Parliamentarism

This article examines transitions between presidential, parliamentary and semi-presidential systems in democracies. Using two major datasets, it identifies nine such transitions in eight different countries: Brazil 1961, France 1962, Sri Lanka 1977, Slovakia 1999, Moldova 2000, Turkey 2007, Kenya 2008, Kenya 2010, and the Czech Republic 2012. Findings from a close examination of these cases include the following: most transitions involve the semi-presidential regime type; serious crises precede the transitions in nearly all the cases and change is often used as a means of solving these crises; electoral volatility and turnover in government precede most transitions; change serves different functions in different political contexts, ranging from facilitating acceptance of anti-establishment executives to implementing power-sharing deals; and once achieved, regime change becomes an almost permanent fixture on the political agenda, with debates escalating rather than dying down.

В статі розглянуто еволюцію інституту президентства в політичній історії України. Визначено стадії становлення, повноваження, роль та місце інституту президентства в системі правління України на різних історичних етапах її політичного розвитку. Окреслено історіографію дослідження інституту президентства в Україні. Поетапно структуровано еволюцію політико-правової думки з приводу суті та призначення інституту президентства в Україні. Фактологічно окреслено повноваження, роль та місце інституту президентства у системі правління в Україні (на етнічних українських землях) в першій половині ХХ ст. Визначено вплив інституту президентства в СРСР на особливості становлення і роль інституту президентства в пострадянській Україні. Поетапно розкрито динаміку становлення інституту президентства в незалежній Україні впродовж 1991–2014 рр. З’ясовано проблематику інституційного наслідування інституту президентства, зокрема його повноважень, ролі та місця у системі правління, в контексті історичного впливу одних історичних віх становлення української державності на наступні. Аргументовано, що інститут президентства в Україні (зокрема та загалом у зрізі системи правління) потребує реформування з огляду на інституційну і політико-правову спадщину інституту президентства в Україні у минулому, а також з огляду на досвід застосування інституту президентства в державах Центрально-Східної Європи.

Ключові слова: президент, президентство, система правління, парламентаризм, президенталізм, напівпрезиденталізм.

Παρόλο τον καταλυτικό της χαρακτήρα για την εγγύηση της δημοκρατικής φύσης του πολιτεύματος, ο ρόλος της ελληνικής Βουλής έχει καταστεί πλήρως αποδυναμωμένος . Οι άκρως σημαντικές της λειτουργίες της νομοθετικής παραγωγής και του κοινοβουλευτικού ελέγχου  τείνουν είτε να υποβαθμίζονται, είτε να παραμερίζονται παντελώς, λόγω τόσο των κυβερνητικών-πρωθυπουργοκεντρικών στοιχείων, που υπερισχύουν στη Γ’ Ελληνική Δημοκρατία, όσο και των ευθυνών που φέρουν οι ίδιοι οι αντιπρόσωποι του ελληνικού λαού. Τα πρώτα εντάσσονται στην κατηγορία των χαρακτηριστικών του «ισχυρού» κράτους, που έχει εκλάβει η ελληνικού πολιτεία, εξαιτίας της λειτουργικής υπεροχής της εκτελεστικής εξουσίας και δη του κυβερνητικού της σκέλους έναντι των υπόλοιπων κρατικών εξουσιών -νομοθετικής και δικαστικής- και των λοιπών μερών της -Προέδρου της Δημοκρατίας και Δημόσιας Διοίκησης-. Οι έτερες αφορούν, ως επί το πλείστον, παθογένειες του ελληνικού πολιτικού γίγνεσθαι, οι οποίες φθάνουν στο σημείο, μέσω της υποβάθμισης του ρόλου της Βουλής, να πλήττουν και μία έτερη συστατική αρχή κάθε δημοκρατικής πολιτείας, εκείνη της διάκρισης των εξουσιών. Από την εν λόγω αρχή, άλλωστε, αλλά και την παρεπόμενη και αναπόφευκτη διασταύρωση των λειτουργιών, εκπορεύεται η σπουδαιότητα της σημασίας των κοινοβουλευτικών σωμάτων στις σύγχρονες δημοκρατίες, μεταξύ των οποίων περιλαμβάνεται και η υποβαθμισμένη ελληνική Βουλή.

У статті теоретико-методологічно й емпірично окреслено сутність, різновиди, наслідки республіканських систем правління. Типологізовано напівпрезидентську систему правління. Окреслено конституційно-правові та політичні виклики й перспективи реформування системи напівпрезидентського правління в Україні.
Ключові слова: форма державного правління, система правління, напівпрезиденталізм, президенталізм, парламентаризм, системи уніфікованої та розділеної більшості й розділеної меншості, президент-парламентаризм, прем’єр-президенталізм, Україна.

Paper published in: Katastrofy naturalne i cywilizacyjne. Współczesne problemy bezpieczeństwa, ed. M. Żuber, Wocław 2014, pp. 23-35.

