between the two chambers until they can agree on a final version. That can also add significant time and inefficiencies to the legislative process. Another weakness of bicameralism is that it can suffer from gridlock when different parties hold the majority in each chamber, particularly when the two parties in charge have significant policy and ideological disagreements. The strengths and weaknesses of bicameralism are two sides of the same coin. A system that, by design, allows for more voices can become a system where nothing can happen, as disagreement in the legislature can cause everything to come to a screeching halt. Frequency of Unicameral and Bicameral Legislatures around the World Approximately half of the countries around the world have bicameral legislatures (in green), while the other half have unicameral legislatures (in blue). A few countries, for example China and Iran, have unicameral legislatures with separate advisory bodies (brown), and a couple others have no legislature at all (red). (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA 4.0 license) A quick look around the world shows some interesting patterns. Many large countries have a bicameral legislative system. In part, this reflects the influence that the United States and European countries have around the globe. But a significant number of countries, including countries in western and southern Africa, Central America, the Middle East, and northern Europe, as well as many island nations, have unicameral legislatures. What characteristics do you think influence countries to adopt one structure of legislature versus the other? There are also two primary types of organizing systems in legislatures. First, there are legislatures with only one chamber, which are called unicameral. Second, there are legislatures with two chambers, called bicameral legislatures. Unicameral legislatures are thought to be more efficient than bicameral legislatures, but bicameral legislatures are designed to take into account a variety of different viewpoints. bicameral describes a legislature with two chambers, usually an upper chamber and a lower chamber unicameral describes a legislature with a single chamber

Social Sciences


The Decline of Legislative Influence Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Identify the different challenges legislatures face. Articulate the reasons why different types of legislatures may face different challenges. Define party polarization. The political world is in constant flux, with institutions constantly evolving to meet the moment. In many places around the world, despite all the powers that legislatures have and the vital role they play in our political structures, legislatures face significant challenges to their ability to play their prescribed role. Some of these challenges are internal, some are the result of external forces, and some are broader challenges that affect the larger political system. Let’s consider three major challenges legislatures face in the 21st century: executive dominance, legislative deference, and polarization. Growth in Executive Dominance Executive dominance is the phenomenon in which leaders, particularly in systems with an executive that is separate from the legislature, expand their powers and justify those expanded powers so that many see them as legitimate and acceptable. Episodes of executive dominance may occur incrementally, with executives taking actions over time that individually represent small expansions of power but ultimately result in large changes. In other cases, executives radically expand their authority, sometimes but not exclusively in times of crisis, and have sufficient support from others in the government, the media, or the public to prevent any effective reprisals for their actions. Regardless of the method of expansion, the act of executive dominance is gradually normalized, forming a new basis for understanding that executive’s powers. Executive dominance is a form of external threat to the legislature, as the increased power of the executive often reduces the power of the legislature. For example, in the United States, recent presidents have used executive action, such as executive orders , memoranda, and proclamations, to achieve their policy goals with increasing frequency when they have been unable to accomplish desired policy changes via Congress. Presidents Obama and Trump both relied on executive action to shape immigration and border policy, with President Obama using it to create the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and President Trump using it to secure funding for a border wall between the United States and Mexico. Executive dominance also occurs outside the United States. At the beginning of 2020, Russian president Vladimir Putin put forward a number of legislative proposals that successfully changed the Russian constitution to extend his term in office, raising the possibility that he could remain in power for the rest of his lifetime. Ben Noble and Nikolay Petrov, “From Constitution to Law: Implementing the 2020 Russian Constitutional Changes,” Russian Politics 6, no. 1 (2021): 130–152, https://doi.org/10.30965/24518921-00601008. Scholars who have analyzed this legislation highlight that it increases the president’s power over the legislature and the judiciary and reduces the power of the Federal Assembly. Modern presidents of the United States have relied more and more heavily on executive action in the last 40 years, particularly as the two political parties in Congress have grown more polarized, making policy change via legislation more difficult to accomplish. (credit: “President Trump Signs an Executive Order on Strengthening the Child Welfare System for America’s Children” by Trump White House Archived/Andrea Hanks/Flickr, Public Domain) Whatever the nature of the political system in which it occurs, executive dominance diminishes the power of the legislature, both in terms of the branch’s own responsibilities and in terms of its power to check the executive. In most democratic countries, the legislature is responsible for making policy. To justify their efforts to gain more policy-making authority, executives may note the absence of legislation in a particular area. When the executive takes on that authority, legislatures are often unable to gather the necessary support to regain control of that policy area. Additionally, as these kinds of actions become more normalized in the political system, it can become more difficult for legislatures to check the power of the executive, as the more often these actions occur, the less responsive the system becomes to what would have been considered executive overreach in the past. Over time, acts of executive dominance accumulate to shift the balance of power away from the legislature. Growth in Legislative Deference Legislatures also face internal threats in the form of legislative deference . Legislative deference occurs when legislatures give power to another branch of government, either by refusing to take action or by approving anything the other branch wants. A legislature may refuse to take action because the executive wants to handle an issue themselves or because the legislature fears being blamed for an unpopular policy. Or the legislature may simply approve, or “rubber stamp,” any proposal put forward, usually by the executive. Legislative approval that comes when the legislature has no option other than to approve the measure reflects the weakness of the legislature and poses a clear threat to legislative independence. Executive dominance and legislative deference are distinct but often connected, as it is difficult for an executive to expand their powers without some level of legislative deference, and it can be hard for the legislature to step back and let others make decisions if the executive is not willing to take the lead. Yet the existence of one threat to legislatures does not guarantee the presence of the other. Legislatures can, for example, support an executive’s proposal on climate change without actually giving more power to the executive. Legislative deference and executive dominance are more about patterns of behavior over time than about any single decision. Growth in Polarization One of the biggest challenges threatening legislatures is the rise in polarization . Polarization occurs when people or groups are divided between two extremes on an issue or position. Polarization is a systemic threat that can affect politics all across a political system. Often, polarization starts with political actors taking more partisan and ideological positions, Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006). but over time, voters tend to become more polarized as well, identifying more strongly with a political party or ideology. Morris P. Fiorina and Samuel J. Abrams, “Political Polarization in the American Public,” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (2008): 563–588, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836. Party polarization in legislatures can threaten the ability of a legislature to be effective. Many legislatures around the world have seen a rise in the number of seats held by far-right and far-left parties, including the European Parliament following the 2019 elections, which you can learn about in the video below. Polarization has also occurred when parties in the legislature have stayed the same, but the positions those parties hold have become more extreme. In legislatures with either slim majorities or coalition governments, polarization can lead to gridlock, as support will only come from co-partisans; if a party attempts to pass a piece of legislation and faces any internal opposition, the proposal is dead on arrival, as members of minority or opposition parties will often refuse to support the majority’s legislation. For much of the 20th century in the United States, members of the Democratic and Republican Parties worked together across party lines on legislation. However, since the early 1980s, that has become less and less common, with members increasingly only supporting legislation if it comes from their own party. Sean M. Theriault, The Gingrich Senators (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). Parties have had to rely more heavily on parliamentary maneuvers to pass any significant legislation, as bipartisan cooperation is anywhere from difficult to near impossible to secure. Populist Parties Make Gains in European Parliament Elections In this segment from CBS News following the results of the European Parliament elections in 2019, journalists analyze what the rise of both right and left populist parties might mean for trans-European legislation and politics. Even in legislatures where one party has a large majority, polarization is still a risk, as it can make the legislation that gets passed more extreme. If public support for that legislation or party dwindles, there is heightened risk that the next election will be a disaster for the current majority, causing control of the legislature to swing from one extreme to another. Political parties with clear positions and differences are useful for winning elections and for public accountability. APSA Committee on Political Parties, “Summary of Conclusions and Proposals,” in “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System: A Report of the Committee on Political Parties,” special issue, American Political Science Review 44, no. 3 pt. 2 (September 1950): 1–14, https://doi.org/10.2307/1950998. However, it is dangerous for legislatures when the gap between the parties grows so large that effective legislating grinds to a halt. Public Speaking Members of the SPD political party listen to a speech by former leader of the European Parliament Martin Schulz in Cologne, Germany. (credit: “SPD Supporters at a Speech by Martin Schulz in Cologne” by Marco Verch/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) Before running for office, many legislators have other careers. Some are lawyers or businesspeople, while others are doctors, policy advocates, or members of the armed forces. No matter what path people travel before they run for office, all legislators need to develop public speaking skills. Whether on the campaign trail or debating a piece of legislation, the ability to get up and share one’s thoughts with a group of people is critical for the successful aspiring legislator or policy advocate. There are a number of different ways you can develop those skills; your school might offer courses in public speaking or debate, but an acting class in the drama or theater department may also offer you the chance to practice your oratory skills. Additionally, campus activities such as moot court or Model United Nations can serve as an excellent way to stretch your public speaking skills while also learning about aspects of political science. Legislatures face a number of challenges to their power and independence. Some of those challenges are external, such as executive dominance, in which the growing power of presidents and prime ministers threatens to overtake the power of the legislature. Other threats are internal, particularly legislative deference, in which because of either an inability to come together and act or a desire to avoid difficult issues, the legislature gives up power to other branches. Finally, some threats are systemic, such as increasing polarization, which has shown up both in the public and in legislatures. Without considering the threats to the legislature, it is impossible to understand the full scope of its work and its place in the political system. Suggested Readings Arter, David. “Introduction: Comparing the Legislative Performance of Legislatures.” Journal of Legislative Studies 12, no. 3–4 (2006): 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572330600875423. Fenno, Richard F., Jr. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts . Boston: Little, Brown, 1978. Gamm, Gerald, and John Huber. “Legislatures as Political Institutions: Beyond the Contemporary Congress.” In Political Science: State of the Discipline , edited by Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner, 313–343. New York: W. W. Norton, 2002. Huber, John D. “The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Political Science Review 90, no.2 (June 1996): 269–282. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2082884. Mayhew, David R. Congress: The Electoral Connection . 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004. executive dominance a phenomenon in which leaders expand their powers beyond their prior limits and are able to justify those expanded powers so that they are seen by many as legitimate and acceptable legislative deference a phenomenon in which legislatures cede power to another branch of government, either by refusing to take action or by approving anything the other branch wants polarization the division of people or groups between two extremes on an issue or position

