Democracy:Democracy:

Normative and Empirical Normative and Empirical Questions (text chapters 7 Questions (text chapters 7

and 8)and 8)

Goals for this sectionGoals for this section This presentation incorporates the material from both chapters 7 This presentation incorporates the material from both chapters 7

and 8 of the text. Chapter 7 deals (in the main) with what we and 8 of the text. Chapter 7 deals (in the main) with what we have termed normative approaches to the study of democracy, have termed normative approaches to the study of democracy, while chapter 8 focuses on more empirical questions. Broadly, while chapter 8 focuses on more empirical questions. Broadly, chapter 7 asks the question, “what is democracy?”, while chapter chapter 7 asks the question, “what is democracy?”, while chapter 8 focuses on the issue of “how do we organize democracy?”.8 focuses on the issue of “how do we organize democracy?”.

You should be able to articulate some of the main themes that You should be able to articulate some of the main themes that theorists of democracy have addressed over the millenia, both in theorists of democracy have addressed over the millenia, both in terms of the nature and organization of democracy.terms of the nature and organization of democracy.

You should have an in-depth understanding of what Sodaro terms You should have an in-depth understanding of what Sodaro terms the four faces of democracy (see text, page 164).the four faces of democracy (see text, page 164).

You should be able to discuss the question of the You should be able to discuss the question of the measurement of measurement of democracydemocracy (covered in this presentation) (covered in this presentation)

You should know the difference between the organization of You should know the difference between the organization of democracy into either presidential or parliamentary regimes.democracy into either presidential or parliamentary regimes.

By way of introduction…By way of introduction… Although we don’t think about it much, there is a somewhat strange Although we don’t think about it much, there is a somewhat strange

nature of democracy. According to the political theorist, David Held, nature of democracy. According to the political theorist, David Held, (Models of Democracy(Models of Democracy, 1987), there are two curious and rather , 1987), there are two curious and rather paradoxical features of democracy:paradoxical features of democracy:

1.1. As an As an ideaidea, democracy is old, dating back to the ancient Greeks (at , democracy is old, dating back to the ancient Greeks (at least). But most political theorists in the interim – even some of the least). But most political theorists in the interim – even some of the greats like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have been critical of both greats like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have been critical of both the theory and practice of democracy. As Held states in the the theory and practice of democracy. As Held states in the introduction to his book, a “united commitment to democracy is a very introduction to his book, a “united commitment to democracy is a very recent phenomenon” (p.3).recent phenomenon” (p.3).

2.2. As a As a practicepractice democracy re-emerged in the 19 democracy re-emerged in the 19thth century, after almost century, after almost 2,000 years, but proved to be very 2,000 years, but proved to be very fragile and unstablefragile and unstable. Only a handful . Only a handful of countries can claim to have uninterrupted experience of democracy.of countries can claim to have uninterrupted experience of democracy.

As a point for discussion; what uninterrupted democracies can you think of? As a point for discussion; what uninterrupted democracies can you think of? Why do you think that democracy has proved to be so fragile and Why do you think that democracy has proved to be so fragile and unstable? We will come back to these points, but it is worth thinking unstable? We will come back to these points, but it is worth thinking about now.about now.

The Four Faces of DemocracyThe Four Faces of Democracy In an attempt to try and sketch out the basic lines of democracy, Sodaro proposes In an attempt to try and sketch out the basic lines of democracy, Sodaro proposes

that we might think about it in terms of ‘four aspects, or that we might think about it in terms of ‘four aspects, or facesfaces’ (text, page 164).’ (text, page 164). These four faces encapsulate themes that great theorists of politics and democracy These four faces encapsulate themes that great theorists of politics and democracy

have written about over many centuries.have written about over many centuries. Each of the four faces can be thought of as Each of the four faces can be thought of as variablevariable, with a minimum, a maximum, , with a minimum, a maximum,

and a mid-point.and a mid-point. The next few slides lay this scheme out graphically; you can use these as an The next few slides lay this scheme out graphically; you can use these as an

accompaniment to the text. However, as you read this section carefully, you should accompaniment to the text. However, as you read this section carefully, you should keep two questions in mind. Again, these are useful points for discussion;keep two questions in mind. Again, these are useful points for discussion;

1.1. These dimensions are what we call These dimensions are what we call ideal types. ideal types. Nothing in them is fixed, so whether Nothing in them is fixed, so whether we prefer a minimum or maximum variant is a matter of we prefer a minimum or maximum variant is a matter of choicechoice. How can we . How can we collectively make those choices?collectively make those choices?