POLITICAL REGIME AND SAFETY OF DEMOCRACY

Summary

The purpose of this article is to examine the way in which the establishment of a parliamentary, presidential or semipresidential regimes affects the safety of a democracy. Such an analysis provides answers for the following research questions: what risks for democracy entails selection of a particular type of political regime, and which one is the most dangerous for the functioning, durability and quality of the democratic system. Answers to these questions allow also to verify the following hypothesis: although the establishment of the parliamentary, presidential or semipresidential regimes is connected with potential risks for the functioning, durability and quality of democracy, the impact of most of these dangers is not unequivocally confirmed by the political practice.

Confirmed contributors: Dr. David Ragazzoni (Columbia), Prof. Matthias Jestaedt (Freiburg), Prof. Peter Langford (Edge Hill), Prof. Sara Lagi (Turin), Prof. Lars Vinx (Cambridge), Prof. Pasquale Pasquino (NYU), Prof. Adam Przeworski (NYU), Prof. Nadia Urbinati (Columbia), Prof. Fabio Wolkenstein (Vienna), Prof. Davd Dyzenhaus (Toronto), Prof. Jan-Werner Muller (Princeton), Prof. Sandrine Baume (Lausanne), Prof. William Scheuerman (Indiana Bloomington), Prof. Carlo Invernizzi Accetti (CUNY), Prof. Peter Niesen (Hamburg)

The chapter analyzed the debates on parliamentarism in the late Russian Empire and revolutionary Russia and explored how the idea of parliament helped intellectuals locate Russia globally. The establishment of the legislative State Duma and the adoption of the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire during the Revolution of 1905–1907 seemed to make Russia a constitutional state. Few intellectuals, however, viewed the Duma as a parliament equal to its Western counterparts. Despite their criticism of the Duma, numerous liberal and moderate socialist and nationalist thinkers generally supported parliamentarism, seeing Russian transformations as part of the perceived parliamentary universalism. Right and left radicals, by contrast, questioned the very necessity of a parliament. The right argued that Russia was self-sufficient and did not need Western democracy; the left rejected parliaments, claiming them a part of class exploitation and oppressive state machinery, and called for direct rule of the toilers to represent an alternative democratic modernity. The Bolshevik–Left Socialist Revolutionary coup in October 1917 and the dissolution of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly in January 1918 marked a halt in Russia’s participation in global parliamentary developments, which institutionally encompassed, inter alia, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Qing Empire (and the Republic of China) in the 1900s/1910s. Conceptually, it marked an end of the global parliamentary moment, as the Bolshevik–Left Socialist Revolutionary regime became the first practical take on non-parliamentary modernity.

Запропоновано концептуальний розгляд сутності феномену республік із суперпрезидентами. З’ясовано суть, ґенезу й особливості сучасного трактування суперпрезиденталізму. Прослідковано концептуальну різницю поміж системою та формою державного правління у контексті республік з суперпрезидентами. Виокремлено ключові ознаки, різновиди та ризики республіканських систем правління із суперпрезидентами. Прослідковано взаємозв’язок республік із суперпрезидентами та типів політичних режимів сучасності. Зроблено диференціацію республік із суперпрезидентами на президентські та напівпрезидентські системи державного правління з суперпрезидентами.
Ключові слова: дихотомічний підхід, трихотомічний підхід, форма державного правління, система державного правління, республіка, республіканізм, президенталізм, напівпрезиденталізм, парламентаризм, суперпрезидент, суперпрезиденталізм, республіка з посадою суперпрезидента, суперпрезидентський президенталізм, суперпрезидентський напівпрезиденталізм, диктаторські і недиктаторські системи, демократія, напівдемократія, автократія, неопатримоніалізм.

In this book chapter, I trace the theory and practice of Ottoman and Turkish parliamentary procedure by focusing on the history of the parliaments’ internal regulations (Nizamname-i Dahiliye). The internal regulations of the Ottoman lower chamber (Meclis-i Mebusan) (in session 1876–1878 and 1908–1920) were inherited by the Great National Assembly of Turkey (1920–), which only replaced them with a new set of regulations in 1927. I trace such cases of rule violation and contextualize them in the broader context of Ottoman and Turkish political and parliamentary history. I also discuss the various changes made, showing how they reflect the struggles between parliaments and other constitutional powers.
An increase in parliamentary powers was usually followed by serious conflicts with the executive, which would then drastically curb the chamberʼs de facto competences. Initially, violations of the internal rules were mostly committed by other constitutional institutions, such as the sultan and the sultanic governments.  During the period of transformation from empire to nation-state, however, the deputiesʼ faithfulness with the internal regulations decreased massively. I argue that these violations can be explained as results of two diverging yet parallel trends: the first was a drive towards a de jure strengthening of parliament vis-à-vis other constitutional institutions. The second may be described as the de facto prevailing of an authoritarian spirit in the guise of parliamentarism.

During the First World War, conflicts between the people’s sacrifices and their political participation led to crises of parliamentary legitimacy. This volume compares British, German, Swedish and Finnish debates on revolution, rule by the people, democracy and parliamentarism and their transnational links. The British reform, although more about winning the war than advancing democracy, restored parliamentary legitimacy, unlike in Germany, where Allied demands for democratisation made reform appear treasonous and fostered native German solutions. Sweden only adopted Western political models after major confrontations, but reforms saw it embark on its path to Social Democracy. In Finland, competing Russian revolutionary discourses and German- and Swedish-inspired appeals to legality brought about the deterioration of parliamentary legitimacy and a civil war. Only a republican compromise imposed by the Entente, following a royalist initiative in 1918, led to the construction of a viable polity.