Social Sciences


Introduction President Jimmy Carter met with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1977. (credit: “ [President Jimmy Carter and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat surrounded by the media at the White House, Washington, D.C.] ” by Trikosko, Marion S./Library of Congress) When things go bad you get entirely too much blame. And I have to admit that when things go good, you get entirely too much credit. —President Jimmy Carter Quoted in Godfrey Hodgson, All Things to All Men: The False Promise of the Modern American Presidency (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1980), 25. When Jimmy Carter made the statement quoted at the beginning of this chapter, he was still enjoying relatively high public approval ratings due to the success of the Camp David Accords , which resulted in a framework for peace in the Middle East, in September 1978. William Greider and Barry Sussman, “Poll Finds Carter Popularity Soars,” The Washington Post, September 24, 1978, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/09/24/poll-finds-carter-popularity-soars/839c355b-f76a-430c-89a8-94e7da943cce/. In less than a year, his public approval ratings would tumble due to a problematic economy and a belief that Carter did not provide strong leadership. Adam Clymer, “Carter’s Standing Drops to New Low in Times-CBS Poll,” The New York Times, June 10, 1979, https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/10/archives/carters-standing-drops-to-new-low-in-timescbs-poll-approval-falls.html. Early in 2020, the world faced the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and countries struggled to respond. The pandemic shaped our world in ways that we are still attempting to grapple with and understand, and it revealed the nature of politics and governmental systems. Almost immediately, each country’s citizens expected and demanded action. This was true both in countries with presidential regimes and in those with parliamentary regimes. Each country turned to its chief executive for leadership, and leaders were judged by the effectiveness of their actions. While political systems are complex and nuanced, most citizens’ approach to politics, especially during a crisis, is simple and straightforward—they look to the chief executive to solve the problem. Whether or not executives have the power to solve the problem, the public tends to assume they do. Oftentimes, how people view a single individual—the chief executive—shapes how they view the entire government.

