Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
- result in oppression: like a despot, tyrant --> John Stuart Mill: On liberty
Abandonment of rationality: when, as Tocqueville remembered, a decision "which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence"
- allows for a quick and easy passage of legislation
- Partisanship has to be abandoned while a coalition of parties must be brought together before legislation can be passed. This means that no single party is capable of passing legislation without the support of a large majority.
-It is more beneficial to nations with a racially, ethnically or ideologically diverse population.
-It is easy to create parties. (Any group or organization can form a party or coalition that reflects a shared personal view, and then have it represented in the government.)
- Over accountability of the exec to the legislative (no more separation of powers ?)
- chief of gov not elected directly
- no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and therefore no substantial check on legislative power
- Although parliamentarianism has been praised for allowing an election to take place at any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused( by wise timing of elections, in a parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer )
- someone can be popular but not run for PM or be dismissed but still be popular
- doesn’t offer as much representation on a direct level.
This is because coalitions are formed
- allows legislations to be passed without minority approval(coalition that gets true majority has the power to do what they wish, pass any legislation without asking for the approval of the minority. (ex: uk With the complete majority conservative --> the opposition does not have the power to create more balanced legislation.
UK: Westminster Model
==>division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.
- Parliamentary sovreignty (represent the nation) --> act of Parliament= the highest law
- BUT need royal assent
- Relation between executive and legislative: dependent
- ministers: members of cabinet from majority
- checks and balances: accountability (vote of confidence)+ dissolution of Parliament (=example of parliamentary rationalization)
- President elected by universal suffrage--> not accountable to the legislative branch (have his own mandate
- also mean that Parliament is strong and independent--> have its on functions
==> separation of powers= independence
- Pres almost untouchable (except impeachment)
- checks and balances: President can use his veto vs impeachment and cannot dismiss the Parliament
- Pres appoint his PM and Cabinet
- different form of Presidentialism
--> president controlée (Congress can override presidential veto
- Maurice Duverger Criteria:
* pres: directly elected, independent
* PM: chosen in light of the majority of the 2 houses, subjected to confidence of Parl and/or Pres, share exec
- Premier Presidentialism: PM selected by Pres BUT accountable only to the Parliament majority => transactional relation with the Pres
- President- parliamentarism: selected by Pres BUT dual accountability ==> hierarchical relation
- checks and balances:
* Pres: use 49.3
* BUT Parliament can put a motion of censure ==> pres can dissolve assembly (art 12)
==> president dominateur (pleins pouvoir: art 16/8)
"La république règne partout mais elle prend partout une forme monarchique" Maurice Duverger to describe french system