In this essay it is proposed a critical analysis of Gerring and Thacker’s centripetal theory of democratic governance, referring to their work published in 2008. At first a brief summary of the theory will be provided, showing the ambiguities concerning the association between the name of the theory – “Centripetalism”, according to the authors a mix of authority and inclusion – and its substantial and practical contents. Then will be debated Gerring and Thacker’s claim to have conceived a “refinement of Lijphart’s consensus model” (or “a fundamental reconceptualization” of it) [p.190, 2008]. In fact will be explained in detail why any parallelism between centripetal theory and power sharing model is completely inconsistent, since the centripetal theory is actually incompatible with Lijphart’s model and, in many respects, the opposite. At the end, will be discussed a critic of Gerring and Thacker’s methodology for what concerns causal mechanisms and aggregation of variables at the basis of the empirical verification of the theory, showing why their centripetal theory of democratic governance can be considered too far-reaching (but even too less characterized by its own peculiar traits!) to have a real explanatory power.

The study focuses on the importance of the Parliament’s involvement in construction of the Czechoslovak state. With the exception of the German occupation, as the legislature of the Czechoslovak Republic, the National Assembly played an important role in affecting its republican and democratic character. The article discusses two of the most important stages of the formation of the Czechoslovak statehood. First is the Interwar period when the Czechoslovak statehood demonstrated features typical of parliamentary democracy with assumed parliamentary power, followed by the 1960s when the common state of the Czechs and Slovaks developed on a federal level.

Rad obrađuje parlamente entiteta u Bosni i Hercegovini. U tu svrhu autor razrađuje nadležnosti entiteta te zakonodavnu vlast u entitetima prije pristupanja utvrđivanju opsega nadležnosti entitetskih zakonodavnih tijela i njihove strukture i organizacije. Kako je najvažnija djelatnost i funkcija parlamenta zakonodavni postupak, u tu svrhu, autor proučava zakonodavni postupak entitetskih parlamenata kao posebnu znanstvenu cjelinu. Izbor, prava i dužnosti poslanika i delegata je, također, izazvalo autorovu znanstvenu eksplikaciju. Posljednje poglavlje rada tiče se odnosa zakonodavnih tijela u Bosni i Hercegovini, u kojem se poglavito obrađuje formalna povezanost kantonalnih, entitetskih i državnog parlamenta. Autor zaključuje da su entitetski parlamenti dobro institucionalno strukturirani. Ustavnopravni status i položaj entiteta nalaže da entitetski parlamenti ne ostvaruju ustavnu i parlamentarnu uzajamnost. Entitetske parlamentarne diobe autor uočava u činjenici da iako zakonodavnu vlast na razini Republike Srpske vrše i Narodna Skupština i Vijeće naroda, potonje tijelo unutar zakonodavne nadlež- nosti raspravlja o zakonu ukoliko se radi o pitanju od vitalnog nacionalnog interesa, što ga čini intervenirajućim „domom“. Također, delegate u Dom naroda Parlamenta Federacije biraju kantonalne skupštine, dok Vijeće naroda svoj saziv dobija odlukom poslanika Narodne skupštine. Entitetska razlika postoji i u izboru delegata u Dom naroda Parlamentarne skupštine Bosne i Hercegovine. Autor stoga dokazuje asimetrični federalizam u Bosni i Hercegovini, zbog prisutnosti nesimetričnih rješenja u entitetskim zakonodavnim tijelima.

Among the many shifts in Bolivian politics since October 2003 is a subtle, yet significant change in the country's presidential system. Bolivia has recently transitioned from a "parliamentarized" to a "pure" presidentialism. In the previous system (1985-2002), Bolivian presidents were chosen by the legislature and led multiparty coalition governments. Since October 2003, Bolivia has instead been governed by two independent chief executives. This paper discusses the shift in presidential behavior by analyzing the similarities between Carlos Mesa and Evo Morales—who also fit the description of "delegative democrats" or "populists"—and their consequences for democratic stability (the lack of a constitutional "crisis"). It also considers potential reforms recently approved by the country's Constitutional Assembly and suggests that many of the benefits of "parliamentarized" presidentialism are still relevant for constitutional engineers.

Este trabajo biográfico analiza los aspectos más importantes de la vida y la actividad política del diputado y ministro cordobés Antonio Barroso y Castillo (1854-1916), identificándolo, además, como un ejemplo ideal para el estudio del ascenso, consolidación y práctica del poder por parte de la burguesía profesional provinciana –en este caso, cordobesa– en la España de la Restauración. Para ello se ha procedido al análisis del contexto socio-económico de Barroso y su familia, relaciones personales, redes clientelares generadas, formación académica, actividad parlamentaria, así como su figura dentro del Partido Liberal-Fusionista.