2.2. What are the trade-offs between these faces? Are they complimentary, or are there What are the trade-offs between these faces? Are they complimentary, or are there some mutually exclusive aspects of them?some mutually exclusive aspects of them?

These are really profound questions and, because they are normative in nature, These are really profound questions and, because they are normative in nature, there is no clear-cut answer. However, they are a really good starting point for a there is no clear-cut answer. However, they are a really good starting point for a debate about the possibilities and limits of democracy.debate about the possibilities and limits of democracy.

As you look at the graphic on the next page, make sure that you understand the As you look at the graphic on the next page, make sure that you understand the concepts used in each box. They are explained fully in the text.concepts used in each box. They are explained fully in the text.

Four faces of democracyFour faces of democracy

Key Features MinimumVariant

Intermediary Values

MaximumVariant

I: PopularSovereignty

Participation,Accountability

RepresentativeDemocracy

Plebiscitary democracy;Techno-democracy

DirectDemocracy

II: Civil Rights andLiberties

Enumerated,Inalienablerights

Basic civilrights

Additionalrights

“Positive”rights

III: Democraticvalues

Majorityand minority

Non-discrimination

Tolerance,compromise

Affirmative action

IV: Economicdemocracy

Distribution ofwealth andEconomicDecision-making power

Equityand laissez-faire

Equality ofopportunity;Electoraldemocracy plusWelfare state

Equality ofcondition;Workplacedemocracy(councildemocracy)

Normative TheoristsNormative Theorists• Each of these faces is derived from a long history of Each of these faces is derived from a long history of

political philosophy in the West. To give you a sense of political philosophy in the West. To give you a sense of who contributed to what, I have prepared the following who contributed to what, I have prepared the following list;list;

1.1. Popular Sovereignty – Edmund Burke, James Madison, Popular Sovereignty – Edmund Burke, James Madison, Jean-Jacques RousseauJean-Jacques Rousseau

2.2. Civil rights and liberties – John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Civil rights and liberties – John Locke, John Stuart Mill, John RawlsJohn Rawls

3.3. Democratic Values – Aristotle, Alexis de Tocqueville, Isiah Democratic Values – Aristotle, Alexis de Tocqueville, Isiah BerlinBerlin

4.4. Economic Democracy – Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, Karl Economic Democracy – Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, Karl Marx, PrudhonMarx, Prudhon

If you are interested, you might think about looking up some If you are interested, you might think about looking up some of these theorists and reading about their lives and work. of these theorists and reading about their lives and work. You can find many in the Internet Encyclopedia of You can find many in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu)Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu)

Popular SovereigntyPopular Sovereignty

RepresentativeDemocracy

DirectDemocracyPlebiscitary

Democracy(techno democracy)

Minimum Maximum

Civil Rights and LibertiesCivil Rights and Liberties

Basic rightsPositiveRightsAdditional

Rights

Minimum Maximum

Democratic ValuesDemocratic Values

Non-discriminationAffirmativeActionTolerance,

Compromise

Minimum Maximum

Economic DemocracyEconomic Democracy

EquityEqualityof condition

Equality of opportunity

Minimum Maximum

What are the basic conditions of What are the basic conditions of democracy?democracy?

To summarize the complex discussion in the last few To summarize the complex discussion in the last few slides, we might suggest that there are three basic slides, we might suggest that there are three basic conditions of democracy that co-exist with the faces that conditions of democracy that co-exist with the faces that we have looked at. At some level, no matter whether we we have looked at. At some level, no matter whether we prefer the minimum or maximum variant of any one of prefer the minimum or maximum variant of any one of these faces, these faces, everybodyeverybody committed to the idea of committed to the idea of democracy can agree that it encompasses the following democracy can agree that it encompasses the following things;things;

1.1. The freedom to choose government.The freedom to choose government.2.2. The ability to hold government accountable.The ability to hold government accountable.3.3. Constitutional limitations on the power of government.Constitutional limitations on the power of government. Let’s briefly look at each of these in turn, and generate Let’s briefly look at each of these in turn, and generate

some topics for discussion.some topics for discussion.

The Freedom to ChooseThe Freedom to Choose

The primary normative question is; what The primary normative question is; what are the best mechanisms by which we can are the best mechanisms by which we can choose our government? choose our government?

