Est 1030 introduction to comparative politics of Europe

Course aims:

To foster an appreciation of the different political systems to be found in the EU’s 27 member states.

An introduction to political science, one of the 3 disciplines upon which European studies is based

Be able to compare and critically analyse different political systems.

To understand the complexity of the member states, EU shouldn’t work as states are so different, still it does work.

Course text:

Bale, Tim (2008)European Politics: a comparative introduction2nd edition, Palgrave, UK.(best)

Hogwood, Patricia and Roberts, Geoffrey (2003),Europen Politics Today,2nd edition, Manchester university Press, UK.(not that good)

Lecture 1 : The Political Landscape of Europe

What do we understand by ‘’Europe’’?What makes us similar is more pronounced than that that makes us different. We have similar political systems (unlike Africans who have totally different politics). Europe comprises more countries that the European Union, ex Norway isn’t part of it. Unfortunately we sometimes understand Europe as being also means European Union.Ex also Albania is not European Union, we have problems with Turkey due to religion.

Is European integration unique? European states are recent constructs emerging after the 16th century. As a recent

construct they need not always endure (European super-state?) The overthrow of absolute monarchies in England and France and the rise of

parliaments. The extension of the vote to all men and eventually, to all women (Finland (1906),

Malta (1947), Liechtenstein (1984) Nationalism (like Malta) and the rise of Germany and Italy(Switzerland is still the only country in the world who burn witches)

Europe is not only the EU and the EU is not the only concept of what it means to be European

Can we speak of a Common European Experience?

[Malta are an anomaly in politicis, we do not go by consensus politics we have a great opposition, only malta and another 2 countries in eu that are not in consensus politics

Two factors in the rise of modern Europe :

The collective experience of fascism (germany, france, spain, Portugal)

Fascism survived in western Europe into the 1970s. It created shared fear of extreme ideologies and a commitment to pluralism.

The growth of communism in the east also created:A common goal to guarantee economic prosperity at home to avoid domestic support for communist parties as well as the end of balance of power politics within Europe.

The result of this common shared experience was a commitment within western Europe towards open and democratic government, liberal democracies:

Representative government, meaning that government both represent and are responsive to the wishes of the people

Separation of power, being a system of checks and balances Freedom of opinion The rule of law as this consolidates the role of the judiciary and entrenches limited

government.

And

The collective fear of communism

Collective Economic Foundations:

Industrial societies across Europe The recent downturn in manufacturing production and the emergence of post-

industrial societies The decline in agriculture, manufacturing and the rise of service industries Ageing work forces and the need for migrants

Common social trends

The myth of a classless society and the decline of manufacturing workers Female emancipation and the debate over affirmative action Declining attendance of religious services and the marginalistaion of a religious

groups combined with the rise of religious groups combined with the rise as a minority religion in Europe

Living in multi-national and multi-racial societies: accommodating national minorities and inclusive policies for migrants

Morocco as an EU member?

Morocco applied in 1987

2006:

‘’we want to be the southern rib of Europe.’’ (Prime Minister Driss Jetton)

‘’We already have a very, very close relationship with morocco, and we’re studying giving them even more advanced status.’’ (Benita Ferrero-Waldner, EU commissioner for external relations)

{They treat turkey so badly in joining EU whilst morocco not bad as Spanish (who are very strong in EU) push for their joining.}

Basic definitions:

The state: a sovereign political community and the territory occupied by that community

Sovereignty: the ultimate right to decide and control how a state will be run and its direction

The nation: a community of persons bound by common decent, language, history etc. The nation-state: a country where the boundaries of a nation correspond to the

territory of a state.

State in malta we understand by delineable territory in which a group of people collectively live. Other countries have more complicated borders

Sovereignty the right that a state has that is recognised by its own people and international community to make laws for its own state.

Malta is an example of a nation-state= united in one nation. Others like Spanish have many nations in one state. Ex basques in spain, Saxons in germany. A nation ie need not have a state. Ex curds are in iraq and in turkey. They are recognised as a separate nation but not a separate state.

The Importance of a Constitution

Some constitutions are written while others are not codified, often referred to as unwritten

Constitutions act as ‘power maps’ and ensure, if upheld by the state, the triumph of the rule of law over arbitrary power.

Ex. France have constitution changing all the time. British not even written. Even Israel and new zealend not written

It is a power map as it outlines who are the men of power in the state and what powers they have.

Constitutions do several things:

They serve as an expression of ideology and philosophy They serve as an expression of the basic laws of the regime

They provide organizational frameworks for governments They may state whether the system is a single level of government, two levels

(federal) or multilevel Constitutions have an amendment clause.

