The Experts below are selected from a list of 2136 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ivan Sablin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
parliaments and Parliamentarism in the works of soviet dissidents 1960s 80s
Parliaments Estates and Representation, 2020Co-Authors: Ivan SablinAbstract:Drawing from samizdat (self-published) and tamizdat (foreign-published) materials, this article traces the understandings of parliaments and Parliamentarism in individual works by Soviet dissidents and reconstructs the authors’ underlying assumptions in the application of the two ideas. It focuses on the articulations and the implications of four concepts pertaining to Parliamentarism – deliberation, representation, responsibility, and sovereignty – in the dissidents’ criticisms of Soviet ‘Parliamentarism’ and their own parliamentary designs. Despite the consensus that the USSR Supreme Soviet was both a facade and pseudo parliament and the frequent appeals to popular sovereignty, only a handful of authors discussed Parliamentarism as the latter’s manifestation before the Perestroika. With very few dissidents placing deliberation at the centre of a post-Soviet order, the conviction that social and political systems should be based on an ‘ultimate truth’ and respective societal blueprints dominated the dissident discourse in which a parliament, if mentioned at all, was a rostrum rather than a forum.
-
Parliaments and Parliamentarism in the works of Soviet dissidents, 1960s–80s
Parliaments Estates and Representation, 2019Co-Authors: Ivan SablinAbstract:Drawing from samizdat (self-published) and tamizdat (foreign-published) materials, this article traces the understandings of parliaments and Parliamentarism in individual works by Soviet dissidents and reconstructs the authors’ underlying assumptions in the application of the two ideas. It focuses on the articulations and the implications of four concepts pertaining to Parliamentarism – deliberation, representation, responsibility, and sovereignty – in the dissidents’ criticisms of Soviet ‘Parliamentarism’ and their own parliamentary designs. Despite the consensus that the USSR Supreme Soviet was both a facade and pseudo parliament and the frequent appeals to popular sovereignty, only a handful of authors discussed Parliamentarism as the latter’s manifestation before the Perestroika. With very few dissidents placing deliberation at the centre of a post-Soviet order, the conviction that social and political systems should be based on an ‘ultimate truth’ and respective societal blueprints dominated the dissident discourse in which a parliament, if mentioned at all, was a rostrum rather than a forum.
David J. Samuels - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Presidentialized Parties The Separation of Powers and Party Organization and Behavior
Comparative Political Studies, 2002Co-Authors: David J. SamuelsAbstract:Scholars have devoted substantial research to political parties, but comparativists have not explored how presidentialism and Parliamentarism differently affect party development, organization, and...
Jürgen Neyer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Justified Multi-level Parliamentarism: Situating National Parliaments in the European Polity
The Journal of Legislative Studies, 2014Co-Authors: Jürgen NeyerAbstract:Parliamentarism in the European Union (EU) is in crisis. The pooling of powers at the European level is not matched either by the new powers of national parliaments to scrutinise governmental policy-making or by the expansion of the authority of the European Parliament. What is needed is a new approach to strengthening Parliamentarism in the EU that places national parliaments at the heart of the constitutional process. Strengthening the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) and transforming it into a constitutional body with the power to stimulate the development of the European constitutional order is the appropriate strategy.
-
Europe's Sleeping Beauty and the Future of Parliamentary Democracy in the EU
The Journal of Legislative Studies, 2014Co-Authors: Jürgen NeyerAbstract:Parliamentarism in the European Union is in crisis. The pooling of competences at the European level is neither matched by the new powers of national parliaments to scrutinize governmental policy-making nor by the expansion of the competences of the European Parliament. A new approach to strengthening Parliamentarism in the European Union is needed. This new approach should centre on placing citizens and national parliaments at the heart of the constitutional process. Strengthening COSAC and transforming it into a constitutional body with the power to stimulate the development of the European constitutional order is the adequate strategy.
Kari Palonen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Was Max Weber wrong about Westminster
History of Political Thought, 2014Co-Authors: Kari PalonenAbstract:Guenther Roth once called Max Weber the would-be Englishman. The characterization can be extended to Webers admiration for the Westminster Parliament and its political practices. Later German scholars have disputed the accuracy of Webers interpretation of British Parliamentarism, claiming it was distorted by his critique of the contemporary German situation. The authors thesis is that Weber well understood the Westminster practices, while his critics misunderstood in particular his distinction between working and talking parliaments (Arbeitsparlament vs. Redeparlament). German political scientists of the post-war era have neglected the Westminster tradition of parliamentary committees and reduced Parliamentarism to a system of government, whereas for Weber it still refers to a political culture of debate.
-
Max Weber, Parliamentarism and the Rhetorical Culture of Politics
Max Weber Studies, 2004Co-Authors: Kari PalonenAbstract:In this article the concept of Parliamentarism is extended to the concept of ‘government by speaking’ (Macaulay 1857), to a political form of rhetorical culture based on arguing for and against. Weber’s relationship to Parliamentarism is reassessed in this perspective. The first part deals with his ‘parliamentary theory of knowledge’, which refers to his view that the competition of perspectives is constitutive of the human sciences. In this sense the Weberian ideal of scientific practices resembles politics in its openness to change and re-valuation of controversy. In the second part Weber’s critique of anti-Parliamentarism is analysed as a rejection of political controversy and struggle. In the third part Weber’s theory of knowledge serves as a point of departure for re-reading his late writings on suffrage, Parliamentarism and politicians. The opposition between bureaucracy and politics in particular can be rendered more intelligible in terms of Weber’s ‘parliamentary theory of knowledge’.
José Antonio Cheibub - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarism
British Journal of Political Science, 2013Co-Authors: José Antonio Cheibub, Zachary Elkins, Tom GinsburgAbstract:The presidential-parliamentary distinction is foundational to comparative politics and at the center of a large theoretical and empirical literature. However, an examination of constitutional texts suggests a fair degree of heterogeneity within these categories with respect to important institutional attributes. These observations lead us to suspect that the classic presidential-parliamentary distinction, as well as the semi-presidential category, is not a systemic one. This paper investigates whether the defining attributes that separate presidential and parliamentary constitutions predict other attributes that are stereotypically associated with these institutional models. The results lead us to be highly skeptical of the “systemic” nature of the classification. Indeed, the results imply that if one wanted to predict the powers of the executive and legislature, one would be better off knowing where and when the constitution was written than in knowing whether it was presidential or parliamentary.
-
Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy
2006Co-Authors: José Antonio CheibubAbstract:1. Introduction 2. Presidential, parliamentary, and mixed democracies 3. Are the incentives for coalition formation different in parliamentary and presidential democracies? 4. Are coalitions rare in presidential democracies? 5. Party discipline and form of government 6. What makes presidential democracies fragile? 7. Conclusion.
-
Governos de Coalizão nas Democracias Presidencialistas e Parlamentaristas
Dados, 2002Co-Authors: José Antonio Cheibub, Adam Przeworski, Sebastian M. SaieghAbstract:Are government coalitions less frequent under presidentialism than under Parliamentarism? The only difference be w e the two systems is that unscheduled elections are held under Parliamentarism in those situations in which under presidentialism a majority legislative coalition opposes the executive. In both systems, portfolio coalitions are formed only when the formateur party and the one closest to it are relatively distant in policy terms. Otherwise, the formateur party governs alone, satisfied with the legislative outcomes. Hence, portfolio minority governments need not be less effective legislatively than coalition governments. Whatever is wrong with presidentialism, is not due to the difficulty of forming coalitions.