This biographical work analyzes the main points of the life and political activity of Antonio Barroso y Castillo (1854-1916), member of the Parliament and minister from Cordoba. His case will be considered as a perfect example to study the rise, consolidation and management of the political power made by the local and professional bourgeoisie during the Bourbon Restoration in Spain. For this purpose, we will study the socio-economic context of Barroso and his family, interpersonal relationships, patronage networks generated, academic training, parliamentary activity and his position in the Liberal-Fusionist Party

The parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan in October 2015 garnered widespread approval from commentators for the level of fairness and freedom maintained throughout the campaign. However, the results of the vote do not provide a clear indication of the current state of affairs of parliamentarism in the republic. Focusing on the commer-cialization of party lists, we argue that neither identity politics nor the logic of neopat-rimonialism adequately explain the dynamics of political competition in Kyrgyzstan. Instead, we see perpetual uncertainty emerging from contradicting yet increasing attempts to harness the capital of privatized party lists and to impose discipline. Eventually , and beyond short-term threats of an emerging super-presidentialism, Kyrgyz-stan risks suffering from hollow parliamentarism, with political parties persistently failing to supply legislative initiatives with substantial agendas and adequate professionals. The weakly institutionalized political parties and their shortsighted electoral strategies undermine both the parliamentary system and its political pluralism.

Запропоновано поетапний розгляд республіканських форм державного правління. Виокремлено теоретико-методологічні "хвилі" дослідження республіканських систем державного правління. Окреслено атрибути розвитку республіканізму в постсоціалістичних країнах світу. Продемонстровано методологічні підходи розуміння сучасних республіканських систем – дихотомічний і трихотомічний. Окреслено напівпрезиденталізм як окремішню модель сучасного республіканізму.
Ключові слова: республіка, "хвиля", президенталізм, парламентаризм, напівпрезиденталізм, дихотомічний підхід, трихотомічний підхід.

Parlamenter demokrasinin ortaya çıktığı 17. ve 18. yüzyıllardan liberal demokrasinin güçlendiği 20. yüzyıla gelindiğinde parlamentarizmin bir temsil sorunuyla karşı karşıya kaldığı görülmektedir. Bu sorunun temelinde yatan unsur, kamusal tartışmanın parlamento için ehemmiyetini yitirmesi ve parlamentonun rasyonel doğruyu bulmakla ilgisi kalmamış belirli çıkar gruplarının pazarlıklarını perdeleyen bir kuruma dönüşmesidir. Yani parlamento, politik kararın temelinde duran kuram olmaktan çıkmış, kulislerde alınan kararları formalite olarak onaylayan bir yer haline gelmiştir. Buradan hareketle, Alman düşünür Carl Schmitt, Parlamenter Demokrasinin Krizi başlıklı eserinde "parlamento kurumunun nihai özünü bulmak" amacıyla parlamentarizm ile demokrasi arasında bir ayrıma gider. Schmitt açısından demokrasinin tek imkanı parlamentarizm değildir. Chantal Mouffe'a gelindiğinde ise "çoğulculuk" fikrinin öne çıktığından bahsetmek mümkündür. Bu makalede, parlamenter demokrasinin içerisinde bulunduğu kriz durumu Carl Schmitt'in ve Chantal Mouffe'un parlamentarizme dönük fikirleri çerçevesinde sınırlandırılarak ele alınacak, her iki düşünürün de yaklaşımlarının analizi yapıldıktan sonra, parlamentarizmin geleceğine dönük soru işaretleri masaya yatırılacaktır.

Küçükler, Suat Kutay. "Schmitt ve Mouffe Arasında Parlamentarizmin Çıkmazları". Ennoia Dergisi. 1 (2019): 5-14.

Motion of no confidence or no trust vote – today this political procedure expresses the most fundamental principle of parliamentarism according to which the government should always enjoy the trust or confidence of the parliamentary majority. This principle, however, has been developed gradually and amid harsh political conflicts and debates in almost every European country. This paper will examine and compare two historical developments with special emphasis on the question of parliamentary trust or confidence in the executive branch. Since the competence of the monarch to appoint a prime minister - even in the absence of the trust of the parliamentary majority behind him - was one of the most discussed topics in Hungary and the United Kingdom in the late nineteenth century, I will try to compare the debates on the prevalence and realization of this royal prerogative in both countries. This focus is justified by the fact that the most important question of the emerging parliamentary government at the late nineteenth century was whether the prime minister should enjoy the trust of the parliamentary majority, and whether this trust is of legal or conventional nature. To put it differently: the question was whether the prime minister must or should resign if he had lost the trust of the parliamentary majority. While in the first case the parliamentary government has a legal character, which means that resignation is enforceable (the prime minister must resign), in the second case it is rather an unwritten convention that the prime minister should resign after having lost the confidence of the parliamentary majority. Tracing back to the debates at late nineteenth century will help us to better understand the real nature of this central concept of parliamentarism, since those debates focused on the question whether trust or distrust in government is of legal or rather conventional nature.
It is a well-known fact that the 1867 Austro-Hungarian Compromise had a considerable impact on the political theory and practice of British parliamentarism. In particular, the Compromise offered a model to approach the Irish question, one of the most important issues at the end of the nineteenth century in the United Kingdom.  In turn, British parliamentarism had always played an important role as a reference point in Hungarian political thought. Although the interplay between British and Hungarian political thought was more asymmetrical than supposed by Hungarian politicians and political scientists, frequent references to British parliamentarism in Hungary produced an image of similarities between the two political systems rooted in a long-standing tradition of parliamentarism, and the idea of an ancient or unwritten constitution and self-government. However deceptive this idea of analogous political traditions might have been, the notion of a unique parliamentary tradition, comparable only with that in the United Kingdom, heavily influenced Hungarian political thought and practice.
In this paper, I will try to shed light on the special nature of these references by analysing a debate between Gyula Andrássy the Younger, one of the most prominent leaders of the opposition at the beginning of the twentieth century and Count István Tisza, Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament. Both politicians quite frequently referred to British parliamentarism during the constitutional and parliamentary crises in Hungary between 1906 and 1910/1912.  I will focus particularly on one point of their debate: the monarch’s competence to appoint a prime minister in the absence of a clear parliamentary majority. The extent of this royal prerogative was one of the most discussed topics in both countries and, as explained above, has a clear link to the question of trust in government. After describing and evaluating the events of the constitutional crises at the beginning of the twentieth century, I hope to present a more sophisticated picture of the mechanism of instrumentalizing the image of British parliamentarism in Hungary.