(in germany that they are a federal state you can never change it, even if jesus comes etc… separate power in federal germany)

Europe hass some of the oldest states in the world (notably Norway) with constitutions stretching back nearly 200 yrs

Norway (1814), the Netherlands (1815), Luxembourg (1868) Europe also has some of the most recent ‘new states’ in the world@ Slovakia (1992), Lithuania (19992), Poland (19997), Serbia (2006) Beyond its role in any state, a constitution is key in the establishment of a federal

state.

Poland has a lot of debate on power of presidentMalta will probably have a dispute on a electing the president in a popular way ie by voting

Federal and unitary States:

A federal state brings together various constituent regions into one federal unit. Power is shared between two or more level of government with the central, federal

government normally controlling defence and external policy such as education and social services

The power of the regions is enshrined in the constitution and in the political set-up A constitution is essential

Unitary -> defence-> high politics health/ family, law, politics

federal -> federal -> def, single currency->own governments with own parliaments and elections and oversee education, public

policies

Therefore 2 systems of government. Supreme ie whole country and regional

Usually federal states are found in huge countries as it is a more efficient and practical way to split country power

There are 24 federal states globally, 5 in Europe (Russia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Bosnia and Herzegovina)

a federal state brings together various constituent regions into one federal unit power is shared between two or more levels of Government with the central, federal

government normally controlling defence and external relations while the regional governments control policy such as education and social services

the power of the regions is enshrined in the constition (uncontinued note)

why opt for a federation?Fear of external forcesEconomic and military benefitsUnification of diverse nation- groupsSize

Federations also allow for greater subsidiarity and experimentation

Federalism can complicate EU decision-making for federal states due to the split in competence

Belgium : from unitary to federal state

The modern state of Belgium emerged in 1830

Post – 1945 belgium saw a radical shift in the wealth of Flanders an Wallonia Happened as flanders became much richer than Wallonia and had to help in money

Ffrom unitary to federal government

1962/1963 laws establishing the linguistic areas of Belgium 1970 and constitutional amendments to create linguistic-based communities with

legislative powers 1980 and the addition of executive government to communities 1988/1989 Brussels given regional executive and legislative body 1993 Belgium becomes a federation Continued political reform and the crisis of 2007

Most unifying thing in belgium is their monarchy

He three language communities:The Flemish community (dutch-speaking), the French (ie French-speaking) community; the german-speaking community

The three regions: the Flemish region, the Walloon region, the Brussels-capital region

The Belgium political system

The federal government controls: Justice, defence, the federal police, social security, public debt, nuclear energy

amongst others The linguistic communities: Culture, education and the use of language, health policy and assistance to

individuals The regions: Economy, employment, agriculture, water policy, housing, foreign trade (in their

region)

Unitary state:

The most popular form of arrangement for managing the statePower can be delegated in 3 ways:

Decondetration: the spreading of government administration out of the core Decentralization: delegating policy execution to sub-national bodies/ authorites Devolution: the centre delegates decision-making authority to lower levels.

Basic difference between unitary and fedral state is that government has power to close the other parliament ex spain, Madrid has power to take away power of catalonia, same in England can do so to Scotland as it has sovereignty . On the otherhand germany which is federal, has cannot have berlin take power of Bavaria as it does not have sovereignty.

Bgroup tut

Constitution is optional unless you have a federal state. It here is important to differentiate power. If it is not present you have anarchy.

Malta is work in progress in constitution wise i.e. there are still work and changes being done.

Unitary states= all power concentrated in the hands of the capital city (Valletta).

Still Spain is unitary but looks very much like Germany. You would be electing two separate governments. The only difference is that Spain being unitary, Madrid can easily remove the power of the other government, while Germany can never have Berlin remove the power of Bavaria as it is federal.

In Malta we have decentralisation by the local council, still at any point in time government being unitary can remove the local councils. De-concentration= government share their administrative power. Malta there is Gozo who can apply for funds etc.

Devolution= separate parliaments and then a national parliament *like Germany. France is going in this direction. Spain and UK are like it. Decision making to regional representatives, literally regional governments (still it can be withdrawn by capital city *unlike Germany who still is a devolution).

Spain: a de facto federation?

The Spanish civil war and the Franco regime 1978 Constitution: the state of the autonomies. Between 1979 and 1983, all the regions in Spain were constituted as autonomous In 1996 the process was closed when the autonomous status Ceuta and Melilla

Spain works completely as a federal state with the exception of the Madrid power to remove which makes it unitary.