Social Sciences


Democracies: Parliamentary, Presidential, and Semi-Presidential Regimes Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Identify the three types of democratic regimes. Distinguish between the roles of “head of state” and “head of government” and describe how each is typically selected by regime. Describe and evaluate the importance of the head of state for government legitimacy and national unity. Democratic regimes are typically classified into three categories: presidential, parliamentary, and semi-presidential. Nils-Christian Bormann and Matt Golder, “Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946–2011,” Electoral Studies 32, no. 2 (June 2013), 360–369. The keys to understanding the differences among the three are (1) how the head of government is selected and (2) if there is a separate head of state who is popularly elected to a fixed term of office. In presidential regimes , heads of government are popularly elected to fixed terms and do not depend on legislatures for their power. Presidents also serve as heads of state. In parliamentary regimes , the head of government, the prime minister , is selected by the legislature. Semi-presidential regimes include a popularly elected head of state and a legislature selected head of government. In semi-presidential regimes , both presidents and prime ministers wield political power. See and . Head of Government Presidential Parliamentary Semi-Presidential Selection Method Popular election Selected by the legislature Selected by the legislature Fixed Term? Yes No No Responsible to Legislature? No Yes Yes Heads of Government in Democratic Regimes Using Witten/Herdecke University professor Nils-Christian Bormann and Penn State University professor Matt Golder ’s classification and supplementing the data with former Dublin City University professor Robert Elgie ’s list of semi-presidential countries, approximately 36 percent of democracies are parliamentary, 25 percent are presidential, and 39 percent are semi-presidential. (See .) Following a traditional approach within comparative politics, this chapter will focus primarily on parliamentary and presidential regimes and not semi-presidential ones. Even though semi-presidential regimes comprise a large category, they are not easily defined and have considerable variation. José Antonio Cheibub, Zachary Elkins, and Tom Ginsburg, “Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarianism,” British Journal of Political Science 44, no. 3 (July 2014): 515–544. Head of State Presidential Parliamentary Semi-Presidential Selection Method Typically, the head of government is also the head of state. There is considerable variation, including elected (e.g., Germany) and unelected (e.g., Great Britain) methods. Generally, the head of state is selected by popular election. Fixed Term? Yes Depends if position is elected or unelected. Elected are fixed term; unelected are not fixed term and include hereditary monarchies (e.g., Belgium). Yes Responsible to Legislature? No Yes In select situations, potentially. Enjoys dual authority with prime minister, but there is considerable variation across countries regarding the scope of authority the head of state has. Heads of State in Democratic Regimes As of 2018, presidential systems were the least common regime type among democratic countries. (data source: Nils-Christian Bormann and Matt Golder. “Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946–2011.” Electoral Studies 32 (2013): 360–369; Robert Elgie. “Up-to-Date List of Semi-Presidential Countries with Dates.” The Semi-Presidential One (blog). Last updated June 28, 2018. http://www.semipresidentialism.com/up-to-date-list-of-semi-presidential-countries-with-dates/; attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA 4.0 license) The Roles of Chief Executives within Democratic Regimes: Head of State Chief executives play two general roles: head of state and head of government . Head of state is a ceremonial role, while head of government is a political one that confers real power. Within a presidential regime, the president is both head of state and head of government. In a parliamentary regime, however, the roles are separate, with a president (as in Germany or India) or emperor (as in Japan) serving as head of state and the prime minister (or, in Germany, the chancellor) serving as head of government. While the position of head of state is largely ceremonial, images and symbols are extremely important, and the head of state provides a national symbol for a country’s citizens that works to unify a country. It would be a mistake to view the head of state as a mere figurehead. Heads of state attend national celebrations, host events such as state dinners, and often play a role in sporting events. For example, Queen Elizabeth II opened the 2012 Olympic Games in London. Similarly, Japan’s Emperor Naruhito opened the Summer 2020 Olympic Games held in Tokyo from July to August 2021. Their visibility is important to national identity. Heads of State Open the Olympic Games In this video, heads of state—including a führer, kings, a queen, a duke, an emperor, a chairperson, a governor-general, a vice president, and multiple presidents—preside over Olympic opening ceremonies. Illustrating the unifying role a head of state provides, one of the more memorable moments of President George W. Bush ’s first administration was when he threw the ceremonial first pitch in game 3 of the 2001 World Series. Taken just a few short months after 9/11 , the pictures of him at the mound, throwing a strike, are iconic. Presidents are the most recognizable leaders of their countries, and one of the key roles they play is to symbolically represent the state. Additionally, sports are intricately woven into each country’s cultural fabric. Baseball is known as “America’s pastime.” When President Bush threw the ceremonial first pitch, he stood as a unifying symbol relatable to people across party lines. As noted author David Fisher observed: “I didn’t vote for him. But at that point, my personal feelings about him as a politician [were] gone. I watched him, and he was my representative. And I had never felt that way before.” This YouTube clip by Townhall provides a great overview of the event and the event’s importance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxR1tZ08FcI. Fisher’s quote comes at the 3:38 mark. See https://us.macmillan.com/author/davidfisher/. Nineteen years later, writing for Newsweek , Marina Watts commented on the power of imagery: “That night, the first pitch meant more than just ‘play ball.’ It meant moving forward. It meant unity. With that throw, Bush helped heal a city and a nation.” Marina Watts, “Why George Bush’s 2001 World Series First Pitch Meant More Than Just ‘Play Ball,’” Newsweek , September 11, 2020, https://www.newsweek.com/why-george-bushs-2001-world-series-first-pitch-meant-more-just-play-ball-1531324. President George W. Bush’s Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium after 9-11 This video portrays the ceremony and symbolism of a leader acting in the role of head of state. Heads of state also provide legitimacy to a government. While all states have coercive power, democratic governments depend upon citizen recognition that the authority the state has and the power it exerts are legitimate. When the head of state is separate from the head of government, the head of state can play a significant role in establishing and reinforcing the legitimacy of that government. Queen Elizabeth II opens Canada’s 23rd Parliament in the Senate Chamber, Ottawa, Ontario. (credit: “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II opens Canada’s 23rd Parliament in the Senate Chamber, Ottawa, Ontario” by Library and Archives Canada, Public Domain) In Great Britain, the Queen invites the winning party’s leader to form a government, and the Queen then gives a speech prepared by that new government laying out the government’s policy agenda and legislative initiatives. The new government has immediate legitimacy based on both winning elections and the visible support of the Crown. Often, the Queen’s representative performs her duties as head of state in the 16 Commonwealth realms, like Australia and New Zealand, but early in her reign Queen Elizabeth II traveled more extensively and performed more of those duties in person. The Roles of Chief Executives within Democratic Regimes: Head of Government As head of government , the chief executive has both the power and the authority to take action. Both presidents and prime ministers serve as heads of their governments as they take the lead in setting policy agendas, crafting legislation, and responding to crises. As previously noted, they are the ones people look to for solutions to a nation’s problems and the ones citizens hold accountable. An April 2020 Al Jazeera headline puts it bluntly: “ COVID-19 pandemic is testing world leaders. Who’s stepping up?” Zaheena Rasheed, “COVID-19 Pandemic Is Testing World Leaders. Who’s Stepping Up?” Al Jazeera , April 3, 2020, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/4/3/covid-19-pandemic-is-testing-world-leaders-whos-stepping-up. To illustrate how people evaluate a leader based on that leader’s response to a crisis, consider the cases of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Donald Trump of the United States. In their summer 2020 Global Attitudes survey, Pew Research found that 88 percent of Germans reported that their country had “done a good job dealing with the coronavirus outbreak.” For the United States, only 47 percent of Americans responded the same. Jacob Poushter and J. J. Moncus, “How People in 14 Countries View the State of the World in 2020,” Pew Research Center, September 23, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/23/how-people-in-14-countries-view-the-state-of-the-world-in-2020/. Pew also found that 76 percent of Germans reported confidence in Merkel “to do the right thing regarding world affairs,” the highest such rating among world leaders. Within her own country, Merkel’s approval rating was 72 percent. Constanze Stelzenmüller, “Angela Merkel’s Final Year,” Order from Chaos (blog), Brookings, September 30, 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/09/30/angela-merkels-final-year/. This link to the polling report appears in the article: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend-2321.pdf. Nevertheless, as the pandemic raged on, her support fell, and her party “fared poorly” in elections. Holly Ellyatt, “Confidence in Merkel’s Leadership Falters as Germany’s Pandemic Drags,” CNBC , March 26, 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/26/germanys-merkel-and-cdu/csu-popularity-falls-during-the-pandemic-.html. In the United States, Donald Trump’s approval ratings make clear voters’ perceptions of how his administration responded to the pandemic. In September 2020, Trump’s 44 percent approval rating was nearly identical to the percent of respondents who believed the country was doing a good job dealing with COVID-19. “President Trump: Job Ratings,” PollingReport.com, https://www.pollingreport.com/djt_job2.htm#Gallup. The September number is an average of two Gallup polls (8/31 to 9/13 and 9/14 to 9/28). In November 2020, Trump was defeated in his bid for reelection. In exit polls, 17 percent of respondents indicated that the coronavirus was the most important issue affecting their vote. It was the third most frequently mentioned issue, behind the economy and racial inequality. Of those respondents who indicated coronavirus as the most important issue, 81 percent voted for Joe Biden . “Exit Polls,” CNN , https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results. While Trump’s handling of the issue was only one factor in his defeat, it was a significant factor. Prior to the election, 55 percent of respondents indicated that the pandemic was a very important issue to how they would vote. Amina Dunn, “Only 24% of Trump Supporters View the Coronavirus Outbreak as a ‘Very Important’ Voting Issue,” Pew Research Center, October 21, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/21/only-24-of-trump-supporters-view-the-coronavirus-outbreak-as-a-very-important-voting-issue/. Please note there is no inherent contradiction between 17 percent on Election Day stating the coronavirus was the most important issue and 55 percent of respondents stating before the election that it was a very important issue. For the CNN exit poll, respondents can only choose one issue as most important. For the Pew Research poll, respondents considered each issue independently and were asked to rate that issue’s importance. Democratic systems are classified into three categories: presidential regimes, parliamentary regimes, and semi-presidential regimes. Within each regime, there is a head of government as well as a head of state. In presidential regimes, the head of government is directly elected by the citizens and also serves as the head of state. In parliamentary and semi-presidential regimes, the head of government and head of state are separate individuals, and the legislature selects the head of government. Generally, the head of state is a ceremonial role, while the head of government holds political power and takes the lead in setting the policy agenda. head of government performed by a country’s leader, a political role in which the individual leads the country’s government head of state performed by country’s leader, a ceremonial role in which the individual symbolically represents the country parliamentary regimes democratic government systems in which the chief executive is selected by the legislative body and is a member of that legislature presidential regimes democratic governments in which the chief executive is selected separately from the legislative body and there exists a separation of powers between the presidency and the legislature prime minister the chief executive and head of government in a parliamentary regime semi-presidential regimes democratic government systems in which executive power is split between a prime minister (selected by the legislature) and a president (directly elected by the citizenry)