For example, traditional (non-democratic) For example, traditional (non-democratic) societies chose government through societies chose government through ascriptiveascriptive mechanisms (age, divine right, mechanisms (age, divine right, etc.). What institutions might best replace etc.). What institutions might best replace these in democratic societies. Elections? these in democratic societies. Elections? Meritocracy (the best get to rule)? Meritocracy (the best get to rule)? Lottery? What do you think?Lottery? What do you think?

AccountabilityAccountability The primary normative question: how should we The primary normative question: how should we

hold our government accountable?hold our government accountable? For example, should government representatives For example, should government representatives

be considered “delegates” (that is, they do be considered “delegates” (that is, they do exactly what we want when they are in office) or exactly what we want when they are in office) or “trustees” (they do what they think is best, given “trustees” (they do what they think is best, given that they have access to more information and that they have access to more information and may have better judgment)? may have better judgment)?

How do we ensure that no-one is above the law? How do we ensure that no-one is above the law? Recall elections? Petitions?Recall elections? Petitions?

Again, these are all good topics for discussion.Again, these are all good topics for discussion.

Limits on governmentLimits on government The primary normative question: where The primary normative question: where

does government end and ‘civil society’ does government end and ‘civil society’ begin (or, put another way, how much begin (or, put another way, how much power should government have?)?power should government have?)?

For example, classic liberal thought has For example, classic liberal thought has made a distinction between the ‘public’ made a distinction between the ‘public’ and the ‘private’ sphere (going back to and the ‘private’ sphere (going back to Aristotle). But where does this end? (e.g. Aristotle). But where does this end? (e.g. the modern feminist slogan “the modern feminist slogan “The personal The personal is politicalis political”).”).

It would be interesting to discuss some of It would be interesting to discuss some of these ideas with others in the course.these ideas with others in the course.

DemocracyDemocracy

The Empirical ApproachThe Empirical Approach

Some basic questionsSome basic questions How do we measure democracy? Can we How do we measure democracy? Can we

produce a standardized rating of the produce a standardized rating of the “degree of democracy” in all countries? “degree of democracy” in all countries? (This discussion is not in the text, but it is (This discussion is not in the text, but it is useful to think about whether we can useful to think about whether we can translate the principles that we have just translate the principles that we have just discussed into specific measurements. As discussed into specific measurements. As we shall see, it is not so easy!).we shall see, it is not so easy!).

How can we organize the institutions of How can we organize the institutions of democracies?democracies?

How do we ensure the representative How do we ensure the representative character of democracies?character of democracies?

The Measurement of The Measurement of DemocracyDemocracy

Many observers of democracy think that it would be nice to Many observers of democracy think that it would be nice to be able to measure it.be able to measure it.

Policy makers like this idea as well. As an example; it Policy makers like this idea as well. As an example; it would be really useful, according to some, if we could link would be really useful, according to some, if we could link foreign aid to democratic development. But in order to do foreign aid to democratic development. But in order to do this, the implication is that we need to have some standard this, the implication is that we need to have some standard by which we can measure democracy.by which we can measure democracy.

However, the attempt to measure democracy has However, the attempt to measure democracy has generated a lot of debate among empirical researchers. generated a lot of debate among empirical researchers. For example, “[I]t has been easier for researchers to agree For example, “[I]t has been easier for researchers to agree on the general characteristics of democracy than how to on the general characteristics of democracy than how to measure it” (Vanhanen, ‘A New Dataset for Measuring measure it” (Vanhanen, ‘A New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810-1998’, Democracy, 1810-1998’, Journal of Peace ResearchJournal of Peace Research, 2000, , 2000, p.252)p.252)

Let’s look at the issue in some further detail.Let’s look at the issue in some further detail.

Questions in the Measurement Questions in the Measurement of Democracyof Democracy

Is this Is this dichotomous dichotomous (meaning that we would be able to (meaning that we would be able to classify democracies as a 1, non-democracies as a 0), classify democracies as a 1, non-democracies as a 0), scalarscalar (we could measure degrees of democracy on a scale (we could measure degrees of democracy on a scale of, say, 1 to 5), or a of, say, 1 to 5), or a continuumcontinuum (the higher the number, the (the higher the number, the more democracy. Note that this implies that democracy more democracy. Note that this implies that democracy can never be perfect, as such a measure would tend toward can never be perfect, as such a measure would tend toward infinity)?infinity)?

An example of An example of dichotomousdichotomous measures include Robert measures include Robert Dahl’s polyarchy measure.Dahl’s polyarchy measure.