Spain has asymmetric power; each region has different power (most Catalonia).

The Spanish political system creates two tiers of government; Catalonia overseas in Catalonia, Madrid defence. Catalonia very powerful as blackmails Madrid as it is getting more and more independence. Ex 1992 Catalonia was Olympics and had most symbolic were of Catalonia not Spanish. Ex too there were who argued not to have Spanish King open it. In fact he was not at opening ceremony, but was at closing.

Under there constitution it doesn’t say how much power each region has. It is done by negotiating. Means de facto as there is power to unify all country, but it is not possible to use this power as there would be a revolution, means that it is de facto. With such revolution all power would break up so legally it is unitary state, but in practice (de facto) it is federal. No one will risk taking power in Spain.

Devolution in UK

The United Kingdom: the latest experiment in devolution

*ex Northern Ireland giving it power and taking it back all the time due to problems. i.e. controlling it from London.

1921 and the Northern Irish Assembly1997 and the Blair government1997 and referendums in Scotland and Wales (to agree to have their own devolve government)1998 and the Northern Irish referendum (to agree to have their own government)1999 devolution

England is not a region in itself. Which is why this may break down. When it comes to make policies for England, i.e. that apply only to England both Scotland, Wales and N Ireland. This is an anomaly. Ex Scotland decides things which effect it only on itself. While Scotland and Wales etc also decide what happens to England. So now there is a petition for England to have its own parliament.

Problems with devolution:

Asymmetric powers The lace of an assembly for England (non-English MPs currently vote on policy

which can only be applied in England while English MPs cannot vote on similar policies which are applied to Scotland or Wales)

The Northern Irish assembly and its viability.

*Scotland is number one region to get EU funds, it is the one with its own representation and gets most funds*

Man is a Political Animal (Aristotle)

Politics=

Collective activity Initial diversity of view

Process to reconcile those differences Acceptance by group of the binding nature of the final compromise

Politics is about compromise, allocating resources and enforcing decisions.

We are animals prepared to congregate in groups, but we resolve all conflict between us through politics. The activity which listens to demands etc.Not everyone is equal in politics, but that is all what it is about. The idea is coming to a final decision which once comes everyone accepts it.

Ex 6.06e increase in Malta, made a decision, which issued as a declaration and then lobby groups are making all possible to change it back. Still once budget comes this cannot occur unless political system crumbles.

Early 1980s= famous election of seats, which had opposition boycotting parliament. I.e. political system starting to crumble. In end agreed to compromise on constitution. Changed it=No government can win a majority of seats without a majority of votes.

Governments and Power

Government: the community’s accepted apparatus for making and enforcing decisions.

Governments can be elected, appointed, inherited or imposed Government is not merely politicians but all decision-makers

Power: the central currency of politics but what is power and how can it be gauged.

Governments have to decide what to listen to, i.e. were power comes to place. Power is relative, depends on perception and actual resources. Ex Malta chamber of commerce said that it doesn’t like the increase, it has a lot of power. So two major economic groups who are always listened to. In case of national government listen to more. Older days, socialists to unions while nationalists to economic groups. Last general elections was one due to university students. With the result that they were the key electoral group. They have a lot of power before elections, later much less. Which is why exactly after elections governments become nasty, and make it to become its peak of niceness before elections. Power depends on I believing you are powerful and you showing it.

Ex Chinese man who stood in front of 9 tanks

‘Power is a matter of getting people to do what they would not otherwise have done’ (Robert Dahl)

Political Culture:

What is political Culture: the system of empirical beliefs, expressive symbols, and values which defines the situation in which political action takes place’

Dimensions of political culture:System dimension: attitudes toward the nation, the regime and the authorities who control power at any given time

Process dimension: attitudes toward the role that the individual plays in the political arena.Policy dimension: the results of politics, the outputs of the political system.

Political culture= expectations of people on what they want from politicsMalta’s has lots of weaknesses, also America. However they are never wrong as they are a reflection of political culture, this being unique it can never be criticised.

Ex Saudi Arabia have no problem with ruling family. Oil is so rich due to them that they don’t pay income tax. Buy support of people by not taxing them. Their people are happy, it is their political culture. Ex it is naïve to after kill Saddam insist that they have democracy like the EU west and also especially insist to have female representation as it goes against their political culture. Ex we have no problem with our president having no power.

Ex France often go in public demonstrations against their own government *unlike Malta*In Switzerland it is not possible as one goes to referendum so it is unacceptable.