Social Sciences


The Executive in Presidential Regimes This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed. —Joseph Goebbels , former minister of propaganda for the Nazi Party Quoted in Gregory H. Fox and Georg Nolte, “Intolerant Democracies,” Harvard International Law Journal 36, no. 1 (Winter 1995): 89. Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Define populism and analyze why presidential regimes may be more vulnerable to populist leaders gaining power. Distinguish between formal powers and informal powers. Describe the term “bully pulpit” and illustrate why it is a significant power that presidents have. Explain why a president’s public approval rating is important as well as its connection to a president’s power to persuade. In some ways, presidential regimes are easy to understand. Voters elect a single individual who they can hold accountable. The system also has the appearance of stability due to the regularity of elections. Arend Lijphart, ed., Parliamentary versus Presidential Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 11. Except for unique structures like the Electoral College in the United States, the direct election of presidents is viewed as more democratic than the indirect selection of prime ministers by a parliament. Ibid., 12–13. Nevertheless, there are downsides to popularly elected presidents, as the rise of populism in the 21st century has demonstrated. Presidential Regimes and Elections As Univeristy of California professor Arend Lijphart notes, the distinctiveness of presidential regimes is that the head of government is a single individual who is popularly elected. Ibid., 2. The election is either direct (for example, in Brazil and the Philippines) or indirect through an electoral college (for example, in the United States). Presidents serve fixed year terms and are typically term-limited. For example, Argentina, Brazil, Kenya, and the United States allow two terms. Some countries, like Colombia and the Philippines, only allow presidents to serve a single term. After serving their terms, presidents are usually ineligible to be reelected. Even so, some countries, like Argentina, simply require the individual to “take a break,” and then the person is reeligible to run for president. In Argentina, the president can serve two four-year terms, sit out for a four-year term, and then be eligible for another two four-year terms. Argentina Constitution, section 90, http://www.biblioteca.jus.gov.ar/Argentina-Constitution.pdf. Presidential Regimes and Populism Targeting the masses with emotional appeals, populism promises individuals a political voice in a system perceived to be ruled by elites. In the early part of the 21st century, the rise of populism and leaders who border on the definition of demagogues pose an increasing threat, with some scholars contending that democracy is in crisis. William G. Howell and Terry M. Moe, Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000). Indeed, democracy provides the opportunity for demagogues and populism. As University of Chicago professor William G. Howell and Stanford University professor Terry M. Moe note: “In ancient Athens, thinkers of the age recognized that their novel system of democratic self-governance lived in constant danger—because by its very nature, in allowing the masses to freely choose their own leaders, it contained the seeds of its own destruction.” Ibid., 7. The Goebbels quote that opens this section alludes to this same point. The essence of populism is “a suspicion of and hostility toward elites, mainstream politics, and established institutions.” Fareed Zarkaria, “Populism on the March: Why the West Is in Trouble,” Foreign Affairs 95, no. 6 (November/December 2016), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-10-17/populism-march. To what extent do democratic systems—presidential and parliamentary—encourage the rise of populist movements and allow populists to remain in power? Do presidential regimes provide greater opportunities for populist leaders to emerge than do parliamentary ones? Which regime type provides greater safeguards against the potential harm that demagogues can inflict once in office? (From left) Former Prime Minister of Slovakia Mikulás Dzurinda, Prime Minister of Slovenia Janez Janša, former Prime Minister of Albania Sali Berisha, and Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán talk at the European People’s Party Summit in 2010. (credit: “EPP Summit 25 March 2010 (125)” by European People’s Party/Flickr, CC BY 2.0) The experiences of the United States and Brazil offer two examples for presidential regimes. The United States has a long history of populism, stretching back to the late 1800s and William Jennings Bryan . President Trump is simply the most recent American populist example. When he began his run for the presidency, Trump struck a populist tone as one who stands against elitists who don’t have ordinary people’s interests in mind; in a Wall Street Journal opinion column, he asked, “How has the ‘system’ been working out for you and your family?” Donald J. Trump, “Let Me Ask America a Question,” The Wall Street Journal , April 14, 2016, https://www.wsj.com/articles/let-me-ask-america-a-question-1460675882. While in office, Trump appealed to specific groups within the electorate, emphasizing a key populist theme: government is ineffective, but he would usher in a new age of responsive and effective government. Ibid., 6-7. Howell and Moe write: “Populists don’t just feed on socioeconomic discontent. They feed on ineffective government—and their great appeal is that they claim to replace it with a government that is effective through their own autocratic power. This generic formula was precisely what Trump followed in the 2016 election.” William G. Howell and Terry M. Moe, Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000). Similarly, elected in 2018, President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, who has been called the “Trump of the tropics,” echoes an antiestablishment rhetoric that populists embrace. Brian Winter, “Messiah Complex: How Brazil Made Bolsonaro,” Foreign Affairs 99, no. 5 (September/October 2020), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/brazil/2020-08-11/jair-bolsonaro-messiah-complex. Nevertheless, parliamentary regimes have also seen populist leaders emerge. Arguably, this has happened in the Czech Republic (Andrej Babiš ), Greece (Alexis Tsipras ), and Hungary (Viktor Orbán ). “Populists in Power around the World,” Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, November 7, 2018, https://institute.global/policy/populists-power-around-world. Additionally, within the last 20 years, some semi-presidential regimes have seen populists emerge in leadership positions (for example, in Poland with Jarosław Kaczyński and in Slovenia with Janez Janša ). Presidential Regimes as Incubators for Populism It can legitimately be argued that populism is more likely to gain ground in a presidential regime than in a parliamentary one. At the very least, presidential regimes serve as incubators. In presidential regimes, government leaders appeal directly to the voters and enjoy a constituency separate from the legislature. Because parties are weaker in presidential regimes, they do less to constrain government leaders. At the candidate selection stage, presidential regimes tend to be candidate centered rather than party centered. In other words, the candidates choose to run for president rather than the party selecting them. In 2016, Donald Trump received no major Republican endorsements prior to the primary season. Yet, he won the Republican nomination and was elected president. To be fair, however, as political commentator Fareed Zakaria notes, a single leader can usurp power within either a presidential or a parliamentary regime. Fareed Zakaria, “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy,” Foreign Affairs 76, no. 6 (November/December 1997): 23–24. The point is that democracy itself, and not simply a particular expression of democracy, is open to its own exploitation. So, on the first question, presidential regimes are slightly more prone to populism. But populists can also arise within parliamentary regimes. Safeguards against Populism Some scholars argue that parliamentary regimes are better able than presidential regimes to respond to the conditions that give rise to a populist movement. William G. Howell and Terry M. Moe, Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 40. Parliamentary democracies not only tend to have stronger welfare systems, but they are also more able to respond with policies that address underlying issues like systemic inequities and inefficient government. And, interestingly enough, the leaders of populist parties in Eastern Europe appear to be losing favor. Andrew Higgins, “Populist Leaders in Eastern Europe Run into a Little Problem: Unpopularity,” The New York Times , June 21, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/world/europe/eastern-europe-populist-leaders-unpopular.html. This does not mean, however, that presidential regimes do not also possess safeguards. Presidential regimes possessing strong institutions and a consolidated democracy have the ability to address the problems demagogues cause even if they do not prevent their emergence. Though the United States has a long history of populist movements, the influence of individual populists in the United States has thus far proven to be rather short lived. What Makes a