An example of a An example of a scalarscalar approach is the Polity project (Ted approach is the Polity project (Ted Robert Gurr)Robert Gurr)

An example of a An example of a continuumcontinuum is Vanhanen’s Index of is Vanhanen’s Index of DemocracyDemocracy

Let’s look at each one in turn, and then discuss the Let’s look at each one in turn, and then discuss the strengths and weaknesses.strengths and weaknesses.

Robert Dahl’s Polyarchy MeasureRobert Dahl’s Polyarchy Measure

We have seen Dahl before; he was the person who coined We have seen Dahl before; he was the person who coined the term the term polyarchypolyarchy in the 1960’s. Since then, he has tried in the 1960’s. Since then, he has tried to show how we could use the concept of polyarchy to to show how we could use the concept of polyarchy to classify systems as either democratic or non-democratic.classify systems as either democratic or non-democratic.

Dahl’s measure of democracy combines two indicators, Dahl’s measure of democracy combines two indicators, each measured on a scale between 1 and 7 – each measured on a scale between 1 and 7 – rightsrights and and liberties. liberties. The actual information is taken from the data The actual information is taken from the data gathered by Freedom House.gathered by Freedom House.

Thus, the theoretical score ranges from 2 – 14 (attained by Thus, the theoretical score ranges from 2 – 14 (attained by adding the two scores together).adding the two scores together).

Dahl then introduces a cut-point; the cut-off for being Dahl then introduces a cut-point; the cut-off for being considered polyarchical is 7 (above = democratic, 7 or considered polyarchical is 7 (above = democratic, 7 or below is non-democratic).below is non-democratic).

In 2000, Dahl ranked 60 out of 192 as meeting that In 2000, Dahl ranked 60 out of 192 as meeting that threshold (31%)threshold (31%)

Polity RatingsPolity Ratings The Polity project, which has been in existence since the 1970’s, The Polity project, which has been in existence since the 1970’s,

generates ratings based on (a) a democracy scale, composed of generates ratings based on (a) a democracy scale, composed of four sub-scales [four sub-scales [political participation, competitiveness, openness, political participation, competitiveness, openness, and constraints on chief executiveand constraints on chief executive], and (b) an autocracy scale, ], and (b) an autocracy scale, based on four sub-scales [based on four sub-scales [lack of competition, regulation of lack of competition, regulation of political participation, lack of competitiveness, and lack of political participation, lack of competitiveness, and lack of constraintsconstraints].].

The autocracy scale is then subtracted from the democracy scale.The autocracy scale is then subtracted from the democracy scale. It is interesting to note that the assumption built into this It is interesting to note that the assumption built into this

approach is that a system can have features of both democracy approach is that a system can have features of both democracy and non-democracy at the same time; so, for example, it can have and non-democracy at the same time; so, for example, it can have certain elements of democratic political participation and certain elements of democratic political participation and elements of non-democratic participation at once. This is elements of non-democratic participation at once. This is impossible in Dahl’s dichotomous approach.impossible in Dahl’s dichotomous approach.

The resulting scale runs from –10 to +10, -10 being purely The resulting scale runs from –10 to +10, -10 being purely undemocratic and +10 being purely democratic.undemocratic and +10 being purely democratic.

Vanhanen’s Index of Vanhanen’s Index of DemocracyDemocracy

The index of democracy (ID) is based on three main The index of democracy (ID) is based on three main variables; the degree of competition, degree of variables; the degree of competition, degree of participation, and a combined measure of degree of participation, and a combined measure of degree of distribution of power.distribution of power.

Each of these is measured on an open ended scale, and is Each of these is measured on an open ended scale, and is composed of a number of sub-indicators, such as the composed of a number of sub-indicators, such as the number of major political parties (competitiveness), the number of major political parties (competitiveness), the amount of electoral abstention (participation), or turnover amount of electoral abstention (participation), or turnover of seats in the legislature (distribution of power).of seats in the legislature (distribution of power).

The resultant ranking, according to Vanhanen, “forms a The resultant ranking, according to Vanhanen, “forms a continuum from very high index values to zero values”.continuum from very high index values to zero values”.

The higher a country scores on the index, the more The higher a country scores on the index, the more democratic is that country.democratic is that country.

The next slide shows the position of some countries on this The next slide shows the position of some countries on this index… note the position of the United States and the index… note the position of the United States and the position of Turkey and Iran!position of Turkey and Iran!