Ex in Germany there is distrust of policeman as they are considered something distant due to fascist history while Malta one waves at them or at least police look proud and we don’t look at them negatively.

Ex we have to face the fact that our soldiers will never protect us while US expects to have their soldiers constantly defend them.

political systems are largely fixed and change slowly, the political process sis fluid and can change quickly

the three branches of government-the executive (directing the nation’s affairs, supervising policy implementation, mobilising support, providing crisis leadership)-the legislative (popular representation in democracies, venue for debate and consultation, creator of legislation)-judiciary (to uphold the rule of law)

Ex parliament talk of Sant *last week is a joke as only 2 sides. Ruling party always votes and wins. In fact parliament rarely is in news.Italy contrary it is always in news etc.

We had this period only of parliament during Mintoff. Political system was same but process changed all of a sudden. parliament suddenly became very powerful. Our parliament is purely a joke. Mintoff could risk voting against his party which is why parliament became powerful. Today no one risks it as it would be a ‘kiss of death’.

Executive in Malta = prime-minister = to give direction, manage and oversee implementation. He usually is the one who makes laws. Structure that brings together elective representatives who allows them to debate and compromise.

A debate is to change opinions, ex xarabank no one changes opinions in politics so discussion / debate is totally useless which undermines how a joke it is.

Judiciary= to educate and make sure that the other two parties stay bound in law. Ex German very very strong *to ensure that no one like Hitler ever emerges again. If so he would be controlled and removed by judiciary.

Mintoff went to UK he was negotiating with Calaham asked his concerns(problems) and talked for about 5hrs and then asked him more and he repeated again. Then wife came and knocked and told them that one of his problems was his marriage, so told them to talk on marriage. Other one panicked as he was bachelor of 60 and just left. Point is =

Mintoff was very unpredictable, a way of not showing what to do next and a way of power. Tactics.

political system political process branches of government

of the 27 in political system of eu, some are very strong and some very weak.

Political structures do not change often while political processes do change a lot.

Political system = government= 3 branches = executive (structure which runs country on a day to day basis), legislative (parliament which is there to legislate, i.e. passing and discussing laws) and judiciary

Limited government is about people being protecting from government and the minorities protected from having any abuse.

Political Systems are largely fixed and change slowly, the political process is fluid and can change quickly

The Political Process

The political process is the system by which the political demands of a people are communicated to the government and the way in which the government acts on those demands

The political process can change because of changes in the Constitution Economic factors (ex recession) Weak government (ex Malta 1996) Changes in political culture (ex change in stipend to smartcards etc attitude)[In politics exactly after election they make hard decisions as media is usually soft on you in order that the apex is next election were he can decrease taxes etc.]

External inputs: intermediate groups as filters for demands

the importance of status and moderation as a guarantor of being listened to by government

political parties and interest groups and their own agenda

with inputs: the agenda of those in government outputs outcomes feedback

Political Support

support for the executive support for the regime support for the wider political community (ex Belgium, Flemish people who want to

be separate, i.e. lack of support for he wider political community. Any country which splits up like Czech Republic)

Judicial review and constitutional courts:

constitutional courts were established across Europe after WW2 (Austria in 1945, West Germany in 1951, France in 1959) and after the demise of Fascism (Spain in 1981 and Portugal in 1982) as well as after the fall of communism in eastern and central Europe (Poland in 1985 (subsequently heavily reformed), the Czech republic in 1993 amongst others) [constitutional court in order to protect the country from uprising of dictators etc]

Appointment to the Court The Courts as law-makers through enforcement and interpretation

Any party in Germany which advocates holocaust denial and which is Nazi is banned.

At times of war cabinet stops, while in Germany the constitutional court doesn’t stop.

Control of 3rd branch depends on country were in Germany is very strong while ours weak. I.e. not all constitutional courts have same power.

Isoglucose case *see it* as considered very imp for European institutions.

The Running of the State, the Executive

The Executive: directs the nation’s affairs supervises policy implementation mobilizes support provides crisis leadership three principal forms, namely Presidential (Cyprus), Semi-Presidential (Ex France) and

Parliamentary (Malta) The difference between Head of State and Head of Government.

Head of State

The EU has 7 monarchies and 20 republics Their role (when distinct from the Head of Government) is primarily procedural,

symbolic and diplomatic They may act as an alternative locus of power They may provide important leadership in times of crisis When combining the role of Head of Government they continue to represent the

symbolic embodiment of the State.