This paper examines how institutions influence military elites’ strategies against elected governments, and how such influence affects the likelihood of coups. I argue that in countries where the chief executive is elected by parliament (that is, parliamentary systems), military coups are less likely since the military has alternatives, such as threatening legislators, to unseat the chief executive. I present several examples supporting this hypothesis. I also test a macro implication of this hypothesis using a global data set from 1960 to 2004. Unlike earlier studies on regime breakdowns, I have included all cases that can be classified in terms of constitutional design. This enabled me to examine 69 percent of all the coups that occurred in this time period, instead of less than 25 percent that previous studies have examined. This analysis confirms the expectations even controlling for military legacy, which is contrary to conventional wisdom.

Die Höhe der öffentlichen Ausgaben staatlicher Einheiten ist zentraler Untersuchungsgegenstand der politischen Ökonomie und der Volkswirtschaftslehre. Für die Erklärung des Niveaus der Staatsausgaben existieren vielfältige Theorien und zahlreiche vergleichende Untersuchungen, die allerdings zumeist auf die nationale Ebene der untersuchten Länder fokussieren. Im Zentrum der wissenschaftlichen Debatte stehen derzeit vier Dimensionen, nämlich a) die ideologische Ausrichtung der handelnden Akteure bzw. deren ideologische Konflikte, b) der Versuch der Abgeordneten, den Nutzen ihrer territorialen Einheit zu maximieren bzw. ihre eigene Wiederwahl zu befördern, c) distributive Konflikte in Legislative und Exekutive sowie d) institutionelle Arrangements, die zusätzliche Anreize zur Veränderung der Ausgabenhöhe setzen. Bei allen Konflikten kommt der Formulierung des Haushaltes jedoch auch integrierende Bedeutung zu, da das Budget (und damit vor allem die Ausgabenseite) immer ein Kompromiss vor dem Hintergrund widerstreitender Interessen sowohl innerhalb der Bevölkerung als auch im politischen Raum darstellt. Zudem ist das Budget Ausdruck der Priorisierung bestimmter Politikprogramme, deren Steuerungsanreize für die jeweiligen Politikfelder koordiniert und integriert werden müssen.

Weitgehend unbeantwortet ist die Frage geblieben, ob subnationale Einheiten den gleichen Logiken folgen wie die Nationalstaaten, ob also die Befunde der bisherigen, auf die Nationalstaaten fokussierenden Untersuchungen, auf die subnationale Ebene übertragbar sind. Um diese Frage zu klären, bietet es sich an, Gliedstaaten föderaler Systeme zu untersuchen. Dies ist besonders deshalb interessant, weil die subnationale Ebene in Föderalstaaten Staatsqualität besitzt, also per definitionem einen Teil des Staates darstellt. Also müssten die o.g. Erklärungsdimensionen auch auf subnationaler Ebene ähnliche Erklärungskraft besitzen wie für die bisherigen Untersuchungseinheiten (=Nationalstaaten). Alternativ bzw. ergänzend sind Erklärungsansätze denkbar, die den Mehrebenencharakter der föderalen Staaten und die inhärente Logik des jeweiligen föderalen Systems erfassen, so. u.a. die Integrationskraft der Parteien über die Systemebenen hinweg, die Bedeutung von Finanzausgleichssystemen zwischen den Systemebenen sowie der Einfluss der mittleren Ebene auf die Politik des Bundes.

Der Beitrag soll das Niveau der gliedstaatlichen Staatsausgaben zwischen 1991 und 2005 vergleichend untersuchen. Als Untersuchungseinheiten sollen die deutschen und österreichischen Bundesländer, die Schweizer Kantone, die Bundesstaaten der USA und Australiens sowie die kanadischen Provinzen dienen. Somit ergeben sich 117*15=1755 Fälle, die mit quantitativ-statistischen Methoden auf Inferenz untersucht werden können.