Vanhanen’s Index of DemocracyVanhanen’s Index of Democracy

Zero43

Haiti = 0.9 USA = 17.1 Slovakia = 43.5Iran = 19.1

Switzerland = 19.0

Jamaica =12.5 Turkey = 31.8

A comparison of the measuresA comparison of the measures Dahl’s measure is based on the Freedom House rankings, and largely Dahl’s measure is based on the Freedom House rankings, and largely

focuses on what we call ‘civil society’ (which is basically faces 2 and 3 of focuses on what we call ‘civil society’ (which is basically faces 2 and 3 of Sodaro’s 4 faces).Sodaro’s 4 faces).

The Polity measure is largely The Polity measure is largely subjectivesubjective, and focuses on the institution of , and focuses on the institution of the executive. It is also fairly cumbersome.the executive. It is also fairly cumbersome.

The Vanhanen measure focuses on The Vanhanen measure focuses on observed measures of participationobserved measures of participation (face 1), and is relatively parsimonious. However, some might object that (face 1), and is relatively parsimonious. However, some might object that the results are a bit odd and lack credibility.the results are a bit odd and lack credibility.

None of the measures includes face 4 of the faces of democracy (economic None of the measures includes face 4 of the faces of democracy (economic democracy). Elements of this may be found in things like the United democracy). Elements of this may be found in things like the United Nations Human Development Index, which can be found at Nations Human Development Index, which can be found at http://hdr.undp.org/http://hdr.undp.org/. However, this is not, strictly speaking, a measure of . However, this is not, strictly speaking, a measure of democracy.democracy.

To conclude this discussion; none of the measures seems fully satisfactory. To conclude this discussion; none of the measures seems fully satisfactory. However, it is probably still a useful exercise to think about how we might However, it is probably still a useful exercise to think about how we might actually measure democracy.actually measure democracy.

For further discussion; what elements would you want to include in a For further discussion; what elements would you want to include in a measure of democracy? How would you get the information for all the measure of democracy? How would you get the information for all the countries in the world?countries in the world?

The Organization of DemocracyThe Organization of Democracy In chapter 8 of the text, the author turns to an In chapter 8 of the text, the author turns to an

examination of the principle ways in which we examination of the principle ways in which we organize democracies. We should note that organize democracies. We should note that there is nothing ‘magical’ about these forms, there is nothing ‘magical’ about these forms, but they are in part a result of the but they are in part a result of the choiceschoices that that societies have made and in part a derivative of societies have made and in part a derivative of the the practice practice of democracy over the years.of democracy over the years.

As noted on page 185, two basic systems can As noted on page 185, two basic systems can be distinguished for containing the institutions be distinguished for containing the institutions of democracy:of democracy:

1.1. Presidential systemsPresidential systems2.2. Parliamentary systemsParliamentary systemsIn addition, there is a sub-type (rare), the mixed In addition, there is a sub-type (rare), the mixed

presidential-parliamentary system.presidential-parliamentary system.

The Principles of Parliamentary The Principles of Parliamentary DemocracyDemocracy

The principles of presidential government are fairly familiar to us, The principles of presidential government are fairly familiar to us, and are briefly reviewed in the text. However, parliamentary and are briefly reviewed in the text. However, parliamentary government is much less familiar to Americans, and we should government is much less familiar to Americans, and we should briefly think about the main principles that lie behind it. We briefly think about the main principles that lie behind it. We should also note that parliamentarianism is by far and away should also note that parliamentarianism is by far and away the most common type of democratic system in the world.the most common type of democratic system in the world.

Parliament is elected and Parliament is elected and sovereignsovereign Parliament Parliament selectsselects the executive (“The Cabinet”) the executive (“The Cabinet”) The cabinet retains executive power only as long as it retains The cabinet retains executive power only as long as it retains

the “confidence” of parliamentthe “confidence” of parliament Usually the head of the executive retains the power to disband Usually the head of the executive retains the power to disband

parliament and call for electionsparliament and call for elections There is There is no separation of powerno separation of power between the executive, between the executive,

legislature, and the judiciary. This is a hard concept for many legislature, and the judiciary. This is a hard concept for many Americans to grasp, as the separation of power is one of the Americans to grasp, as the separation of power is one of the most fundamental building blocks of presidential government.most fundamental building blocks of presidential government.