In all political systems the Head of State and of Government are separate. Head of State = Queen/ President in Malta while Head of Government is ex Prime Minister in Malta GONZI GONZI GONZI

Presidential systems of government (Cyprus)

President of Cyprus is Head of State Presides over Council of Ministers Separate House of Representatives Executive and legislative politics separate

President has judicial power as even though he cannot control them he has right of veto on them. So he has a lot of power, still he cannot make law. This happens mostly in America; not much in Cyprus veto as he has also his own party. Therefore what executive does here is basically done by the president.

The Cypriot house of representatives is made up of 80 but actually only 56 sit up. Only the greek ones the Turkish ones no as the island has been partitioned.

They keep with this system that is not whole as, as long as they keep these institutions in a way to keep pressure on the Turkish side of the island.

*Executive is most important as it is what manages the country.*

When Cyprus became independent they devised this system to cut between Greek Cypriots and Turkish ones.

Semi-Presidential Systems(France)

President and legislative elected separately Executive power shared between the President and a Parliamentary Government While France is the purest example of a semi-presidential government in the EU,

other countries resemble this method of government, in particular Slovenia, Romania and Lithuania but they are still largely considered Parliamentary

The system in France owes much to DeGaulle Cohabitation

Is one head of state but 2 heads of Government, 1 the prime minister the other the president. The president has the power to choose the PM

The president promulgates law has a very limited form of veto can refer laws for review to the Constitutional Council may dissolve the French National Assembly refer treaties or certain types of laws to popular referendum is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces can order the use of nuclear weapons names certain members of the Constitutional Council

When domestic problems is going through problems *especially due to coalitions*

only problem with this system is cohabitations = when the president is in charge in running the country and then the parliamentary elections return a government which is not form the presidents’ side of political spectrum. So system is not perfect

This system was created by De Gaulle. He had a populist party.

Countries like Slovenia and the above mentioned are still semi a lot as they have very powerful prime-ministers.

President=Therefore has right to dissolve parliamentAnd also therefore chooses Prime-minister. Has right to call a referendum.

The Parliamentary Executive

The Prime Minister/Head of Government is normally first amongst equals but has dual power:

Power over the running of the executive Power over the internal control of the executive

Cabinet government operates under the system of: Collective cabinet responsibility Individual ministerial responsibility

Like Malta and almost all other EU states. The most simple in a way as ultimately you are voting eefectively for one leader. Then the government will be formed out of parliament bu parliament they get to control the country. Prime minister is always to be most dominant persons.. Cabinet need not be made of elected members. Parliament is made of might is right. Groups which cabinet is glorification of the leader. Parties are fragmented in themselves ex parliamentary memebers who feel closer to Dalli than to gonzi. In therefore big countries prime minister sort of leads smaller groups of leaders ex leads dalli and therefore the group which follows Dalli.This of course occurs in bigger countries as in Malta it is basically possible to meet all parliament on a day to day basis.

By having control over his parliamentary members prime ministers controls all bureaucracy etc. he has extensive power which depends on ability to control his own party. A president

can be impeached (like Nickson in America who decided to resign instead of being impeached), he is a victim of a day to day basis unlike prime minister.

Government in most eu states are made of a prime minister *or Chancellor in Germany* who controls the cabinet.

Once the overall majority of the parliament has accepted it the whole collective cabinet has to accept it. Ex if only 8 take place and 5 approve. All the rest who have not participated have to accept.

If something goes wrong in individual ministry, the minister in question has to resign. He ahs individual responsibility over his own minister. Something which is not on European commission. They cannot sack individual ministers.

Prime Minister and Cabinet operate under several constraints which impact their individual several constraints which impact their individual and combined power:

expectations and popular perception of the role of government attitudes towards political inclusion and the acceptance of partisan politics the power of appointing people to the cabinet the politics of getting into power in coalition systems and the art of staying in power once

a government is formed

In America head of government controls executive organs that run the state. Ex in Malta we have no minister for defence while in America no free health care.

In some political systems you have strong leaderships in others not so prime minister acts depending what is expecting from him.

Ex Sweden doesn’t make any difference who is in government as they always are to agree with unions. Unlike Malta etc.

Sweden therefore are used with conciliation politics therefore are very good in EU. Unlike Malta that prime minister can just not agree with unions and we don’t see it strange.

Majority, Minority and Multi-party Government

The uniqueness of single-party government *like Malta and UK and Greece. They are best form of government as due to everything is internal and simple the government can go down to running party. Unlike coalitions were parties are destroyed due to internal opposition

The power of the PM and Cabinet The predominance of coalition government The difficulty in selecting coalition partners The difficulty in allocating portfolios The need to maintain coalition harmony Outsized majority coalitions Minority governments and vulnerability. Only one party controls on their own but

they do not have enough seats to control parliament.