Populist? This brief clip highlights common traits many populist politicians share. Still, populism does prove to be attractive. Recall that Donald Trump was not the only candidate in recent US election cycles who could be characterized as a populist. In both 2016 and 2020, Senator Bernie Sanders offered a populist alternative from the left. While Sanders did not ultimately win the Democratic nomination in either election cycle, his presence demonstrates populism’s potential appeal across the political spectrum, even if the goals of alternate varieties of populism may differ. The conditions that gave rise to Trump as well as the European populist movements remain, which means that populist movements from both the left and right may arise. William G. Howell and Terry M. Moe, Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2020). At the top of their list of system issues that remain is the ineffectiveness of government. See also Daron Acemoglu, “Trump Won’t Be the Last American Populist: The Conditions That Produced Him Need to be Understood to be Addressed,” Foreign Affairs , November 6, 2020, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-11-06/trump-wont-be-last-american-populist. Finally, the Goebbels quote also illustrates the threat demagogues pose to democracies. Once in office, demagogues have the ability to attempt to change the system by which they were elected. For example, in a tweet, President Trump questioned the legitimacy of voting procedures and whether the 2020 elections should be delayed. Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Martin, and Reid J. Epstein, “Trump Floats an Election Delay, and Republicans Shoot it Down,” The New York Times , July 30, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/us/politics/trump-delay-2020-election.html. However, while individuals matter, institutions matter as well. Democracies with strong institutions have always been able to withstand challenges to the democratic process. Not only was the 2020 election held when scheduled, but the aftermath of the election, with its many court cases, also illustrated that institutions provide the necessary safeguards against demagogues. Executive Power in Presidential Regimes: Formal and Informal Powers Presidents have both formal and informal powers. Veto power, the power to nominate Supreme Court justices (as in the United States), or the power to convene the National Assembly and specify issues the assembly needs to address (as in Ecuador) are all examples of formal powers . Formal powers vary greatly from country to country. Presidents also have informal powers . Informal powers are those that emerge through tradition or custom or that are inherent in the office. It is often said that presidents have a “ bully pulpit ,” which means that, by virtue of their position, presidents have opportunities to speak on issues with the assurance that their voices will be heard. In doing so, presidents can offer direct appeals to citizens to persuade those citizens (and legislatures) that the chief executive’s approach is the correct one. Along these lines, presidential scholar Richard Neustadt states that a president’s greatest power may be his power to persuade . Richard Neustadt, Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership from FDR to Carter (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1980), 10. Empirical Analysis and Executives Former US President Donald Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Former British Prime Minister Theresa May, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi greet one another at the G20 Summit in 2017. (credit: “President Trump’s Trip to Germany and the G20 Summit” by Shealah Craighead/Trump White House Archives/Flickr, Public Domain) When people think about empirical and quantitative analysis, the image that often comes to mind is of a large spreadsheet with rows and rows of often-indecipherable data. While numerical analysis is a component of empirical analysis, it is not the only component. When you analyze the longevity of particular coalition governments or compare the policy outputs of presidential and parliamentary systems, you also engage in empirical analysis. At its core, the idea of empirical analysis is to look at any observable fact—something that is empirical—and gain an understanding of something larger than that one individual fact. Empirical analysis aims to put that fact into a larger context. Do presidential systems tend to represent the policy preferences of the citizens in their societies better than other systems? By studying executives, you hone empirical analysis skills that can be applied in many different contexts. For example, empirical analysis skills can be useful if you decide to become a teacher and you are trying to determine which teaching method may be most successful in your classroom. These skills are also helpful if you are a web designer and want to determine which format will appeal most to visitors to your site. A key component of a president’s power to persuade is the president’s public approval rating . In today’s political environment, a great deal of attention is given to this number. In the United States, Gallup conducts multiday surveys to compute a president’s ongoing job approval rating. The importance of the public approval rating has even shown up in popular movies such as the 1995 film The American President . In the film, fictional President Alan Shepherd and his Chief of Staff A. J. MacInerney discuss the prospect of the president dating. Shepherd: I don’t want to check a polling sample to see if this is okay, like I’m asking permission to stay out an hour past curfew. This isn’t the business of the American people. MacInerney: Mr. President, the American people have a funny way of deciding on their own what is and what is not their business. While the movie is fiction, it illustrates an important point—the impact a drop in polls will have on the president’s legislative agenda. Consider the first administration of President Bill Clinton . Upon taking office, one issue Clinton focused on was gays in the military. For his first few months in office, this contentious issue consumed considerable attention, launching a national debate that culminated in Clinton’s “ Don’t ask, don’t tell ” policy. At the time, the country was evenly split and deeply divided on the issue (48 percent supported it; 49 percent opposed). Lydia Saad, “Gallup Vault: Issue of Gays in Military Split Americans in 1993,” Gallup, July 28, 2017, https://news.gallup.com/vault/214745/gallup-vault-issue-gays-military-split-americans-1993.aspx. In 2011, the policy was formally repealed. Elizabeth Bumiller, “Obama Ends ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy,” The New York Times , July 22, 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/us/23military.html. When President Clinton took office in January 1993, he had a 58 percent public approval rating. By June it had fallen to 37 percent. It could be argued that his inability to have any major legislative success that first year was, in part, due to his falling approval rating. Clinton’s failure to enact major legislation was not simply due to relatively poor approval ratings or “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” But that didn’t help. Public opinions polls are not unique to the United States, and neither are their effects. Faced with declining polling numbers in 2021, President Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil) found his message of opposition to the coronavirus vaccine lacked persuasive power. As of mid-August 2021, over 70 percent of Brazilians had received the vaccine. Terrence McCoy and Gabriela Sá Pessoa, “Bolsonaro Worked to Shake Brazil’s Faith in Vaccines. But Even His Supporters Are Racing to Get Their Shots,” The Washington Post , August 16, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/16/coronavirus-brazil-bolsonaro-vaccine/. Even his supporters were lining up to get vaccinated. The single greatest distinctiveness of presidential regimes is that the chief executive is popularly elected. This individual serves as both head of government and head of state and serves fixed terms. More so than parliamentarianism, presidentialism provides the opportunity for populism to emerge. Populism is a political approach that uses emotional appeals to the masses and promises the masses a political voice in a government that is perceived to be ruled by elites. As is the case with all chief executives, presidents possess both formal and informal powers. Formal powers are those granted to the president by statute or constitution. Informal powers arise from custom or tradition. The power to persuade is most likely the greatest power a president has and is connected to the president’s approval ratings. Through the use of the bully pulpit, presidents have the opportunity to shape public opinion and convince the public that the president’s policies are the best approach to address issues facing the nation. bully pulpit the national podium presidents have to speak on issues they believe are important and from which they can attempt to gain support for their position formal powers powers specifically granted an executive by statute or by the country’s constitution informal powers powers that emerge through tradition or custom or are inherent in the office populism political approach that uses emotional appeals to promise the masses a political voice in a system that has been perceived to be run by elites