Let us quickly look at each of these principles in turn…Let us quickly look at each of these principles in turn…

The sovereignty of parliamentThe sovereignty of parliament In Britain, this was established as early as 1688 In Britain, this was established as early as 1688

(in the so-called ’Glorious Revolution’) and, (in the so-called ’Glorious Revolution’) and, although unwritten, is part of the although unwritten, is part of the evolutionaryevolutionary nature of the British system. In this sense, Britain nature of the British system. In this sense, Britain can claim to be one of the oldest democracies in can claim to be one of the oldest democracies in the world.the world.

In Germany, the sovereignty of parliament is In Germany, the sovereignty of parliament is inscribed in the so-called ‘Basic Law’ that forms inscribed in the so-called ‘Basic Law’ that forms the basis of the constitution. In practice, what the basis of the constitution. In practice, what this means is that no other institution of this means is that no other institution of government, not even the courts, can challenge government, not even the courts, can challenge the ultimate authority of the legislature.the ultimate authority of the legislature.

Parliament selects the Executive Parliament selects the Executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet)(Prime Minister and Cabinet)

In Britain by tradition, this is always the head of the In Britain by tradition, this is always the head of the majority party. So, after an election, the Queen formally majority party. So, after an election, the Queen formally calls upon the leader of the largest party to become prime calls upon the leader of the largest party to become prime minister. The system works because Britain traditionally minister. The system works because Britain traditionally experiences experiences majoritarian majoritarian government (i.e. when one party government (i.e. when one party holds the majority, not the holds the majority, not the pluralityplurality, of the seats in the , of the seats in the legislature)legislature)

In Germany, there have been more instances of In Germany, there have been more instances of coalition coalition government than government than single-party majoritariansingle-party majoritarian government. government. Where no party has a majority, the Where no party has a majority, the PresidentPresident of the country of the country – which is otherwise a largely ceremonial position - – which is otherwise a largely ceremonial position - generally ‘invites’ the leader of the largest party to try to generally ‘invites’ the leader of the largest party to try to form a coalition. If unsuccessful, the President may turn to form a coalition. If unsuccessful, the President may turn to the leader of another party.the leader of another party.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet The Prime Minister and Cabinet must retain the confidence of must retain the confidence of

parliamentparliament In Britain, a simple ‘motion of no-confidence’ is need to In Britain, a simple ‘motion of no-confidence’ is need to

make the PM resign. Although not constitutionally make the PM resign. Although not constitutionally obligated, government would be unworkable if he/she did obligated, government would be unworkable if he/she did not. Why? Because if there was a majority that not. Why? Because if there was a majority that consistently voted against the prime minister, nothing consistently voted against the prime minister, nothing would get done; the prime minister ultimately has no power would get done; the prime minister ultimately has no power except that which is delegated to him or her by the except that which is delegated to him or her by the legislature (legislature (no separation of powersno separation of powers).).

In Germany, there is what is called a ‘positive vote of no-In Germany, there is what is called a ‘positive vote of no-confidence’ inscribed in the constitution. A PM only has to confidence’ inscribed in the constitution. A PM only has to resign if the vote of no confidence resign if the vote of no confidence alsoalso designates a designates a successor. This is intended to make it a bit more difficult successor. This is intended to make it a bit more difficult for parliament to dismiss the prime minister, so as to for parliament to dismiss the prime minister, so as to guarantee a little more stability to the system.guarantee a little more stability to the system.

The PM can call for ‘snap’ electionsThe PM can call for ‘snap’ elections

All parliamentary countries have an established term for All parliamentary countries have an established term for parliament, generally somewhere between four years parliament, generally somewhere between four years (Germany) and six years (Britain).(Germany) and six years (Britain).

However, the executive (prime minister) may retain the However, the executive (prime minister) may retain the right to dismiss parliament when and if they wish to, and to right to dismiss parliament when and if they wish to, and to call for an election at any time. In Britain, in fact, the date call for an election at any time. In Britain, in fact, the date of the election is always set by the prime minister, with the of the election is always set by the prime minister, with the only rule being that the life of one parliament may not only rule being that the life of one parliament may not exceed five full years.exceed five full years.

Usually, the PM will only exercise this option if it appears Usually, the PM will only exercise this option if it appears that (a) his/her party will win the election, or (b) that (a) his/her party will win the election, or (b) government appears to be becoming unworkable.government appears to be becoming unworkable.

Examples: Margaret Thatcher, 1983 and 1987, Tony Blair Examples: Margaret Thatcher, 1983 and 1987, Tony Blair 2005.2005.