Als Determinanten für die Ausgabenhöhe kommen u.a. die bestehenden Wahlsysteme, unterschiedliche Koalitionsbildungsmechanismen, die Fragmentierung des Parteiensystems, Dominanzstrukturen im Parteienwettbewerb, aber auch die Symmetrie der Parteiensysteme zwischen Bund und Gliedstaaten, die Effekte von Finanzausgleichssystemen und die Überlagerung der gliedstaatlichen Politik durch Wahlen auf anderen Ebenen in Betracht.

The discussed Article specifies the acceptable subject matter of points of order. The assumption that they may concern matters being the subject of orders of the day and the course of sittings means that the subject matter of the point of order cannot become a matter to be considered in the future, i.e. during any of subsequent sittings. In the author’s opinion, it is in principle unacceptable to submit pro futuro points of order. Article 184 para. 2 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm refers only to the subject of the point of order and not to the motives of the motion submitted by the applicant. This means that, on justifying the point of order, a Deputy may rely on external circumstances, i.e. not related to a group of matters considered by the Sejm during a given sitting.

"The Paper is directly addressing question 3 of the Panel description, ‘How does the particular institutional setting and arrangements for the conduct of local government, democracy and
representation influence the role and behaviour of the councillor?’ Drawing on a survey among German local councillors conducted in within the frame of the MAELG project (Egner et al. 2012a; 2012b), the question will be raised if German local councils do constitute parliamentary bodies. The question is both conceptually and empirically interesting regarding Germany, because the
role and function of German local councils are still disputed between a) scholars in law and administrative science, who stress the absence of privileges typically provided for members of
parliaments (immunity against charges, full payment) and therefore the construction of the German local level as ‘lowest level of state administration’ and b) scholars in social sciences,
especially from Political Science, who see local councillors as members of local ‘parliaments’ since local councils serves several functions typically assigned to parliaments (budget control,
basic decision making, developing policies, oversight over the local administration etc.), and local councillors may well perform functions typically assigned to members of parliament
(representation, taking part in party competition, developing alternative policies etc.) While the scholarly debate is mostly theoretical, the dataset acquired within the survey offers the
possibility of assessing the councillors’ self-description and their role perceptions to determine whether councillors themselves feel more embedded in the ‘administrative world’ or the ‘political
world’. The paper focuses on German councillors taking in account two methodological arguments: First, the common context (law system, economic developments, national political
culture, swings in the ‘political mood’) for German councillors is constant, which means that typical problems arising from comparative analysis linked to unit effects can be avoided. Second
, the different municipal codes in the German Länder make it possible to link variances in institutional settings to different self-perceptions of councillors."

"Parties in opposition in inter war Romania frequently relied on extra-parliamentary action, mainly mass mobilization campaigns to prove their popular support. The National Peasant Party employed a discourse of identity as means of politics of identity bound to negative everyday experiences of its leaders and supporters, delimiting itself from the Old Kingdom and its representatives the liberals. The characteristics of Transylvanians and Old Kingdom Romanians were essential in the concepts of inherently democratic Transylvanians, and oligarchic, despotic, Balkan type Old Kingdom ones. As a result Transylvanians emerged as the authentic Romanians, whose destiny was to liberate Old Kingdom peasants from foreign rule. Besides, the party used the memory and experience of the revolution of 1918 to legitimize the use of extralegal means against the liberal governments and gradually redefined democracy in this sense. This set of factors generated a self-feeding cycle in which mass mobilization reinforced the necessity for a politics of identity that positioned the party – identical with the nation – in a binary opposition to the „others”, a process that drove NPP farther from parliamentarism, contributing to the fall of the supposedly parliamentarian system. "

Carl Schmitt's work on The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy has been subject to a new scholarly interest within the context of the debates on populism. Most accounts emphasized the anti-liberal elements in his thought that are discernible in those parts of the book that elaborate on the opposition between liberalism and democracy. This paper argues that such emphasis tends to oversee the analysis developed by Schmitt with regard to the decline of the nineteenth century parliamentarism in the same book. Suggesting that Schmitt nostalgically idealizes nineteenth century parliamentarism as an instance of bourgeois domination and blames mass democracy for its deterioration, this paper puts forth a different portrayal of Schmitt who is an anti-democrat and committed to preserving bourgeois social/political order. This paper finalizes by suggesting that a rigorous analysis of Schmitt's anti-democratic politics would offer us a new lens to interrogate the polemical side of his anti-liberalism. This would in turn disclose the shortcomings of portraying Schmitt as a principled anti-liberal.

The aim of the work is to overview a mechanism of giving the government a vote of no-confidence stated by Article 81 of the constitution of Georgia,9 to analyze possible problems connected with its practical realization and as a result of logical understanding to work out ways of overcoming and eradicating the difficulties: offers, recommendations and prepare a desirable, optimal project of the above mentioned Article.