Social Sciences


The Executive in Parliamentary Regimes Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Describe how a government is formed in a parliamentary regime. Summarize the role of the prime minister in the government. Demonstrate why political parties matter more in a parliamentary regime. Explain what a confidence vote is and discuss its implications. Within a parliamentary regime, the voters elect representatives. Based on their electoral choices, a government is formed. It is possible that a single party could win a majority of seats in the legislature. If that happens, the prime minister, who was also elected as a member of the legislature, will be invited to form the government. The prime minister will come from the majority party. If there is no majority party, the bargaining begins as a coalition is built. Compared to presidential regimes, parliamentary regimes place greater focus on political parties and the issue positions they take. The personality of the chief executive is of less importance than it is in a presidential regime, though its significance is not eliminated. Party leaders are well known. Prime ministers have significant executive powers. They have power over their cabinets and the composition of those cabinets, and they have the power to dissolve the government and call for new elections. Parliamentary Regimes and the Electoral Connection While parties matter in a presidential regime, they matter more in a parliamentary regime. In a presidential regime, where votes for president do not affect the partisan composition of the legislature, candidates appeal to a broad spectrum of voters in an attempt to get voters to cross party lines. Within a parliamentary regime, the calculus is much different because the chief executive emerges from the party that wins the majority. Even if a coalition government is required, it is likely that the prime minister will be a member of the party that won the most seats. When voters choose whom to vote for, they understand that calculus and vote accordingly. Within a parliamentary regime, the chief executive is typically known as the prime minister. In Germany, however, the head of government is called the chancellor. Regardless of the title, the chief executive enjoys considerable political power. For example, in Germany, the Federal Chancellery (Bundeskanzleramt) has been referred to as a “superministry.” This office provides the chancellor with wide ranging powers and governmental oversight. If a single party gains a majority of seats, then there is a majority government . If no party gains a majority, then the leader of the largest party will form a coalition government by inviting one or more of the other parties to join. Coalition governments are common and are noted as one of the disadvantages of a parliamentary regime. Executive Power in Parliamentary Regimes Because the prime minister is a member of the legislature, his or her power base differs from that of a presidential regime. Even though parliamentary regimes hold periodic elections, the elections are not necessarily for fixed terms (for example, every four years) as they are with presidential regimes. In fact, over the last 20 years, Italy has held elections 10 times, with the prime minister’s average length of office being about 845 days (author’s calculation). In a parliamentary regime, any failure of policy could trigger either a confidence vote or new elections, which could result in the removal of the prime minister. Some parliamentary regimes do have fixed-term elections, and others have maximum-term elections, preventing any government from being in power indefinitely. A confidence vote , sometimes referred to as a no-confidence vote, takes place when some members of the parliament no longer support the government. The actual process and wording differ from country to country. A majority is needed to pass a vote of no confidence. If the government loses the vote, one of two things happens: either a new government is formed, or elections take place. If a new government is formed, it will reflect the partisan distribution of the old government, but even if a new government is formed, it is unlikely that the current prime minister will continue to serve. A no-confidence vote could also take place within the majority party or the coalition that holds power. This vote is directed at the prime minister and not the government. While no-confidence votes are rare, in June 2021, Stefan Löfven (Sweden) lost a no-confidence vote and was forced to resign. “Swedish PM Stefan Löfven Loses No-Confidence Vote,” The Guardian , June 21, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/21/swedish-pm-stefan-lofven-loses-no-confidence-vote. Nevertheless, instead of new elections being called, coalition talks ensued. Löfven was able to form a coalition and regain power in the vote to form the new government. “Stefan Löfven: Caretaker PM Wins Parliament Vote to Form New Swedish Government,” Euronews , July 7, 2021, https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/06/stefan-lofven-swedish-caretaker-pm-faces-parliament-vote-to-form-new-government. But coalitions are not so easily built. In 2010, when Nouri al Maliki (Iraq) worked to form a coalition government, it took him almost six months to build a working coalition. Then–British Prime Minister Theresa May with the then-president of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani less than a month after May survived a vote of no confidence in the British Parliament amid struggles over Brexit negotiations. (credit: “May at the EP” by European Parliament/Flickr, CC-BY-4.0: © European Union 2019 – Source: EP) One of the advantages of a parliamentary regime is greater party discipline. Prime ministers can count on the loyalty of party members. Members who choose to go against the party do so at their own political risk. This has a direct impact on public policy and informs how the relationship between the executive and the legislature differs between the two systems. A president is outside the legislature; the prime minister is in the legislature. This means there is consistency between the chief executive’s policy agenda and the legislature’s. Within a presidential regime, presidents set the policy agenda (i.e., presidents determine what issues have priority) and craft legislation. Proposed legislation then goes to a legislature that is outside of their control. It’s been said that, in the policy-making process, presidents are strong early in the legislative process but weak late in the process. In other words, it is only after the proposed legislation leaves the president’s office that it gets negotiated and modified. For prime ministers, however, the opposite is true. Prime ministers and their cabinets craft legislation as a group from the beginning, with the specifics being negotiated and modified. In this process, the prime minister persuades other ministers to follow his or her lead. Once a course of action is decided or legislation is agreed upon, its passage is certain. The remainder of the party in power will support the prime minister. The unified nature of the government assures this. In parliamentary regimes, the head of government is typically termed the prime minister and is a member of parliament. The parliament selects the prime minister after party elections have taken place. If one party earns a majority of the seats in parliament, the majority party selects the prime minister. If no party earns a majority of the vote, then two or more parties will form a coalition and the coalition will select the prime minister. Prime ministers hold considerable political power such as the power to select members of the cabinet. Nevertheless, prime ministers can be removed by a confidence vote. Sometimes called a “no confidence vote,” this is a procedural move in a parliamentary regime in which ministers vote to continue to support the prime minister. If the prime minister loses the confidence vote, new elections take place. coalition government within a parliamentary regime, a government in which two or more parties have aligned together to rule confidence vote a procedural move in a parliamentary regime in which ministers vote on whether to continue to support the prime minister; sometimes called a “no confidence vote” majority government within a parliamentary regime, when one party holds a clear majority and forms the government