In some countries, this is not an option (e.g. Sweden)In some countries, this is not an option (e.g. Sweden)

There is no separation of powerThere is no separation of power

It does not make any real sense in a full parliamentary It does not make any real sense in a full parliamentary system to think about the separation of powers. IN every system to think about the separation of powers. IN every parliamentary system, examples can be found that show parliamentary system, examples can be found that show that there is no such thing.that there is no such thing.

In Britain, the highest court of the land is the In Britain, the highest court of the land is the Law LordsLaw Lords, , who actually sit as members of the House of Lords (which is who actually sit as members of the House of Lords (which is the second chamber of parliament). Thus, technically, the the second chamber of parliament). Thus, technically, the law lords are also part of the parliamentary system. This is law lords are also part of the parliamentary system. This is extremely confusing to us in the United States, where we extremely confusing to us in the United States, where we are used to such things as are used to such things as judicial independencejudicial independence and and judicial reviewjudicial review..

In Germany, the President (mostly ceremonial, but with the In Germany, the President (mostly ceremonial, but with the power to invite a party leader to try and form a power to invite a party leader to try and form a government) is chosen by the parliament. Again, this government) is chosen by the parliament. Again, this seems plain odd to us!seems plain odd to us!

The Organization of ParliamentThe Organization of Parliament Parliaments themselves may be organized in different Parliaments themselves may be organized in different

ways. Some common distinctions that are to be found ways. Some common distinctions that are to be found include the number of chambers and the powers that they include the number of chambers and the powers that they have.have.

Unicameralism versus bicameralism (unicameralism is Unicameralism versus bicameralism (unicameralism is relatively unusual, although it does exist in some countries, relatively unusual, although it does exist in some countries, e.g. Sweden)e.g. Sweden)

Bicameralism: houses may have ‘co-equal powers’ Bicameralism: houses may have ‘co-equal powers’ (relatively rare) or, more normally, unequal powers. The (relatively rare) or, more normally, unequal powers. The lower house always has more power, while the upper house lower house always has more power, while the upper house may have varying degrees of checking power. may have varying degrees of checking power.

In Britain, the upper house (the House of Lords) has In Britain, the upper house (the House of Lords) has extremely limited powersextremely limited powers

In Germany, the Bundesrat (the upper house) has fairly In Germany, the Bundesrat (the upper house) has fairly extensive powers, although is not co-equal (the Senate and extensive powers, although is not co-equal (the Senate and the House of Representatives are generally considered to the House of Representatives are generally considered to be co-equal).be co-equal).

The Correlates of Parliamentary The Correlates of Parliamentary GovernmentGovernment

What are the effects of parliamentary governments? Or, What are the effects of parliamentary governments? Or, put another way, can we decide, on the evidence, which put another way, can we decide, on the evidence, which form of government is the best (presidential, parliamentary, form of government is the best (presidential, parliamentary, or mixed?).or mixed?).

Actually, we can look at all the democratic countries in the Actually, we can look at all the democratic countries in the world, separate them out into these groups, and then see if world, separate them out into these groups, and then see if any common patterns emerge. On the basis of this, we any common patterns emerge. On the basis of this, we have found that there are certain advantages and have found that there are certain advantages and disadvantages of parliamentary government.disadvantages of parliamentary government.• Advantages: effectiveness and efficiency (legislation gets Advantages: effectiveness and efficiency (legislation gets

passed much faster), clear lines of responsibilitypassed much faster), clear lines of responsibility• Disadvantages: protection of minorities, the potential for Disadvantages: protection of minorities, the potential for

instability in coalition governmentsinstability in coalition governments Discussion point; which system do you think is best? Why? Discussion point; which system do you think is best? Why?

Is this on the basis of sound facts, or is it just a part of your Is this on the basis of sound facts, or is it just a part of your ‘belief system’?‘belief system’?

Coalition Governments, Coalition Governments, Instability, and “Duverger’s Law”Instability, and “Duverger’s Law” As Sodaro mentions in the text, a great deal of what As Sodaro mentions in the text, a great deal of what

happens in a parliamentary system is ultimately linked to happens in a parliamentary system is ultimately linked to the type of election system used.the type of election system used.

We know for sure that different types of election system We know for sure that different types of election system lead to different outcomes.lead to different outcomes.

In general, single-member district, majoritarian systems In general, single-member district, majoritarian systems (SMD) tend to produce two parties.(SMD) tend to produce two parties.