Coalition governments = basically when 2 or more parties come together and by having a majority in government they control it. Then they split roles between each other.

Outsized majority coalition diff = coalitions which not only get about 51% of parliament like normal coalitions but most of parliament like Italy. This occurs so as that every one is represented also like Finland.

Normal coalitions have a lot of internal problems example who is going to get what portfolio and who is going to be the leader etc.

Difference between cohabitation and coalition. cohabitation = centres of powers from different parties therefore power split in 2.Coalition 2 or more people who come together but one of them will be the person in charge.

Key to understanding bureaucracy is:

Recruitment Accountability Internal (ministerial direction, formal regulations, competition, professional standards) External

Bureaucracy that body of public servants who help government in executive service. Politicaians make sure that buracrats do it in the way politicians want. Beuracracy here we mean in the elite buracry. Beurocarcy is defined in 2 parts the one who does the job and the brain who tells what to do. Brain = politicians. Then there is an elite who help government make decision like public servants of high grade. Ex parliamentary secretaries and directors etc are classified as the elite.

2 big problems in buracrcay are accountability and efficiency. you are a generalist, you may end up working anywhere.

Accountability = 2 types= internal and external. Politicians may have to resign due to corruption etc so they are the major form of control of public services. Ministerial direction or interference same thing.

External control of public services = the ombudsman, there for citizens who feel that the public services is not being fair.

Visegrad Group

(East-) Central Europe International cooperation launched in 1991 Czech Republic Hungary Poland Slovakia

Comparison of political systems, they are close in geographical terms and history pathway. Communist regime and transition to democracy.

Triple transition concept

Economic transformation Nation-building Political transition – democratic transformation

Democratic revolution 1989

General reasons (Jacques Rupnik)1. Breakdown of socialist planned economy2. Divergent forces within Soviet empire3. Fatigue of ideologies

Feature of democratic transition

Round-table talks leading to democratization ..contract’’ elections in Poland 1989, free election in Czechoslovakia and Hungary

1990 Broad catch-all..umbrella’’ democratic movements:

-Solidarity (PL)-Civil Forum (CZ)-Hungarian Democratic Forum, Fidesz (HU)- Public against Violence (SK)

Social-democratization of communist parties versus the Czech case of unreformed communists

...Velvet divorce’’ of Czechoslovakia 1992-1993

Stages of political development

Transition (1089/90 – mid of the 1990s) Early consolidation and (mid of the 1990s - 2000) Europeanisation (2000 – 2004) Consolidation? (since 2004)

International Commitments NATO 1999 (Slovakia 2002) EU 2004

Political systems of V4 countries

Parliamentary democracies in all cases Poland till 1997 (new constitution) – some tendencies to semi-presidential model Today valid constitutions:

Czech Republic and Slovakia 1992/3 Hungary 1949 (

…uncontinued note

Heads of State – elections

Czech president and Hungarian president elected by the parliament (for 5 years in both cases)

Only one re-election of the same person possible Vaclav Klaus (CZ) Laszlo Solyom (HU)

Polish and Slovak presidents elected directly by voters for 5 years Two-round absolute majority system with two best in the 2nd round Only one re-election of the same person possible Slovak president elected by the Parliament till 1999 Lech Kaczynski (PL) Ivan Gasparovic (SK

Heads of state – competences

Mostly symbolical Representation functions Nomination functions Most of the competences need countersignature

Historically, there have been attempts to create politically strong presidency (Havel, Walesa, Kacyznski, Klaus)

Governments – general features

Responsible to parliaments or to lower chambers (CZ< PL) General practice of Coalition governments Strong position of prime minister in HU, PL, SK Weaker position of some Czech prime ministers (depending on composition of

coalition)

Governments – unique features

Non-balanced coalitions in Hungary (big+ small party) since 1998 and Poland (agrarians as pivotal party)

Minority governments in CZ (1996-7 Klaus 2, 1998 Tosocsky, 1998-2002 Zeman ¬ opposition agreement, 2006-2009 Topolanek)

Illiberal tendencies in the 1990s in Slovakia (Vladimis Meciar) Sometimes, far right and populist parties have coalition potential (HU 1998 – 2002,

PL 2006-2007, SK since 2006)

The role of legislatives: Symbols of popular representation To give the system legitimacy To link the people to the executive

Debate public issues Create laws In cabinet systems to actually create the executive

Legislative are legitimisors of political regimes, they make things legitimate. The Relative power of legislatives=

In our political system, the House of Representatives is not a nexus of power nor debate. It is more a public platform upon which government and opposition make declarations

This is standard in a two-party system In political systems built on consensus politics or formed of multiple parties, the legislative

be very powerful The situation is more complex in a presidential system like the US or Cyprus.