Article 25 of the Belgian Constitution of 1831 specifi es that all powers emanate from the nation, but fails to defi ne who or what the nation is. This chapter aims at reconstructing the underdetermined meaning of national sovereignty by looking into a wide array of sources concerning the genesis and reception of the Belgian Constitution. It argues, fi rstly, that 'nation' and 'King' were conceptually differentiated notions, revealing a concern on the part of the Belgian National Congress to substitute the popular principle for the monarchical one. By vesting the origin of sovereignty exclusively in the nation, it relegated the monarch to the position of a constituted power. Secondly, it refutes the widely accepted defi nition of national sovereignty as the counterpart of popular sovereignty. The debates of the constituent assembly prove that the antithesis between the concepts 'nation' and 'people', supposedly originating in two rivalling political-theoretical traditions, is a false one. Not only were both terms used as synonyms, the Congress delegates themselves plainly proclaimed the sovereignty of the people. However, this did not imply the establishment of universal suffrage, since political participation was limited to the propertied classes. The revolutionary press generally endorsed the popular principle, too, without necessarily agreeing to the form it was given in practice. The legitimacy of the National Congress's claim to speak in the name of the people was challenged both by the conservative press, which rejected the sovereignty of the people, and by the radical newspapers, which considered popular sovereignty invalidated by the instatement of census suffrage.

Запропоновано теоретико-методологічні визначення та емпіричні обґрунтування різних видів і форм республіканізму. Здійснено порівняльний аналіз сили повноважень президентів у різних формах республіканських системах правління на прикладі країн Центральної Європи. Наповнено зміст та сутність різних типів напівпрезидентського республіканізму. Аргументовано та окреслено головні атрибути напівпрезиденталізму з номінальними президентами у контексті його відокремлення від парламентаризму на прикладі країн Центральної Європи (Болгарія, Словаччина, Словенія та Чехія). Визначено кореляцію між парламентською демократією, парламентаризмом і напівпрезиденталізмом.
Ключові слова: конституційні система, форма державного правління, республіканізму, форми республіканізму, президенталізм, парламентаризм, напівпрезиденталізм, номінальний президент, напівпрезиденталізм з номінальним президентом, когабітація.

Republic of Macedonia started the process of democratization and declared independence with the
adoption of the 1991 constitution, thus aiming to establish a modern, democratic and legal state
based on the theory of separation of powers. 1991 Constitution divided the power of government
into legislative, executive and judicial organs. In this regard, the government, which is the responsible wing of the executive, is leaving the legislature and ministers who will take office in the
government are barred from being MPs in order to strengthen independence. The government,
which needs to win a no-confidence vote with a majority of lawmakers to take over the executive
branch, has no power to repeal the legislature. That is, the Macedonian constitution from 1991
applies the institution of self-dissolution of the Parliament. The power to issue a decree with the
force of law, which plays an important role in the efficiency and dynamism of the executive and
is one of the characteristics of the parliamentary system, is also not included in the constitutional
order. The Constitution includes only decrees with legal force in emergency situations. The president, who is the irresponsible wing of the executive branch, is elected by popular vote. In this case,
different opinions have been expressed that the dual legitimacy, which is often discussed in the
doctrine, can cause harm. The evaluations are based on the level of authority of the President and
are based on a measurement chart systematized by Metcalf, Shugart and Carey. Accordingly, in
addition to the right of veto (which is exceeded by an absolute majority), the President is not
granted, the right of partial veto is not provided, and the authority to propose a law also has no
right to issue a decree with legal force. In addition, the President, who has only the right to submit
a constitutional amendment, has no authority to submit a budget proposal, and there is a lack of
authority over the proposal to submit a proposal for a referendum and prioritize control of the
constitutional judiciary. According to the result, it is clear that the Constitution of the Republic of
Macedonia from 1991 grants limited and symbolic (ceremonial) powers to the President. The regulation of the relations between the legislative and executive power and the level of competence
in this way indicates the existence of a mixed structure. This situation revealed the difficulties in
the classification in Macedonia as well as in many countries. In this study, during the examination
of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia from 1991, an attempt was made to classify the
adopted government system according to the level of authority it foresaw in terms of the characteristics of the new type of government systems that have a special place in the doctrine and proposals for increasing the efficiency of the system were also examined. Based on the characteristicsvii
of the government systems, it has been determined that the government system of the country is
predominantly a Northern European type parliamentary system. Constructive vote of no confidence among the rationalized parliamentary techniques in terms of legislative and executive balance and control mechanisms, especially the electoral system, the granting of annulment authority
to the executive body (the institution to which the authority will belong), the efficiency and stability of the government that can be established with coalition governments, and a vote of confidence
under the threat of termination in cases where this method is not a solution. It has been put forward
that regulations can be made on these issues with the help of these techniques and in this case, the
functionality of the system can be increased. In addition coalition government of experiencing the
potential crisis and instability of (ideological, ethnic, cultural differences) in front pass and transparent account issues also can be given to sorulabilirlik principles guaranteed under the coalition
protocols arrangements tend to bring efficiency to execute the anticipated arguments were discussed.

English Abstract
European politics is more polarised than ever. The former lack of conflict over EU policy decisions is being replaced by a lack of consensus. The agreements reached in Brussels are increasingly contentious, the European institutions seem increasingly fragmented and European political debate has become increasingly controversial. The politicisation
of the European Union has manifold manifestations that produce not only negative but also positive criticism, and not only resistance against but also support for the political system. If politicisation is not only understood as an obstacle to integration, but seen as
having the potential to promote integration, the somewhat outdated drivers of European integration dynamics and policymaking, namely “deepening” and “widening”, could be replaced or at least complemented by the new driver of “politicisation”.