Proportional representation systems tend to produce many Proportional representation systems tend to produce many parties..parties..

This is know as “Duverger’s Law”, after the great French This is know as “Duverger’s Law”, after the great French political scientist Maurice Duverger.political scientist Maurice Duverger.

This is a bit of a curiosity; after all, we think that we have This is a bit of a curiosity; after all, we think that we have two main parties in the United States because that is what two main parties in the United States because that is what people want. But it might be as much to do with the kind of people want. But it might be as much to do with the kind of electoral system that we use as anything else!electoral system that we use as anything else!

Types of Election SystemTypes of Election System SMD – Single Member District Plurality SMD – Single Member District Plurality

(sometimes called the ‘(sometimes called the ‘winner takes allwinner takes all’ system).’ system).• AdvantagesAdvantages: simple, intuitive, produces two-party : simple, intuitive, produces two-party

systemsystem• DisadvantagesDisadvantages: discriminates against small parties (such : discriminates against small parties (such

as the Greens, libertarians, etc.), and is not really an as the Greens, libertarians, etc.), and is not really an accurate representation of votesaccurate representation of votes

Proportional Representation (PR)Proportional Representation (PR)• AdvantagesAdvantages – very fair, small parties get representation, – very fair, small parties get representation,

is an accurate translation of votes into seatsis an accurate translation of votes into seats• Disadvantages:Disadvantages: May lead to fragmentation of party May lead to fragmentation of party

system, instability, lack of local representation (no system, instability, lack of local representation (no districts in its purest form).districts in its purest form).

PR is sometimes modified by (a) hurdles, and (b) PR is sometimes modified by (a) hurdles, and (b) districts.districts.

Which electoral system is Which electoral system is fairer?fairer?

Empirical research emphasizes the Empirical research emphasizes the outcomesoutcomes and and effectseffects of of electoral systems, not the electoral systems, not the fairnessfairness of those systems. of those systems.

We might ask the question: is fairness simply a normative We might ask the question: is fairness simply a normative concept?concept?

Electoral specialists often point to something called Electoral specialists often point to something called Condorcet’s Paradox Condorcet’s Paradox (after the great French mathematician (after the great French mathematician and politician).and politician). The paradox states that, “If three The paradox states that, “If three individuals are faced with three competing choices, it may individuals are faced with three competing choices, it may be impossible to determine the will of the majority”.be impossible to determine the will of the majority”.

In the 20In the 20thth century, this was elaborated by Kenneth Arrow, century, this was elaborated by Kenneth Arrow, and we now sometimes refer to the problem of creating and we now sometimes refer to the problem of creating majorities in democracies as Arrow’s Theorem. Arrow, by majorities in democracies as Arrow’s Theorem. Arrow, by the way, won the Nobel prize in economics for his work.the way, won the Nobel prize in economics for his work.

So can fairness be treated So can fairness be treated empirically?empirically?

NO – if we are to think of it in terms NO – if we are to think of it in terms of an abstract standard by which of an abstract standard by which outcomes treat all parties equally.outcomes treat all parties equally.

YES – if fairness is defined as either YES – if fairness is defined as either (a) accurately translating seats into (a) accurately translating seats into votes, or (b) creating conditions votes, or (b) creating conditions under which a ‘winner’ may govern under which a ‘winner’ may govern effectively.effectively.

Alternatives to either SMDP or PRAlternatives to either SMDP or PR

Not mentioned in the text are some fairly esoteric Not mentioned in the text are some fairly esoteric alternatives to these electoral systems. A couple that are alternatives to these electoral systems. A couple that are to be found are;to be found are;

Single Transferable Vote, so-called STV (Ireland)Single Transferable Vote, so-called STV (Ireland) Preference Voting Systems (Australia)Preference Voting Systems (Australia) Approval Voting (found nowhere, although some claim that Approval Voting (found nowhere, although some claim that

this is actually the fairest kind of election system). You can this is actually the fairest kind of election system). You can amuse yourself by looking at some advocacy groups for this amuse yourself by looking at some advocacy groups for this on the internet, including: http://www.approvalvoting.com/ on the internet, including: http://www.approvalvoting.com/

For further discussion; do you think that it would be a good For further discussion; do you think that it would be a good idea to reform the electoral system of the United States? idea to reform the electoral system of the United States? Some argue that this would be much more effective than Some argue that this would be much more effective than term limits in producing genuine competition for house and term limits in producing genuine competition for house and senate seats.senate seats.