Legislatives are often determined by= Size and the number of houses Size must balance the needs of a workable forum for discussion with the need to stay

representative In non-democracies legislatives can be exceptionally large.

*irony is that most dictatorships have a parliament, but is effectively controlled, it is there to pretend. *A parliament in a democracy shouldn’t be over 600. Problem with size is that if there is a large population you become less representative. Ex Malta has a large representation in relative to its size.

In the EU the largest Parliament is that of the UK (646) and the smallest is that of Cyprus (56 of a possible 80)

With a cap on size, representation decreases. A German member of the Bundestag represents 135000 people, a Maltese MP represents under 6000 and a Greenlander less than 2000.

You want it big enough to represents enough but not too big as due to functionality.India has biggest democracy. It is questionable whether it is truly a democracy.

Central issue in bicameral systems is the relative power of each house and its composition Upper houses can be to safeguard regional interests (Germany, Austria) or vested, historical

interests (the UK, former Maltese governments) Upper houses can be directly elected (Czech Republic, Poland, the vast majority of the Italian

and Spanish Senate), allocated through an electoral college or provincial councils (France and Holland) or are regional representatives (Germany).

Traditionally the lower house will wield greater power but the upper houses are not bereft of power.The EU is often seen as a bicameral system where the upper house (the Council) is more powerful.

Parliaments are self-regulating. Basic units and working procedures centre around: Procedural rules which are established by Parliament itself

Party groups which dominate the business of Parliament and collectively make decisions on procedures

Much work is now undertaken in committees but the plenary session remains the principle forum within which votes are taken and debates conducted

Scandinavian countries have strong committees.

Parliament’s principal functions

Representation: the political system in a democracy derives legitimacy by ensuring democratically elected representatives steer political developments. Where apathy manifests itself at election time, a political system may show signs of declining support from its citizens

The empowerment of the EP is a reflection of a desperate attempt to maintain the legitimacy of the EU project

Legislating and the difference between majoritarian systems (Malta, the UK, France) and consensus-based political systems (primarily Scandinavian systems)

Consensus-based systems also normally have a committee-based system where much of the work of parliament is undertaken

Central and Eastern European states remain a work in progress where classification is difficult

Legislatives play a central role in making and breaking governments, especially in parliamentary systems

In political systems where no single party wins elections, forming a government out of the parties in parliament can be a lengthy process as seen in Belgium in 2007

Once in power, parliament controls government through scrutiny as well as the ability to undermine support for government business.

The EU and National Parliaments= The link between national parliaments and the EU has often been fraught, the latter seen as

undermining the former Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon have all tried to bridge the gap Lisbon will ensure that NP receive draft legislation, ensure that subsidiarity is respected, will

ensure NPs have a greater role in the implementation freedom, security and justice policies, and that they are notified of application for EU accession.

Gib n noti lit lift

What typeof party system?

- In terms of national political systems we can differentiate between two party systems such as those in Malta and the UK while most European countries are examples of multi-party systems.

-Multi-party systems can be differentiated into:-Moderate systems-Polarised multi-party systems

Political participation:

While parties link us to government directly, interest groups utilize both direct and indirect means to get their message across.

While few people will join a party, the vast majority of us will be part of an IG at some stage or other of our lives.

IGs are about influencing decision makers but not becoming decision makers. Sometimes referred to as Pressure groups.

There is one significant difference between a political party and an interest group; a political party is there to be elected and become government, an interest group is there to effect government and is not interested in becoming it.Only one wants to be elected and the other wants to influence. This changes everything ex the greens were just an interest group but now became political party. An interest group is not there to be popular, doesn’t have to move from its position, only wants its point to arrive what matters that govern listens to it unlike political parties which matters that they are popular.

Categorising Interest Groups

- Groups can be defined in terms of:- The interests they represent- Whether they are permanent or temporary- Protective and promotional groups- Whether they are insider or outsider groups

Permanent like KSU which will be there forever, temporary like those on Facebook i.e. single issue ex sign to stop canteen food etc.Protective groups protect their members; promotional ones promote something not exclusive to their members. I.e. KSU is a protective one as it protects only its students ex won’t defend ST electronics workers. Promotional like Greenpeace ex not exclusively their members but something generic.Insiders= groups operating in partnerships with the government to help it to run itOutsiderWorking alongside the government and have privileges therefore. Do government business such as groups that control manikata.

