0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
110 vizualizări18 pagini
Arend Lijphart is a political scientist known for his book "Patterns of Democracy" which classifies 36 democracies based on whether they follow a majoritarian or consensus model of democracy. The majoritarian model concentrates power in the executive through one-party majority rule, a two-party system, and a disproportional electoral system. Countries like the UK and New Zealand best exemplify this model. In contrast, the consensus model shares executive power in coalitions, has proportional representation enabling multi-party systems, and aims to be responsive to minorities. Switzerland is the prime example of this power-sharing approach. Lijphart analyzes countries based on 10 indicators to determine which model they follow.
Arend Lijphart is a political scientist known for his book "Patterns of Democracy" which classifies 36 democracies based on whether they follow a majoritarian or consensus model of democracy. The majoritarian model concentrates power in the executive through one-party majority rule, a two-party system, and a disproportional electoral system. Countries like the UK and New Zealand best exemplify this model. In contrast, the consensus model shares executive power in coalitions, has proportional representation enabling multi-party systems, and aims to be responsive to minorities. Switzerland is the prime example of this power-sharing approach. Lijphart analyzes countries based on 10 indicators to determine which model they follow.
Arend Lijphart is a political scientist known for his book "Patterns of Democracy" which classifies 36 democracies based on whether they follow a majoritarian or consensus model of democracy. The majoritarian model concentrates power in the executive through one-party majority rule, a two-party system, and a disproportional electoral system. Countries like the UK and New Zealand best exemplify this model. In contrast, the consensus model shares executive power in coalitions, has proportional representation enabling multi-party systems, and aims to be responsive to minorities. Switzerland is the prime example of this power-sharing approach. Lijphart analyzes countries based on 10 indicators to determine which model they follow.
Matthew Mynn, Romina Jermann 13.10.09 2 Agenda Agenda Author Text overview The Consensus Model The Majoritarian Model Critical Analysis Conclusion 3 Author Arend dAngremond Lijphart
Born: 1936 in the Netherlands Nationality: Dutch, American Fields: Political Science (specializing in comparative politics, elections and voting systems, democratic institutions etc.) Institutions: University of California, San Diego Known for: Patterns of Democracy (1999) (Lijphart classifies 36 democracies)
Text overview (1) Patterns of Democracy (Chapters 1-3)
4 Majoritarian Consensus Majoritarian = Government by a bare majority & in accordance with the majoritys wishes Consensus
= Government by a maximized majority & responsive to a minority Text overview (2) 5 Indicators Majoritarian / Westminster Consensus 1. Executive Single-party majority cabinets Power-sharing in multi- party coalitions 2. Executive- Legislative Executive dominance Balance of power 3. Party system Two-party system Multiparty system 4. Electoral system Plurality system of elections Proportional representation 5. Interest group Pluralist Corporatist 6. Type of government Unitary and centralized Federal and decentralized 7. Legislature Unicameralism Balanced bicameralism 8. Constitution Flexible Rigid 9. Judicial review Parliamentary sovereignty Constitutional court 10. Central Bank Dependent on executive Independent on executive 6 The Consensus Model Overview:
Switzerland (as the best example / one exception) Belgium (Federal state since 1993) European Union (although not a sovereign state) Ten Point Criteria Exceptions The Consensus Model - Switzerland 1. Executive power-sharing in broad coalition cabinets: Coalition of government Federal Council (magic formula) Additionally: linguistic groups are represented
2. Executive-legislative balance of power Separation of powers Federal Council is powerful but not supreme
3. Multi-party system Four-party system in Switzerland Why multi-party system? Plural society and PR
The Consensus Model - Switzerland 4. Proportional representation: Votes received translated into Parliamentary seats Translation of societal cleavages into party-system cleavages
5. Interest group corporatism Strong liberal corporatism (business associations are the strong force) Prominence of peak associations
6. Federal and decentralized government Power divided between government and cantons One of the worlds most decentralized states
The Consensus Model - Switzerland 7. Strong bicameralism Special representation to minorities
8. Constitutional rigidity: Written constitution Can only be changed by special majorities
9. Judicial review Exception! Federal Tribunal doesnt have the right of judicial review
10. Central bank independence Regarded as one of the strongest central banks
The Consensus Model Belgium & EU Belgium: Linguistic groups are represented in government = Formal requirement Coalition between four and six parties BUT: New federal legislature exemplifies relatively weak bicameralism BUT: Parliamentary form of government (like the Westminster model)
European Union: Principal institutions dont fit the usual classification European Commission (executive) is a broad coalition 8 officially recognized parties BUT: Not yet developed a full-fledged corporatism BUT: EU is highly unified and centralized
10 11 The Majoritarian Model Overview:
British is the original Model (often cited example / admired) UK New Zealand Barbados Ten Point Criteria Exceptions The Majoritarian Model - UK 1. Concentration of executive power in one-party and bare-majority cabinets: Cabinet most powerful organ of British government Embodiment of Majority rule Large minority in the opposition Some exceptions
2. Cabinet Dominance: Parliamentary System cabinet depends on parliament (H.o.C) Executive Dominance Elective Dictatorship
The Majoritarian Model - UK 3. Two-Party System: 2 dominant Parties: Conservatives & Labour One-Dimensional Socioeconomic issues (New Labour) Other Differences: Religion, Ethnic, Foreign Policy (EU) Never less than 87.5% of vote / 98% of seats in House of Commons Other Parties: Liberals / Social Democrats (Liberal Democrats)
4. Majoritarian and disproportional system of elections: Plurality Method First past the post Manufactured Majorities artificially created by the electoral system Biggest losers of this system: Liberal Democracts Discussion of reform to the system usually end after election
The Majoritarian Model - UK 5. Interest Group Pluralism: Free-for-all pluralism: Multiplicity of interest groups vs government Uncoordinated & Competitive 1980s Confrontations (Thatcher)
6. Unitary and centralized government: Centralized State - Limited power of local governments Exceptions: Devolution (N.I. / Scotland / Wales)
7. Concentration of legislative power in a unicameral legislature: Power should be concentrated in a single house or chamber UK has two chambers: House of Commons / House of Lords However, House of Lords has limited power delay legislation The Majoritarian Model - UK 8. Constitutional flexibility: No written Constitution Can be changed by Parliament by regular majorities
9. Absence of judicial review: Courts cannot test the constitutionality of regular legislation Parliament is the ultimate sovereign authority Exception: EU (some loss of sovereignty), Human Rights
10. A central bank controlled by the executive: Bank of England cannot act independently Under the control of the cabinet Exception: 1997 Power to set interest rates
The Majoritarian Model N.Z. & Barbados New Zealand: (Population size) Pure two-party system Maori minority (Proportional Representation 1992) More pluralist Interest Group System than Britain Only one Chamber pure unicameralism Some basic entrenched laws Greater Central Bank independence (1989) Inflation 2%
Barbados: (Population size) No manufactured majorities Bicameralism / Written constitution / Judicial review / Bank autonomy Westminster adapted
Critical Analysis Distinction between two types of democracy is not a new invention (Robert G. Dixon 1968) and others Some Exceptions Limited amount of countries analysed (in chapters 1-3) Recent reforms could questions the concept: Written constitutions, central bank autonomy
18 Conclusion Very accessible text Highlights the alternative model (consensus) and shows that pure majoritarian democracies are rare. Clear criteria to measure the systems (10 Points) Focus on Democratic Institutions and Rules (10 points) Cluster: Executive-Parties (1-5) / Federal-unitary dimension (6-10) Majoritarian: Exclusive, competitive & adversarial Consensus: Inclusiveness, bargaining & compromise