Social Sciences


Advantages, Disadvantages, and Challenges of Presidential and Parliamentary Regimes Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of parliamentary and presidential regimes. Distinguish between government stability and policy stability. Explain what a coalition government is and how these governments potentially work within each regime. Define political gridlock and political polarization and explain how they may impact public policy. Summarize how minor parties are more viable in a parliamentary regime than they are in a presidential regime. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. This section will primarily focus on the systems’ effects on policy: stability, coalition governments, divided government, and representation of minor parties. Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Presidential and Parliamentary Regimes Presidentialism Parliamentarianism Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Presidents can claim a mandate and take the lead in setting the legislative agenda. If there is divided government, it can lead to gridlock. A unified government enables the quick enactment of policies. Drastic policy change is possible from one government to the next. During a time of crisis, a president may be able to act quickly. A president may blame the legislature for policy failures. A clear line of policy-making responsibility helps define accountability. Coalition governments may be short-lived, with frequent elections. Separation of powers may better protect rights of minority groups when an independent judiciary has the power of judicial review. One individual must play the roles of both head of state and head of government. Minority parties are frequently represented in parliamentary legislatures. Minority groups have relatively fewer protections. Party discipline tends to be weak. Strong presidents or populist leaders can emerge, presenting challenges to democracy. Political parties and party discipline tend to be strong. Governmental Stability versus Policy Stability Any discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of presidentialism and parliamentarianism begins with the hypothesis, first posited by Yale University professor Juan Linz , that parliamentary regimes are more stable than presidential regimes and that “the only presidential democracy with a long history of constitutional continuity is the United States.” Juan Linz, “The Perils of Presidentialism,” Journal of Democracy 1, no. 1 (Winter 1990): 51. To Americans, the claim that parliamentary regimes are more stable may appear strange. As already noted, while parliamentary regimes have regular elections, they are not necessarily fixed-term elections. This means an election can happen at any time, opening up the possibility for multiple elections within a relatively short period of time. From 2018 to 2021, there were four separate elections in Israel. Patrick Kingsley, “Israel’s Election Ends in a Stalemate, Final Results Show.” The New York Times , updated May 3, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/world/middleeast/israel-election-results.html. In April 2020, Benjamin Netanyahu again was given the opportunity to form a new coalition government. Isabel Kershner, “Netanyahu Gets First Crack at Forming a New Government in Israel,” The New York Times , updated May 3, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/world/middleeast/netanyahu-israel-new-government.html. Ultimately, however, he was unable to do so and was ousted as prime minister. Patrick Kingsley and Richard Pérez-Peña, “Netanyahu Ousted as Israeli Parliament Votes in New Government,” The New York Times , June 13, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/13/world/middleeast/netanyahu-naftali-bennett-israel-vote.html. To Americans, this may seem like the very definition of instability. Within this context, stability refers to the stability of the political system itself and not the stability of any particular government within that system. Parliamentary regimes may experience multiple elections in a short space of time, but that does not mean the system itself is unstable. It could simply reflect current electoral politics. In that respect, the current demographics of a particular country could work against a majority emerging and encourage coalition governments. Deep divisions within the Israeli electorate have made the formation and maintenance of a coalition government difficult. Nevertheless, the political system remains stable and in place, even if the ramifications of Israel’s crisis in determining its leadership do raise some concerns for aspects of the system. Any instability provides the opportunity for political change. Instability can also take the form of policy change. Policy swings are more likely in parliamentary regimes. Because there are no set elections, elections could take place at any time. While public opinion does tend to move rather slowly, it changes over time and when triggered by events that cause the public to rethink key issues. Within a parliamentary regime, changing demographics or changing attitudes among the public could bring in a new government that has a very different majority than the old government. That new government could bring sweeping policy changes. Whether an individual sees the changes as a sign of political instability or a sign that the government reflects the will of the people may depend upon whether that individual agrees with the new policies. What one person might view as instability, someone else might see as needed policy change. Coalition Governments Generally, coalition governments are shorter-lived than majority governments. Jaap Woldendorp, Hans Keman, and Ian Budge, Party Government in 48 Democracies (1945–1998) (Dordrecht, NL: Springer, 2000). The sheer duration of a government provides no indication as to its efficiency or its effectiveness in enacting public policy. The stability of a system can also be interpreted as policy change because the electorate may interpret the system as responsive and adaptable. Georgetown University visiting researcher Josep Colomer found that governments with more parties experienced greater stability with respect to policy change. Josep M. Colomer, “The More Parties, the Greater Policy Stability,” European Political Science 11, no. 2 (June 2012): 231. Israeli Opposition Parties Strike Deal to Form New Government In this clip, DW News reports on the deal opposition parties struck to form a coalition government, resulting in the ouster of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Forming a new government within the existing parliamentary structure does not require a fundamental change to that structure or its institutions. Consider what happens when a new US president is elected. That president forms a new administration. Similarly, after congressional elections, there may be new leadership in either or both of the houses if there have been significant partisan shifts, with one party losing majority status and the other party gaining it. The 2020 presidential election illustrates the point well. Joe Biden won the presidency and chose a cabinet. Similarly, Democrats gained a slim majority in the Senate and put in place a new majority leader, Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer . The government was new, but the structure of the branches of government and its institutions did not change. Coalition governments can be considered a disadvantage of parliamentary regimes, but they can also be a potential advantage. One argument in favor of a parliamentary regime with proportional representation is that more parties are represented. While presidential regimes do not inherently result in a two-party system, there is no doubt that the presidential regime in the United States works that way. Indeed, in the United States, no third-party candidate has ever won the presidency. Theodore Roosevelt came closest in 1912. While he managed to finish second and collect 88 Electoral College votes, he effectively split the Republican vote and helped to ensure the election of Woodrow Wilson , who received less than 45 percent of the popular vote. In a parliamentary regime, it is conceivable that Theodore Roosevelt would have been able to build a coalition with the Republican Party and form a government. So, not only is one more likely to have viable third parties in a parliamentary regime, but those third parties could hold significant power within a government. Gridlock One of the primary disadvantages of presidentialism is the possibility of gridlock. Political gridlock is when governments are unable to pass major legislation and stalemates between competing parties take place. Certainly, gridlock can occur within parliamentary regimes, but because presidential regimes have separate institutions, they often result in divided government and are biased against coalition building. Generally speaking, neither of those conditions is typical of a parliamentary regime. These conditions in presidential regimes appear to make them more conducive to gridlock. Over the years, there has been considerable debate over whether divided government causes gridlock. Yale Emeritus professor David Mayhew argues that gridlock is not inevitable in divided government and that important legislative productivity takes place within both divided and unified governments. David Mayhew, Divided We Govern , 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005). That is not to suggest, however, that gridlock does not take place. Brookings Institution fellow Sarah Binder notes that the 2011–2012 Congress ranked “as the most gridlocked during the postwar era.” Sarah Binder, “Polarized We Govern?” Brookings, May 27, 2014, https://www.brookings.edu/research/polarized-we-govern/. When gridlock does happen, it tends to be highly visible, with each side publicly posturing and blaming the other side for the impasse, and gridlock eventually ends. That gridlock ends suggests a self-correcting aspect; the two political parties do not diverge from each other all that much or for all that long. David Mayhew, Partisan Balance: Why Political Parties Don’t Kill the US Constitutional System (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011). At the same time, presidential regimes carry a risk of polarization . While political polarization is not unique to presidential regimes, they are prone to its development. The last 30 years in particular have seen an increase in political polarization. “Political Polarization in the American Public,” Pew Research Center, June 12, 2014, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/. The extent to which it exists both within political parties and within the electorate has been the subject of heated debate. See, for example, Morris P. Fiorina, Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope, Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America , 3rd ed. (New York: Longman, 2010). Political polarization is a disadvantage of presidential regimes that presents a cause for concern for the enactment of public policy. But does polarization cause a systemic breakdown in the legislative process? The short answer is that perhaps it can. Dodd and Schraufnagel have demonstrated a curvilinear relationship between polarization and legislative productivity. Lawrence C. Dodd and Scot Schraufnagel, “Reconsidering Party Polarization and Policy Productivity: A Curvilinear Perspective,” in Congress Reconsidered , Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, eds., 9th ed. (Washington DC: CQ Press, 2009): 413. Higher levels of polarization tend to be more likely to interfere with the policy-making process. But interestingly enough, low levels of polarization also result in low levels of productivity. It is when polarization is somewhere in the middle that legislative progress is most likely to occur. Indeed, Dodd and Schraufnagel note that attention should be given to the “virtues of divided government.” So, while presidential regimes work against coalition building, Manning J. Dauer Eminent Scholar in Political Science at the University of Florida Lawrence C. Dodd and Northern Illinois University professor Scot Schraufnagel conclude that divided government may provide both parties “some incentive to embrace sincere negotiation, timely compromise, and reasonable, responsive policy productivity by government, since each is responsible for one branch of government and could be held accountable by the public for obstructionist behavior by its branch.” Between 1994 and 2014, ideological division in the United States grew. (data source: 2014 Political Polarization in the American Public, Pew Research; attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA 4.0 license) Viable Third Parties In any democracy, third parties or minority parties play important roles. Presidential regimes tend to encourage the formation of a two-party system, resulting in a weaker role for third parties than in most parliamentary regimes that have proportional representation. The reasons presidential regimes are more prone to result in a two-party system are twofold. The first is due to voting procedures. While there is considerable variation in how elections are held across countries, a common approach is plurality voting (also known as “first-past-the-post”). With plurality voting and single-member districts (one person being elected per geographic area), a two-party system is likely to emerge (this is known as Duverger’s law and was covered in Chapter 9: Legislatures ). The presidency is “the most visible single-member district.” Marjorie Randon Hershey, Party Politics in America (New York: Routledge, 2021): 39. While Duverger’s law is not determinative because it does not guarantee a two-party system, it encourages its development. In addition to voting procedures, presidents have to appeal to voters across groups and form a coalition. Political parties are simply coalitions of varied groups. In order to appeal to as many voters as possible, political parties are more likely to broaden their scope of appeal rather than to define themselves more narrowly. Third parties are much more viable in a parliamentary regime—that is, they have actual representation and voice within the national government. The 2018 elections in Italy resulted in over a dozen parties being represented in its parliament. Generally, this is a positive because voters are much more likely to vote for their first choice. Within a two-party system, however, voters may vote for their second choice because they do not wish to waste their vote. In a parliamentary regime with proportional representation, the threshold for representation within the parliament can be quite low at less than 5 percent. Once elected, the minority party could potentially find itself holding some power. In a parliamentary regime, a minority party may find itself with a disproportionate amount of power as it aligns itself with one of the larger parties. While it is possible to exaggerate the power the minority party holds in the partnership, it cannot be dismissed out of hand. In a presidential regime, however, large numbers of voters face the unenviable task of voting for a candidate who is less than their first choice, and voters often frame that choice as voting for the “lesser of two evils.” In the 2016 US presidential election, 46 percent of Republicans indicated that neither of the major-party candidates would make a good president. For Democrat respondents, that percentage, while lower, was also substantial at 33 percent. “Election 2020: Voters Are Highly Engaged, but Nearly Half Expect to Have Difficulties Voting,” Pew Research Center, August 13, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/13/perceptions-of-trump-and-biden/. In recent presidential elections, the percent of voters indicating satisfaction with the candidates has never been higher than 72 percent and has been as low as 33 percent. See . These data from 1992 to 2020 suggest that the party with a larger percentage of registered voters who say they are satisfied with their party's presidential candidate often—but not always—wins the election. (data source: Pew Research; attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA 4.0 license) The main advantage of presidentialism is that presidents can claim a mandate and act quickly during a time of crisis. The judiciary is separate from the executive in presidential regimes, an arrangement that may help protect the rights of minority groups. The main disadvantages of presidentialism are that it may lead to gridlock, there is a relative lack of accountability, and the chief executive performs the roles of head of government and head of state. Within presidentialism, political parties are weaker. The advantages of parliamentarianism are unified government, clear lines of accountability, the representation of minority parties in the parliament, and stronger political parties. Parliamentarianism’s disadvantages include drastic policy change from one government to the next, coalition governments resulting in more frequent elections, and relatively fewer protections of minority rights. gridlock a stalemate between competing parties that prevents governments from passing major legislation plurality voting a voting system in which the winning candidate is the one who receives the most votes even if the candidate does not receive more than 50 percent of the vote; also known as “first-past-the-post” single-member districts electoral districts in which only a single individual is elected to represent an area