Deutsche Zusammenfassung
Europa polarisiert. Der Aufbau einer politischen Identität trotz kultureller Diversität scheint längst nicht mehr bereitwillig und wie selbstverständlich mitgetragen zu werden, sondern sieht sich mit einer Fundamentalkritik konfrontiert, die als integrationshemmend
und zuweilen als integrationsgefährdend erfahren und uns auch in den kommenden Jahren erhalten bleiben wird. Doch die Politisierung der Europäischen Union hat mannigfache Erscheinungsformen, die nicht nur negative sondern auch positive Kritik, nicht nur Widerstand gegen, sondern auch Unterstützung für das politische System Europas bewirken. Sie bergen somit letzten Endes nicht allein ein integrationshinderndes, sondern auch ein integrationsförderndes Potential. Damit werden die bisherigen Triebfedern der europäischen
Integrationsdynamik und Politikgestaltung, „Vertiefung“ und „Erweiterung“, durch die neue Triebfeder „Politisierung“ wenn nicht ersetzt, so zumindest um letztere erweitert.

Valtiota ja politiikkaa ei voi käsitellä irrallaan talouden ja ideologian kysymyksistä. Pyrittäessä yhteiskunnalliseen muutokseen on otettava huomioon myös parlamentaarisen toiminnan ulkopuoliset kamppailut. Tässä artikkelissa tarkastelen kysymystä vasemmiston näkökulmasta. Vasemmiston tavoitteiden saavuttamiseksi on kasvatettava kansalaisten poliittisia osallistumismahdollisuuksia ja taloudellisia valmiuksia omaehtoiseen toimintaan.

The author deals with the institute of public hearings as a tool for the involvement of the public in decision-making in public affairs. Institutes of participatory democracy may favorably affect the governance of public affairs. When a statute is openly debated in parliament with the affected subjects, those to whom the law is directed will feel a pull towards compliance with it. We can speak about greater efficiency of the adopted law. The Slovak parliament does not use the institute of public hearing in its typical form. Many consultations of the public by the Slovak parliament take place in more informal, individual ways. Formalized procedures are stipulated in the Rules of Procedure of the National Council of the Slovak Republic. Committees of the National Council of the Slovak Republic may invite to their meetings experts and other people and ask their opinion. Committees of the National Council of the Slovak Republic may also set up standing and ad hoc commissions to be consu...

Mit dieser Studie wird erstmals der Parlamentarismus Sachsens in der Zeit zwischen 1871 und 1918 untersucht. Neben der Wahlrechtsgeschichte und der Analyse der sächsischen Wahlen werden vor allem die innere Struktur des Landtags und seine Politik aus historischer und politikwissenschaftlicher Sicht analysiert.

The “Politics of Dissensus” inverts the traditional perspective on the study of parliamentary politics by focusing on its less obvious and less well-known aspects. Dissensus instead of consensus becomes the condition for the intelligibility of parliamentary politics. Such politics is indebted to the rhetorical culture of addressing issues from opposite perspectives and debating the alternatives pro et contra: no motion is approved without a thorough examination of, and confrontation among, imaginable alternatives. Establishing the openness of political debating, parliamentarism has become a distinctive historical contribution to the rise of parliamentary democracy. ”Parliament in Debate” refers to the paradigmatic institution for political deliberation, the debates surrounding its legislative activity, as well as the supervision of government and administration. Parliament has become a fascinating object of scrutiny as a political institution adopted and developed by different political traditions. In a nutshell, the book retrieves the study of parliamentary politics to present political theory and action in the parliamentary mode. It is a book on the relevance of parliamentarism to the study of politics and a book on the comparative conceptual and institutional history of parliamentary politics.

https://tocqueville21.com/focus/parliamentary-thinking/representing-parts-and-parties/
Contributors to the symposium: Prof. Lucia Rubinelli (Cambridge/Yale), Prof. Georgios Varouxakis (Queen Mary), Dr. Arthur Ghins (Brown/Yale), Dr. David Ragazzoni (Columbia).
Responses 'to my readers and critics': Prof. William Selinger (UCL) and Prof. Gregory Conti (Princeton).

The article presents the circumstances of the convening of the Lithuanian convocation of 1615, along with the course of the event and the resolutions it considered, with special consideration of the procedure for enacting law in this form of parliamentary assembly. Before the convocation could be convened, deputies had to be elected at pre-convocation sejmiks. Then, the deputies and the senators had to assemble at the time and place specified in the royal legacja. The sessions of the 1615 convocation lasted from May 21st to June 5th and took place in two chambers. There were at least 6 senators and more than 50 deputies. The resolutions passed during the convocation can be divided into 31 issues. They were recorded, and messengers were appointed at the convocation to carry their contents to the king. It was only after the monarch expressed his consent that the tax resolutions and legal standards became the applicable law. Sigismund III rejected three resolutions, modified two, and approved eighteen. The article presents in detail the output of the convocation, both in terms of passing tax laws and enacting other entirely new laws.