Interest Group Activity

IG activity can be impacted by various factors but a key determinant is the type of interest representation system found in each country.

Pluralist systems will allow a free market in interest representation, often giving advantage to business interests.

Corporatist systems give special places to certain groups around the decision making the table but groups not included will often be disadvantaged.

-Other factors involved include:

-the density and spread of the organisation involved-the rules governing IG behaviour

-political culture-the socio-economic interests of the groups concerned (Governments need to be re-elected so any group which can influence the outcome of elections or the functioning or the economy are key)

-Interest groups can try and achieve their agenda in several ways, including:- direct contact with politicians and civil servants (in corporatist systems this is

facilitated by direct meetings between those directly involved in decision making and the political elite)

In non-corporatist systems Government maintain strong links with key OG while also often consulting with them for feedback and information in the drafting of proposals. Widespread consultation helps prevent problems form surfacing during the implementation stage.

IG will also use indirect means to influence the Government, either by trying to raise awareness or even public support through media campaigns.Interest groups also directly support political parties with the aim that once they form part of Government they will be pre-disposed to listen to that party.

-Ultimately, to be successful a group must try and:-Recruit all those directly impacted by a proposal so as to represent the full spread-Bring significant economic resources into the campaign-Provide that state with something which it, itself, is not prepared to provide

(information, galvanizing support for a proposal)-seriously put at risk government popularity

****gib nota mand nikol

Interest Groups at a European Level

Lobbying of the EU institutions began primarily in the 1979s The Single European Act (1986) meant that the EC would be involved in more areas

of ‘domestic policy’ with the result that lobbying increased Enlargement merely increases the players involved and the complexity of EU

lobbying

All EU institutions are key targets for lobbyists but the importance of any one target depends on the country concerned and the policy are being lobbied... there is no single method which applies to everyone.

Political Communication =

Just as politics is about bargaining, politics is about educating and informing individuals about collective action and become reconciled to the national policy

Political communication is a two-way street with Government passing information down and listening (hopefully) to the feedback passed upwards

The media play the principal role

Mass Media

The mass media have played a pivotal role in the politics of democracies in the twentieth century

That role is believed to have been challenged by three phenomena-commercialisation-fragmentation-globalisation

Andek nota nieqsa

The union as a force of change in domestic politics, Europeanization.

Mur website vle.um.edu.mt u download notes of europeanisation.

European studies and Europeanization

For much of its history, European Studies focused primarily on the forces which caused integration and the structures created in Brussels

Increased focus on analysing the consequences of integration at a domestic level: Europeanization

Europeanization: ‘domestic changed caused by integration’

Europeanization or EU-ization? In the 1990s the prevailing idea was that because the EU was standard, the result

would be standard, leading to each member state eventually transforming into exactly the same type of political system: we would all come to be identical

Europeanization is distinct form integration: integration is a process with an aim, Europeanization is what happens as a consequence of that process

Europeanization: three principal questions

To understand Europeanization we must understand:

What stimulates change? What changes? Why is change differentiated?

Why change happens?

The principal stimulus for change is the EU’s policy output and the degree of fit between what the EU wants and the domestic set-up

Policy fit and institutional fit The application of fit to positive integration

The EU’s stimulus for change

Bulemer and Radaelli Knill and Lehmkuhl

Negotioation (bottom up)

Governance

-positive integration 1positive integration-negative integration 2negative integration

Facilitated coordination 3framing integration

Domains of Europeanization

Politics (Political and normative structures)Institutions, Public Administration, Intergovernmental relations, legal structures

Policies (Type and scope of policies) Polity (Political parties and Interest Groups)

Societal-cleavage structuresThe Mediating Factors which inform how countries change

Various factors impact how countries change and each country will ahve a different combination of these factors at play:

-Factors include institutional traditions, executive leadership, the administrative reform capacity of the institution, timing, legitimising policy discourse, norm entrepreneurs and cooperative informal institutions

Key determinants include veto players and facilitating formal institutions

degree of misfitdomestic response

limited misfit absorption

larger degree of misfit accomodationsubstantial misfit transformation

inertiaretrentchment

Europeanization in Malta

Changes to core government structures, both horizontal and vertical Changes to policy

-Policy types-Policy mechanisms

Changes within the wider polity, especially interest group activity and values The Presidency as a force for concentrated change