Social Sciences


Semi-Presidential Regimes Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Summarize the structure of semi-presidential regimes. Explain how semi-presidential regimes differ from presidential and parliamentary regimes. Outline the apparent connection between the various democratic regimes and freedom. A third type of system is semi-presidentialism. While a semi-presidential country can be democratic (for example, Austria, Iceland, and Poland), many semi-presidential countries are not democratic (for example, Rwanda and Syria). This section briefly defines semi-presidentialism and some of its basic characteristics and then examines the connection between governmental systems and political freedom. Defining Semi-Presidential Regimes Semi-presidential regimes can be viewed as a hybrid, sitting between parliamentary and presidential regimes. Even though they are ill defined, it is possible to can make some general observations. Basically, in semi-presidential regimes power is divided between the prime minister and the president, with both executives having political power. Typically, each executive’s respective powers are clearly defined, but that is not always the case. As in presidential regimes, in semi-presidential regimes the people directly elect the president. Unlike in parliamentary regimes, however, the president usually appoints the prime minister. Once appointed, the prime minister must gain a majority in the parliament. If there is already a majority present, the president must simply select the leader of the majority party, regardless of whether the individual is of the same party as the president. That means the president could be of one party and the prime minister of a different party. This has happened in France. They referred to it as “cohabitation.” Semi-Presidential Regimes and the Connection to Freedom Semi-presidential regimes appear to be less free than parliamentary or presidential regimes. Correspondingly, they appear to give greater opportunity for authoritarian rule to emerge. Russia and Vladimir Putin is the best contemporary example of authoritarian rule in a semi-presidential regime. Nevertheless, there is considerable variation among semi-presidential countries. Freedom House gives France, which also has a semi-presidential regime, a high global freedom score of 90. It is interesting to see the association between regime type and countries’ Freedom House scores. Freedom House’s home page is https://freedomhouse.org. For a list of countries and their global freedom scores, see https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores. For an overview of their methodology, see https://freedomhouse.org/reports/freedom-world/freedom-world-research-methodology. The global freedom score goes from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater freedom. See . Freedom House mean global freedom scores by regime type (higher scores = higher levels of freedom) suggest that parliamentary systems tend to be remarkably freer than either presidential or semi-presidential systems. N indicates the number of countries of each regime type. (data source: “Countries and Territories.” Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores; attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA 4.0 license) Freedom House also categorizes countries as not free, partly free, or free. Eighty percent of parliamentary countries are categorized as free, while only 39 percent of presidential regimes and 38 percent of semi-presidential regimes are categorized as free. See . Based on how Freedom House defines “free,” “partly free,” and “not free,” the vast majority of parliamentary systems are free, while less than half of presidential and semi-presidential systems are free. In fact, more than half of presidential systems are only partly free, and more than a quarter of all semi-presidential systems are not free. N indicates the number of countries of each regime type. Regime type is coded by the author. (data source: “Countries and Territories.” Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores; attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA 4.0 license) Another way of thinking about the data is to examine only those countries rated as “not free.” Nineteen countries are defined as not free. Of those 19 countries categorized “not free,” only one is parliamentary (Thailand), three are presidential (Burundi, Nicaragua, and Venezuela), and the remaining 15 are semi-presidential. Finally, an intriguing picture emerges as one moves from parliamentary regimes to semi-presidential ones. As shown in the scatter plot below, scores for parliamentary countries are much more concentrated (i.e., less dispersed) as well as located toward the top of freedom scale, while semi-presidential regimes are dispersed all along the scale. Indeed, the lowest score for a parliamentary regime is 30 (Thailand). For semi-presidential regimes, 10 countries fall below the score of 30, with one of those countries earning a score of 1 (Syria). The three presidential countries that fall below 30 are noted above (Burundi, Nicaragua, and Venezuela). See . Based on Freedom House criteria, countries with parliamentary systems tend to have similar—and high—freedom scores, while the scores for countries with presidential and semi-presidential systems are more broadly distributed. N indicates the number of countries of each regime type; each dot represents one country. (data source: “Countries and Territories.” Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores; attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA 4.0 license) Often viewed as a hybrid of presidentialism and parliamentarianism, semi-presidential regimes are difficult to define. In their most basic expression, the legislature selects the head of government (the prime minister) and citizens directly elect the head of state (the president). Both the prime minister and the president hold political power. In semi-presidential regimes, there is a wide discrepancy in the amount of freedom citizens have within their countries. This suggests that authoritarianism is more likely to be associated with semi-presidential regimes, but while the connection between the two is interesting and noteworthy, causality (i.e., a semi-presidential regime causes authoritarianism) cannot be determined or inferred.

Social Sciences