POSC 1000 Introduction to Politics

POSC 1000 Introduction to Politics Formal Political Institutions Russell Alan Williams

Unit Five: Formal Political Institutions“Presidential Systems” Required Reading: • MacLean and Wood, Chapter 5. Outline: • Introduction • Presidential Systems • Legislative Institutions • Executive Institutions • Hybrid Systems - France • Conclusions

1) Introduction – Presidential Systems: • First developed in U.S. • Context: Response to royal authority =Need to limit the power of any branch of government • “Separation of Powers”:Division of power amongst several branches of government to avoid a concentration of power. • E.g. “Checks and balances” = No “executive dominance”

However . . . . Also a need for state strong enough to fight off British etc. =Need for clear leader • Framers of constitution thought about a “constitutional monarchy”, but . . -> • Opted for a “President” to head executive and armed forces – chosen by “electoral college” Implication: Negotiation and compromise needed between branches of gov to get things done =Modern complaints about “political gridlock”:Lack of political progress because of partisanship and differing opinions

2) Presidential Systems: A) Legislative Institutions: “Congress”: Legislative branch of American government • Same as Parliament • “Bicameral” – upper and lower houses i) “House of Representatives”: Lower house • “Congressmen” elected for two year terms from a local “congressional district” • Electoral districts each have over ½ million voters • Allocated based on population E.g. -> California = 53 congressmen -> Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming = 1 congressman

“Senate”: Upper house • “Senators” elected to six year terms • Two for each state (!) • Only 1/3 of senators face election in each 2 year election cycle – better deal than congressmen(!) • 2008 election • Must be over 30 years of age

Organization of Congress: Both houses have own “officers”: • House of Representatives = Speaker of the House (majority party leader) • Senate = Vice President President Pro tempore • Committee Chairs (from majority party) • Floor leaders • Majority leader • Minority leader

Functions of Congress: A) Responsible for passing all legislation and budgets • Can initiate own legislation - Either house . . . requires coordination • Can also support or defeat presidential proposals - E.g. the budget, or declaration of war etc. =High level of independence • President cannot call an election if bills are being defeated • Congress cannot “defeat” the President’s cabinet • Result: Most activity requires compromise or “Political gridlock” • E.g. Budgets and “log rolling”

Functions of Congress: B) Oversight power • Can conduct investigations into executive activities ->E.g. conduct of war in Iraq • Hold hearings • Ratify presidential appointees -> Supreme Court Justices, Ambassadors, etc. • Not a formality! E.g. George Bush Sr. . . . • Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill

Behavior of Congress: • Independence – Congress often pursues policy irrespective of who is president • Weak ”Party discipline” ????? • Committee chairs often very independent • Members “vote their own conscience” • Problems: • Influence of money on individual members • E.g. . . . .

Source Common Cause (2001); Cited as FEC statistics.

Behavior of Congress: • Other Problems: • Accountability of parties to voters • What does the party label mean? • President cannot always rely on his own party E.g. Obama and democratic congressional congress

Presidential Systems Cont. B) Executive Institutions: Presidency: =Head of State =Head of Government • President’s cabinet manages the executive branch of government • Budgets and administration • A.K.A. “the decider”

Presidential power: • “Commander and Chief” of military forces • Appoints Supreme Court judges, Ambassadors and cabinet ministers • Subject to congressional oversight . . . . • Can effectively decide to go to war or not . . . . • E.g. “Gulf of Tonkin Incidents” (1964) =Vietnam War

Presidential power cont. . . . . • “Veto”: Act of blocking a decision – In U.S. = the Presidential power to prevent enactment of legislation • Congressional bills can be blocked if president does not like them • E.g. “Stem Cell Research” Bush Vetoed 2X • However: • Veto can be overridden by 2/3 votes in congress • Congress can retaliate by not passing budget or putting “riders” in presidential legislation

Presidential System • “Separation of Powers”: Presidents may often have less power than prime ministers in parliamentary system – this was the intention! • However, this can lead to “political gridlock” if parties are ideologically divided and control different branches of government.

3) Hybrid Systems: • “Semi-Presidential Systems”: A system in which an elected President shares power with an elected Prime Minster and Cabinet • Prime minister and cabinet elected from legislature • Borrows “best” of both systems • In practice can result in very different dynamics . . . . • Example = France

Legislative institutions: • Parliament: Bicameral - Makes legislation and passes budget • National Assembly = House of Commons • 577 “Deputies” elected in majoritarian system • Runoff ballot of leading candidates • Has often failed to produce parliamentary majorities • Senate = Indirectly elected (powers are limited) • Chosen by local governments

Executive Institutions: • President = elected (through a majoritarian “runoff” electoral system) • President has always received at least 50% of votes • Gets five year term and can run again and again . . . . • President selects Prime Minster from National Assembly • Prime Minster selects cabinet = Government • Should be leader of most popular party • PM’s cabinet must enjoy the support of the legislature • Cabinet can be defeated -Result: President must select a new PM

Implications in practice: France has: • Elected head of state • Some “separation of powers” • Some “fusion of powers” • Neither President or Prime Minister has power of Canadian PM . . . .

Implications in practice: France has: • Elected head of state • Some “separation of powers” • Some “fusion of powers” • Neither President or Prime Minister has power of Canadian PM . . . . • Governing may require American-style negotiation • Depends on the “Party System”!

When President’s party controls legislature (National Assembly), the president has considerable power • E.g. Prime Minster effectively works for the president

When President’s party does not control the National Assembly . . . things more complicated • If President’s party does not have majority = negotiation and compromise with other parties • If another party has majority =“Cohabitation”: Sharing of power between French President and Prime Ministers of different parties • E.g. Francois Mitterrand and his conservative Prime Ministers . . . .

4) Conclusions on Presidential Systems: • Pure presidential systems relatively common and seem to be successful • Fewer demands for major institutional change in presidential systems than in parliamentary systems • Hybrid systems that incorporate parliamentary government have encountered difficulty • Often presidents end up abusing powers to overcome “gridlock” • Institutions are more unstable = less “legitimacy” • E.g. Russia – Vladimir Putin

For next time: Midterm Exam – Covers all of Units 1 – 5. Focus on learning the “key” terms

POSC 1000 Introduction to Politics